Funny Accuweather flub

[Mark Farnik]

I was cruising Accuweather (I was bored) and found this hilarious flub under one of their headlines regarding the severe weather potential for Sunday.

Sunday into Sunday night, the greatest severe weather threat from thunderstorms will be that of high winds, though localized hail and even a few isolated thunderstorms may happen as well. :roll: It is a fitting way to wrap up a November that has seen far more than its fair share of severe weather.

Well, that goes without saying... :lol:
Just a good laugh that I wanted to share with my fellow ST'ers!

 

[Rob Satkus]

Sunday into Sunday night, the greatest severe weather threat from thunderstorms will be that of high winds, though localized hail and even a few isolated thunderstorms may happen as well. :

Reminds of something on TWC several years back...one of the on air personalties ( I don't remember who any more) was talking up the chances for severe weather and proclaimed " There will be a good chance for numerous severe thunderstorms with hail, high winds, tornadoes and yes...EVEN LIGHTNING!" The horror of it all. I think this was the same one that reported " A tornado IN the ground somewhere in Montana a year or two ago.

Rob

 

[Melissa Moon]

Remind me not to work there.

 

[Mike Smith]

Here's a "funny NWS flub" from this morning...

There is a "winter weather advisory" for 1-2 inches of snow for Sedgwick County, Kansas.

URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WICHITA KS
426 AM CST SUN NOV 27 2005

...STRONG NORTHWEST WINDS TO COMBINE WITH AREAS OF LIGHT SNOW TO
PRODUCE WINTRY TRAVEL TONIGHT...


KSZ032-033-047>053-067-068-082-083-271830-
/O.NEW.KICT.WW.Y.0002.051128T0000Z-051128T1200Z/
RUSSELL-LINCOLN-BARTON-ELLSWORTH-SALINE-RICE-MCPHERSON-MARION-
CHASE-RENO-HARVEY-KINGMAN-SEDGWICK-
INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...RUSSELL...LINCOLN...GREAT BEND...
ELLSWORTH...SALINA...LYONS...MCPHERSON...MARION...
COTTONWOOD FALLS...HUTCHINSON...NEWTON...KINGMAN...WICHITA
426 AM CST SUN NOV 27 2005

...WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY IN EFFECT FROM 6 PM THIS EVENING TO
6 AM CST MONDAY...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN WICHITA HAS ISSUED A WINTER
WEATHER ADVISORY...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 6 PM THIS EVENING TO
6 AM CST MONDAY.

INTENSE LOW PRESSURE MOVING NORTHEAST ACROSS CENTRAL AND EASTERN
KANSAS WILL INDUCE WINDS TO SHIFT TO THE NORTHWEST AND INCREASE TO
25 TO 30 MPH THIS EVENING. LIGHT SNOW WILL SPREAD SOUTHEAST ACROSS
PRIMARILY CENTRAL KANSAS...WITH ACCUMULATIONS OF 1-2 INCHES
ANTICIPATED BY MONDAY MORNING. SOME BLOWING AND DRIFTING SNOW IS
LIKELY...ESPECIALLY ACROSS EAST WEST ORIENTED HIGHWAYS.

A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY MEANS THAT PERIODS OF WINTER WEATHER
WILL CAUSE TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. BE PREPARED FOR SLIPPERY ROADS
AND LIMITED VISIBILITIES. USE CAUTION WHILE DRIVING.

But the forecast for Sedgwick Co. says less than a "half inch"

Tonight: Rain likely before midnight, then snow likely. Cloudy, with a low around 34. Breezy, with a west wind between 17 and 23 mph, with gusts as high as 34 mph. Chance of precipitation is 60%. New snow accumulation of less than a half inch possible.

What is the public supposed to believe? If someone is planning to return home from Thanksgiving, they might alter their plans for two inches but not for less than a half inch.

Although, I have no way of posting the graphic (I captured it), here's another from this morning from SPC. At 8:36am Central, SPC headlined Day 1

This is an extremely dangerous situation.

But the text of the Outlook said

There is a mdt risk of svr tstms

Their headline did not match their text (or, if a "moderate risk" is "extremely dangerous" how dangerous is "high risk"?)

AccuWeather's flub is perhaps amusing but inconsequential. The near constant inconsistencies from the NWS during storm situations are not.

