NWS Proposes Changes to WWA System

[Quincy]

Based on feedback given to the NWS, a proposal has been made to simplify and clarify their hazard messages.

Example:

Instead of saying, "The National Weather Service has issued a Winter Storm Watch,"

they propose saying "The National Weather Service is forecasting the Potential for a Significant Winter Storm."

The system is being tested at select forecast offices across the country through March 31st, 2013.

More information is available here, including an audio PowerPoint presentation and additional links.

[isohume]

Lol...folks don't understand the word potential! A watch is already defined as potential. Hope it helps, but it's just more hand-holding and playing to the lowest common denominator.

[isohume]

Pretty soon it's gonna be:

TODAY...A 40% CHANCE OF RAIN AT YOUR LOCATION AND A 60% CHANCE OF NO RAIN AT YOUR LOCATION. CURRENTLY...THERE IS A BETTER CHANCE OF NO RAIN AT YOUR LOCATION...HOWEVER IT IS POSSIBLE YOU COULD STILL HAVE RAIN AT YOUR LOCATION.

[Scotty Lightning]

Lol...folks don't understand the word potential! A watch is already defined as potential. Hope it helps, but it's just more hand-holding and playing to the lowest common denominator.

I agree-with this new proposal I can see the public just scoff at the wording and this could lead to serious amounts of injury or deaths if something did occur.

I know that at times a watch or a warning seem to be used as a scare tactic(especially in the media these days), but with this it would send the message that "hey man, everything will be cool". One step forward and 17 steps back.

[Amped]

Don't see what that buys anyone besides extra syllables to say the same thing.

[NCHurricane]

Pretty soon it's gonna be:

TODAY...A 40% CHANCE OF RAIN AT YOUR LOCATION AND A 60% CHANCE OF NO RAIN AT YOUR LOCATION. CURRENTLY...THERE IS A BETTER CHANCE OF NO RAIN AT YOUR LOCATION...HOWEVER IT IS POSSIBLE YOU COULD STILL HAVE RAIN AT YOUR LOCATION.

[Amped]

If their goal is to encourage people to read the actual text they should change it to "Winter Weather Message" or "Winter Weather Notice".

But I'm not sure that was the goal was of the proposed change or if there was even a goal of the proposed change.

[WidreMann]

Admittedly, "watch", in the meaning used by the NWS, is only used as jargon either in the NWS or in a few other fields (e.g., suicide watch). Nobody, except the hobbyists, seems to understand what "watch" actually means, despite decades of reminders from the local weather folks on up. I think this is a good move.

[wxdude64]

Don't see what that buys anyone besides extra syllables to say the same thing.

Maybe NWS is getting funding by the syllable in future?

[Ed Lizard]

Actually, I myself wonder if a 30% chance of rain in a Summer forecast means that they expect 30% coverage of rain showers, or a 30% chance that 100% of the people see rain and 70% chance nobody sees rain.

It just seems to change, seasonally.

Back to being serious, people who have the difference between a watch and warning explained every time a watch is issued, and still can't understand, won't get the potential thing either. They can only dumb things down so much. Like the carboard windshield shade I got at a Summer job, with the company logo facing out and 'warning, remove sunshade from windshield before driving' on the inside. If someone is stupid enough to drive with an obscured windshield, a warning won't help.

[IsentropicLift]

What a waste of time. A few of my co-workers don't even understand the difference between a watch and a warning. Scary but the truth. The only things that the public are concerned with are how much snow and when will it start and stop.

In my opinion though, if you wanted to eliminate the watches for winter weather I would go with something like this.

WINTER WEATHER ALERT - THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN MT. HOLLY NJ HAS ISSUED A WINTER WEATHER ALERT FOR FRIDAY DECEMBER 14TH FROM 8AM-4PM FOR THE FOLLOWING COUNTIES IN NJ.....MORRIS, SUSSEX, WARREN.

AT THIS TIME, POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR A SIGNIFICANT ACCUMULATING SNOWFALL CAPABLE OF CAUSING HAZERDOUS WEATHER CONDITIONS.

Short and to the point.

[wi_fl_wx]

Finally. It has been known for years that the public does not understand the difference between a "watch" and a "warning". It seems painfully obvious to anyone who actually follows the weather, but considering the literacy of the average American, I guess it isn't much of a surprise.

[LakeEffectKing]

Finally. It has been known for years that the public does not understand the difference between a "watch" and a "warning". It seems painfully obvious to anyone who actually follows the weather, but considering the literacy of the average American, I guess it isn't much of a surprise.

