Fewer Warning Types Needed

[TRWXXA]

Multiple-choice poll!

This might be an old topic but I thought I would bring this up after seeing the maps from the most recent winter weather events.

There were so many various shades of colors on the advisory map, it was hard to keep up. Winter Weather Advisory, Snow Advisory, Freezing Rain Advisory, Ice Storm Warning, Snow and Blowing Snow Advisory, Winter Storm Warning, Heavy Snow Warning..and the list goes on.

Do you think the system needs to be downgraded back to the days of the Traveler's Advisory, keep it the same, or downscale the advisories some other way?

I think a website petition needs to be set up then sent to the NWS headquarters.

The poll is multiple-choice so select as many answers as you wish.

[Keyeser]

Being in TV for quite a while and now a NWS guy...I would agree that there needs to be less winter-type headlines. I agree that there should be just one to cover things like blowing snow, snow, freezing rain ,etc. I think the term "Traveler's Advisory" won't come back. I think you could use "Winter Weather Advisory" with details added to the headline to show what you were expecting.

I think you could do this:

Blizzard Watch/Warning
Winter Storm Watch/Warning
Heavy Snow Warning (since you need a distinction between heavy snow and heavy blowing/drifting snow due to nasty winds but less than a blizzard)
Winter Weather Advisory (snow and/or blowing snow, freezing rain or freezing drizzle)
Ice Storm Watch/Warning (you need something worded stonger for bigger ice accumulations)

A big thing that is also needed IMHO is better coordination between neighboring offices when issuing these products. I am mainly talking about using the same criteria to issue products intead of one office having a lower threshold for issuing an advisory vs the next door office, etc.

I would like to hear your comments on this as well. I am creating a focal point at my office to handle working with the media (since I spent almost 10 years doing it) on things like this and other issues so we can hopefully try and work together better...when we can...to do a better job getting information disseminated in terms of watches and warnings. This type of discussion is good IMHO. Feel free to take this to your local NWSFO and see what they say as well. While our hands are somewhat tied because we have to get region and national on board with some of this...you have to start somewhere.

Some of you ***** and moan about this...then do nothing. I always tried to work with the local NWSFOs I dealt with and didn't create a rift between the media and NWS when it came to the station I worked at. I am trying to help create a better relationship between media and the NWS at least locally. I realize that some of you guys and gals are told by "insultants" that we suck at our job 100% of the time and should be ignored. I disagree and I am sure some you might as well. I know that region and national are working for a better relationship between us and our partners/customers and it starts with the media as well as others.

[Nyquist]

Collaboration is one thing that I've seen my local WFO and surrounding offices do very, very well the past 6 months or so. They've always been good with the IEMChat, but it seems like recently their collective thinking with surrounding offices has really improved. It was so good with one of our recent storms, I wrote a letter to Central Region to try to make sure that credit was given where it was deserved.

I agree that when the offices collaborate everyone wins. In tricky winter situtations many times the more eyes you have the better. There have been days where my chief and I would both forecast using the same data, come up with similar yet differing results, compare/contrast and ultimately come up with a better forecast in the long run. I can easily see this working with the NWS forecasters as well since they probably have a ton more data than we have available to us as broadcasters, so it is possible that one forecaster might pick up on a feature another might miss. Granted this doesn't always work with convective weather, but that is not the topic at hand.

One thing I will say is that issuing winter header advisories would be very difficult especially if something like the thermal profile is uncertain. I can see why they do it the current way, but it can make things very difficult to explain.

[rdale]

In case anyone here isn't familiar with my opinions on this issue :rockon:

NWS winter weather warnings are WAY WAY WAY too complex. The public knows NOTHING about the differences. Go back to the days of Travelers Advisory and keep the WARNINGS (blizzard / ice storm / heavy snow) but drop everything else. If it's going to cause you problems on the roads, issue a TA. If it's going to be a major event, issue an XX warning. But if it's in between, just tell us what it is...

[SevereClear]

I agree. How can we come together to change this?

[ctwxman]

There are far too many.

[wxman1985]

I agree. There are way too many, and the public has no clue the difference between them. A Winter Storm Watch will send everyone to the store here for milk and bread though. Ask the viewers what the difference between a snow advisory and a winter weather advisory is. You will get a blank stare.

