TWC going to name winter storms this winter

[hm8]

So yeah, significant differences can and often do happen with snowfall forecasts.

Fair enough.

Is that so?

That's how I'm seeing it.

[Geos]

I think if there going to do this right - they need to set strict criteria. There is many more snow systems then there is named tropical systems. I would not name Clippers really (not the typical ones at least), or Lake Effect snow events. I think good criteria points should involve storm pressure, area covered by wintry side of the storm, and lastly amount of people affected. The naming idea is good especially to replace these lame titles such as snowmageddon and snowpaclypse. The storms may be more memorable if a "name" is attached to it.

More confusion for the public? I really don't think so - at least for most people. I think most people follow the weather to a degree everyday. Named tropical systems can be confusing to some people too - they can change track, weaken, etc. And particularly if there is more than one named system occurring at any given time. I think TWC needs to hold off on naming a winter storm until it is almost in progress. Naming a system way out in the North Pacific for example, would be too early - too many risky bust scenarios to weigh at that point.

[tacoman25]

Just one quick example...

"The local guy on ABC is calling for a winter storm, but didn't say anything about the name I heard on The Weather Channel this morning. Are they talking about two different storms? Why isn't the guy on ABC calling it Winter Storm Brutus? Did the forecast change so much that they decided to take the name away?"

The general public might be weather-stupid, but I think most people are smart enough to figure out that if two weathermen are talking about a big storm for their area at the same time, it's probably the same storm.

It's not like every local media outlets always use the same nick-names for every storm/winter event anyway.

[johnc]

People still watch TWC?

They have this thing called teh Internets now.

[Shawn]

This idea would be good if they had criteria for each zone of the country. By the length of the list, it seems that they are going to try and name every little storm regardless of location. What happens if there are 3 or 4 systems within a week? Do we get name1, name2, name3, etc? That seems very confusing to the viewers. I hope the names are only for storms that actually cause major damages and or state shutdowns. Just like it's always been without a name list that they name after the fact. That would fix the previous issue.

[somethingfunny]

I see a Winter Storm Warning in the Dakotas/Minnesota and no named winter storm. They're undermining themselves already.

[baroclinic_instability]

I see a Winter Storm Warning in the Dakotas/Minnesota and no named winter storm. They're undermining themselves already.

They did hint that they would not name storms in the middle of nowhere, but this is not a surprise. They won't waste the name/letter/hype on storms that won't garner any media attention.

[somethingfunny]

I'm of the opinion that we all ought to arbitrarily name it Athena and start giving social media updates about it using the hashtag #athena. That way when they actually get around to naming something, people searching for information on "Athena" would find conflicting information about different storms. Bring the whole thing crashing down.

If they were even halfway serious about this scheme they'd have named the Northern Plains system. After all, Alberto didn't affect anybody. A winter storm is a winter storm.

It's got so many flaws that have been well documented in this thread, but I think we ought to be actively mocking and undermining this idiotic plot. Get the word out about Athena!

[HurricaneJosh]

A nicely laid out opinion by someone with meteorology/social science experience in the WAS*IS research program. http://digitalmeteor...-naming-storms/

I just read this, and I agree with others-- it's a good piece. This paragraph was especially interesting:

When that first storm does gets named, local stations (and other national media outlets) will be forced to deal with viewers and website users who have watched TWC’s coverage or picked up the name from friends, co-workers, or fellow Facebook and Twitter users. Nowis the time to decide – at an outlet-wide level – whether to adopt the name given the storm by TWC or ignore it partially or completely. Going along with the name will certainly provide a measure of consistency between the provider, TWC, and others who choose to use the name. However, it’s also an acceptance of TWC’s categorization of the storm and their assertion they have the authority to make that categorization for the broader community. Ignoring the name could potentially cause confusion (and will in any event reduce the consistency and harmony of communication for the end user), but it could be interpreted as a rejection of TWC’s authority to set the agenda and determine the vocabulary for the rest of us.

