Quincy Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 A lot of people I've talked to, mainly internally, seem to think the naming of such storms is analogous to naming tropical storms. "How come it's not done officially?" Uh, it's not the same. If you want to name based off of low pressure, you'll miss on some of the big ones like PDII. You can't name based off snowfall because the storm will already be over. You're going to preemptively name based off of a snowfall forecast? That's like naming an invest a hurricane before it even develops. Etc. I'm not sure there is a scientific way of really doing it, besides nuisances of "how impactful will the storm be," or "how many people will be affected by significant winter weather?" Don't even get me started on the actual names given... I've been trying to refrain from commenting on the subject, but let's just say I am far from a fan of the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Come on, Winter Storm Yolo is going to be once in a lifetime, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I agree with naming winter or other significant storms. Just disagree about the names themselves. I prefer the old system of makeshift names with the year embedded inside, or better yet something completely innovative and fresh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Well, it's clear it's not hurting anything so far. I guess a wider adoption might change that. As a researcher I cannot fathom why we should not be building a coherent database on this stuff. That's not just for archival purposes as understanding past weather is intricately tied to understanding future weather. I think a lot of it boils down to beefs with TWC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midatlanticweather Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 The snow probability forecasts are heading to other NWS locations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowfan Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Ian makes a good point. They're def not hurting anyone and people do dislike them because of twc. I'm not a big fan of them, but it's not like it'll affect the storm and cut down on my snowfall, so why should I care? One of those things that's not going away, so might as well work together to get it right. I'm kinda doubtful noaa gets involved for awhile though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Ian makes a good point. They're def not hurting anyone and people do dislike them because of twc. I'm not a big fan of them, but it's not like it'll affect the storm and cut down on my snowfall, so why should I care? One of those things that's not going away, so might as well work together to get it right. I'm kinda doubtful noaa gets involved for awhile though. They'll come around in 10 years once everyone else decides it's a passable idea. Pretty sure a lot of the people who were up in arms over it today didn't even read it. It was actually pretty kind to everyone in the whole community and did not let TWC off the hook for how it's been done so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsentropicLift Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 It's all just a ratings ploy. The general public can better relate to "Blizzard Nero" than the Blizzard of 15', especially when you can have multiple in the same season. The main problem is that the NHC has specific guidelines regarding classification of a system. What if any criteria does TWC use when determining if a system should be named or not? You can have a 963mb low dumping snow over Montana and 99% of the country won't even bat an eyelash, but if you put the same system South of Long Island, national headlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted October 13, 2015 Author Share Posted October 13, 2015 We shouldn't be naming winter storms that can hurt people, guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 We shouldn't be naming winter storms that can hurt people, guysJust call every storm snowpocalypse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 It is inclusive, the naming system should not make exceptions. Handle it just like you would in court. Even something like L0842015 would suffice with a wiki page dedicated to each event. ( ) Hopefully all sponsored by NWS and SPC. Who doesn't like to name derechoes and thunderstorms? Building a deep database would help us see patterns and the bigger picture sooner than otherwise, perhaps save us some climate pain down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozz Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I still don't like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I still don't like it Same here. If there was collaboration with WPC/NWS to adopt a scientifically objective way of classifying such storms, I would be 100% onboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokeybandit Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 They want to name the storms because they know their ratings go up when there are named tropical storms. It's all about marketing, viewers and page clicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I'm waiting for the complaining about it being too "hot" in October. That's a definite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 The snow probability forecasts are heading to other NWS locations! Haha, now they can prepare for their 1-14" snow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 They want to name the storms because they know their ratings go up when there are named tropical storms. It's all about marketing, viewers and page clicksi won't say that wasn't ever a consideration but it's a pretty weak argument. For one if no one else uses the names what exactly are they winning? Secondly if everyone adopted using a set of names the traffic would be shared. This traffic is already happening as well.. Just look how many people cover all kinds of weather these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Same here. If there was collaboration with WPC/NWS to adopt a scientifically objective way of classifying such storms, I would be 100% onboard.I didn't expect we would shift many opinions, but perhaps it'll help spawn more long form thought on it. Even today many of the nays were the same old arguments. I think your concerns are valid. Without some buy in from NWS et al it seems likely this will continue to be stalled when it comes to a broader effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Idk who names storms, but it seems to me to be a little more "scientific" to number them to include a date reference, though admittedly a pretty boring method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Here's another issue: Some local television stations also name storms. I'm not sure how widespread it is, but one station in Connecticut also names them. Working in that market at a non-naming station was especially difficult, since viewers didn't know what name was actually "correct." I guess another reason for a standardization of naming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozz Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 The snow probability forecasts are heading to other NWS locations! Unlike storm names, this is something I support 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Here's another issue: Some local television stations also name storms. I'm not sure how widespread it is, but one station in Connecticut also names them. Working in that market at a non-naming station was especially difficult, since viewers didn't know what name was actually "correct." I guess another reason for a standardization of naming.That's why I thought numbering was superior, but boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWxLuvr Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Unlike storm names, this is something I support 100% Total waste of time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Realize never linked to naming piece we've been partially discussing here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/10/13/viewpoint-its-time-for-the-weather-community-to-adopt-winter-storm-naming/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowfan Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Probabilistic snowfall forecasts will be the death of this subforum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Idk who names storms, but it seems to me to be a little more "scientific" to number them to include a date reference, though admittedly a pretty boring method. I think you'd need some sort of rating system eventually (post event most likely, this specifically seems quite hard to do while ongoing.. well, maybe in the final run if the wall of snow is inbound etc) but it is rather boring to have that be the sole piece of information used to describe it. TWC is already trying to make it more scientific. I think if they were more transparent with the process people would see that more readily. There's a bit too much "we need to keep researching this" mentality with these things.. part of getting it right is by doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Probabilistic snowfall forecasts will be the death of this subforum 100% chance of 0.1-23.4". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozz Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Total waste of time and money. Nope, it can be very useful behind the scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Nope, it can be very useful behind the scenes. Is this before or after Master of Disaster sees snow on the webcam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Haha, now they can prepare for their 1-14" snow Agreed, all they really do is make 1 map into 3. The old way of just saying 3-6" is much better than making a map for 3" and a map for 6". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.