Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

11929 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2012 at 3:48 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report