Meteorologists should be given credit when they are right!

21   Dec ,  2011 | 9
comments

Just for kicks, I did a Twitter search yesterday evening and typed in the keyword “meteorologist.”  And I saw at least 10 tweets that said they wish they could be a ‘meteorologist’ so they could get paid to be “wrong”. And the next set of tweets I saw were showing how many people were blaming their local TV meteorologist for how lousy their forecast was.

Many people are quick to point the finger when the forecast is wrong, but rarely give credit when the forecast was right.  In fact, I didn’t see any tweets commending their local weatherman or their local NWS meteorologist for nailing the forecast.   I believe that meteorologists should be given credit when they are right!

Mike Smith, from Meteorological Musings, also brought this topic up on his blog (here).    He mentioned  that a NOAA meteorologist complained about this at the Weather Ready conference, too.

My theory on why meteorologists do not get credit for accurate forecasts from the public is for the following reasons:

1) High expectations:  I think public expectations are so high for an accurate weather forecast, that there is rarely ever any validation to a meteorologist who has nailed a forecast.   Plus many believe since meteorologists are “paid” to be “right or wrong”…they should be “right” all the time.

2) No Central Support Platform: When a meteorologist has “nailed” a forecast, what are they supposed to do?   Scream it to the world and hope someone hears it?  Bottom line, there is no central support platform or site to where a meteorologist can showcase their success and receive some validation.

3) “Accuracy” issues:  It sometimes can be a bit difficult to give credit when there isn’t a clear definition of what makes a forecast “accurate”.  What is the definition of an  “accurate” weather forecast?  Is it nailing the high temperature, low temperature, cloud cover (if any), or precipitation amount (if any)?  Or is it one or the other?  Or maybe it’s the severe weather event itself (ie major flood, hurricane, etc).

And there’s also an issue of “when” the meteorologist made the call…for example, if meteorologist A made an accurate forecast 5 days in advance while Meteorologist B made the same forecast 1 day in advance…does it mean meteorologist A should get more “credit” when the forecast is accurate because he or she made it earlier?   I think to the public it’s still a little “hazy” (pun intended).

But just so you’re completely clear on my point about meteorologists deserving credit for accurate forecasts; I don’t think a meteorologist needs validation if he or she forecasts 70 degrees and sunny in San Diego, CA.   My point is meteorologists should deserve credit when they forecast a severe weather event in advance (and the “call” is correct).

For example, let’s say the meteorologist is forecasting the anticipation of either major flooding, blizzards, severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, Santa Ana winds, Chinook winds, mudslides, wildfires, avalanches, etc.   If the severe weather event they “called” comes into fruition, I think they deserve get some credit.  And I believe NWS meteorologists should also get a lot of the credit because many times it’s they who made the call for the TV meteorologist to communicate.   I also believe “public-facing” meteorologists should deserve the “credit” too (ie NWS, TV).

So, how would they get some credit?

Here are some of my solutions: 

1)  “Forecaster of the Month”:  I think each Local NWS office should have a “forecaster of the month” and highlight them not only in their internal offices, but also on their websites.

2)  Central portal:  There needs to be a central place where a meteorologist can communicate and prove his or her accuracy.   Maybe the NWA or AMS can have a place on their existing website that recognizes the successes of meteorologists.   Maybe someone else can put it on their platform?  Heck, I’ll even showcase those “accurate” meteorologists on my blog if meteorologists communicate and prove their successes to me.

3)  NWS and Local Media:  I believe there should be a stronger connection between each NWS office and their local media (radio, newspapers, TV).   I believe that the NWS should send out press bulletins for those meteorologists in their office that nailed a major “severe weather forecast.”  Maybe it’s done monthly…but either way it would hopefully help get some credit for successes in our field.

4)  A Simple “Thanks”:   A simple “thanks” can go a long way.  Just calling or emailing your local meteorologist to tell them what a great job they did can make them feel all tingly inside and receive that “credit” or “validation” they deserve.

And yes I also do believe TV meteorologists deserve credit too since they do communicate the pertinent weather information and potentially save lives during severe weather events.   And yes I do believe it’s okay to “share credit” with each meteorologist who made the call.

But I also believe that the meteorologist who makes the “earliest” call for a severe weather event deserves the most “credit.” It’s because he or she stuck their neck out there to give warnings farther in advance.   I think timing should definitely be factored into “accuracy”.   I also believe what makes a forecast “accurate” is whether the “severe weather event” came into fruition at the time the meteorologist had mentioned.

Bottom line, I’d personally like to see more success stories of meteorologists being “right” than always hearing how “wrong” they are.   Mike Smith (on his blog) also mentioned that 99% of fatalities within tornadoes were within a “watch” or “warning”.   I feel the public also doesn’t realize how difficult it is to make an “accurate” forecast.   I do think meteorologists are more “right” than “wrong” but the public continues to focus on the “wrong”.   Hopefully we all can work together to change that perception!

Do you think meteorologists deserve more credit?   Do you have any other ideas?  Would love to hear them. (Photo credit: Sir colby)

Posted by: AJ · Categories: Fixing Meteorology, Hot Topics, Inspirational · Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by AJ on December 21, 2011

  • Christopher Alston

    I would think that majority of complaints center around TV “meteorologists” that get the forecast wrong. You’ll never get the forecast right all the time, but I do feel that many tv forecasters do not put the time and effort into making good forecasts. I interned at a news station in the nyc metro for a year and the “meteorologist” would come in an hour before the show, make graphics, look at the GFS and the Euro, split the mos, and make a forecast.

    I think there is a lower standard for TV forecasters as opposed to other fields of forecasting. TV has become more about presentation, ratings, and hype. While I do agree that people are quick to judge when the forecast is wrong, I also think that forecasters should try to put out the best possible forecasts. Taking it a step further, identifying the possible risks / complexities to the forecast.

    I find that lately the weather segments have been less about weather. Forecasters don’t utilize all the tools at their disposal. Leveraging all resources will lead to better forecasts and a more satisfied public.

  • Matthew Mosbacher

    I think fundamentally the issue surrounds two problems: Delivery Medium, and Effective Communication. Lets, for the moment, ignore the times when a forecast goes flat out sideways, and what the Meteorologist honestly thought would happen doesn’t (or what they through wouldn’t happen does…). Now we are dealing with what is perhaps the most frustrating situation for an operational meteorologist, when they get the forecast right… but the audience/client perceives that they got it WRONG!

    In the case of publicly distributed forecast content (particularly in television) the meteorologist, good as they may be, is hamstrung by a timeline of delivery. Throughout an entire 30min newscast the weatherman or meteorologist is only granted 2-3 short appearances, the longest one may be on the order of 2min 30sec… and that’s during active weather cycles. Anybody who’s sat in the forecast chair and tried to articulate the nuances of a forecast, geographically, topographically, temporally, and with uncertainties, will quickly understand that this simply isn’t enough time. The TV viewership gets a broad-brushed and closely approximated product most of the time. Some specific attention is conveyed when ‘alerts’ or ‘warnings’ have been issued, but even these are arbitrarily elected (consciously or sub-consciously) by the meteorologist/weathercaster to be highlighted in the segment. Bottom Line: Due to the constraints added by the delivery medium (namely time) the perceived errors in the forecast manifest where detailed attention is skipped.

    With the case of communication break-downs, there seems to be a disconnect at times between the reader(consumer) of a weather forecast, and the author(meteorologist). The author is often seeking to capture the specifics of the ‘weather’. Rain or Dry? Sun or Clouds? Rain at Noon or 2pm? The reader (methinks) is reading the weather forecast as if it is written for them, and often extrapolates upon the contents in the forecast to make determinations in their daily activities… Umbrella or No Umbrella? Sunglasses or No Sunglasses? Ride bike to work or drive? (There are a number of industry critical decisions too, all of similar form). Nowhere in the fundamental questions of the reader(viewer) does weather explicitly enter. The reader is reading “rain or dry” as “drive or bike” making a semantic leap in their minds.

    So lets suppose on the heels of a heavy rain storm the main front is moving out and clearing takes place overnight. Forecast is calling for no more rain (as the synoptic weather has moved on). Forecaster calls for rain to end overnight with clearing through the morning and sun by afternoon (insert dry icon with clouds obscuring sun on the left, exposed sun on the right). Viewer/Reader decides, “Ride Bike”. Morning ride seems to be going fine, sun comes up and suddenly a heavy mist begins to form… the still wet ground and saturated low level air leave the bike rider dripping wet upon arrival at work. Frustrated rider then vents to coworkers/blogs/twitter, how lousy the weather forecast was as it prompted a decision that got them soaked. Meanwhile the meteorologist looks through the obs (BR, some -DZ) over a cup of coffee, watching the synoptic front progress out of the region on the radar while the satellite shows clearing developing by mid-morning; and says to him/herself: “nailed it”.

    It is this intersection of communication failure (not knowing how the forecast is being used, and the user not knowing how to use the forecast) and communicative medium constraints that generate a great deal of the ‘missed forecast’ phenomenon. There are countless other similar examples of communication disconnects out there. The communication of esoteric weather information to a public audience who each experiences the weather a little differently is a fundamental challenge in the industry, and one that may never be fully resolved. The weather community can better identify specific user-groups, and better understand specific weather impacts on those groups, with the ambition of addressing these in the forecast; but short of tailoring the forecast to each single user/reader, we probably will never fully close the communication gap.

  • Philip

    Meteorologists do need to receive credit for when they are right. Predictions of coming climatological events are difficult to make in 100% correct format. The computer modelling for a meteorologist to make a prediction of how the weather will be rests these days on not just one but at the very least three main computer models.With Global warming and the increasing pollution of the atmosphere the ability to be correct is crucial. Weather systems change quite dramatically even in the space of 24 hours, sometimes even less, or perhaps more. This must be taken into account and demonstrably applied to the data programmed into the three computers. Data from thousands of sites is required and thus with the aid of the three computer modelling a generally positive prediction is given. Reliance also is placed upon forecasters, observers, co-operative observers, and many other individuals, plus AWS recordings to allow the meteorologist to be as correct as is humanly possible.
    Philip Mew, Fellow, Royal Meteorological Society, Reading,United Kingdom.
    Member AMOS Melbourne Victoria Australia

  • http://www.yourweatherblog.com/ Dave Gorham

    I agree with everything you’ve written, AJ. I seem to remember, “Gracefully Accepting Blame” as one my earliest weather courses in school! Although I say this jokingly, I always downplay accepting credit for a great forecast on a beautiful, sunny day because if you take credit for the good, then you have to take credit for the bad.

    To add to your Accuracy Issues above, I’ll say that sometimes the general public equates bad weather with a bad forecast, even if the forecast was right on the money (Sometimes, bad is bad. – Huey Lewis).

  • Anonymous

    Thanks Christopher. I think the partial reason for this is News Directors only care about ratings and not about how “accurate” the forecast is. So I think TV forecasters are constantly being pushed from upper management to become goofier, funnier, anything that sets them apart from the competition to help drive more ratings.

    Even in my previous posts, I’ve talked about how 85% of the weather segment is about presentation and how you look. Of course it depends on the market too…but overall it’s how the TV business operates.

    Thanks for your comment!

  • Doug

    Whenever someone says to me meteorologist get paid to be wrong, I always tell them what about sportscasters? They make predictions on games and what team wins/loses on a daily basis, also players that may get traded and to potentially what team but nobody freaks out if they’re wrong or if they bet on a team based on a prediction of a sportscaster. At least us meteorologists have science to back up our forecast from computer models. Sportscasters base their analysis off stats and gut feeling. Also what about politicians? They make decisions all the time that people don’t like yet they’re getting paid way more than your average meteorologist. I think if meteorologist explain themselves on why they’re making a certain forecast there’s less public outcry if they’re wrong.

  • Anonymous

    Hey Matt…you’re absolutely right. You also just pointed out that it can be quite challenging to be an on-air TV meteorologist. In only 2.5 minutes, the meteorologist is expected to give the viewers a slam dunk forecast…and on top of that be able to take into account all the different microclimates.

    I think a bigger problem nowadays is the push for ratings and for the meteorologist to do a lot more non-weather stuff. This is a great example. A meteorologist from LA was live in the field and was told to interview someone instead of do his weather segment …so he just didn’t do it and walked off.

    Check out the link: http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/12/22/ktla-weatherman-throws-a-fit-and-walks-off-during-live-broadcast-video/

    It’s hilarious! And kudos for him to stand up for what he believes in.

    But overall, I agree with you…there will always be that communication gap…but I think many times when the meteorologist is right…a “thank you” or some validation from the public would be nice.

    Best,

    AJ

  • Anonymous

    Thanks Dave…glad we see eye to eye on this one :)

    Yea and I forgot to add in “heat events” and “cold events” to my list of severe weather even when it may be “sunny”.

    Thanks for the additional “add on” for the accuracy issues. Makes sense to me.

    Best,

    AJ

  • Anonymous

    Hi Doug, I believe most sportscasters generally just report on the sporting events and what the outcome/results were. I think maybe a few of them on ESPN make some friendly bets here and there. But I don’t think their job is to “forecast sports”…it’s more to “report it”. I think in weather…it’s all about “forecasting” and only a little about reported observations (unless it’s a severe weather event).

    Thanks for your comment!

    AJ