The No'easter of 2010
By adamg - 2/10/10 - 6:43 pm
Mike Wankum comes up with seven reasons the forecast changed.
Teddy Kokoros isn't ready to buy any of them.
Hey, there! Log in / Register
Mike Wankum comes up with seven reasons the forecast changed.
Teddy Kokoros isn't ready to buy any of them.
Comments
It's not so much that they
It's not so much that they consistently overpredict snow - although they may - it's that they make such a big deal of any possible chance of bad weather - for the ratings. When you call the standard weather report
STORM TRACK HOLOCAUST
you really need to rein it in.
Journalism became pure
Journalism became pure punditry quite a few years ago, so don't count on it.
Beat me to it
Reason #8 - IT'S FEBRUARY AND THE STATIONS WANT TO INCREASE RATINGS.
This isn't on the meteorologists, this is on the GM's and owners. Oh, and anybody who sent workers home early or canceled school is a pussy.
In defense of meteorologists...
I'll admit there's a shred of cynical validity to the idea that the possibility of a large storm was hyped by news directors to build ratings at TV stations.
But any decent meteorologist KNOWS that his or her reputation is made and broken on big forecasts like this, and a flub like this damages the station's (and the forecaster's) credibility to a degree far beyond the temporary gain from higher ratings-- just look at the bile here and elsewhere today.
Furthermore, the forecasts are really driven by the National Weather Service, which is not beholden to advertisers or ratings, and even the NWS predicted a major storm.
It's a cliche, but sometimes the weather ends up being hard to predict. And if you listened carefully before the storm, that uncertainty was sometimes noted, though usually in the form of suggesting the storm might shift north, instead of alternatives that would make for a weaker storm.
Thats true, but it's all in
Thats true, but it's all in the sell to the public.
It's not the data or information that is the problem, and everyone knows weather can be unpredictable. It’s the fear mongering way they disseminate and sensationalize it to get a rise out of people.
Tthe NWS had the same damn forecast on NWS.NOAA.GOV; but they didn’t go about calling it a possible snopocolypse, and telling their viewers to get goods for their snow out shelters and to bunker down. Local network news is a joke, and this was just another punchline when the curtain is pulled back a bit.
As far as I can recall....
... the National Weather Service pretty consistently offered less dire predictions for the weather (non-)event in question (as it related to Boston). Fairly early yesterday morning it was predicting only 2-4 inches of snow for Boston (and another possible 2-4 overnight). Can't recall exactly what it said the preceding night, but pretty sure it wasn't "blizzard".
My experience has been that NWS forecasts are generally
conservative as compared to the local media 'hype and spin' machine. Plus, if you listen to the NWS directly (a decent NOAA weather radio is relatively inexpensive) you don't have to put up with the cutsey chit-chat (WBZ radio's Accuweather guy that constantally uses the bad rhyming puns is the worst for this) or the inexcusable corporate 'branding' of the media storm reports (I want the weather forecast here, not to stare at an ad for an auto glass company).
And you are correct, the term 'blizzard' was NOT used at any time by NWS in their local forecasts for this storm.
Accuweather's website
This seems to have also been more conservative than Boston's local "forecasters" (though less so than the NWS).
geez will...
and you had been doing so *good* with your language recently...
Pussy means cat
I don't consider that to be a swear word.