Why The Weather Channel is Naming Winter Storms

[toxictwister00]

I always wondered about this. It's an interesting concept to me.

The Weather Channel to Name Winter Storms

Video Link: http://www.weather.com/news/why-we-name-winter-storms-20121001

[jtmal0723]

I always wondered about this. It's an interesting concept to me.

The Weather Channel to Name Winter Storms

Video Link: http://www.weather.com/news/why-we-name-winter-storms-20121001

*sigh* What is TWC thinking, with this concept?

[toxictwister00]

I wonder about the criteria for it. It has to vary drastically by regions, a 1 footer in the Southeast would carry more merit for a name than a 1 footer in the Northeast would.

I kinda like the idea, (on the fence about how it can effectively work) but given how TWC has been now, I would feel more comfortable about this if they were working in conjunction with the HPC so it doesn't come off as being overly gloried and hyped which we know is one of the main motivators for this.

Also they put a lot of stake into talking about naming Snowstorms, what about Icestorms? I mean they mention ice being in the criteria in the article, but an icestorm by itself carries even more drastic effects to the population/property than snowstorms.

Wow, the more I think about this, the more it's starting to feel like a bad idea. More questions than answers coming up in my head. Best of luck to them on the concept though.

[Mr. Rainman]

I wonder about the criteria for it. It has to vary drastically by regions, a 1 footer in the Southeast would carry more merit for a name than a 1 footer in the Northeast would.

I kinda like the idea, (on the fence about how it can effectively work) but given how TWC has been now, I would feel more comfortable about this if they were working in conjunction with the HPC so it doesn't come off as being overly gloried and hyped which we know is one of the main motivators for this.

Also they put a lot of stake into talking about naming Snowstorms, what about Icestorms? I mean they mention ice being in the criteria in the article, but an icestorm by itself carries even more drastic effects to the population/property than snowstorms.

Wow, the more I think about this, the more it's starting to feel like a bad idea. More questions than answers coming up in my head. Best of luck to them on the concept though.

Nothing new for the Northern Plains. Folks up here have been "naming" winter storms that blow through for at least a decade. I do wonder what the criteria is, though.

[Trevor]

If anyone were to do that, it would need to be the NWS or a similar agency. TWC fails again. *facepalm*

Also, I can't wait to see someone say "Winter Storm Magnus" or "Winter Storm Q" with a straight face

[toxictwister00]

This link gives insight on the names.  Maybe I'm not giving TWC much credit, but I'm pretty sure a lot of these names are being used for pop culture references.

http://www.weather.com/news/winter-storm-names-20121001

If anyone were to do that, it would need to be the NWS or a similar agency. TWC fails again. *facepalm*

Also, I can't wait to see someone say "Winter Storm Magnus" or "Winter Storm Q" with a straight face

Slightly less humorous than using the name Trojan.

[wxmediafan]

I am not a huge fan of this, at all.  I don't see the point.  If a storm is so noteworthy, then we name it ourselves, such as Storm of the Century, Groundhog's Day Blizzard, and  the President's Day Storm.  Just another gimmick to get viewers, I suppose.  If it works, good for them, but I most certainly am not a fan of the idea.

I wonder what others within the network think?

[gt1racerlHDl]

I do wonder what the criteria is, though.

Snow & Wind Impacts, Ice & Snow Accumulation, Regional impacts (Tom Niziol compared Buffalo, NY to Atlanta, GA saying a  2" snowstorm in Buffalo wouldn't mean much but a 2" snowstorm in Atlanta would.)

[phw115wvwx]

I would rather see TWC cover the impacts, watches, and warnings with each winter storm.  There are too many factors involved to worry about naming one, and there are many little storms that wouldn't get named but are very capable of causing substantial problems.

[gt1racerlHDl]

I would rather see TWC cover the impacts, watches, and warnings with each winter storm.  There are too many factors involved to worry about naming one, and there are many little storms that wouldn't get named but are very capable of causing substantial problems.

I Agree, that's  the same thing i was thinking when i saw the names pop up on my TV.

[TWCCraig]

I may be the only few who actually like this idea. I don't think TWC should be doing it, I think officially naming a storm should lie in the hands of the NWS though. One major reason why I support naming winter storms is because winter storms are hugely underrated compared to lets say your average named tropical storm or even a Cat. 1 hurricane. For example, such power storms like the Post-Christmas blizzard of 2010, had such major impacts and statistics here in the northeast. I'm saying this not because what impacts it makes, but the statistics of the storm as well. MSLP dropped to 964mb in the storm, similar to a Cat 3. hurricane. Winds gusted up to 94mph with that blizzard in Nova Scotia (highest wind gust on Long Island was 70mph). Those are some pretty intense winds! Also, some major coastal storms can bring major storm surge and coastal flooding, something hurricanes can do as well. Precipitation is major as well, some storms dropping 2' of snow can cause grid lock in many cities and high amount of rain can cause serious flooding, and ice can create problems too. My alternative argument is why not? Europe has been naming storms since 1954, and Europe can get some pretty intense storms as well with very high winds, high amounts of precip. etc. I agree with Dr. Jeff Masters' in this quote.

Quote from Dr. Jeff Masters' Wunderblog:

Do you remember the North American blizzard of February 4, 2010? No? Well, do you remember Snowmageddon, the massive February 2010 Nor'easter that dumped up to 38" of snow in the mid-Atlantic, and killed 41 people? The two storms are the same, but having a simple name for the snowstorm like "Snowmageddon" helps us identify and remember the impacts of the storm. Naming a major winter storm makes even more sense if it is done before the storm hits, to aid in raising awareness of the storm, and to reduce the risks the public faces

[TWCToday]

No comment. 


http://www.weather.com/news/why-we-name-winter-storms-20121001

[phw115wvwx]

Craig, I'm fine with naming big winter storms after they occur.   I'm not a fan of seeing someone wasting precious time trying to decide if a highly uncertain and complex winter storm should be named before it happens.  The public only wants to know what's going to happen, how much will fall, when will it start and end, and what should they do.  Besides, what would we define as the naming criteria for a developing winter storm?  Pressure and winds alone won't work.  You have to consider so many other factors.

Furthermore, you're taking a huge risk of downplaying unnamed winter storms before they create disasters.  A small area of low pressure could trigger 1/2" of ice from freezing drizzle over Atlanta, or a small Alberta clipper could set up lake-effect bands that dump 1'-2' of snow and cause blizzard conditions in Chicago.  These hypothetical systems would never be named before they happened as they're so subtle, but they would create a nightmare for those cities that names may be needed after the fact.

[Eric]

This certainly has to be one of their more bizarre ideas.

[TWCCraig]

Craig, I'm fine with naming big winter storms after they occur.   I'm not a fan of seeing someone wasting precious time trying to decide if a highly uncertain and complex winter storm should be named before it happens.  The public only wants to know what's going to happen, how much will fall, when will it start and end, and what should they do.  Besides, what would we define as the naming criteria for a developing winter storm?  Pressure and winds alone won't work.  You have to consider so many other factors.

Furthermore, you're taking a huge risk of downplaying unnamed winter storms before they create disasters.  A small area of low pressure could trigger 1/2" of ice from freezing drizzle over Atlanta, or a small Alberta clipper could set up lake-effect bands that dump 1'-2' of snow and cause blizzard conditions in Chicago.  These hypothetical systems would never be named before they happened as they're so subtle, but they would create a nightmare for those cities that names may be needed after the fact.

I see your point. I think I have came to conclusion but I'd like to see their criteria for naming specific storms. It should be interesting what the criteria is and I wonder if it varies from region to region.