[qryche]

Someone I'm sure knows this better than me, but the current winter watch/warning/advisory set-up probably was not set up solely for the safety of the citizenry...if that was the case we would simply need three levels: GO OUT, GO OUT WITH CAUTION, STAY IN.

I'm guessing it was more the result of trying to get as specific as possible with precip. types/amounts for the sake of local authorities...road crews, schools, whatever...for them to make better decisions. Whether they understand all the different advisories is another matter, but I'm sure they all qualify for the special NOAA decoder ring to help them out.

[Golfball_Size_Hail]

Too many...if it's hard for me to keep the fine details of each watch/warning, then the viewers, as rdale said, have no clue. The world doesn't NEED to be this compicated, I'm all about the travelers advisory or whatever you want to call it. How about a Jackass advisory...if you are heading out tonight, be advised you are a Jackass.

[casterdamus]

Have to concur with most here that the public doesn't understand the difference between one product and another. Even if they did, by the time a met ran through the variety pack of headlines they'd be confused as to what applies where and when. If they are confused at the outset, Lord only knows how muddled they'll be after a series of upgrades/downgrades as the storm approaches and passes.

Graphics and color palettes are nice but the NWS has stretched this to the nth degree. Let's abandon the Crayola Crayon 64 pack and settle on something closer to 8.

Had a case last week where the ADI was covered by five different winter headlines, most of them on top of a freezing fog advisory for the early AM. Maybe doable on TeeWee but a nightmare for radio.

[nywx10]

I have to agree...too many too confusing.

In addition confusion over an advisory vs watch or warning.

What do you differently to prepare or do when an advisory is issued vs a warning.

It is bad enough that people STILL DON'T KNOW the difference between a Severe (convective) Watch an a Severe (convective) Warning.

In addition, if I am saying 2-4 inches of snow or 3-5 inches my viewers know that it is a nuisance event (depending on how long it lasts and when it will hit (during AM or PM drive times?) they don't need a headline. Likewise if I say a foot or more then they know we are dealing with a significant high impact system.

A lot of times the headlines...watches, warnings, advisories, tend to feed the hype and frenzy involving and approaching winter weather event or storm.

Finally, why should I use a product (aside from convective ones...watch/warning) from the NWS when my forecast is often different than theirs is anyway? Why should I promote the competition.

[TAFKA wacowx]

What is even worse is that what might be Advisory criteria for one WSFO is another adjacent office's warning criteria. And that REALLY sucks when you have 5 WSFOs in your DMA. :bs:

For what it's worth AccuWeather never passed along WINTER precip watches/warning/advisories (always passed along severe), preferring to just actually forecast what was going to happen instead. Far too confusing having to present all of the various watches/warnings/advisories and explain them. Much better for 'us' to just show a snow or ice potential map and relate that to what the viewer will experience.

[nywx10]

What is even worse is that what might be Advisory criteria for one WSFO is another adjacent office's warning criteria. And that REALLY sucks when you have 5 WSFOs in your DMA. :bs:

For what it's worth AccuWeather never passed along WINTER precip watches/warning/advisories (always passed along severe), preferring to just actually forecast what was going to happen instead. Far too confusing having to present all of the various watches/warnings/advisories and explain them. Much better for 'us' to just show a snow or ice potential map and relate that to what the viewer will experience.

WACO,

I agree totally.

BTW- Nice pic you child has your ears! :p

Seriously, nice picture.

[TAFKA wacowx]

WACO,

I agree totally.

BTW- Nice pic you child has your ears! :p

Seriously, nice picture.

nice pic too...although you seem to have gained a little winter weight. :hug:

[SevereClear]

In the past, I have been known to combine advisories and combine warnings. I know that is walking the line of "issuing my own warnings", but I was tired of having 8 things on the legend.

[rdale]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you - but if you're modifying an NWS product then you've crossed the legal line... You either show what they have, or don't - but you can't change it.

[MIguel W foX]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you - but if you're modifying an NWS product then you've crossed the legal line... You either show what they have, or don't - but you can't change it.

Guess your "HEAVY SNIZZLE WARNING" is out then?

[TAFKA wacowx]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you - but if you're modifying an NWS product then you've crossed the legal line... You either show what they have, or don't - but you can't change it.

