If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Courier-Journal)   Think the Weather Channel's naming system for winter storms is stupid? You're not alone. So does NOAA, the National Weather Service, and pretty much everyone else   (blogs.courier-journal.com) divider line 111
    More: Asinine, Weather Channel%, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Louisville Courier-Journal, Accuweather, World Meteorological Organization, Weather Underground, storms  
•       •       •

11863 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2012 at 3:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-30 12:56:17 PM
Well TWC has been NBCUniversalified as Siffy and "Cloo", so why not "Whether?"
 
2012-12-30 01:02:15 PM
NOAA/NWS would be pissed.  That was their baliwick and winter didn't count.  TURFWAR!
 
2012-12-30 01:31:05 PM

Fear_and_Loathing: NOAA/NWS would be pissed.  That was their baliwick and winter didn't count.  TURFWAR!


NWS staff are forbidden to use the names.

The whole thing is entirely so they make things more dramatic for ratings. Just look at the names they chose.
 
2012-12-30 01:48:49 PM

GAT_00: The whole thing is entirely so they make things more dramatic for ratings. Just look at the names they chose.


Nonsense.  Now excuse me, I have to turn on the weather news and see if storm Ivan the Terrible has been upgraded to a class 5 storm of death.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-30 02:00:43 PM
I don't click on weather.com headlines with winter storm names. If everybody did the same, this minor annoyance would go away.
 
2012-12-30 02:25:54 PM
weather channel is a bunch of aws obscuring the very info we need to see.
 
2012-12-30 02:52:09 PM

ZAZ: I don't click on weather.com headlines with winter storm names. If everybody did the same, this minor annoyance would go away.


Why do you even go to weather.com in the first place?  The only place with less accurate forecasts is the always ironic AccuWeather.  If you don't want to use the NWS site, Weather Underground is just as good.
 
2012-12-30 03:03:06 PM
Those are just as dumb as the "superstorm" moniker for Hurricane Sandy.
 
2012-12-30 03:07:24 PM
Who cares?
 
2012-12-30 03:08:15 PM
what about "hurricane asskicker!" , "poor killer!" or "rent multiplier!"

those there be some names.
 
2012-12-30 03:09:01 PM

bronyaur1: Who cares?


you do
 
2012-12-30 03:11:20 PM
Can we get businesses to sponsor storms?

/Ice storm of death brought to you by Prestone
 
2012-12-30 03:15:43 PM
I still can't forgive them for their stupid auto-start Flash widget.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-30 03:16:02 PM
whither_apophis: Can we get businesses to sponsor storms?

Do the reverse, like review blackmail web sites. We will name the storm Wal-Mart unless the company of the same name pays $1 billion.
 
2012-12-30 03:16:05 PM
Turning on the Weather Channel has become like turning on MTV and expecting music.
 
2012-12-30 03:17:18 PM
I really only watch The Weather Channel to see which location of impending apocalyptic doom they've dispatched Jim Cantore to.
 
2012-12-30 03:20:22 PM
Nice to see Comcast is still as incompetent as ever at managing their properties. I still can't believe the government let them buy NBCUniversal.
 
2012-12-30 03:27:00 PM

Scythed: Nice to see Comcast is still as incompetent as ever at managing their properties. I still can't believe the government let them buy NBCUniversal.


oh the outrage!

I'm sure you could run a network much better from your bedroom with your bank account..

pffft

best post all day

staff of one
 
2012-12-30 03:29:25 PM
Awesome. I am not alone. It is ridiculous. It's like naming clouds. It is just stupid. Designed to make people feel like something important is happening to them weather wise. "Left out of the recent natural disaster-heres some clouds with a name on it to make you feel special."
 
2012-12-30 03:35:50 PM
Part of the reason I don't like The Weather Channel anymore is it stopped being about reporting weather events several years ago.  Now it's disaster porn and "how can we ramp up our ratings?"  A couple of their reality shows are okay, they're interesting and not as retarded as reality shows on other networks, but it's kind of sad that even The Weather Channel needs reality shows nowadays.
 
2012-12-30 03:36:43 PM
I had to run some errands this morning before the game started and I got caught in thunderstorm 'Brian'.


/Yes, Brian, I named it after you because you are a dick.
 
2012-12-30 03:38:32 PM
The public should get to vote on storm names, via the NOAA website.