The only way this will help simplify and enhance communication about storm threats is if everyone else (NWS, AccuWeather, local stations that aren't NBC-affiliated, etc.) accepts TWC's unilateral leadership around this-- and I just don't see why they would. Generally, in any business arena, competitive brands don't cooperate when one tries to assert control over the market-- instead, they compete. Everyone accepts the NHC's unilateral leadership around hurricane classification/naming because it's a not-for-profit government agency specifically designated for this purpose-- not to generate ratings, clicks, revenue, buzz, or related merchandise.

Very curious to see how this plays out.

[heavy_wx]

I got this email forwarded by one of my met professors from Tom Niziol, the weather channel's winter weather expert.

"Greetings,

I am writing to you because you are a friend and colleague. I realize yesterday's news that The Weather Channel will be naming winter storms this season has come as a surprise to many in the science community. I cannot and will not comment on whether or not NOAA/NWS should have been consulted before TWC went public with this effort. I can however comment on some concerns that have come from the science community regarding the basis for naming a winter storm. I want to make colleagues aware that this is not a flippant decision made by a marketing person, rather a fully evaluated process vetted through a team of meteorologists using a combination of objective and subjective guidance parameters to reach our decision. I encourage you to share what I have written below with the meteorology community.

At the outset, I want to reiterate that our goal is to communicate High Impact events to the public. Unfortunately, the variables that produce those impacts in winter storms can be inumerable and many have nothing to do with meteorology (eg. time of day, day of week). At TWC communication of weather information is a priority and the basis for all that is communicated weather-wise is a pragmatic, science based consensus approach. To that end, the responsibility of naming a storm will always rest with the meteorology group. For those not aware of that group, it is composed of a large team of meteorologists, apart from our operational forecast team, who like many of you get together on a daily basis for an in-depth map discussion to make decisions by consensus. They have been directly involved in the Winter Storm Naming project as well.

TWC has been working on the Winter Storm Naming effort for over a year now and I was made aware of that fact when I was hired in January of this year. As with any science-based endeavor, the project began with a full literature review regarding winter storm impacts and indices to rank storms. I will not get into the details at this point but to alleviate other meteorologists concerns I will provide the Readers Digest version. Much of the development work is based in part on excellent work done by Paul Kocin and Louis Uccellini on Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS), similar work in the ReSIS project by NCDC and Cerutti and Decker's Local Winter Storm Scale (LLWS). From those resources we have developed a simple set of basic objective forecast parameters including snowfall/ice accumulation and wind speed which are weighted in similar ways to what is done in the referenced material to develop a potential "index" for the winter weather system. That gives us a basis for further consideration, then more subjective parameters are evaluated. At the end of the process the team makes a decision to name or not to name. Due to the inherent nature of winter weather systems, storms will not be named more than 72 hours in advance of the timeframes when high impacts are forecast to begin. There will be some cases when that window might be reduced to less than 24 hour notice, and yes, there may even be cases where the decision to name is made as the event is in progress. Many of us who have had the pleasure/challenge of sitting at the operational forecast desk have all been there, but it is the nature of the game, we have to have some level of confidence before making the decision to name.

This process is not perfect by any means. Yes, winter weather systems are very different from tropical systems. TWC will most certainly have successes and failures with the effort. At some point in the future, there could be more collaboration by the entire meteorology community inlcuding NOAA. I cannot comment on that now. I did however want to communicate to my colleagues that although the process to name a storm may not be as rigorous a science-based effort as some would like to see, it is a process that incorporates components from the best published materials on the topic with a main goal to communicate overall impact. TWC will provide more information soon and I am always open to comments and suggestions from my peers.

Tom Niziol"

[isohume]

This process is not perfect by any means. Yes, winter weather systems are very different from tropical systems. TWC will most certainly have successes and failures with the effort. At some point in the future, there could be more collaboration by the entire meteorology community inlcuding NOAA. I cannot comment on that now. I did however want to communicate to my colleagues that although the process to name a storm may not be as rigorous a science-based effort as some would like to see, it is a process that incorporates components from the best published materials on the topic with a main goal to communicate overall impact. TWC will provide more information soon and I am always open to comments and suggestions from my peers.