I don't understand why so many on this Board like to take shots at the private sector. But, if you want to take shots at the private sector, I would like to suggest you hold the NWS to the same standards.

 

[Darren Addy]

Mike,
Surely you know how to read NWS forecasts better than this. The first post is talking about the total accumulation while the part for "Tonight" is talking about 1/2" of "new snow".

Really reaching, aren't you?

Darren Addy
Kearney, NE

 

[Mike Smith]

Darren,

I only quoted the "tonight" period because the winter weather advisory is in effect from 6pm to 6am.

Nevertheless, here are the first four periods of the forecast in question...

Today: A slight chance of rain and thunderstorms, then a chance of rain after noon. Cloudy, with a high near 60. Breezy, with a south southwest wind between 16 and 20 mph, with gusts as high as 31 mph. Chance of precipitation is 50%.

Tonight: Rain likely before midnight, then snow likely. Cloudy, with a low around 34. Breezy, with a west wind between 17 and 23 mph, with gusts as high as 34 mph. Chance of precipitation is 60%. New snow accumulation of less than a half inch possible.

Monday: A chance of snow before noon, then a chance of rain. Cloudy, with a high near 40. Breezy, with a northwest wind between 22 and 24 mph, with gusts as high as 36 mph. Chance of precipitation is 30%.

Monday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low near 23. Northwest wind between 13 and 18 mph, with gusts as high as 30 mph

I don't misrepresent the NWS or anyone else.
Mike

 

[Darren Addy]

There is also a difference in the scope of the two quoted forecasts. The 1-2" inches "total accumulation" part is for "RUSSELL-LINCOLN-BARTON-ELLSWORTH-SALINE-RICE-MCPHERSON-MARION-CHASE-RENO-HARVEY-KINGMAN-SEDGWICK-", while, as you state the "1/2 of new snow" -tonight- is for Sedgwick Co. only.

That is certainly possible/reasonable to me.

You may not be misrepresenting but you are trying to lead some to a distorted conclusion. Those with a lack of reading comprehension or critical thinking skills might read your post and agree with you.

What you are doing reminds me of a favorite quote on statistics: "Statistics are like bikinis. What they show you is revealing. What they hide is vital." Perhaps the same could be said for juxapositioning selective quotes from forecasts of differing scopes.

Darren Addy
Kearney, NE

 

[Mark Farnik]

Will both of you please calm down? This is ridiculous. I'm fifteen years old and act more professional than both of you combined are acting now. :x
A quote from Mike:

AccuWeather's flub is perhaps amusing but inconsequential. The near constant inconsistencies from the NWS during storm situations are not.
I don't understand why so many on this Board like to take shots at the private sector. But, if you want to take shots at the private sector, I would like to suggest you hold the NWS to the same standards.

Mike, I'm not taking potshots at Accuweather and I'm not a private sector basher; I just happened to see that and thought it was pretty funny. Yes, the NWS does make some stupid mistakes, but you are blowing this way out of proportion. This was meant to generate laughs, not cause a vicious argument. Frankly, Mike, I'm quite irritated that you ruined my thread with your "everybody takes shots at the private sector just because they're the private sector" conspiracy theory. :evil: It was a simple error that was meant for amusement and nothing more; NOT a diss on the private sector. If you are going to post in my threads in the future, don't be accusatory and act professional. If you choose to continue to be anal about such subjects, don't post in my threads anymore. That's all I ask. Thank you. And lighten up. :lol:

 

[Mike Smith]

Mark,

Here are some examples of what I believe is a bias and I can certainly cite more...

www.stormtrack.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9006

www.stormtrack.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9038&start=15

www.stormtrack.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8907

www.stormtrack.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8625


Yes, I believe that an anti-private sector bias exists. I don't know why and wouldn't speculate on why. Most of the time, I don't post because people are entitled to their opinions. However, when the private sector is being singled out for errors that are less consequential than the NWS in a similar situation, then I will usually try to balance the discussion.

I apologize if that offends you, that is not my intent.

Mike

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Frankly, Mike, I'm quite irritated that you ruined my thread with your "everybody takes shots at the private sector just because they're the private sector" conspiracy theory. It was a simple error that was meant for amusement and nothing more; NOT a diss on the private sector. If you are going to post in my threads in the future, don't be accusatory and act professional. If you choose to continue to be anal about such subjects, don't post in my threads anymore. That's all I ask. Thank you. And lighten up.