Years from now we could be watching a news retrospective on the day Hurricane Weedlord Bonerhitler finally sunk Nawlins for good.
 
2012-12-30 03:39:37 PM

GAT_00: Why do you even go to weather.com in the first place?


their maps are prettier
 
2012-12-30 03:41:51 PM

Indolent: GAT_00: The whole thing is entirely so they make things more dramatic for ratings. Just look at the names they chose.

Nonsense.  Now excuse me, I have to turn on the weather news and see if storm Ivan the Terrible has been upgraded to a class 5 storm of death.


Just wait until they change the term "hurricane" to "rapeicane"
 
2012-12-30 03:45:42 PM

Insatiable Jesus: The public should get to vote on storm names, via the NOAA website.

Years from now we could be watching a news retrospective on the day Hurricane Weedlord Bonerhitler finally sunk Nawlins for good.


I tried telling my husband about Hurricane Weedlord Bonerhitler and almost peed myself.
 
2012-12-30 03:47:42 PM
Well, "Draco" sounded pretty badass for a winter storm.

Lately I've been VERY annoyed by our Philly Fox station that assigns 1-10 number ratings for the day's weather, 10 being a perfectly nice day, and 1 being lousy. It's pointless and absolutely useless. It imparts no useful information, like how you should dress or how hot or cold or wet or windy it's going to be.
 
2012-12-30 03:52:16 PM
every storm name should end 'pocalypsemageddonacaust'.
 
2012-12-30 03:53:51 PM
Have they named a storm Hitler yet? Because that would be awesome.
 
2012-12-30 03:54:31 PM

Haliburton Cummings: oh the outrage!


I've been away from Fark for the holidays, is this a deep-freeze AW troll account or just one I haven't noticed until now?

Either way, step up your game, it's pretty weaksauce.
 
2012-12-30 03:55:52 PM

GAT_00: The only place with less accurate forecasts is the always ironic AccuWeather.


Wasn't increasing AccuWeather's corporate profits the reason that Rick Santorum wanted to privatize the NWS?
 
2012-12-30 03:57:26 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: GAT_00: Why do you even go to weather.com in the first place?

their maps are prettier


img147.imageshack.us

Yes, I enjoy their maps very much so.
 
2012-12-30 03:57:30 PM
Eh. When you have dozens of channels devoted to nothing but the weather, I guess they have to do something to keep the interest.
 
2012-12-30 03:59:02 PM
"The one racing across the Midwest is now called Draco and it has been dubbed the fourth winter storm of the season. Remember Winter Storm Caesar? Or Brutus? Or Athena? I don't."

Well, no, I don't, but to be fair, I don't remember tropical storms A through R of 2012, either, so this seems like kind of a non-point.
 
2012-12-30 03:59:13 PM
NOAA: Moooom, the weather channel is naming winter storms. He's coping me!

Mom: Weather Channel, NOAA was naming storm systems first.

Weather channel: that's not fair; he always gets to name storm systems!
 
2012-12-30 03:59:15 PM
Yepper, some Googlizing lead me to several articles about how Rick Santorum wanted to shield AccuWeather from the horrible anti-capitalistic tactics of the NWS.
 
2012-12-30 04:04:11 PM
Good to know this is not official. Winter storms don't merit a name.
 
2012-12-30 04:04:42 PM

bronyaur1: Who cares?


me mum. strictly maintains an all depressing news all the time household even before i was hatched.
 
2012-12-30 04:05:22 PM
The TV executive who thought this up is that special kind of stupid that thinks it's genius. Or, actually clever and tough but cynical and self-interested to a fault.
 
2012-12-30 04:05:25 PM
Last time I looked, their list shows one named "Gandolf" for this year, instead of "Gandalf". Dumbasses.
 
2012-12-30 04:05:26 PM
Coming tomorrow: Snow Flurry Frankie
 
2012-12-30 04:08:00 PM

Nem Wan: The TV executive who thought this up is that special kind of stupid that thinks it's genius. Or, actually clever and tough but cynical and self-interested to a fault.


Hmmm, could be Bonnie Hammer. I thought I smelled her foul stench when she was brought on board.
 
2012-12-30 04:08:40 PM
lookout here comes storm "feather"
aaaa what is it?
i don't know but it has a name
 
2012-12-30 04:09:43 PM
The Weather Channel is private company.

shoes my wet raining.
 
2012-12-30 04:10:32 PM
When do the corporate sponsorship's start?