Tom Niziol"

In other words...the science isn't there, but we're going to go ahead and do it anyway.

[Rainshadow]

In other words...the science isn't there, but we're going to go ahead and do it anyway.

That's weather-biz. Beside the fact, those corporate suits in NYC are going to want those names out pronto, not in the middle of the event.

I'm curious as what happens with the defacto historical naming of a very high impact event after the fact. e.g. The Boxing Day Storm, etc.

What about local television networks (I'm assuming if they are non-NBC affiliates otherwise they may have to stop) that already name storms for their local area? Yeah I would think people would realize they are talking about the same event, but why no names, why two different names?

Do NBC affiliated meteorologists then have to use the "name" too?

[usedtobe]

That's weather-biz. Beside the fact, those corporate suits in NYC are going to want those names out pronto, not in the middle of the event.

I'm curious as what happens with the defacto historical naming of a very high impact event after the fact. e.g. The Boxing Day Storm, etc.

What about local television networks (I'm assuming if they are non-NBC affiliates otherwise they may have to stop) that already name storms for their local area? Yeah I would think people would realize they are talking about the same event, but why no names, why two different names?

Do NBC affiliated meteorologists then have to use the "name" too?

The blog that noted it was primarily a branding and marketing ploy has it right in my view. Tom is a good guy but his explanation of the methodology still suggests the system will be highly subjective but will be aimed at the larger possible KU type mahnitude storms. I think naming the storms after the fact has more merit as you can get the pulic involved in the naming. You don't need a name to forecast a major event. No one was surprised by the Feb 5-6 storm except maybe a few of our northern members when the storms stayed to their south. There is no real need for a name prior to the storm, if it is a big one the locals will give it a name after the fact.

[ezweather]

Very good topic to debate about. I think this will add to a lot of confusion if its not done correctly. Its okay to try something experimental, as long as you can layout a clear plan on how your going to do it. Just as a reference, here's the two scales..I know these get into intensity rating. I guess the key is what would constitute giving a winter storm a name.

Tried to paste in the tables, but got all messed up....I'll just provide the links instead...

Saffir-Simpson

http://www.comet.ucar.edu/nsflab/web/hurricane/314.htm

NESIS categories

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/rsi/nesis

The only way they are going to name a winter storm if its going to a widespread event. If the models are showing a really strong signal. Then you get into certain parts of the US, such as the deep south, where 3 inches is a big deal. The other thing, what about ice storms. All I can say is good luck to the Weather Channel on this one. I remember Glenn at NBC10 in Phlly tried it, but only lasted one winter. I be curious to hear Glenn's feedback on this topic.

Anyway, let's see how it goes.

[famartin]

TWC has been working on the Winter Storm Naming effort for over a year now and I was made aware of that fact when I was hired in January of this year.

This was the most telling part for me... essentially he says this was not his idea. Smart move to distance himself from the origins of this.

[Rainshadow]

Very good topic to debate about. I think this will add to a lot of confusion if its not done correctly. Its okay to try something experimental, as long as you can layout a clear plan on how your going to do it. Just as a reference, here's the two scales..I know these get into intensity rating. I guess the key is what would constitute giving a winter storm a name.

Tried to paste in the tables, but got all messed up....I'll just provide the links instead...

Saffir-Simpson

http://www.comet.uca...rricane/314.htm

NESIS categories

http://www.ncdc.noaa...d-ice/rsi/nesis

The only way they are going to name a winter storm if its going to a widespread event. If the models are showing a really strong signal. Then you get into certain parts of the US, such as the deep south, where 3 inches is a big deal. The other thing, what about ice storms. All I can say is good luck to the Weather Channel on this one. I remember Glenn at NBC10 in Phlly tried it, but only lasted one winter. I be curious to hear Glenn's feedback on this topic.

Anyway, let's see how it goes.

John,

Post 274, Glenn made a couple of other posts too.

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1770739

[LocoAko]

People still watch TWC?

They have this thing called teh Internets now.

.... where huge quantities of people go weather.com.