I have pointed out on a graphic...advisories here, warnings here, watches here without really going into details.

[SevereClear]

I have pointed out on a graphic...advisories here, warnings here, watches here without really going into details.

Exactly... Meaning a Heavy Snow Warning and Winter Storm Warning was a "Warning"... and a Winter Weather Advisory and Snow Advisory was a "Advisory"....
How's that illegal? :bs:

By the way, the Travel Advisory was dropped to get the NWS out of the road conditions business.

I talked with our WCM and he said that he is going to pass it along this thread to the "higher ups". By the way rdale, after seeing the thread... I hope my WCM does not arrest me. :eek: :cool: :p

[rdale]

If you change all your Winter Storm Warnings to Blizzard Warnings because you didn't want two colors - that would be where you crossed the line...

Don't overreact when you don't offer up the whole story at first :hug:

[Golfball_Size_Hail]

meow.

[rdale]

For those that do show NWS winter weather bulletins - let me ask... Why do you show them?

We know the public doesn't have a CLUE about them. They are someone else's forecast. Do you show TWC storm outlook maps too?

[nywx10]

For those that do show NWS winter weather bulletins - let me ask... Why do you show them?

We know the public doesn't have a CLUE about them. They are someone else's forecast. Do you show TWC storm outlook maps too?

I agree, rdale. There was another thread of a similar vein not too long ago about this..(I believe it was someone asking "How do you cover a winter storm or something along that line).

NWS is our competition in addition to the "other" stations in our market, why promote or mention your competition either directly or indirectly?


For those interested on easternuswx.com there is a similar thread about this, started by Mr. Walt Drag from KBOX. It is an interesting thread as well.

[SevereClear]

For those that do show NWS winter weather bulletins - let me ask... Why do you show them?

We know the public doesn't have a CLUE about them. They are someone else's forecast. Do you show TWC storm outlook maps too?

To be honest, I have no idea. That's a great question.

If I don't agree with the watch/warning/etc in a convective event... I will delete/cancel it. If counties (severe wx) aren't cleared fast enough... I will delete them.

I guess we show winter weather bulletins because everyone else does it. :confused: Out of curiousity, do you guys show them?

You have the wheels going in my head now... maybe we shouldn't show them. We could just run our own crawls...:cool:

[rdale]

Only thing I ever show / discuss is convective stuff... The only thing I would show in the winter would be Blizzard Warning, just to hammer the point home (since there is an "official" meteorological definition for a blizzard.)

On the crawls, I just say what's happening and what's coming. I don't leave the bug up since people know it's coming, there's no need to occupy a corner of the screen for 24 hours to remind people it's snowing out.

[SevereClear]

You may have just influenced something new for us... I'll ponder it.

[mcaster]

I couldn't agree more. I've approached our WCM with this in the past and they agree. However, they tell it has been forced on them from above and is primarily driven by offices in the northeast. I guess those folks love it.

Here's all I think we need...

Blizzard Watch/Warning (self explanitory)
Winter Storm Watch/Warning ... for (insert wx event)
Winter Weather Advisory ... for (insert wx event)

I totally disagree about the need for "heavy snow warning" That causes more confusion than anything. People ask me all the time if the "winter storm warning is being upgraded to a heavy snow warning".. It's a winter storm....so call it a winter storm warning for heavy snow, excessive ice, for snow and blowing snow, etc. You end up with six colors instead of 25 (or whatever it is)

[qryche]

Something to think about that may or may not affect how you display these advisories...

If the public is confused over all the different watches/warnings/advisories, they're not going to be any less confused if the NWS issues their set, you "condense" it to something else, and your competition down the street also condenses it, but differently than you.

I'm not sure there's a good answer here, other than everyone complaining to you local NWS office. They hear about it enough, --maybe-- someone upstairs will take notice.

[nywx10]

Something to think about that may or may not affect how you display these advisories...

If the public is confused over all the different watches/warnings/advisories, they're not going to be any less confused if the NWS issues their set, you "condense" it to something else, and your competition down the street also condenses it, but differently than you.

I'm not sure there's a good answer here, other than everyone complaining to you local NWS office. They hear about it enough, --maybe-- someone upstairs will take notice.

