Accuweather met rips NWS on last weeks wind event

[Jim Zandonai]

This is a little late but thought it was 'thought' provoking. Nothing new about accuweather ripping the NWS as we know but I usually listen with an open mind. Accuweather met basically says the NWS way over did the Tornado watches and Severe thunderstorm warnings due lack of lightning and higher winds..saying the high wind warning was enough..etc.
I listened to the 'point/counter point video 2/12' and tend to agree based on what he is saying.
I am a big supporter of the NWS and SPC too and I do believe accuweather does tend sometimes to over hype things to gain interest but they do a good job overall but I don't think their mets are any better then the NWS. The thing accuweather doesnt have to worry about is issuing warnings,watches etc and being under the pressure of over warning or under warning and being boiled in oil...big difference in responsibilty.
Anyway I found the video interesting and I do see his point..this time it might be valid.
So just wondered what others thought of it here..
(Sorry Mods if i placed this in the wrong area )

http://www.weathermatrix.net/blog/

 

[Doug Mitchell]

YOU MEAN THE SAME ACCUWEATHER THAT WANTS TO PUT THE NWS OUT OF BUSINESS?!?! NO WAI WOULD THEY EVER SPEAK BAD ABOUT THE NWS!!!!

Accuweather can blow it out their ass.

 

[Jim Bishop]

I just watched that Accuweather video with the guy (Ken Reeves?) ripping the NWS on multiple severe thunderstorm warnings and ripping the SPC a bit on the tornado watches.

I see his point that maybe some of those warnings were already covered by the high wind warning, because some of the cells within the squall line were exremely weak. I wasn't paying much attention to the event so I don't have a strong opinion.

But the guy needs to get a grip! And somebody should let him know three tornadoes were reported that day, so the tornado watches veried. He seems to think you NEED direction shear for tornadoes to occur. So that just makes him sound a little rediculous.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Most of the wind damage that day occured within the convective squall line, not with ambient winds. Within that narrow, lightning-less line of convection, there were widespread gusts above 60mph with some in the 80s and even 90s range in WV and PA. Nearly all of the major damage (including the WV fatality) occured within the squall line.

 

[Paul Knightley]

On his blog, Jesse Ferrell writes about the issuance of SVR and TOR warnings without lightning occurring. The former can cause some confusion, although of course the warning is for wind/hail rather than lightning - in the UK we often get convectively enhanced wind gusts from heavy showers in wintertime, which could be classed as 'severe'. The lightning fact is rather irrelevant IMO as the severe warning is not for it!

As for TOR warnings vs lightning -well, this is ridiculous. Again, cool season tornadoes here in the UK have occurred on a number of occasions without attendant lightning. The warning is for a tornado for pity's sake, and not lightning!

 

[Jim Zandonai]

Thanks for all your opinions.. re-listened to that again and thought about it again...one of the things I thought was interesting too was the lightning issue. Lightning has no part in severe criteria..You can have a huge lightning display and not a 'severe' storm and on the other hand you can have a severe storm with a single lightning bolt. I did think that was odd they brought that up. I wonder what would happen if Accu-weather issued warnings..like said its easy to monday morning QB and critique the other when you are under no pressure. Recently they got crushed for predicting that big storm that never materialized on the east coast and 1 wanted to stop blogging even because of hate mail. The NWS being more reserved didnt get any flack that I am aware of.
I don't have anything against Jesse or Henry or any accu-met I read their blogs and admire their career in weather but they need to see things from the other perspective. Its a whole different game blogging and predicting for 'someone' and another when you are responsible for issuing watches and warnings and being responsible for the outcome.
I think Its better in Severe weather to perhaps issue watches and warnings and nothing happen then to not do anything and something happen. You'll get torched on the later in no-time.
Anyway they do have some valid points but they just don't get it from the NWS stand point.

 

[Mike Smith]

I wonder what would happen if Accu-weather issued warnings..like said its easy to monday morning QB and critique the other when you are under no pressure.

Actually, we do. WeatherData® is part of AccuWeather and we issue tornado, flash floods, blizzard and other warnings that are independent of the NWS's.

Please keep in mind that our entire livelihood depends on happy clients, so there is tremendous pressure to provide an excellent service.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

This is a little late but thought it was 'thought' provoking. Nothing new about accuweather ripping the NWS as we know but I usually listen with an open mind. Accuweather met basically says the NWS way over did the Tornado watches and Severe thunderstorm warnings due lack of lightning and higher winds..saying the high wind warning was enough..etc.
I listened to the 'point/counter point video 2/12' and tend to agree based on what he is saying.
I am a big supporter of the NWS and SPC too and I do believe accuweather does tend sometimes to over hype things to gain interest but they do a good job overall but I don't think their mets are any better then the NWS. The thing accuweather doesnt have to worry about is issuing warnings,watches etc and being under the pressure of over warning or under warning and being boiled in oil...big difference in responsibilty.
Anyway I found the video interesting and I do see his point..this time it might be valid.
So just wondered what others thought of it here..
(Sorry Mods if i placed this in the wrong area )

http://www.weathermatrix.net/blog/

I attended a map discussion in the HWT the day of this event and there was discussion about how to handle these storms. It is my opinion based on these discussions that the SPC decided to go with the watches because there were tornado warnings being issued for brief spin-ups along the line. There was also severe thunderstorm warnings being issued for wind damage. If the SPC had not gone with a any sort of watch, they would be penalized under the arcane scoring system the NWS uses (GPRA goals) because they NWS would have verified wind damage as occuring with severe thunderstorms. Now, if the local offices had gone with High Wind Warnings instead of severe thunderstorm warnings, then the watches wouldn't have been necessary.

The bottom line, the SPC was between a rock and a hardplace in this event. What do you call shallow, forced "convection" that doesn't have lightning? It's certainly not a shower, but it isn't the stereotypical thunderstorm... It the local office calls it a severe storm, the SPC is out of luck.

 

[Jim Zandonai]

Yes the NWS is usually between a rock and hard place as is the SPC for sure..its quite a balancing act..
With regards to the Accu-weather independant warnings (I was unaware they issued independent warnings to clients) while I am sure there is pressure to keep their paying clients 'happy or else'..the NWS and SPC is going to be first to get plastered from the mainstream media and their own if they miss a signifcant Severe event..I think a Similar discussion arose after the Enterprise Tornado event. Anyway, good discussion. It is clear though that each org. no matter who you like tries to do their best.