Ginx snewx Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Hoth said: Ginxy's scrolls. Unfortunately I lost access to those, was the best part of my job reading weather reports hand written or orally transcribed from settlers and native Americans from the 1600 and 1700s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 19 minutes ago, MaineJayhawk said: You shouldn't have bought those amounts. I think 10-15 is a virtual lock though I've had 12-18" for here for the last few days, No reason to change, We will have a few hours of 12:1+ ratios, Then 10:1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 26 minutes ago, CT Rain said: ECMWF is -25C at 925 on Monday midday here. That's pretty good. I bet we're in the single digits through the day. Maybe a midnight high too. Yeah one of those deals where the advection terms almost entirely dictate the diurnals ... daily low at 1pm ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Snow 1717 Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Lava Rock said: then why do news places including Gutner at wcsh show 18-24" amounts. Does he really believe what he is forecasting or is he looking for ratings like TWC. The quest for ratings factors in. All of the TV news stations are well aware of what their competition is forecasting for snow totals. Even in less competitive markets people at the station are well aware that more people are going to watch the broadcast if the forecast is for 18-24 as opposed to 8-12. At one time it cost more to place a commercial leading into or coming out of the weather segment. The higher the ratings for that segment means the more money that can be charged. I'm not sure if that is still the case or not. leading into the weather portion of the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoarfrostHubb Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Good, solid snowstorm enroute. Classic mixed bag for many. Then it will freeze solid. Get this cleaned up Sunday or Monday it will be impossible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugarloaf1989 Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 29 minutes ago, dryslot said: But NNE is having a great season though...................... 18-24" of snow OTG in N New Hampshire and Cannon/Bretton Woods 99% opened. Not bad for Mid-January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Just now, Great Snow 1717 said: The quest for ratings factors in. All of the TV news stations are well aware of what their competition is forecasting for snow totals. Even in less competitive markets people at the station are well aware that more people are going to watch the broadcast if the forecast is for 18-24 as opposed to 8-12. At one time it cost more to place a commercial leading into or coming out of the weather segment. The higher the ratings for that segment means the more money that can be charged. I'm not sure if that is still the case or not. leading into the weather portion of the Where i do tend to agree with some of the above, The credibility factor comes in to play as well, Mets already get a bad rap, But to be consistently wrong to try to drive up the ratings, In time would have a negative effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PWMan Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, dryslot said: I've had 12-18" for here for the last few days, No reason to change, We will have a few hours of 12:1+ ratios, Then 10:1. Lots of people among "the public" up here throwing around 18-24 totals, probably based on one forecast or range they heard about -- and/or TWC hype. Once those numbers are out there it's hard to walk them back. Sensible impacts will obviously be about the same, and it'll probably blow around so much that it'll be hard to tell the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoarfrostHubb Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 minute ago, PWMan said: Lots of people among "the public" up here throwing around 18-24 totals, probably based on one forecast or range they heard about -- and/or TWC hype. Once those numbers are out there it's hard to walk them back. Sensible impacts will obviously be about the same, and it'll probably blow around so much that it'll be hard to tell the difference. I made the mistake of sharing the mega BOX map here at work. I put in a line about don't expect these totals, cut them in half, etc. Many were still asking me today if we were going to get 2+ feet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaineJayhawk Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 13 minutes ago, Lava Rock said: then why do news places including Gutner at wcsh show 18-24" amounts. Does he really believe what he is forecasting or is he looking for ratings like TWC. You'd have to ask him why he is forecasting that much. It's not a surprise models are ratcheting down the qpf if you pay attention to the knowledgeable folks here. 12" is great, let's enjoy it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoth Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 14 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Unfortunately I lost access to those, was the best part of my job reading weather reports hand written or orally transcribed from settlers and native Americans from the 1600 and 1700s That is truly a tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Just now, PWMan said: Lots of people among "the public" up here throwing around 18-24 totals, probably based on one forecast or range they heard about -- and/or TWC hype. Once those numbers are out there it's hard to walk them back. Sensible impacts will obviously be about the same, and it'll probably blow around so much that it'll be hard to tell the difference. Duration and amount of qpf drives the bus, Those are the two limiting factors that dictate final amounts, The ratios need to be factored, But if you looking at 1.3" qpf and you think your getting 24" out of that's 18.5:1, Not happening James, Especially the closer one gets to the coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Great Snow 1717 said: The quest for ratings factors in. All of the TV news stations are well aware of what their competition is forecasting for snow totals. Even in less competitive markets people at the station are well aware that more people are going to watch the broadcast if the forecast is for 18-24 as opposed to 8-12. At one time it cost more to place a commercial leading into or coming out of the weather segment. The higher the ratings for that segment means the more money that can be charged. I'm not sure if that is still the case or not. I don't know any mets who would purposefully forecast incorrect snowfall amounts for ratings. Credibility matters too. I could see putting out some prelim snowfall totals to drive interest, but you want to try and make them accurate as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PWMan Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said: I made the mistake of sharing the mega BOX map here at work. I put in a line about don't expect these totals, cut them in half, etc. Many were still asking me today if we were going to get 2+ feet... I can't help but think that's one reason some