DON'T USE ANY! Do not condense down someone else's advisories/forecasts.

Hammer home YOUR FORECAST, YOUR SNOW/ICE TOTALS , etc.

Winter weather advisories warnings tend help in increasing the hype over winter weather events, weather it is a run of the mill couple/few inches to a widespread heavy/crippling storm.

[Dutra2418]

DON'T USE ANY! Do not condense down someone else's advisories/forecasts.

Hammer home YOUR FORECAST, YOUR SNOW/ICE TOTALS , etc.

Winter weather advisories warnings tend help in increasing the hype over winter weather events, weather it is a run of the mill couple/few inches to a widespread heavy/crippling storm.


Excellent point..I was doing a radio hit this morning and they are like 'oh man the nws issued snow advisories are we getting hammered again' and i laughed and told them they issue advisories for everything and not to get "hyped up"...granted portland is getting 6-9'' and we are getting 3-6'' but that is really nothing spread over the timeline

[SevereClear]

FYI- Several people from the NWS Headquarters, Regional offices, and Local Offices are reading this thread. Speak you mind and offer suggestions.

[rdale]

Something to think about that may or may not affect how you display these advisories...

Lots of people are saying they display the advisories -- but nobody has said "why" :confused:

Interesting...

[qryche]

DON'T USE ANY! Do not condense down someone else's advisories/forecasts.

Hammer home YOUR FORECAST, YOUR SNOW/ICE TOTALS , etc.

Winter weather advisories warnings tend help in increasing the hype over winter weather events, weather it is a run of the mill couple/few inches to a widespread heavy/crippling storm.

No one is saying to not make your OWN forecast...but the average viewer is living less and less in a "shell"...they have access to several forecasts, and may be fully aware of advisories/warnings you choose to post/not post. Yes, different forecasts from different sources may not agree...but as a group we're doing a disservice to the public at large if they receive several different "action plans" because the NWS has a freezing rain advisory, you're saying nothing will happen, and your competition is saying it will all go to snow. At some point they're not going to listen, then wonder why they weren't warned.

I think it's much more instructive to mention the advisories, but if you don't believe them, say so and explain why. And you can try to defuse the "hype".

Not mentioning them at all will not make the hype go away, and will just lead to more calls from viewers (and depending on where you are, your ND) wanting to know why so-and-so says we're going to get slammed and we're not saying anything. Easier to defuse it all at once on-air, and it builds you're credibility (especially when you're right!)

[SevereClear]

Right now, we crawl every single watch/advisory/warning etc... and we keep a map in the corner. I guess our only reason is because "we always have" and the guys on the other stations do it.

Today, I'm rethinking our plan. We may still show them on air, but I'm thinking about droppping the crawls and map. We can run our own crawl and then show our forecast and the NWS warnings/advisories/watches on the newscasts.

We need a another poll that asks, who shows them? :)

[KCMO Buzzman]

Too many Winter weather warnings. I do miss the traveler's advisory. (I know showing my age :) ) Anyway, this last storm is an example. This person wondered what happened to the freezing rain forecast? We were standing in moderate ZR, with some ice building up on everything at the time of his question. But some of the public still thinks that freezing rain is when they "hear it ping" on the window.

At our shop we show the expected results - if there are bands of differing snow accums, they are on the map. If there is a mix, another shaded area, and so on. I don't think it much matters to the viewing public WHICH advisory they are under, but they do care to know what they can expect - snow, all sleet, glazing, rain/snow, rain, nothing etc...

We don't leave up the bug all the time, but we do leave it in during the first segment of each new show and run the crawl. We reserve "RED" for the most severe warnings - Tornado in the Spring/Fall; Ice Storm in the Winter.

Maybe the compromise for those who still show the "officials" is to show that map first, and then since your forecasted precip types should closely mirror those boundaries, dissolve to your forecasted amounts/types (indirecly showing what those officials all mean). Then follow up with the hints winter driving tips, safety kits - blah blah blah.

[nywx10]

No one is saying to not make your OWN forecast...but the average viewer is living less and less in a "shell"...they have access to several forecasts, and may be fully aware of advisories/warnings you choose to post/not post. Yes, different forecasts from different sources may not agree...but as a group we're doing a disservice to the public at large if they receive several different "action plans" because the NWS has a freezing rain advisory, you're saying nothing will happen, and your competition is saying it will all go to snow. At some point they're not going to listen, then wonder why they weren't warned.

