Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    15,331
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    doubleohwhatever
    Newest Member
    doubleohwhatever
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
phlwx

TWC going to name winter storms this winter

Recommended Posts

as a red tagger said above, TWC cannot put the names in government issued watches/warning text. Only NWS can do that, and they are not the ones doing the naming :)

Ahh ok I didnt see that post until i scrolled back up. Still though, this naming thing is useless. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh ok I didnt see that post until i scrolled back up. Still though, this naming thing is useless. ;)

meh :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If TWC really wants to help categorize winter storms, they can name them postmortem. Naming a winter storm during it's developing stage implies the storm will become very strong or debilitating. It conveys to the public something like: "Oh watch out folks, WS Dracon is now forming off to the west!". If the storm turns out to be a relative dud, it was just unneeded drama added to catch folks' attention in order to gain money.

But aren't named tropical systems that turn out to be "duds" in terms of impact kind of viewed the same way? By the public at least?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TWC has already replaced the local HGX zone forecasts on the "Local on the 8's" section with their own forecasts, which suffer badly in nowcast situations, who is to say TWC won't insert wording with their goofy names into zone forecasts?

And NHC uses the same convention naming fish as they do storms hitting the US. They might be a bit slower pulling the trigger on a system out at 40ºW than an apparent depression in the Gulf, and Joe Bastardi may argue with them about certain named and unnamed storms, and the sub-tropical storms leave a little too much wiggle room for my comfort, but that at least have standards they can reference. A 4 inch storm in Chicago that wouldn't be named while a 4 inch storm South of the Mason-Dixon line would sounds like BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But aren't named tropical systems that turn out to be "duds" in terms of impact kind of viewed the same way? By the public at least?

When a tropical system is approaching shore, there is either a watch or a warning out. The NHC's warnings have verified well over the years and I imagine most folks living on the coast take a hurricane warning pretty seriously these days. The "duds" would most likely be areas where a hurricane watch was issued and not much impact was had. Perhaps some people in these areas weren't quite sure what a watch meant, but I imagine most coastal folks know the difference.

There are too many intangibles with naming a winter storm and the associated possible public perception or confusion as has been discussed greatly in this thread already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would there be this much negativity if it was HPC doing it and not TWC?

There would probably be scientific standards, and if they did somehow weight population potentially affected, the system would probably be transparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would probably be scientific standards, and if they did somehow weight population potentially affected, the system would probably be transparent.

Ok. My point is, there wouldn't be so much negativity with it, if it wasn't TWC doing it. If HPC had come out today and said we are going to be naming winter storms from this winter moving forward, here are our guidelines... I have a feeling many here who are saying its silly, wouldn't be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would there be this much negativity if it was HPC doing it and not TWC?

There would still be the objective criteria to overcome. That's what this is about. Who says what storm should be named? And what does it mean if it is named? It's different than tropical systems, where a name is given once the storm reaches an objective measurable criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would still be the objective criteria to overcome. That's what this is about. Who says what storm should be named? And what does it mean if it is named? It's different than tropical systems, where a name is given once the storm reaches an objective measurable criteria.

And that's fair - has TWC come out with answers to this yet? They must have some set of rules they plan on following when issuing names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would storms that dumped big snows in Orange County, and outside the 128 corridor but rained in New York and Boston get named?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's fair - has TWC come out with answers to this yet? They must have some set of rules they plan on following when issuing names.

I can only imagine. I see a lot of room for drama, hedging and subjectivity to creep in. Perhaps an objective study would help...but that would still not account for the moderately unpredictable nature of winter storms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's fair - has TWC come out with answers to this yet? They must have some set of rules they plan on following when issuing names.

I'd have more faith in HPC than TWC to develop consistent and transparent standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off topic but related question? If SPC issues tornado probs within a 25 mile radius, and TWC's Dr. Forbes issue tornado probs within a 50 mile radius, other than the TorCon being an integer that should be about 4 times higher than the equivalent SPC number as a percentage because of the greater area ( a 6 instead of 15%), how is TorCon anything but repackaged SPC tornado probs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would still be the objective criteria to overcome. That's what this is about.

It is also about private encroachment upon government purview: communication about risks to public safety. This is just yet another case in which our amorphous, ill-defined "public-private partnership" in the weather game invites inappropriate behavior by business in areas touching on public policy. We should not have private businesses setting public policy, or setting anything that might ever be confused for public policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That belongs in PR, and before this gets deleted, GE is a big supporter of 'green energy', and their NBC affiliated stations push it hard. MSNBC of Maddow fame is part of the Romney team?

how so? the fact that NBC/comcast owns them as well is not a secret. and when people mention profit motives and such, why not mention all who would profit? especially when some other media outlet potentially uses the names. could there be potential trademark/copyright issues/lawsuits if say a competing company uses a similar system, or reports on a system named by TWC? and if the NWS were to adopt this after such a trademark/copyright is taken out, will the government have to pay said company to adopt such a system?

besides, this naming system just seems to me like a setup for people remembering the busts more than remembering the hits. when a big storm hits, their coverage was already good, and adding a name to the storm won't raise awareness, imho. just add silliness to it. I know of plenty of times where there was hype like crazy and then at the last minute you see all the weather weenies wanting to jump off a 10 story building because a last minute change put them in the dry slot instead of a foot. and if a storm is truly historic, they already remember it without adding a name to it.

and finally, for the B-storm, why couldn't it have been Boreas instead of Brutus? Boreas is the king of the winter kingdom after all, at least according to the legend for the St Paul Winter Carnival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also about private encroachment upon government purview: communication about risks to public safety. This is just yet another case in which our amorphous, ill-defined "public-private partnership" in the weather game invites inappropriate behavior by business in areas touching on public policy. We should not have private businesses setting public policy, or setting anything that might ever be confused for public policy.

That's a good point. Even tho they are not setting official policy our guidelines, a good portion of the public would probably not know that and assume TWC, or whoever, was issuing an official safety product. It can get confusing real quick when government and private products differ greatly. More confusion about weather watches/warnings etc are the last thing people need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would there be this much negativity if it was HPC doing it and not TWC?

Im sure there would be negativity but then again you are comparing two different type of companies. I would tend to think if the HPC did this first they would have a guideline to say this is the criteria for naming a snowstorm. whereas TWC just threw out a name list and not much else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would still be the objective criteria to overcome. That's what this is about. Who says what storm should be named? And what does it mean if it is named? It's different than tropical systems, where a name is given once the storm reaches an objective measurable criteria.

I like the idea but I don't like that TWC came up with it. They say the main reason is to "raise awareness" which it will but it's more a marketing campaign than anything. Keep in mind who they are owned by, guaranteed they will charge every news station and news paper for using their naming convention. Had the NWS or HPC come up with a naming convention it would be "open source" for all to use freely. I think that if TWC wants to have any credibility in the meteorology world they should absolutely make strict guidelines for naming based upon measurable criteria rather than strictly on "potential impact". Hell most of these storms are over land, it should be twice as easy to measure and classify these storms than tropical ones. I think the potential impact of snow/ice combined with min pressure/pressure gradient or max winds should make pretty good criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and finally, for the B-storm, why couldn't it have been Boreas instead of Brutus? Boreas is the king of the winter kingdom after all, at least according to the legend for the St Paul Winter Carnival.

As far as the names went... seems to me they were thinking of what was familiar in popular culture...

Athena (Battlestar Galactica)

Draco (Harry Potter)

Gandolf (Lord of the Rings)

Khan (Star Trek)

Nemo (that Disney show)

Q (Star Trek)

Rocky (Rocky)

Yogi (The Bear)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure there would be negativity but then again you are comparing two different type of companies. I would tend to think if the HPC did this first they would have a guideline to say this is the criteria for naming a snowstorm. whereas TWC just threw out a name list and not much else.

I cannot imagine TWC is NOT going to have some sort of guideline to how they issue names. They can't name Every. Single. Storm. that drops a inch of snow all winter long, that would indeed be very silly.

I would hope that they would release their guidelines on how they come to the decision to name a system.

As far as the names went... seems to me they were thinking of what was familiar in popular culture...

Athena (Battlestar Galactica)

Draco (Harry Potter)

Gandolf (Lord of the Rings)

Khan (Star Trek)

Nemo (that Disney show)

Q (Star Trek)

Rocky (Rocky)

Yogi (The Bear)

:wub: BSG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a tropical system is approaching shore, there is either a watch or a warning out. The NHC's warnings have verified well over the years and I imagine most folks living on the coast take a hurricane warning pretty seriously these days. The "duds" would most likely be areas where a hurricane watch was issued and not much impact was had. Perhaps some people in these areas weren't quite sure what a watch meant, but I imagine most coastal folks know the difference.

There are too many intangibles with naming a winter storm and the associated possible public perception or confusion as has been discussed greatly in this thread already.

I can see that, but the general public is easily confused by (or just doesn't care enough about) most weather warnings, to be perfectly honest.

As long as specific criteria is used, I think naming winter storms could work. For instance, if a storm meets blizzard qualifications (or is imminently forecast to), name it. Perhaps if there is a high probability of 12"+ snow or major ice accumulation effecting at least one major metro area, name it.

The main thing would be not to name storms loosely, and only save the naming for very significant events that could endanger/seriously impact a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea but I don't like that TWC came up with it. They say the main reason is to "raise awareness" which it will but it's more a marketing campaign than anything. Keep in mind who they are owned by, guaranteed they will charge every news station and news paper for using their naming convention. Had the NWS or HPC come up with a naming convention it would be "open source" for all to use freely. I think that if TWC wants to have any credibility in the meteorology world they should absolutely make strict guidelines for naming based upon measurable criteria rather than strictly on "potential impact". Hell most of these storms are over land, it should be twice as easy to measure and classify these storms than tropical ones. I think the potential impact of snow/ice combined with min pressure/pressure gradient or max winds should make pretty good criteria.

So you're saying name the storm once it strengthens and is producing dangerous weather? What would be the point in that? A little late. As far as forecasting a name...there are winter storms that behave very similarly and have excellent analogs, model support, etc., yet one may produce significant wintry precip and the other only advisory level criteria. I don't know what could be measured to access the threat objectively. If there was something like that, we'd be using it. Winter storms are generally over-forecasted as the NWS would rather not miss a storm than miss one. Hence a high POD at the expense of a higher FAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most sensible thing would be to issue if a storm reached a certain percentage of the annual snowfall... i.e. if it was forecast to drop 3 inches of snow in a place where the normal is 9, then name it... or, if it was forecast to drop 24" where the normal is 72", name it. Of course, making that analysis is difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot imagine TWC is NOT going to have some sort of guideline to how they issue names. They can't name Every. Single. Storm. that drops a inch of snow all winter long, that would indeed be very silly.

I would hope that they would release their guidelines on how they come to the decision to name a system.

The point is that we live in a massive country with large population centers in many different locations. I'd assume that an inch on a farm in Wisconsin Rapids is probably not name-worthy to TWC, but where do we draw the line? Are we going to be naming winter storms in Anchorage too? That's part of the U.S. as well. As it's written currently, this is nothing more than a publicity stunt and attempt to gain brand awareness. There needs to be a tangible set of measurable parameters in order for this to be somewhat legitimate. It can't just be a bunch of mets at TWC deciding what is important.

Here's another thing we don't know...when exactly are they going to name these things? How many times have we seen a ton of hype going into a potential Miller-B type system three days out (within their cone of name-ability) and the models 24 hours later slide south and eastward and take it harmlessly out to sea? Are they naming this system before it even gets its act together at three days out? According to their press release, that's a possibility. Or, are they issuing a name only after it's bombing out at sub 990 off of Montauk and people are getting nailed? If we're naming a winter storm just on potential, then I can't see this working out well.

With that said, we now return to coverage of Winter Storm Nemo brought to you by Finding Nemo 3D, now available on blue ray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New UV Index

10 Jalapeño

9 Cayenne

8 Fireball

7 Redhot

6 Paprika

5 Parsley

4 Menthol

3 Oatmeal

2 White Bread

1 Slurpee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that we live in a massive country with large population centers in many different locations. I'd assume that an inch on a farm in Wisconsin Rapids is probably not name-worthy to TWC, but where do we draw the line? Are we going to be naming winter storms in Anchorage too? That's the U.S. as well. As it's written currently, this is nothing more than a publicity stunt and attempt to gain brand awareness. It is completely subjective.

Here's another thing we don't know...when the hell are they going to name these things? How many times have we seen a ton of hype going into a potential Miller-B type system three days out (within their cone of name-ability) and the models 24 hours later slide south and eastward and harmlessly out to sea. Are they naming this before it even gets its act together? Or only after it's bombing out a sub 990 off of Montauk? If we're naming a winter storm just on potential, then I can't see this working out well.

With that said, we now return to coverage of Winter Storm Nemo brought to you by Finding Nemo 3D, now available on blue ray. Remember to follow TWC on twitter to get the latest information!

lol @ the over reaction

why don't you and the other naysayers be patience and give TWC a chance to release guidelines. If they never do, and all this other crap that you say is going to happen, actually happens, then by all means rip them to shreds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying name the storm once it strengthens and is producing dangerous weather? What would be the point in that? A little late. As far as forecasting a name...there are winter storms that behave very similarly and have excellent analogs, model support, etc., yet one may produce significant wintry precip and the other only advisory level criteria. I don't know what could be measured to access the threat objectively. If there was something like that, we'd be using it. Winter storms are generally over-forecasted as the NWS would rather not miss a storm than miss one. Hence a high POD at the expense of a higher FAR.

With most truly serious winter storms these days, it is pretty clear at least 1-2 days in advance that it will be just that. Obviously there are localized events that are difficult to forecast in advance, but that's not what this would pertain to.

And you know, sometimes maybe the name wouldn't be given until it's actually occurring and it has become obvious that it's a big deal. That's what the media generally does anyway, but with lame names like "Snowpocalypse" or "Winter Blast 2012".

The main thing would be that there would need to be a high level of certainty that the storm was going to very significant/impactful. I don't think naming winter storms even a day or two in advance would have worked very well even 10-15 years ago, but models have advanced to the point that there are rarely large-scale surprises within 24-48 hours (obviously there are plenty of storms where you don't know how it will effect your backyard exactly, but it's usually pretty clear from a regional perspective when a major storm is about to hit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×