By Thursday, Altoid's Wintery Fresh Blast will blanket the area with 3 - 5 inches of snow. You'll want fresh breath to shovel THAT snow!
 
2012-12-30 04:10:45 PM

Killer Cars: I really only watch The Weather Channel to see which location of impending apocalyptic doom they've dispatched Jim Cantore to.


The Weather Channel has become useless to me since my provider changed to a satellite feed that apparently can't determine where I am and provide a local temp/forecast. I know that The Weather Channel knows where I am and can provide temp/forecast on their station (they used to provide this information on the Weather Channel station, not any more), but the satellite provider fails because ZIPCODE.
/smrt
 
2012-12-30 04:11:16 PM

ZAZ: I don't click on weather.com headlines with winter storm names. If everybody did the same, this minor annoyance would go away.


I don't click on weather.com

www.weather.gov

You're already paying for it with your tax dollars, might as well use it.
 
2012-12-30 04:12:05 PM

Nem Wan: The TV executive who thought this up is that special kind of stupid that thinks it's genius. Or, actually clever and tough but cynical and self-interested to a fault.


Ah, management. In my experience, they were scientists and engineers who couldn't hack it at their jobs so they got promoted instead. Makes perfect sense that they would start something like this.

Now if someone would like to collaborate with NOAA and make a more comprehensive historical storm database to include No'reasters and other types of storms that would be nice. The new database is getting there, much better than before but for what I do, its not so much the hurricanes that matter but the winter and nor'easters.
 
2012-12-30 04:14:20 PM

Silverstaff: ZAZ: I don't click on weather.com headlines with winter storm names. If everybody did the same, this minor annoyance would go away.

I don't click on weather.com

www.weather.gov

You're already paying for it with your tax dollars, might as well use it.



NOW you're gettin the idea, comrade.
 
2012-12-30 04:23:27 PM

WTP 2: lookout here comes storm "feather"
aaaa what is it?
i don't know but it has a name


HURRICANE GAY!!
 
2012-12-30 04:23:49 PM

mark12A: Well, "Draco" sounded pretty badass for a winter storm.

Lately I've been VERY annoyed by our Philly Fox station that assigns 1-10 number ratings for the day's weather, 10 being a perfectly nice day, and 1 being lousy. It's pointless and absolutely useless. It imparts no useful information, like how you should dress or how hot or cold or wet or windy it's going to be.


You could, you know go outside and see what you need.
 
2012-12-30 04:25:43 PM

Silverstaff: ZAZ: I don't click on weather.com headlines with winter storm names. If everybody did the same, this minor annoyance would go away.

I don't click on weather.com

www.weather.gov

You're already paying for it with your tax dollars, might as well use it.


Check out Forecast Advisor. Rarely is the NWS the most accurate. They don't pay as well as the private forecasters.
 
2012-12-30 04:30:00 PM
They could name storms after forgotten NHL players. Winter Storm Gump Worsley has kinda a ring to it.
 
2012-12-30 04:31:54 PM

ski9600: Killer Cars: I really only watch The Weather Channel to see which location of impending apocalyptic doom they've dispatched Jim Cantore to.

The Weather Channel has become useless to me since my provider changed to a satellite feed that apparently can't determine where I am and provide a local temp/forecast. I know that The Weather Channel knows where I am and can provide temp/forecast on their station (they used to provide this information on the Weather Channel station, not any more), but the satellite provider fails because ZIPCODE.
/smrt


Then why are you still getting your weather forecast from a television show?
Try weatherunderground.com. They have pages for every local weather station that show detailed information that isn't dumbed down for morons.
 
2012-12-30 04:33:54 PM

GAT_00: ZAZ: I don't click on weather.com headlines with winter storm names. If everybody did the same, this minor annoyance would go away.

Why do you even go to weather.com in the first place?  The only place with less accurate forecasts is the always ironic AccuWeather.  If you don't want to use the NWS site, Weather Underground is just as good.


Didn't TWC just buy Weather Underground? I thought I read that somewhere.
 
2012-12-30 04:35:08 PM

i upped my meds-up yours: They could name storms after forgotten NHL players. Winter Storm Gump Worsley has kinda a ring to it.


but Winter Storm Gretzky sounds better
 
2012-12-30 04:35:16 PM
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the brouhaha over the NWS-coined "frankenstorm" yet. According to NPR:

"Someone from the National Weather Service actually suggested frankenstorm, because it was a hybrid of different weather systems, like Frankenstein's monster, and it was also going to hit around Halloween," Zimmer says. But many news organizations considered Frankenstorm too lighthearted in the wake of the disaster, so the consensus settled on superstorm.
 
