Accuweather Warnings?

[Joe Nield]

Sorry - forgot you work in that market ;> Ones with real meteorologists obviously wouldn't be using the NWS polygons, Barons has had it for years and I can't imagine why a met would show that vs something they draw themselves.

I'm not sure I follow. Why wouldn't a met want to help us define the area of a warning they are helping us communicate to the public? That doesn't PRECLUDE them from additionally highlighting their own areas of concern, and it helps their viewers understand the "official" warning areas.

 

[Jonathan.Brazzell]

Not sure I follow - in what way would TV stations use polygon warnings? I see polygons (when they work) as being a nice way to directly notify people via cellphone / pager / etc but I wouldn't imagine a TV station would plot them...

I agree with the cell phones pagers idea and hopefully one day AHR's will use the polygon to alert specific locations that they are in the threat area instead of alarming one or two large counties at a time. There is a TV station in west Texas that uses the Polygon derived from the NWS warnings and they found that it was useful to the public. They used it during cut-ins quite often.

 

[rdale]

Again - I was talking about TV stations with real meteorologists. By default a trained radar operator updating the box every minute with his own track will beat a NWS-derived product updated every 10-20 minutes, but for those who don't know anything about radar other than "it's pretty" these will be very useful ;>

 

[Scott Olson]

I'm not sure I follow. Why wouldn't a met want to help us define the area of a warning they are helping us communicate to the public? That doesn't PRECLUDE them from additionally highlighting their own areas of concern, and it helps their viewers understand the "official" warning areas.

That's how most of our local stations do it as well, including stations that do have real meteorologists. They display the offical warning and then highlight particular features/areas based on their own analysis.

 

[MatthewCarman]

I dont like the way Accuweather bashes the NWS. That there gives them a bad reputation and for that alone I wont even look at thier forecasts or warnings.

 

[rdale]

I'm not sure I follow. Why wouldn't a met want to help us define the area of a warning they are helping us communicate to the public? That doesn't PRECLUDE them from additionally highlighting their own areas of concern, and it helps their viewers understand the "official" warning areas.

Missed this - sorry. When we draw a polygon showing where the storm is headed towards, it is going to be more tightly drawn and more frequently updated. Showing our polygon on top of NWS polygon is only going to make things VERY confusing in a hurry. People might wonder why their city is in the NWS outline but not in the "real time" outline. Then you have to explain that the storm is moving at a speed different that when the warning was issued, or the threat has already passed, blah blah.

"They display the offical warning and then highlight particular features/areas based on their own analysis"

I'm curious to see how they display two polygons at once without confusing people - can you let me know what station? I can probably get a tape.

 

[Robert Dewey]

Why couldn't TV mets just say "this is the NWS warning, and we refined that down a bit more locally for you"? If people are too stupid to understand that, then I guess the Darwin award really has a purpose ;-)

 

[Jonathan.Brazzell]

Again - I was talking about TV stations with real meteorologists. By default a trained radar operator updating the box every minute with his own track will beat a NWS-derived product updated every 10-20 minutes, but for those who don't know anything about radar other than "it's pretty" these will be very useful ;>

I was talking about a TV station with real Mets. The polygon that the NWS issues, will be redefined with the SVS as long as warning area is being removed and none added. If warning area is to be added, then a whole new warning is needed.

Plus it helps to have a close working relationship between the TV Mets and NWS Mets.

 

[rdale]

Even if you send a new SVS every 10 minutes (rarely see that) the TV met can update his own with a new scan every minute (or 5 if they don't have a radar.) I still don't see the advantage for TV use.

And as for relationship - I heartily agree! The IEMChat application has been a tremendous help in getting info back and forth, they don't have access to our radar because of HQ restrictions in the past and there are many things we see that I communicate immediately to them that used to have to wait for me to get off the air...

 

[rdale]

Why couldn't TV mets just say "this is the NWS warning, and we refined that down a bit more locally for you"? If people are too stupid to understand that, then I guess the Darwin award really has a purpose ;-)

What's the advantage? You still have two polygons on the screen - one updated every minute and one updated every 15 minutes. Why not say "there is a warning for Smith County, here's the path of the storm" as we've always done?

Apologies to AccuWeather - this discussion seems to have strayed ;>

 

[Robert Dewey]

No advantages - I was talking purely from a "confusion" stand point. IF mets displayed it that way, I don't think there would be a mass confusion.