outlets put out those aggressive maps: they know people are going to copy/paste and send them around to their family and friends. Obviously that's not a motivation for NWS, but I can't help but think that it factors into the local news stations' thinking. Weather is one of the few reasons many people watch local programming anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Snow 1717 Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, dryslot said: Where i do tend to agree with some of the above, The credibility factor comes in to play as well, Mets already get a bad rap, But to be consistently wrong to try to drive up the ratings, In time would have a negative effect. There is a difference being consistently wrong and starting out with a high total and scaling back. Happens all the time. The general public is happier when snow totals verify lower than forecasted as oppose to higher than forecasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PWMan Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: I don't know any mets who would purposefully forecast incorrect snowfall amounts for ratings. Credibility matters too. I could see putting out some prelim snowfall totals to drive interest, but you want to try and make them accurate as possible. I don't think they're intentionally incorrect, but in my experience there often seems to be a tendency to go with wide ranges that include eye-popping high ends. This morning, for example, I saw a few maps showing the majority of the state of Maine in a "10-20" band. That's quite a range, and people will naturally fixate on the 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 I unusually interpret 10"-20" to mean 10"-15" in the Valley and 15"-20" on the high elevation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STILL N OF PIKE Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Just now, Great Snow 1717 said: There is a difference being consistently wrong and starting out with a high total and scaling back. Happens all the time. The general public is happier when snow totals verify lower than forecasted as oppose to higher than forecasted. The general public has no idea how to even interpret a forecast in general and they like to be the one that says “I heard we’re getting 30 inches “ . They watch a few different forecasts , they recall a few different lines from each , many don’t kno geographically exactly where they are on a map ( very serious ) and they are left repeating non sense . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 40 minutes ago, MaineJayhawk said: You shouldn't have bought those amounts. I think 10-15 is a virtual lock though Yeah I agree. Any mid level fronto bands will Punch better snow growth too. I could see a wide swath of 12-18". 13-15:1 ratios on 1" QPF. But I bet any 700-850mb frontogenesis in NNE gets up to 20:1 ratios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 6 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: I don't know any mets who would purposefully forecast incorrect snowfall amounts for ratings. Credibility matters too. I could see putting out some prelim snowfall totals to drive interest, but you want to try and make them accurate as possible. I don't intend to put words and anyone's mouth, but read between the lines. When I worked at a local TV station, it was strictly sports. The talent doesn't choose the topics, or graphics, a lot of the times. The producers and behind the scene guys do. I can't say the same for other industries, but I know it was a frustration for sports talent when they had to talk about things they didn't want to, or push story lines that weren't necessarily theirs. I have no idea how it works in weather, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: I don't know any mets who would purposefully forecast incorrect snowfall amounts for ratings. Credibility matters too. I could see putting out some prelim snowfall totals to drive interest, but you want to try and make them accurate as possible. And its crap like this that gets posted on social media that someone photoshops and there are ones out there that are naive enough to actually believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Meanwhile, the 18Z NAM looks interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 A tic or two slower from what i see from 12z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, powderfreak said: Yeah I agree. Any mid level fronto bands will Punch better snow growth too. I could see a wide swath of 12-18". 13-15:1 ratios on 1" QPF. But I bet any 700-850mb frontogenesis in NNE gets up to 20:1 ratios. Wait and see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Snow 1717 Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 12 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: I don't know any mets who would purposefully forecast incorrect snowfall amounts for ratings. Credibility matters too. I could see putting out some prelim snowfall totals to drive interest, but you want to try and make them accurate as possible. Do you know any mets at TWC? They certainly knew there was less than a 1 percent chance of parts of the area receiving 3+ feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, dryslot said: A tic or two slower from what i see from 12z. Heights are just a hair higher over the northeast though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lava Rock Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 14 minutes ago, PWMan said: I can't help but think that's one reason some outlets put out those aggressive maps: they know people are going to copy/paste and send them around to their family and friends. Obviously that's not a motivation for NWS, but I can't help but think that it factors into the local news stations' thinking. Weather is one of the few reasons many people watch local programming anymore. But does one channel forecsating more than another really driver more people to watch that channel? I know a lot of snow haters here that would actually tune into the channel reporting less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 6 minutes ago, dryslot said: And its crap like this that gets posted on social media that someone photoshops and there are ones out there that are naive enough to actually believe it. Is that the 18z NAM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 whatever ... leave it up there. anyone that thinks that's real deserves it - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BombsAway1288 Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 15 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said: There is a difference being consistently wrong and starting out with a high total and scaling back. Happens all the time. The general public is happier when snow totals verify lower than forecasted as oppose to higher than forecasted. I don't think Harvey was putting out those numbers yesterday for a ratings boost. I think he was legitimately thinking that's how it's going to play out. He's one of the best and most respected in Boston. Judging by your past posts, you seem to have some sort of agenda when it comes to TV stations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.