2012-12-30 04:35:26 PM

mark12A: Lately I've been VERY annoyed by our Philly Fox station that assigns 1-10 number ratings for the day's weather, 10 being a perfectly nice day, and 1 being lousy. It's pointless and absolutely useless. It imparts no useful information, like how you should dress or how hot or cold or wet or windy it's going to be.


Atlanta has the Wizometer ... Looks like an 11 today!

img59.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-30 04:36:38 PM

Silverstaff: ZAZ: I don't click on weather.com headlines with winter storm names. If everybody did the same, this minor annoyance would go away.

I don't click on weather.com

www.weather.gov

You're already paying for it with your tax dollars, might as well use it.


this..... www.weather.gov reports all the relevant info I need to know about wtf is going on outside... without a bunch of goofy shiat.....
 
2012-12-30 04:37:21 PM
Weatherscan. Forcast, current temp, current radar. Out the door.

/luv that music, too
 
2012-12-30 04:37:52 PM
Ah, yes. They did purchase them earlier this year, but it also looks like they're letting them continue to do their own thing... for now, anyway.

Link
 
2012-12-30 04:42:50 PM
I stopped watching TWC during the Sandy coverage. The outdoor reporters were unintelligible and irritating beyond belief.

media.salon.com

The last true weather porn was during Irene:


Now thats my kind of reporting! Woot!
 
2012-12-30 04:43:25 PM

Silverstaff: ZAZ: I don't click on weather.com headlines with winter storm names. If everybody did the same, this minor annoyance would go away.

I don't click on weather.com

www.weather.gov

You're already paying for it with your tax dollars, might as well use it.


The NWS site also has a greater focus on, you know, weather information. What draws the eye on The Weather Channel's homepage right now is a story about that plane crash in Russia. That has little to do with the weather, unless the brakes were faulty because of ice or something. The NWS front page, on the other hand, has a current, national weather map, front and center. Which can take you to more specific information when you click on your area of interest. There's an interactive map on The Weather Channel site, too, but you have to search for it. (It's small.) NWS does not make you search for the freaking weather. It's just right there. Objectively, it's a better site for weather information, tax dollars or not.

/Also, it's fast. I like that.
 
2012-12-30 04:50:18 PM
Thanks for the weather.gov website link. That is one of the few .gov websites that provides me with what I need in less than three clicks.
 
2012-12-30 05:01:25 PM
Based on the over-the-top names they chose, they're just trying to get the big boys to decide to do it better.
 
2012-12-30 05:15:34 PM

Cymbals of the Illiterati: GAT_00: ZAZ: I don't click on weather.com headlines with winter storm names. If everybody did the same, this minor annoyance would go away.

Why do you even go to weather.com in the first place?  The only place with less accurate forecasts is the always ironic AccuWeather.  If you don't want to use the NWS site, Weather Underground is just as good.

Didn't TWC just buy Weather Underground? I thought I read that somewhere.


Actually, you're right.  That explains the annoying remake that the Wundermap got.
 
2012-12-30 05:22:01 PM
storm yoko just breaks me up
 
2012-12-30 05:23:08 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: WTP 2: lookout here comes storm "feather"
aaaa what is it?
i don't know but it has a name

HURRICANE GAY!!


I heard that when it struck, it was raining men.
 
2012-12-30 05:31:42 PM
There will be nowhere to run to when Hurricane Ditka arrives.
 
2012-12-30 05:41:02 PM
Meh, big freaking deal.

So they name storms, it's not new. It does help in differentiating them in discussions, hence the majority of people being fine with naming hurricanes.

To me it sounds like a bunch of sour grapes, just because someone else started doing it first. The respectable thing to do would have been to reach out to TWC and ask for an organized system like for hurricanes, instead of biatching about them behind their back.
 
2012-12-30 05:47:40 PM
Flamark:Atlanta has the Wizometer ... Looks like an 11 today!

OMG that's even worse! (goes to 11? Interesting)

I've bookmarked the Intellicast pages for the weather places I'm interested in. So it's just one click for a page with current conditions and 7 day forecast. Very convenient.
 