I'm not so sure it has much to do with literacy or not. I know plenty of very intelligent folks who just don't put the effort into really caring about the difference (obviously, us "experts" do).

I think the whole confusion is just a ramification of the similarities of the individual classifications. I remember as a kid getting confused, but always knew when a "travelers advisory" was issue that is was of a "lower" hazard than a WW watch or warning.

[Ed Lizard]

I never had issues.

And will SPC/NHC watches be replaced with "potential advisories" or whatever?

[Vandy]

Admittedly, "watch", in the meaning used by the NWS, is only used as jargon either in the NWS or in a few other fields (e.g., suicide watch). Nobody, except the hobbyists, seems to understand what "watch" actually means, despite decades of reminders from the local weather folks on up. I think this is a good move.

I agree. I think this change would make things clearer for the general public, which is a good thing.

[isohume]

Finally. It has been known for years that the public does not understand the difference between a "watch" and a "warning". It seems painfully obvious to anyone who actually follows the weather, but considering the literacy of the average American, I guess it isn't much of a surprise.

True. We write to a 9th grade level already. Apparently we need to write to a 4th grade level...or perhaps just fun fuzzy pictures!

[IsentropicLift]

The lack of interest to the general public has a lot to do with the length of the advisories. After the first line or two the average member of the general public loses interest. Mets would be better off getting the word across by saying "It will likely snow, and it could be a big storm" rather than a half a page of strong wording that most people don't understand or don't care to understand.

[BillB]

True. We write to a 9th grade level already. Apparently we need to write to a 4th grade level...or perhaps just fun fuzzy pictures!

Pretty-looking, fun, fuzzy pictures.

[MGorse]

What a waste of time. A few of my co-workers don't even understand the difference between a watch and a warning. Scary but the truth. The only things that the public are concerned with are how much snow and when will it start and stop.

In my opinion though, if you wanted to eliminate the watches for winter weather I would go with something like this.

WINTER WEATHER ALERT - THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN MT. HOLLY NJ HAS ISSUED A WINTER WEATHER ALERT FOR FRIDAY DECEMBER 14TH FROM 8AM-4PM FOR THE FOLLOWING COUNTIES IN NJ.....MORRIS, SUSSEX, WARREN.

AT THIS TIME, POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR A SIGNIFICANT ACCUMULATING SNOWFALL CAPABLE OF CAUSING HAZERDOUS WEATHER CONDITIONS.

Short and to the point.

I do not think using the word alert instead of watch will help. Some will then probably ask, what is an alert? It is amazing to this day that apparently all these people out there do not know what a watch and warning means, yet look at all the arguing that has taken place because there were no hurricane warnings in effect north of North Carolina for Hurricane Sandy. Outreach/education has to be hammered home even more to help people understand the differences. Watch means there is the potential; warning means it is imminent or it is occurring. Not sure how more simple we can get.

[isohume]

I do not think using the word alert instead of watch will help. Some will then probably ask, what is an alert? It is amazing to this day that apparently all these people out there do not know what a watch and warning means, yet look at all the arguing that has taken place because there were no hurricane warnings in effect north of North Carolina for Hurricane Sandy. Outreach/education has to be hammered home even more to help people understand the differences. Watch means there is the potential; warning means it is imminent or it is occurring. Not sure how more simple we can get.

Great point.

How anyone cannot grasp the simple concepts of watch/warning is beyond me.

[Eskimo Joe]

This is pretty darn embarrassing that people do not understand basic English words and probability.

[hm8]

True. We write to a 9th grade level already. Apparently we need to write to a 4th grade level...or perhaps just fun fuzzy pictures!

Well, we've got the fuzzy pictures already

[Southland Wx]

No one should be shocked by this.

The bottom line is that a number of people cannot distinguish what a watch vs. a warning means. We, in the weather community, as foolish as we may believe they are, or as much work is done via outreach, from TV mets, or otherwise, some. people. don't. get. it. And they never will. End of story. There's a large amount of people out there who are uneducated in science in any fashion. Whether it's right or wrong, that's what it is. And we have too many warnings, watches, advisories, and messages as it is to confuse them even more. Full disclosure: I am not proposing a fix, nor do I know what said fix is...but I know that in a world with 24 hour news, terrorist color coded alerts, categories 1-5 with a name, and daily hazard messages from the NWS and others, the watch/warning system has been diluted and can only work well in certain situations. ANY pullback IMO is a good decision.