I think it's much more instructive to mention the advisories, but if you don't believe them, say so and explain why. And you can try to defuse the "hype".

Not mentioning them at all will not make the hype go away, and will just lead to more calls from viewers (and depending on where you are, your ND) wanting to know why so-and-so says we're going to get slammed and we're not saying anything. Easier to defuse it all at once on-air, and it builds you're credibility (especially when you're right!)

First, if the public has (and they do) access to several forecasts so be it. Again why address someone else's forecast/product when it is different from yours. Why wast your precious on-air time discounting what other are saying/going for. Just hammer home your forecast. If you don't believe the need for a warning or an advisory that may be posted then why draw attention to that advisory. I think by hammerring home YOUR forecast and why/why not an event will happen (and hopefully being right) enhances your credibility.

I don't think we are doing a disservice by not mentioning advisories/warnings. When it comes to winter weather forecasting I like to take the lead, rather than follow. Why bother with extraneous bullcrap, just tell them what they need to know regarding a weather event and again why should I have to explain someone else's terminology or forecast? We do more of a disservice by passing on useless information.

As for calls from viewers regarding why so and so is saying we are going to get hammered, or more often than not,, get why are going for so much more then the comp, I tell them to call the comp and ask them why they are going for nothing.

Had a storm either last year or the year before that I was the only one going for, I got a lot calls, e-mails criticizing me for the forecast BEFORE it happened. I said if I am wrong I'll say so on the air (and I have done this on the few times that I was wrong).

When I am right, I'll let them know. Regarding this particular storm, I had fun sending via e-mail the PNS that totally validated my forecast, and those who got the e-mail actually liked it and I even got many apologies back in reply.

As for the ND calling and saying this or that, and why we aren't/are going for a particular event, it does not happen here. We (wx dept) have no less than 3 meetings per weekday with the ND and producers regarding weather for the next 24 hours and also w.r.t assessing long range weather threats.

[Weather Minus]

Too many different types of advisories. Streamline watches/warnings to winter storm, ice storm, and heavy snow.

I remember the good ole "travelers advisory", too; today's version would/should be "travelers advisory for xxxx" but ID it the same in AWIPS and on the web page(s).

If there are any NWS people reading, what the NWS and individual WSO web pages need are a way to turn off different watches/warnings/advisories/statements/etc. when there are multiples in effect. For example, if you're looking for a tornado watch and it's being trumped (and covered up) by a butt-scratch warning (since warnings cover up watches), I'd like to hide the warning to see the watch.

Oh, and while I'm at it, fire weather watches, hazardous weather outlooks, and special weather statements are too close in color to distinguish from each other (could also be solved by an ability to turn things off and on).

[rdale]

but as a group we're doing a disservice to the public at large if they receive several different "action plans" because the NWS has a freezing rain advisory, you're saying nothing will happen, and your competition is saying it will all go to snow. At some point they're not going to listen, then wonder why they weren't warned.

If you're new to the area, I suppose that's true... Years ago I would start off with "there is a WSW in effect, but I think..."

But after people begin trusting you, that only adds to the confusion. Let the competition go with NWS or TWC. Viewers physically can't watch both channels at the same time, so stand out from the rest.

[nywx10]

If you're new to the area, I suppose that's true... Years ago I would start off with "there is a WSW in effect, but I think..."



But after people begin trusting you, that only adds to the confusion. Let the competition go with NWS or TWC. Viewers physically can't watch both channels at the same time, so stand out from the rest.

I didn't know the NWS/USWB used WSW terminology back then! :p

So true, and once again I agree totally. :cheers:

[qryche]

Not trying to pick a fight here...and I don't know about your situation/market...so what you do and go through...what is expected of you ...may be different than what is reality for some people. I think there are probably a lot of mets, particularly chiefs who have been at a shop for awhile, who can pretty much take your stand. Market matters too...some areas will always be more "weather-aware" than others.

Maybe I've just swallowed too much NWS Kool-Aid...I've been working closely with those folks in every market I've been in. And I will always think that if too many people bark too many different messages, we're doing more harm than good, regardless of what we think about our personal forecasts.