[Ed Lizard]

I can however comment on some concerns that have come from the science community regarding the basis for naming a winter storm. I want to make colleagues aware that this is not a flippant decision made by a marketing person, rather a fully evaluated process vetted through a team of meteorologists using a combination of objective and subjective guidance parameters to reach our decision.

But back on the front page, subjective included population impacts, and regional differences (Atlanta was mentioned as where 2" would trigger a name), so subjective seems to imply what would be a life threatening snow storm that would be named in New York might not be named in, say, the Upper Pensinsula. Would a Blizzard Watch trigger an automatic name, ie, TWC would be following local offices?

A Wyoming blizzard watch even? Narrow LES bands? Since Oswego is smaller, would they need more snow than Buffalo to get a named system from TWC? Any freezing drizzle event? Bridges and overpasses only, or must it stick everywhere. And crashing on ice is different in Atlanta than Philadelphia somehow?

These are all supposedly big ticket storms, so do the cute Disney character names get replaced each time they are used? Or do we start talking about the Brutus of 2013 and also the Brutus of 2015?

Will TWC have a tendency to jump the gun? The reply mentioned even nowcasted systems, but that is a lost marketing opportunity. Name too many busts and they'll be Khan fatigue...

More questons than answers.

[tacoman25]

But back on the front page, subjective included population impacts, and regional differences (Atlanta was mentioned as where 2" would trigger a name), so subjective seems to imply what would be a life threatening snow storm that would be named in New York might not be named in, say, the Upper Pensinsula. Would a Blizzard Watch trigger an automatic name, ie, TWC would be following local offices?

A Wyoming blizzard watch even? Narrow LES bands? Since Oswego is smaller, would they need more snow than Buffalo to get a named system from TWC? Any freezing drizzle event? Bridges and overpasses only, or must it stick everywhere. And crashing on ice is different in Atlanta than Philadelphia somehow?

These are all supposedly big ticket storms, so do the cute Disney character names get replaced each time they are used? Or do we start talking about the Brutus of 2013 and also the Brutus of 2015?

Will TWC have a tendency to jump the gun? The reply mentioned even nowcasted systems, but that is a lost marketing opportunity. Name too many busts and they'll be Khan fatigue...

More questons than answers.

I can tell you right now, it will probably be easy to know which storms are going to be named. If it's a major storm that has been showing up in the models and people on this forum have been getting excited about it, it will be a very good candidate to be a named storm.

If people on here aren't following it, it probably won't get a name.

[famartin]

I can tell you right now, it will probably be easy to know which storms are going to be named. If it's a major storm that has been showing up in the models and people on this forum have been getting excited about it, it will be a very good candidate to be a named storm.

If people on here aren't following it, it probably won't get a name.

Some people on the board follow a chance of flurries

[tacoman25]

Some people on the board follow a chance of flurries

Well, the point was that weather weenies know when a big storm is coming because they follow the models. The storms that get the most discussion on here are the ones that have the biggest impact and effect the most people. And I'm sure that's the bottom line standard that TWC will use. The storms that get the big hype will get names.

[Geos]

Well, the point was that weather weenies know when a big storm is coming because they follow the models. The storms that get the most discussion on here are the ones that have the biggest impact and effect the most people. And I'm sure that's the bottom line standard that TWC will use. The storms that get the big hype will get names.

That's a good conclusion and I agree. The big storms; especially the comma shaped storms, will get the names.

...Last year there was plenty of people tracking flurries, because there was nothing else to track most of the time! lol

[famartin]

That's a good conclusion and I agree. The big storms; especially the comma shaped storms, will get the names.

...Last year there was plenty of people tracking flurries, because there was nothing else to track most of the time! lol

I'm waiting to see one of those plains storms that produces tornadoes and heavy snow all in one get a name... and then headlines will read "Winter Storm Q to produce widespread tornadoes today!"

[hurricaneschwartz]

I got this email forwarded by one of my met professors from Tom Niziol, the weather channel's winter weather expert.