2012-12-30 05:48:02 PM

TheDirtyNacho: Check out Forecast Advisor. Rarely is the NWS the most accurate. They don't pay as well as the private forecasters.


On the other hand, NWS isn't subject to the kind of retarded market forces that The Weather Channel contends with. Nate Silver covers the issue particularly well in his book. TWC doesn't like to issue 50% chance of rain forecasts because people interpret it as wishy-washy, so they flip a coin and go with 40% or 60%. They also inflate precipitation likelihood on the low end, because viewers don't understand that it really is supposed to rain 5% of the time when there is a 5% chance of rain. They bump to 15-20% instead.

So reliability diagrams come out clean for NWS, but TWC is all over the map. But they traded being accurate for the public perception of being accurate, so it works for them.
 
2012-12-30 06:01:15 PM
I am all in favor of TWC's system if prevents another Snowmageddon or Snowpocalypse.
 
2012-12-30 06:03:25 PM

KingVJ: mark12A: Well, "Draco" sounded pretty badass for a winter storm.

Lately I've been VERY annoyed by our Philly Fox station that assigns 1-10 number ratings for the day's weather, 10 being a perfectly nice day, and 1 being lousy. It's pointless and absolutely useless. It imparts no useful information, like how you should dress or how hot or cold or wet or windy it's going to be.

You could, you know go outside and see what you need.


This is a very good point, because current conditions are a perfect predictor of future weather.

Moran.
 
2012-12-30 06:04:31 PM
No love for weatherspark.com?
 
2012-12-30 06:07:31 PM
This could really work if they used black people names
 
2012-12-30 06:08:14 PM

GAT_00: ZAZ: I don't click on weather.com headlines with winter storm names. If everybody did the same, this minor annoyance would go away.

Why do you even go to weather.com in the first place?  The only place with less accurate forecasts is the always ironic AccuWeather.  If you don't want to use the NWS site, Weather Underground is just as good.



Unfortunately, WU is now owned by TWC and issues the same forecasts, with the same storm names.

The NWS Area Forecast Discussions are the only sources I've found that explain the reasoning behind the forecast, including any discrepancies between the various forecast models.
 
2012-12-30 06:10:45 PM

mark12A: Lately I've been VERY annoyed by our Philly Fox station that assigns 1-10 number ratings for the day's weather, 10 being a perfectly nice day, and 1 being lousy. It's pointless and absolutely useless. It imparts no useful information, like how you should dress or how hot or cold or wet or windy it's going to be.


They started saying "Partly Sunny" instead of "Partly Cloudy" here, and it irks the hell out of me.
 
2012-12-30 06:11:28 PM
Winter storm "Sideshow Bob" FTW!.
 
2012-12-30 06:22:16 PM

uncleacid: Turning on the Weather Channel has become like turning on MTV and expecting music.


Right you are.
 
2012-12-30 06:30:18 PM
i remember that one time i turned on the Weather Channel and heard Yanni's Until The Last Moment
 
2012-12-30 06:39:39 PM
halfmoth.com
I forget why I made that in 2007...

/ worked at TWC 1996-97
 
2012-12-30 06:45:08 PM

moothemagiccow: mark12A: Lately I've been VERY annoyed by our Philly Fox station that assigns 1-10 number ratings for the day's weather, 10 being a perfectly nice day, and 1 being lousy. It's pointless and absolutely useless. It imparts no useful information, like how you should dress or how hot or cold or wet or windy it's going to be.

They started saying "Partly Sunny" instead of "Partly Cloudy" here, and it irks the hell out of me.


actually partly sunny and partly cloudy are NOT the same thing. Partly Sunny implies a majority of clouds and partly cloudy implies a majority of sunshine...

http://wiki.wunderground.com/index.php/Educational_-_Partly_cloudy
 
2012-12-30 06:51:31 PM
 
2012-12-30 06:52:18 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: TheDirtyNacho: Check out Forecast Advisor. Rarely is the NWS the most accurate. They don't pay as well as the private forecasters.

On the other hand, NWS isn't subject to the kind of retarded market forces that The Weather Channel contends with. Nate Silver covers the issue particularly well in his book. TWC doesn't like to issue 50% chance of rain forecasts because people interpret it as wishy-washy, so they flip a coin and go with 40% or 60%. They also inflate precipitation likelihood on the low end, because viewers don't understand that it really is supposed to rain 5% of the time when there is a 5% chance of rain. They bump to 15-20% instead.