Also, I don't have any problems with AccuWeather either... Alot of people seem to have a strong dislike, but I'm never quick to jump on a bandwagon ;-)

 

[MatthewCarman]

Accuweather is like look at the NWS..... Here is thier problems and here is how we can do it better. Didnt Accuweather want to have the NWS removed so they could replace the NWS? Thier Private so what's to keep them from charging us money for use of thier programs and site/radar and stuff etc.

I am not jumping on a "bandwagon" just sick and tired of thier bashing of the NWS. That and thier tropical outlooks for a year stink bad. Doing a little bashing of my own I guess but hey I am treating them how they are treating others. I think they need to be a little nicer to the NWS.
Have a nice day.

 

[rdale]

"Accuweather is like look at the NWS."

I don't think AW looks at all similar to NWS.

"Didnt Accuweather want to have the NWS removed"

No, they wanted NWS to concentrate more on getting data / issuing warnings / etc. vs issuing frost forecasts and boaters forecasts.

"Thier Private so what's to keep them from charging us money for use of thier programs and site/radar and stuff etc."

Nothing. They do charge if you want their detailed forecasts. But you get radar from NWS, which has (and will always be) freely available. And model data. And satellite maps. Nothing they ever have or ever will propose changes the basics.

"I am not jumping on a "bandwagon" just sick and tired of thier bashing of the NWS."

Understood. None of us in the field like that. But we all realize that NWS forecasters don't have a lock on severe weather interpretation. Many things can be done better - like making severe thunderstorm warnings really mean "this storm really is bad" versus the current NWS definition "this storm might have some hail that could bend your lawn just a bit." I'll be very critical of their warning process WHEN IT STARTS. For now, nobody knows ONE simple hard fact about what they are doing, yet everyone has put the bandwagon ahead of the horse and jumped on it.

 

[Kiel Ortega]

Many things can be done better - like making severe thunderstorm warnings really mean "this storm really is bad" versus the current NWS definition "this storm might have some hail that could bend your lawn just a bit." I'll be very critical of their warning process WHEN IT STARTS. For now, nobody knows ONE simple hard fact about what they are doing, yet everyone has put the bandwagon ahead of the horse and jumped on it.

Problem with just issuing severe t-storm warnings for only the really bad ones is that can miss a large number of people who need the warning for the low-end events. Outdoor activities, from the family picnic to large sporting event, probably need to be warned for storms that could produce lightning...but that warning doesn't happen. Further, some people would like to know about even quarter sized hail (like, car owners on what was a sunny afternoon before the storm formed). While these may be a small number as far as population, they are people who need/want the warning and their taxes pay for such a service. I've had many discussions with friends about warnings and making them better and responses to warnings, and really it boils down to this: when does personal responsibility take over? You can issue the greatest warnings on earth and people still don't have to listen to them. Further, people become to complacent too quickly...everything is instant. (to jump just briefly off svr warnings) After Katrina, people ran like hell from Rita. I would bet no one runs anywhere with the next hurricane due to that event and the really slow season we just had. Looking at severe events from recent history, what's the bet that the KMPX office has a high tornado FAR now that the Rogers fiasco and fallout has occured...and what's the bet that tornado sirens will pop up in Rieglewood, NC after this last tornado? All reactionary...all quick fixes that will eventually fade. Sorry to end up about 50 miles from where I started.

Hopefully my first post wasn't taken as bashing Accuweather. I am just critical/extemely skeptical of such claims (we can do it better...more lead time....blah blah blah) because I know the efforts that are needed. They aren't efforts on the scale of months, it's more like years (so unless they've been doing extremely focused R&D for years...). Further, from the email it sounds as if this is some sort of automated system and I am sticking with my previous statement that we're plateaued at where technology can make better warnings. Maybe new tool might help; what tool that is I don't know because we are sucking a lot from radar right now---like cell detections & derived fields---and we still have the warnings we do. Really it boils down to forecaster training and situational awareness to make warnings better. It will be interesting to compare the warnings once the NWS switches to the true polygon system.

 

[rdale]

"Further, some people would like to know about even quarter sized hail"

I'll give you quarter-sized hail, but I have to believe that dime-sized reports WAY outweigh any other size, especially outside of the alley. When I go on the air time after time because a few large peas are falling - people stop caring. But I have to go on-air because NWS says this is a life threatening situation, and heaven forbid I not interrupt and some freak event knocks a tree over which pulls down a power line and electrocutes a dog.