Rose is right. The press is a reflection of its viewers. There are a lot of "sheeple" out there to support the sensationalism. It's scary how many people are so easily led. Today's people want to be mothered -- hence the news increasingly pointing out "dangerous" situations. It equates to an adult version of "you better stay inside or you'll catch a cold..."
A few years ago, a couple of the Boston TV meteorologists told me about the struggle between news directors and meteorologists whenever storms were a possibility. The weathermen said they didn't like mentioning any possible storm until they absolutely HAD to. As soon as the cat's out of the bag, they said, the news directors want to make it dance for the camera. They told me it had frustrated the meteorologists to the point where regular meetings of "the two sides" were necessary in order to reach compromises between the conflicting interests of "attract viewers" versus "give them the scientific (ZZZZZZZ) truth."
If any information bores you, makes sense but still doesn't seem very exciting, or if it makes you uncomfortably aware of your personal flaws, you're probably getting the truth.
The truth is exciting and sensational only when the monster storm really IS coming. In those cases, hype actually dwindles because human nature is to deny the big stuff and get excited over small stuff. If the computer models are in agreement that a whole city will be buried under as much snow as it normally gets in two seasons, it's a bit hard to imagine. So the forecasters might cut it down to more believable levels.
In California last week, the forecast called for 4 to 8 feet of snow. That was sensational enough. The storm actually dropped 10+ feet in many locations. But who would have believed them if they had predicted that much?
Lately in the world of weather forecasting I've been observing more. In the last couple of years some large cycles (namely the sun, and the Pacific Ocean) have come around to points last visited decades and centuries ago. At the same time, I've noticed the computer models have been struggling, and forecasters expressing less confidence and more frustration in the technical discussions they write. I think the rules of weather forecasting have changed a bit, and lately I've been trying to get a feel for what they are now. If we as weather forecasters were batters in a baseball game, I'd say we're facing a new pitcher and we don't have great stats on what he throws.
It's a good time to observe the strategy. This weather forum has been a place where we've talked about what will come, followed by measurements of what happened.
It should now also become a place where we discuss what went wrong, when forecasts go wrong. Many more will.
When I first started posting forecasts on this forum in winter of "06-07, I had a handle on the rhythm of the atmosphere that went back a few years. My gut feeling is that those forecasting rules aren't as useful now. I'm not seeing the same rhythm. At the moment the weather holds both aces and jokers, and will play them both in such a way as to win.
|