So reliability diagrams come out clean for NWS, but TWC is all over the map. But they traded being accurate for the public perception of being accurate, so it works for them.



Got a citation for that?
 
2012-12-30 06:53:36 PM
My main complaint with weather reporting is too much of it. My local stations hit us over and over with relentless warnings and crawlers at the slightest hint of a "storm." Why they think we need the same information every fricking minute is beyond me.
 
2012-12-30 06:58:01 PM

Haliburton Cummings: what about "hurricane asskicker!" , "poor killer!" or "rent multiplier!"

those there be some names.


Oh HELL no!
a57.foxnews.com
 
2012-12-30 06:58:06 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: i remember that one time i turned on the Weather Channel and heard Yanni's Until The Last Moment


I know former Yankee Bernie Williams played guitar on some of the smooth jazz that was used on the "Local on the 8s" on TWC
 
2012-12-30 06:58:57 PM

TheDirtyNacho: Got a citation for that?


Silver cites:

J. Eric Bickel and Seong Dae Kim, "Verification of the Weather Channel Probability of Precipitation Forecasts", American Meteorological Society 136 (December 2008): pp 4867-4881.
 
2012-12-30 07:00:44 PM
We are now tracking winter storm Toro. But first a word about snow blowers from our sponsor.
 
2012-12-30 07:04:12 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: TheDirtyNacho: Check out Forecast Advisor. Rarely is the NWS the most accurate. They don't pay as well as the private forecasters.

On the other hand, NWS isn't subject to the kind of retarded market forces that The Weather Channel contends with. Nate Silver covers the issue particularly well in his book. TWC doesn't like to issue 50% chance of rain forecasts because people interpret it as wishy-washy, so they flip a coin and go with 40% or 60%. They also inflate precipitation likelihood on the low end, because viewers don't understand that it really is supposed to rain 5% of the time when there is a 5% chance of rain. They bump to 15-20% instead.

So reliability diagrams come out clean for NWS, but TWC is all over the map. But they traded being accurate for the public perception of being accurate, so it works for them.



Okay I found the article by Nate Silver, but he doesn't explain or detail his source. Wet bias does make some sense psychologically - you're more annoyed if you under-prepared for rain rather than over-prepared. But dry bias - saying 40% when it's 50/50, makes no sense and only undermines historical accuracy.

According to Forecast Advisor, in my area TWC runs 5-10 points higher in accuracy than the weather service. They compare the forecast made with the official measurements taken later, then aggregate it.

I do like NWS's forecast discussions though. It's shed light on the thought process that goes into forecasting.
 
2012-12-30 07:06:45 PM
tommcmahon.typepad.com

/100 percent chance of boner
 
2012-12-30 07:12:03 PM

TheDirtyNacho: Wet bias does make some sense psychologically - you're more annoyed if you under-prepared for rain rather than over-prepared. But dry bias - saying 40% when it's 50/50, makes no sense and only undermines historical accuracy.


They don't just default to 40% when the actual prediction is 50%. They split evenly between 40 and 60 in those scenarios so as not to introduce a bias. But it's still intentionally wrong. The purpose is to avoid a 50% prediction, which laypeople don't understand and interpret as "we don't know".
 
2012-12-30 07:17:14 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Verification of the Weather Channel Probability of Precipitation Forecasts


Thanks ! Here's the actual paper. This is a fascinating paper btw. Unfortunately for Nate Silver, what he writes doesn't match what's there.

The 50% avoidance (and it tends toward 60%) is for >6 day forecasts, which are notoriously inaccurate anyway because they are machine generated.

Another interesting fact is that same day forecasts of 20% only resulted in rain 5.5% of the time. This likely is a form of wet bias.

Keep in mind that this paper covers data from 2004-2006 so I would expect forecast accuracy has increased some since then.
 
2012-12-30 07:20:37 PM

Gunderson: Spanky_McFarksalot: GAT_00: Why do you even go to weather.com in the first place?

their maps are prettier

I like when they depict fronts backwards.

//aviation meteorologist here.

The other TWC jackassery we delight ourselves at work with is TORCON,

[img147.imageshack.us image 640x480]

Yes, I enjoy their maps very much so.

 
2012-12-30 07:29:04 PM

TheDirtyNacho: Unfortunately for Nate Silver, what he writes doesn't match what's there.