I do admire your ability to ignore all that swirls around you, but I watch the NWS and my competition closely. I also won't hesitate to address elements of their forecasts...not necessarily calling them out by name...but because I get the "they said..." all the time, and more often then not I can't simply say "well I'm saying this." Just not in my nature. All it takes is an "I've had viewers say they've heard this, but that is not true...here's why". They feel included in the process, I show off my "knowledge", and we've taken another step in making us stand out from the other guys.

From my experience in five years here, it's worked. Results may vary...

[kmfdmatt]

Not trying to pick a fight here...and I don't know about your situation/market...so what you do and go through...what is expected of you ...may be different than what is reality for some people. I think there are probably a lot of mets, particularly chiefs who have been at a shop for awhile, who can pretty much take your stand. Market matters too...some areas will always be more "weather-aware" than others.

Maybe I've just swallowed too much NWS Kool-Aid...I've been working closely with those folks in every market I've been in. And I will always think that if too many people bark too many different messages, we're doing more harm than good, regardless of what we think about our personal forecasts.

I do admire your ability to ignore all that swirls around you, but I watch the NWS and my competition closely. I also won't hesitate to address elements of their forecasts...not necessarily calling them out by name...but because I get the "they said..." all the time, and more often then not I can't simply say "well I'm saying this." Just not in my nature. All it takes is an "I've had viewers say they've heard this, but that is not true...here's why". They feel included in the process, I show off my "knowledge", and we've taken another step in making us stand out from the other guys.

From my experience in five years here, it's worked. Results may vary...


excellent post!

[rdale]

Maybe I've just swallowed too much NWS Kool-Aid...I've been working closely with those folks in every market I've been in. And I will always think that if too many people bark too many different messages, we're doing more harm than good, regardless of what we think about our personal forecasts.

I have no bones with the NWS, we have great relationships with two of the three offices we deal with (one has no need for outside input, they know all the need to internally...) But that doesn't mean I put their forecasts above mine, as I wouldn't put Miguel's or TVWX's either. Do I use their input? Sure. But at the end of the day, it's ME and MY REPUTATION the viewers will be going on. If I were to put up "ICE STORM WARNING" on the screen, and say "but I think..." then it causes confusion. If I just say "Hey, we could see some ice down there but I don't think it'll be a big deal" then everyone is happy.

[TAFKA wacowx]

Not trying to pick a fight here...and I don't know about your situation/market...so what you do and go through...what is expected of you ...may be different than what is reality for some people. I think there are probably a lot of mets, particularly chiefs who have been at a shop for awhile, who can pretty much take your stand. Market matters too...some areas will always be more "weather-aware" than others.

Maybe I've just swallowed too much NWS Kool-Aid...I've been working closely with those folks in every market I've been in. And I will always think that if too many people bark too many different messages, we're doing more harm than good, regardless of what we think about our personal forecasts.

I do admire your ability to ignore all that swirls around you, but I watch the NWS and my competition closely. I also won't hesitate to address elements of their forecasts...not necessarily calling them out by name...but because I get the "they said..." all the time, and more often then not I can't simply say "well I'm saying this." Just not in my nature. All it takes is an "I've had viewers say they've heard this, but that is not true...here's why". They feel included in the process, I show off my "knowledge", and we've taken another step in making us stand out from the other guys.

From my experience in five years here, it's worked. Results may vary...

And I am also not trying to pick a fight...just some honest curiousity about your situation:

WHY do you pay such close attention to the competition/NWS? Are you not as confident in your skills as others are? Does paying such close attention lead you to have a 'watered-down' forecast? i.e., you originally think it will rain, but the NWS and the others in the market say snow so you add snow and ultimately it ends up raining and your forecast suffers as a result.

Where does the investigating the other forecasters come in your daily forecasting? Look to them before you come up with your forecast? After you are done as a second opinion? Or do you just look to know what they are saying?

It may work in your situation, but I feel spending the time looking at the other sources can only hurt you. In a situation like this, you will never stary from the pack and never nail 'the BIG one' since others won't be talking about it. Maybe I am misunderstanding your methods and please correct me if I am wrong.