Seems someone was being anal just the other day about a winter weather thread. I think once you decide to post a topic for others to post in that it really isn't "your thread".

I think if anything, he ADDED to your thread, which had very little room for there to be anything added to. Though I agree that there likely isn't this conspiracy to leave out NWS(rdale covers those pretty well). I just don't think it is worth getting "irritated" over someone "ruining" "your" thread that had little of anything to be ruined in.

Regards,

 

[Chris Geelhart]

Here's a "funny NWS flub" from this morning...

There is a "winter weather advisory" for 1-2 inches of snow for Sedgwick County, Kansas.

"Winter Weather" Advisories indicate that more than one hazard is expected. In this case, reading the products posted, I would guess that the blowing snow potential on Monday was one of the reasons this was issued, not just the snow total. Could also be for a potential of mixed precip during the changeover period(s) (not sure about that, I haven't looked at anything that specific around there).

Chris G.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Although, I have no way of posting the graphic (I captured it), here's another from this morning from SPC. At 8:36am Central, SPC headlined Day 1

This is an extremely dangerous situation.

But the text of the Outlook said

There is a mdt risk of svr tstms

Their headline did not match their text (or, if a "moderate risk" is "extremely dangerous" how dangerous is "high risk"?)

I'm sure you remember that the SPC is issuing PSWOs for MDT risks this year (in addition, of course, to the HIGH risk days). I'm not sure I'm a fan of this, as those PSWOs no longer mean anything to me, or at least not like they have in years past, when there'd be 1 or 2 PSWOs issued each year (MAYBE 1-2, sometimes none).

Regardless, there are always flubs in forecasts... I remember RDale posting a funny flub from the Duluth MN NWSFO a couple of months ago... Something about "heavy rain. Rain may be heavy at times. Heavy rainfall likely."

 

[Alex Lamers]

On the WWxA ... Seems like the generator spitting out funny things. The generator occasionally does take the graphics and generate text that isn't descriptive of the actual situation. In fact, during a shift, I think that the database updates every hour plus when they publish the official grids, so they could be in the process of updating the snowfall grid when it got published to the web automatically. In addition, the person who said the WWxA is a combination of wintry elements like snow and blowing snow would be correct.

And I quote from the WWxA...

SNOW AMOUNTS OF LESS THAN ONE INCH ARE POSSIBLE ACROSS SOUTH CENTRAL KANSAS. HOWEVER...THE COMBINATION OF HIGH WINDS AND SNOW WILL CAUSE VISIBILITY PROBLEMS ACROSS ALL OF THE AREA. BLOWING SNOW IS LIKELY...WITH DRIFTING SNOW POSSIBLE IN NORTH CENTRAL KANSAS.

On the PWSO...I suppose its a judgement call and everyone has different opinions but I consider a Moderate risk pretty dangerous. Even if it isn't extremely dangerous after a lot of debate, it isn't really a flub, if the stronger wording on the SPC page mattered to a bunch of people and made them a little more aware today, then thats great.

As far as the Accuweather flub, I'm kind of "so what?" on that. It's a typo and yes its funny but I don't really think it has anything to do with the accuracy of the company or their integrity.

And yes, everyone is biased...thats a part of life

...Alex Lamers...

 

[Mark Farnik]

Mike H. said:

Seems someone was being anal just the other day about a winter weather thread.

That's completely irrelevant and besides you have to admit you guys did get VERY off topic from my original post. :? But that's said and done, no need to dig up buried bones if all the meat has been chewed off them.
Alex Lamers said:

As far as the Accuweather flub, I'm kind of "so what?" on that. It's a typo and yes its funny but I don't really think it has anything to do with the accuracy of the company or their integrity.

EXACTLY! THANK YOU , ALEX! All it was ever intended to be was a good laugh for a funny typo, not a jab at Accuweather for their accuracy or integrity.

Well, now that this has been thoroughly blown out of proportion and beat to death, let's just drop the whole thing. I'm sick of the bickering, and disgusted with how argumentative and downright paranoid some of you are. I wish I had never posted that in the first place. :evil: I'll keep in mind next time (if ever again) I post a typo, I'll make sure to include a disclaimer to note that it is not a biased jab against whoever put it out,
whether it be the NWS or a private sector company(Accuweather).
:roll:
Some Stormtrack members, it seems, cannot take a mere typo lightheartedly. That is unfortunate.