Not seeing how this disagrees with Silver's analysis.

The 50% avoidance (and it tends toward 60%) is for >6 day forecasts, which are notoriously inaccurate anyway because they are machine generated.

They are all machine-generated.

Another interesting fact is that same day forecasts of 20% only resulted in rain 5.5% of the time. This likely is a form of wet bias.

It's because their viewers don't understand that it's actually supposed to occasionally rain during those periods, so they goose the percentage to avoid complaints. Silver is pretty clear about this.

Keep in mind that this paper covers data from 2004-2006 so I would expect forecast accuracy has increased some since then.

These problems are market-driven, not based on scientific problems of accuracy. They intentionally give worse predictions in some situations because it provides a semblance of accuracy for a viewer who doesn't know or particularly pay attention to the weather. The NWS doesn't have these problems, and subsequently gets more grief when they establish a 5% chance of rain, and it rains on 5% of those occasions.
 
2012-12-30 07:35:41 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: TheDirtyNacho: Unfortunately for Nate Silver, what he writes doesn't match what's there.

Not seeing how this disagrees with Silver's analysis.

The 50% avoidance (and it tends toward 60%) is for >6 day forecasts, which are notoriously inaccurate anyway because they are machine generated.

They are all machine-generated.

Another interesting fact is that same day forecasts of 20% only resulted in rain 5.5% of the time. This likely is a form of wet bias.

It's because their viewers don't understand that it's actually supposed to occasionally rain during those periods, so they goose the percentage to avoid complaints. Silver is pretty clear about this.

Keep in mind that this paper covers data from 2004-2006 so I would expect forecast accuracy has increased some since then.

These problems are market-driven, not based on scientific problems of accuracy. They intentionally give worse predictions in some situations because it provides a semblance of accuracy for a viewer who doesn't know or particularly pay attention to the weather. The NWS doesn't have these problems, and subsequently gets more grief when they establish a 5% chance of rain, and it rains on 5% of those occasions.


Do you have a citation that they are all machine driven? According to this paper, the accuracy of near-term goes up considerably due to the human forecasters making adjustments.

I don't have the book so I am going by the quote I found by Silver, and by the paper you linked to as a citation. This paper does not show nor suggest what his statement says.
 
2012-12-30 08:16:15 PM

TheDirtyNacho: Silverstaff: ZAZ: I don't click on weather.com headlines with winter storm names. If everybody did the same, this minor annoyance would go away.

I don't click on weather.com

www.weather.gov

You're already paying for it with your tax dollars, might as well use it.

Check out Forecast Advisor. Rarely is the NWS the most accurate. They don't pay as well as the private forecasters.


Forecast Advisor thinks it's Monday in Denver already (6:15pm MST).
Maybe they need to get paid even MORE money.
 
2012-12-30 08:38:11 PM

cowbell204: tommcmahon.typepad.com
/100 percent chance of boner


4.bp.blogspot.com
Please, sir.
 
2012-12-30 09:10:45 PM

InternetSecurityGuard: We are now tracking winter storm Toro. But first a word about snow blowers from our sponsor.


Toro is following the same path as Blizzardicane 2012, sponsored by Bridgestone Tires, from 2 weeks ago.
 
2012-12-30 09:50:22 PM

spawn73: Have they named a storm Hitler yet? Because that would be awesome.


Close enough?
 
2012-12-30 09:51:29 PM
TWC has jumped the shark, IMHO, when their "big name" weather person (Abrams?) stated that weather people should have their licenses taken if they don't believe in global warming. The lame play to name storms is kinda like the Brady Bunch adding Oliver to the cast for the last season to try to gain something back...
 
2012-12-30 10:44:08 PM

storm16: TWC has jumped the shark, IMHO, when their "big name" weather person (Abrams?) stated that weather people should have their licenses taken if they don't believe in global warming. The lame play to name storms is kinda like the Brady Bunch adding Oliver to the cast for the last season to try to gain something back...


That wasn't what Heidi Cullen said. She had a reasonable response to a question from a broadcast meteorologist who said that he didn't know how to address climate science on air.

Other things from the thread:

- NWS forecasters are pretty well paid. Less than some of the energy mets, but more than Accuweather and probably the Weather Channel and other private forecasting shops which are "blessed" with an oversupply of degreed mets and can pay very little. My starting salary less than a decade ago was $26k. I bailed on that line of work.

