I suggest you look for a source that is satisfactory to you and avoid the ones that you don't accept. If you can't find a source that satisfies you, teach yourself how to forecast and do it to your own satisfaction. Shouldn't be tough for someone with your background.
CLA mentioned the difficulties that on-air meteorologists have with trying to get the producers to keep the hype to a minimum. It's what brings in the ratings. Why don't you try haranguing the general public who asks for dumbed-down information, not just in their weather forecasts, but in all their news items?
And I definitely take issue with your contention that the article itself hyped one model. The original title, definitely, but the article talked about several scenarios. If you have a complaint, write a letter to Weather.com, but don't come on here and repeatedly disparage all meteorologists based on one website which, as has already been stated by me, is not one that any self-respecting weather aficionado is going to pay attention to.
And I'm still waiting to see a "hot weather guy" on my TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by This'nThat
So, that's it? My choice is either uber-hype or NWS text?
My answer is -- I accept neither one. I expect the so-called meterologists to accurately interpret the information they have, use the tools available to them (graphics, etc), and explain the weather. And if they aren't capable of doing this, or refuse to do so, then I will complain -- as I have already done in this thread.
I stand by my initial complaint -- Weather.com incompetantly over-hyped a potential storm based upon a single model. I believe they did so solely for the sensation, and not necessarily to serve the public. And I'm calling them out for it. At a minimum, they should be embarrassed for being so unprofessional. And I don't accept their "oops, sorry" explanations.
And before everybody jumps all over me, I know that the weather models are complex. I'm not a weather guy. But I've developed, programmed, and ran my share of non-linear, 2nd-order partial differential equations with non-deterministic boundary conditions evaluating the movement of effluents under various pressure conditions [think: hingly modified Bernoulli equations], and so I have an appreciation for the difficulties of long-range predictions. If the boundary conditions are just right, there could be significant errors in the end result. But knowing that -- and then higly publicising the most sensational model [regardless of the potential error] as "this is the case, folks" is just plain incompetance on someone's part. IMO.
|