"Greetings,

I am writing to you because you are a friend and colleague. I realize yesterday's news that The Weather Channel will be naming winter storms this season has come as a surprise to many in the science community. I cannot and will not comment on whether or not NOAA/NWS should have been consulted before TWC went public with this effort. I can however comment on some concerns that have come from the science community regarding the basis for naming a winter storm. I want to make colleagues aware that this is not a flippant decision made by a marketing person, rather a fully evaluated process vetted through a team of meteorologists using a combination of objective and subjective guidance parameters to reach our decision. I encourage you to share what I have written below with the meteorology community.

At the outset, I want to reiterate that our goal is to communicate High Impact events to the public. Unfortunately, the variables that produce those impacts in winter storms can be inumerable and many have nothing to do with meteorology (eg. time of day, day of week). At TWC communication of weather information is a priority and the basis for all that is communicated weather-wise is a pragmatic, science based consensus approach. To that end, the responsibility of naming a storm will always rest with the meteorology group. For those not aware of that group, it is composed of a large team of meteorologists, apart from our operational forecast team, who like many of you get together on a daily basis for an in-depth map discussion to make decisions by consensus. They have been directly involved in the Winter Storm Naming project as well.

TWC has been working on the Winter Storm Naming effort for over a year now and I was made aware of that fact when I was hired in January of this year. As with any science-based endeavor, the project began with a full literature review regarding winter storm impacts and indices to rank storms. I will not get into the details at this point but to alleviate other meteorologists concerns I will provide the Readers Digest version. Much of the development work is based in part on excellent work done by Paul Kocin and Louis Uccellini on Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS), similar work in the ReSIS project by NCDC and Cerutti and Decker's Local Winter Storm Scale (LLWS). From those resources we have developed a simple set of basic objective forecast parameters including snowfall/ice accumulation and wind speed which are weighted in similar ways to what is done in the referenced material to develop a potential "index" for the winter weather system. That gives us a basis for further consideration, then more subjective parameters are evaluated. At the end of the process the team makes a decision to name or not to name. Due to the inherent nature of winter weather systems, storms will not be named more than 72 hours in advance of the timeframes when high impacts are forecast to begin. There will be some cases when that window might be reduced to less than 24 hour notice, and yes, there may even be cases where the decision to name is made as the event is in progress. Many of us who have had the pleasure/challenge of sitting at the operational forecast desk have all been there, but it is the nature of the game, we have to have some level of confidence before making the decision to name.

This process is not perfect by any means. Yes, winter weather systems are very different from tropical systems. TWC will most certainly have successes and failures with the effort. At some point in the future, there could be more collaboration by the entire meteorology community inlcuding NOAA. I cannot comment on that now. I did however want to communicate to my colleagues that although the process to name a storm may not be as rigorous a science-based effort as some would like to see, it is a process that incorporates components from the best published materials on the topic with a main goal to communicate overall impact. TWC will provide more information soon and I am always open to comments and suggestions from my peers.

Tom Niziol"

If this is a serious, semi-scientific effort, why would they choose such stupid names? Those names are anything but serious. I'd like to know who's idea it was to use these names.

Glenn

[dryslotted]

If this is a serious, semi-scientific effort, why would they choose such stupid names? Those names are anything but serious. I'd like to know who's idea it was to use these names.

Glenn

I honestly thought it was from The Onion when I first saw the graphic posted with all the names...

[Jim Marusak]

ok folks. so how will this debate rage on at the upcoming national weather meetings coming up (the NWA next week in Madison and the AMS meeting in New Orleans coming up in January)? we see accu-weather's views, views in here and other weather chat places apparently, TWC's views, and support for either side.

how do we see this hashed out between the two top professional weather organizations? and what happens if one of the organizations goes one and the other one goes the other direction? or what if they both agree on this issue, one side or another?

[wxmeddler]

ok folks. so how will this debate rage on at the upcoming national weather meetings coming up (the NWA next week in Madison and the AMS meeting in New Orleans coming up in January)? we see accu-weather's views, views in here and other weather chat places apparently, TWC's views, and support for either side.

how do we see this hashed out between the two top professional weather organizations? and what happens if one of the organizations goes one and the other one goes the other direction? or what if they both agree on this issue, one side or another?