- Probability of precipitation is very misunderstood. 30% chance of rain means that 30% of the time with the same atmospheric conditions it will rain. Not 30% of the area or 30% of the period of forecast.
 
2012-12-30 10:52:22 PM

Fallout Zone: storm16: TWC has jumped the shark, IMHO, when their "big name" weather person (Abrams?) stated that weather people should have their licenses taken if they don't believe in global warming. The lame play to name storms is kinda like the Brady Bunch adding Oliver to the cast for the last season to try to gain something back...

That wasn't what Heidi Cullen said. She had a reasonable response to a question from a broadcast meteorologist who said that he didn't know how to address climate science on air.

Other things from the thread:

- NWS forecasters are pretty well paid. Less than some of the energy mets, but more than Accuweather and probably the Weather Channel and other private forecasting shops which are "blessed" with an oversupply of degreed mets and can pay very little. My starting salary less than a decade ago was $26k. I bailed on that line of work.

- Probability of precipitation is very misunderstood. 30% chance of rain means that 30% of the time with the same atmospheric conditions it will rain. Not 30% of the area or 30% of the period of forecast.


One would have to be pretty farking dim not to understand that.

Just saying.
 
2012-12-30 11:40:01 PM

YouSirAreAMaroon: Fallout Zone: - Probability of precipitation is very misunderstood. 30% chance of rain means that 30% of the time with the same atmospheric conditions it will rain. Not 30% of the area or 30% of the period of forecast.

One would have to be pretty farking dim not to understand that.

Just saying.



It depends on whom you ask.

NOAA

Wikipedia

About.com

I've heard all of these and more from supposedly authoritative sources. I think the real answer is "whichever definition was most accurate for the day in question."
 
2012-12-31 12:10:42 AM
i54.tinypic.com

The weather service has upgraded this blizzard from "Winter Wonderland" to a Class III kill storm...
 
2012-12-31 12:11:53 AM

20/20: My main complaint with weather reporting is too much of it. My local stations hit us over and over with relentless warnings and crawlers at the slightest hint of a "storm." Why they think we need the same information every fricking minute is beyond me.


the local stations crawlers are quiet. TWC has this annoying buzzer thing. leaving the tv on TWC with the volume turned up during inclement weather can be, well annoying.
 
2012-12-31 12:51:43 AM

Nem Wan: The TV executive who thought this up is that special kind of stupid that thinks it's genius. Or, actually clever and tough but cynical and self-interested to a fault.


It is brilliant. No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. With cross media ownership they can possibly get some support from their news and sports programming affiliations legitimizing the naming scheme. CNN is probably pissed that they didn't come up with it themselves but might play along so they can hype their weather reporting. Personify simple things to be able to hype them way more. It makes the trivial important. It's why people care more about the Guppy after they name it. Arrogant - Yes. Self serving - yes. Brilliant - yes. Time will tell if it sticks.

This is really so much win in the sick, sad, twisted, dystopian infotainment horrorscape that is our news.
 
2012-12-31 01:42:59 AM

uncleacid: Turning on the Weather Channel has become like turning on MTV and expecting music.


This.

Except doesn't MTV play music from 3am to 9am or something? I haven't turned to MTV in years, and I am never watching TV then anyway.

But whatever. Show Ice Farking Pilots all you want, but show the local on the 8s you jack-holes. And if you have to break in to the 900th airing of Katrina Revisited, DO IT! Do you really think people are going to be all 'fark this channel, man, if I wanted weather, I'd be watching the weather channel, man."
 
2012-12-31 10:01:25 AM

cmunic8r99: Those are just as dumb as the "superstorm" moniker for Hurricane Sandy.


except that one kinda made sense since when it hit the east coast you had two storms (one tropical, one subtropical) colliding and combining their forces. The Voltron of Storms.
 
2012-12-31 11:09:17 AM

Kazan: cmunic8r99: Those are just as dumb as the "superstorm" moniker for Hurricane Sandy.

except that one kinda made sense since when it hit the east coast you had two storms (one tropical, one subtropical) colliding and combining their forces. The Voltron of Storms.


Makes sense, with Jersey being the Robeast.
 
2012-12-31 12:39:01 PM
But, but they have weather personalities! Intellicast or NWS/NOAA FTW.
 
Displayed 111 of 111 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report