I am clearly in the camp of forecasting what you truly feel will happen and only take about the 'other guys' if/when it becomes an issue (watercooler talk...etc).

[qryche]

I don't use the other forecasts as a tool for my own forecasts, and I never watch what the other stations are doing until I've already been on air. I have the other stations monitored, and will address their shortcomings as/if necessary for later shows.

I do enjoy reading regional forecast discussions (note the plural, not just my own WFO) just to see what consensus is, mainly when we've got a big winter system moving in. I don't treat this any differently than any of you who have ever visited a forecast discussion might treat it: you've got your ideas, you'll respect some differing opinions, now let's see who's right. If one forecaster is an outlier, I want to know why. I suppose there's always that chance that I'll miss something, or see a perspective that I hadn't approached, but influences on my own product are rare, I would like to believe, unless of course I'm still hungover. ;)

I also keep track of these things for proof of performance...not just for a starting point for those "after the storm" promos after an event, but also to measure my own performance against the others on a daily basis. From this, I can either gloat to myself, or I can find ways to continue to grow my product.

Finally, I watch to other guys to keep myself informed. If they're doing something we need to know about (new gfx, where did those spotter reports come from?), I would rather it not be a surprise.

I used to think more "insular" then I do now: I once didn't give a rat's behind about what the other guys had on. But in my current situation, I have found it easier to keep a step ahead this way. And I love saying to my ND "but he got 3:00 to cover this, why are our producers trying to cut my time". Proved to be effective in my shop. Again, your results may vary!

[MoistureFluxCapacitor]

Categorize winter storms based upon likely impact. People understand that a CAT 5 hurricane is a monster...and that an EF-4 Tornado causes major damage. Why not rate winter storms the same way??? I think Paul Kocin came up with something like that in the past???

Why not something like...

CAT 1: Winter precipitation that has minimal impact...travel with caution.

CAT 2: Winter precip that will likely cause travel difficulties but will not be a human exposure hazzard. Travel with caution.

CAT 3: Winter precip that will likely cause moderate to major travel difficulties and will pose a substantial exposure danger to humans. Travel should be limited to that deemed absolutely necessary.

CAT 4: Winter precip and conditions that will likely cause major travel difficulties and exposure hazards that pose a substantial exposure danger to humans. Travel should be restricted to emergency personnel only, and prolonged exposure to the elements could potentially be fatal.

CAT 5: Winter precip and conditions that are expected to make travel nearly impossible. Exposure risks that could potentially be fatal. Lasting effects from storm will last for days.

[SevereClear]

^^^Good Grief... The newsies would have fun with that!

All jokes aside, I like the idea. I think a certain station in the Ohio Valley has their own system. I'll have to check into it.

[rdale]

I don't understand the need to "categorize" -- especially if one man's Cat4 is anothers Cat2. What if my DMA gets all 5 cats?

Until it can be proven otherwise - I think the best way to tell people that 4" of snow is coming:

(drumroll)

...is to say "4 inches of snow is coming"

:D

[SevereClear]

Lol...

[TAFKA wacowx]

I don't understand the need to "categorize" -- especially if one man's Cat4 is anothers Cat2. What if my DMA gets all 5 cats?

Until it can be proven otherwise - I think the best way to tell people that 4" of snow is coming:

(drumroll)

...is to say "4 inches of snow is coming"

:D

But Rob...4" of snow with mainly wet or slushy roads is different than 4" that accumulates on the roads...or if it's mixed with freezing rain and produces an icy glaze over the top of it...

I think the CAT idea has merit. I don't agree that one mans CAT 2 is another's CAT 4. Still provide the specific outcome (amounts, timing...etc), but if we can help to simplify things by creating a system to quickly show viewers the intensity or potential problems they may encounter, it would be a good thing.

[rdale]

But Rob...4" of snow with mainly wet or slushy roads is different than 4" that accumulates on the roads...or if it's mixed with freezing rain and produces an icy glaze over the top of it

Completely agree...

But I think saying "4 inches of snow mixed with freezing rain and it may produce an icy glaze over the top, so roads will be nearly impassable" is better than saying "category 4 event coming."