I don't see it as a debate about the decision from TWC itself, as more of a "Well now what?". Broadcast Meteorologists and media entities need to decide if they are going to play along with TWC's game or dismiss TWC all together and keep doing what their doing. Whatever the decision is, it needs to be unanimous for the sake of the public, for reasons stated in the thread. The public is going to be very confused if half of the market area they are in calls a storm by TWC's name and the other as a generic.

[phil882]

I got this email forwarded by one of my met professors from Tom Niziol, the weather channel's winter weather expert.

Unfortunately, the variables that produce those impacts in winter storms can be inumerable and many have nothing to do with meteorology (eg. time of day, day of week).

I would like him to explain how time of day has nothing to do with meteorology... In fact one would view the time of day as a primary driving force on a multitude of meteorological processes that occur within the atmosphere. If Tom really wants to make a scientifically based argument, statements like this aren't helping his cause.

At some point in the future, there could be more collaboration by the entire meteorology community inlcuding NOAA.

Why not before? Other than the obvious desire to become the naming authority to establish brand ownership on winter weather.

If this is a serious, semi-scientific effort, why would they choose such stupid names? Those names are anything but serious. I'd like to know who's idea it was to use these names.

Exactly. In fact, the press release that was given with the names implies anything but a scientific method being applied here. Its difficult to make the statement Tom is arguing in his email, when TWC's press release reveals the network's true intentions.

it might even be fun and entertaining and that in itself should breed interest from our viewing public and our digital users. For all of these reasons, the time is right to introduce this concept for the winter season of 2012-13.

[calm_days]

I honestly thought it was from The Onion when I first saw the graphic posted with all the names...

If this is a serious, semi-scientific effort, why would they choose such stupid names? Those names are anything but serious. I'd like to know who's idea it was to use these names. Glenn

Yes. The "Why" article/essay that they wanted to give the storms personalities, which is not the point with hurricane names. Severe weather needs to be communicated effectively, not given actual human characteristics, especially the characteristics of ... oppressive rulers and conquerers from human history, nor of ancient sky deities.

The very good thing is that we are mere steps away from using a site like Change.org to make a petition asking them to try again with the list of names.

There is a lot of support even for the idea that they should not go forward with naming storms at all.

Change.org petitions can accomplish a great deal and TWC would be very brazen to dismiss a largely supported petition. I am sure that NWS and NOAA would like to start a petition but are waiting for citizens to do it so they do not violate what they have said is a state of offerring "no opinion" on private weather enterprise actions.

If they must go forward with this self-admitted difficult undertaking, they should choose names that suit the task at hand: not ones that are inflated and bizarre... and most of all, respectful that these names will be referring to real, unpredictable storms that could cause loss of property, injuries, and loss of life.

[famartin]

Yes. The "Why" article/essay that they wanted to give the storms personalities, which is not the point with hurricane names. Severe weather needs to be communicated effectively, not given actual human characteristics, especially the characteristics of ... oppressive rulers and conquerers from human history, nor of ancient sky deities.

The very good thing is that we are mere steps away from using a site like Change.org to make a petition asking them to try again with the list of names.

There is a lot of support even for the idea that they should not go forward with naming storms at all.

Change.org petitions can accomplish a great deal and TWC would be very brazen to dismiss a largely supported petition. I am sure that NWS and NOAA would like to start a petition but are waiting for citizens to do it so they do not violate what they have said is a state of offerring "no opinion" on private weather enterprise actions.

If they must go forward with this self-admitted difficult undertaking, they should choose names that suit the task at hand: not ones that are inflated and bizarre... and most of all, respectful that these names will be referring to real, unpredictable storms that could cause loss of property, injuries, and loss of life.

I still maintain that the names were really inspired by popular media... Q is obviously a Star Trek derivative despite their Subway Line description, Gandolf is an obvious Lord of the Rings reference, Draco is surely from Harry Potter more than anything else... But that's just one fellow's opinion.