When will we realize that weather does not behave within a system? Every storm and scenario is unique and means something unique to different communities in the areas impacted. In my view: Almost better to say "a complex storm is coming," rather than try and force a label on it or devise yet another warning/watch/advisory to give to it. No one's at fault here...I'm not blaming any organization, company, or group. The system, as it is today, is flawed in many, many ways.

In my opinion there are four watch/warning sets that work as intended in most cases (we can argue if some are issued too often or not, but that's another debate for another time): Severe t'storm/Tornado, Flash Flood, Hurricane, and Blizzard (Heat, Frost, etc. work fine as well, but I'm talking about physical, difficult to describe wx). The rest work sometimes and may not work others, but let's not be surprised that many regular people who could care less about why it's happening don't understand or care to understand those other warnings, watches, or advisories.

My bottom line: I am happy to see the NWS is being proactive in trying to address this issue.

[isohume]

Well, we've got the fuzzy pictures already

lol yeah, but I mean more like fuzzy bear says: "Watch out folks..the weather is bad out there right now! Stay in your dens!".

[famartin]

I do not think using the word alert instead of watch will help. Some will then probably ask, what is an alert? It is amazing to this day that apparently all these people out there do not know what a watch and warning means, yet look at all the arguing that has taken place because there were no hurricane warnings in effect north of North Carolina for Hurricane Sandy. Outreach/education has to be hammered home even more to help people understand the differences. Watch means there is the potential; warning means it is imminent or it is occurring. Not sure how more simple we can get.

I would still argue that the people who made a big fuss over that were not the general public. They were the weather weenies, both in and out of the industry.

The biggest problem with letting go of "watch/warning" terminology is that this is what the NWS verifications are based on. As far as I'm aware, advisories aren't officially verified (though of course many look at them to see how well they verified on an unofficial basis). Warnings are officially verified.

Otherwise, I don't think it makes much difference to the public whether we call things watches, warnings or advisories, and like the idea of calling it an alert; though in keeping with using 4th-grade English, we should say "possible" and "expected" rather than "potential", potential seems like a big word to me

Now, to our partners such as EM's and DOT's etc, it may matter.

[johnc]

I'm kinda surprised to see the number of people claiming that the public doesn't know what a watch and warning is. Is there actually data showing this? I don't think I've ever ran across someone who doesn't know the difference.

Now I could believe that maybe the average person can't give the textbook definitions of "Watch" and "Warning", but I think if you told them a Tornado Watch was in effect, they would understand what that meant. Especially since 99% of the time they're getting that message from some source that ends up going into detail about the nature of the threat.

So I know I'm Mr. Conservative Anti-Change on everything, and therefore perhaps my opinion isn't valid in this sense, but this makes me cringe. For decades they have pounded the WWA language into our brains, and now they want to change it to something that, frankly, is a little vague since it doesn't put the threat into a clearly-defined "category".

Also, are they really going to issue a (e.g.) Winter Storm Watch without actually indicating in the bulletin text that a WSW is in effect? And if they're only changing the bulletin text anyway, what's the point... since the current text already indicates plainly and clearly what a W / W / A is and the expected impacts, threats, timing, etc.?

[famartin]

I'm kinda surprised to see the number of people claiming that the public doesn't know what a watch and warning is. Is there actually data showing this? I don't think I've ever ran across someone who doesn't know the difference.

Now I could believe that maybe the average person can't give the textbook definitions of "Watch" and "Warning", but I think if you told them a Tornado Watch was in effect, they would understand what that meant. Especially since 99% of the time they're getting that message from some source that ends up going into detail about the nature of the threat.

So I know I'm Mr. Conservative Anti-Change on everything, and therefore perhaps my opinion isn't valid in this sense, but this makes me cringe. For decades they have pounded the WWA language into our brains, and now they want to change it to something that, frankly, is a little vague since it doesn't put the threat into a clearly-defined "category".

Also, are they really going to issue a (e.g.) Winter Storm Watch without actually indicating in the bulletin text that a WSW is in effect? And if they're only changing the bulletin text anyway, what's the point... since the current text already indicates plainly and clearly what a W / W / A is and the expected impacts, threats, timing, etc.?

The problem is that there are advisories. You don't have tornado advisories or severe thunderstorm advisories. There are flood advisories but I've gotten the feeling that hardly anyone pays attention to them. You don't have hurricane advisories (not ones that actually cover territory, I mean).

Advisories made everything murky. Hell, I see the media getting advisories and warnings mixed up. People might have an idea about the difference between a watch and a warning, but many have no idea where advisories fit in. Many probably think they are the same thing as warnings.

[MGorse]

I would still argue that the people who made a big fuss over that were not the general public. They were the weather weenies, both in and out of the industry.

The biggest problem with letting go of "watch/warning" terminology is that this is what the NWS verifications are based on. As far as I'm aware, advisories aren't officially verified (though of course many look at them to see how well they verified on an unofficial basis). Warnings are officially verified.

Otherwise, I don't think it makes much difference to the public whether we call things watches, warnings or advisories, and like the idea of calling it an alert; though in keeping with using 4th-grade English, we should say "possible" and "expected" rather than "potential", potential seems like a big word to me

Now, to our partners such as EM's and DOT's etc, it may matter.

I wonder if it may not be with the meaning of a watch or warning, but the criteria that is associated with it. These values differ across the nation, therefore the public may not really understand what the watch or warning means from a criteria standpoint. I just think getting rid of the watch and warning wording is not the right way to go. Advisories are tough as I can see more confusion with this headline. Plus it does not help when say TWC shows a graphic for winter storm watches and warnings yet says "there are several advisories in effect". This is not correct as advisories are different.

[isohume]

I wonder if it may not be with the meaning of a watch or warning, but the criteria that is associated with it. These values differ across the nation, therefore the public may not really understand what the watch or warning means from a criteria standpoint. I just think getting rid of the watch and warning wording is not the right way to go. Advisories are tough as I can see more confusion with this headline. Plus it does not help when say TWC shows a graphic for winter storm watches and warnings yet says "there are several advisories in effect". This is not correct as advisories are different.

I agree...the advisory is confusing. Once we issue one for snow...the folks/media down here go overboard. OMG...1-2 inches of SNOW!!! They act like that has never happened before when the climo is around 6 in. Then if they only get 1/2 an inch...they wonder what all the fuss was about.

I say bag advisories and just use the SPS.

[phlwx]

No one should be shocked by this.

The bottom line is that a number of people cannot distinguish what a watch vs. a warning means. We, in the weather community, as foolish as we may believe they are, or as much work is done via outreach, from TV mets, or otherwise, some. people. don't. get. it. And they never will. End of story. There's a large amount of people out there who are uneducated in science in any fashion. Whether it's right or wrong, that's what it is. And we have too many warnings, watches, advisories, and messages as it is to confuse them even more. Full disclosure: I am not proposing a fix, nor do I know what said fix is...but I know that in a world with 24 hour news, terrorist color coded alerts, categories 1-5 with a name, and daily hazard messages from the NWS and others, the watch/warning system has been diluted and can only work well in certain situations. ANY pullback IMO is a good decision.

When will we realize that weather does not behave within a system? Every storm and scenario is unique and means something unique to different communities in the areas impacted. In my view: Almost better to say "a complex storm is coming," rather than try and force a label on it or devise yet another warning/watch/advisory to give to it. No one's at fault here...I'm not blaming any organization, company, or group. The system, as it is today, is flawed in many, many ways.

In my opinion there are four watch/warning sets that work as intended in most cases (we can argue if some are issued too often or not, but that's another debate for another time): Severe t'storm/Tornado, Flash Flood, Hurricane, and Blizzard (Heat, Frost, etc. work fine as well, but I'm talking about physical, difficult to describe wx). The rest work sometimes and may not work others, but let's not be surprised that many regular people who could care less about why it's happening don't understand or care to understand those other warnings, watches, or advisories.

My bottom line: I am happy to see the NWS is being proactive in trying to address this issue.

Being proactive is good but I'm not sure saying "forecasting the potential for a significant winter storm" is better than saying "winter storm watch." The idiot faction out there will eliminate "the potential for" and leave it to "forecasting a significant winter storm." This will inevitably lead to the old cracks on forecasters, meteorologists, etc.

If you were to do away with watches, I wouldn't say "potential" and probably say something along the lines of "A Significant Winter Storm Is Possible"...it probably stinks less since you're not forecasting anything...you're mentioning the possibility and gives you more of an out.

All that said, I think the watch system on winter weather works fine as is. I may have issues with what the criteria is for some areas but a watch can be explained as not imminent, like severe weather watches...it doesn't mean you WILL get it but that the possibility exists. Education from us in the weather community goes a long way to helping the lay person who has no clue what a watch or warning are to get a better understanding...and even then, not everyone will get it.