Even if you say BOTH, what are the odds of people remember what a Cat4 is? Indiana just changed all their county road closings so that what used to be Cat 4 (no problems) is now complete shutdown (or vice versa, I forget.) They did it because one county would use Level 1 as "you will be arrested if you drive" while a neighboring county used Level 1 as "you'll see some snow on the roads." What if people forget it goes to 5?

Just too many reasons for it not to work. REMEMBER, we're dealing with a public that STILL doesn't know the difference between tornado WATCH and tornado WARNING!

[nywx10]

Unlike TCs which are categorized on an observable set of parameters, namely central pressure and wind, categorizing a winter storm as proposed would be near impossible, the only conceivable way, is a la KU and their impact scale which is post-analysis based.

Here's an example, it could be possible for one part of a DMA or even a county to have a higher cat than another. Do you go with two cats for the DMA or county in question?

"Catting" storms would just confuse the issue even more;it sound's like too many confusing watches and warnings from the NWS done under a pseudonym.

[rdale]

Interesting that 77% of us utilize the NWS bulletins in our weathercasts, but only 10% think the system works well as-is.

Says a LOT about our industry... :frustrated:

[Keyeser]

I would tend to agree that maybe putting snow storms into categories would not work. I don't see it working in terrain areas at all. You could easily have a nice gentle snow with minimal impact in valleys while the mountains look like a war zone. If you were to say... a cat 5 storm expected for the mountains but only cat 1 like in the valleys...you can bet the viewers will only heat "cat 5" and go nuts!!!

[qryche]

I may be mistaken, bit isn't AccuWx doing some sort of forecast impact "category rating"? I may have been hallucinating on a Bastardi fix...

I also saw a tape last spring of a station in Green Bay that NAMES winter storms. Now if you want confusing...

[MoistureFluxCapacitor]

Okay, okay...it was just an IDEA! :)

All kidding aside there is NO good way to do it other than to try to explain, in two minutes mind you, the varying types and amounts of precipitation and how it will impact your viewers.

Instead of a bunch of watch/warn/advisory maps...we are better off saying "Johnsonville will see some freezing rain topped off with about 3" of slushy wet snow" and "Braatburg will see all snow with nearly 6" off accumulation".

Due to time constraints the best I can usually get to is just saying "north, middle, south" and break it down that way. Just had a storm last weekend that was more rain south, mix in the middle and all snow to the north. And the producer NEVER gave me more time than I would have with partly cloudy across the board. :(

[rdale]

All kidding aside there is NO good way to do it other than to try to explain, in two minutes mind you, the varying types and amounts of precipitation and how it will impact your viewers.

Seems like everyone's public comments are shaded that way - but we still are ending up with 80% on the poll say they use the advisories in their weathercasts...

I've got theories on why...

[nywx10]

Seems like everyone's public comments are shaded that way - but we still are ending up with 80% on the poll say they use the advisories in their weathercasts...

I've got theories on why...

Do tell Karnak!!!:worship:

Hope you didn't lose sleep over them either! :D

Seriously, wonder what you're thinking as to why?

[rdale]

Path of least resistance... If the advisories are right, you can sleep well (or promote yourself) for having delivered a hit. If the advisories are wrong, you can say "we all missed this one."

Plus -- winter forecasting is HARD. And potentially high impact. So if you aren't keeping up with the latest in winter weather techniques -- still make your snow accumulations with the 540 line and NGM FOUS output -- then maybe it's better to stick with the NWS plot :whistle:

(And I'm losing sleep so that TVWX can enjoy some time off, NO WAY that I'd be posting at these hours unless forced to)

[MIguel W foX]

Path of least resistance... If the advisories are right, you can sleep well (or promote yourself) for having delivered a hit. If the advisories are wrong, you can say "we all missed this one."

Plus -- winter forecasting is HARD. And potentially high impact. So if you aren't keeping up with the latest in winter weather techniques -- still make your snow accumulations with the 540 line and NGM FOUS output -- then maybe it's better to stick with the NWS plot :whistle:

(And I'm losing sleep so that TVWX can enjoy some time off, NO WAY that I'd be posting at these hours unless forced to)

I have to admit, you are being quite chipper despite the early hours.:rockon:

[rdale]

It was only a 3-day week for him, we need to bring up a controversial topic next time he takes a full one :sleep: