Ontario Storms Site!  

Go Back   Ontario Storms Site! > Ontario Storms Forums > The Truck Stop: Storm Talk & Chit-Chat

The Truck Stop: Storm Talk & Chit-Chat General talk on past, current, and future storms - all talk about UPCOMING storms goes here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-24-2013, 06:14 PM
SlideShowBob's Avatar
SlideShowBob SlideShowBob is offline
Rank: Cumulonimbus Cloud Chaser
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Priceville, Ontario
Posts: 181
Thanks: 93
Thanked 28 Times in 23 Posts
Default 248 Million for E.C. (over 5 years)

Well, the budget is out and this is what E.C. gets. I wonder what or where it is going to be used for. Any comments?

Here's a link: http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1134...orological-day

Oh, BTW, Happy belated World Meteorological Day!
__________________
SlideShowBob
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Grey Highlands (Durham) Ontario
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SlideShowBob For This Useful Post:
DarkSky (03-24-2013)
  #2  
Old 03-24-2013, 09:19 PM
DarkSky's Avatar
DarkSky DarkSky is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St. Catharines, ON [Niagara]
Posts: 1,625
Thanks: 678
Thanked 416 Times in 282 Posts
Default Re: 248 Million for E.C. (over 5 years)

That's a TON of money. Some might argue, with the amount of incorrect forecasts and false warnings, is it justified?

A quarter of a billion dollars could do a LOT of good elsewhere in the system. A breakdown of how the money is spent would be nice to see, for the people who are paying that $248 million. (ie: you and me)
__________________
- DarkSky (St. Catharines, ON (Niagara) )
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-27-2013, 07:39 PM
davefootball123's Avatar
davefootball123 davefootball123 is offline
Rank: Supercell Chaser
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 747
Thanks: 49
Thanked 103 Times in 81 Posts
Default Re: 248 Million for E.C. (over 5 years)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkSky View Post
That's a TON of money. Some might argue, with the amount of incorrect forecasts and false warnings, is it justified?

A quarter of a billion dollars could do a LOT of good elsewhere in the system. A breakdown of how the money is spent would be nice to see, for the people who are paying that $248 million. (ie: you and me)
False warnings?...meh that's more of a system issue rather than a forecaster issue...polygons would fix that. I do agree though that they sometimes have a tendency to issue warnings for some of the sub-regions that don't need them.
Incorrect Forecasts? Have no clue what you are talking about there...EC has by far the best forecasts of any weather agency that supplies Canadian weather information. I am still in the process of developing a weather website for Southern Ontario and have looked at all the possible options for forecast data. EC's was the hardest to implement so I looked at other options...nothing even came close to being as accurate so I went ahead and developed a script for the EC data.

Last edited by davefootball123; 03-27-2013 at 07:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-27-2013, 07:50 PM
Storm Chaser's Avatar
Storm Chaser Storm Chaser is offline
Rank: Cumulonimbus Cloud Chaser
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Hamilton, ON
Posts: 171
Thanks: 7
Thanked 51 Times in 29 Posts
Default Re: 248 Million for E.C. (over 5 years)

Yes, I too only use EC for forecasts. As for the false warnings, people may tend to believe they are in a false warning because they weren't hit by any severe weather, meanwhile 5km to the north there may be a tornado or severe thunderstorm. This is as said above by davefootball a warning region issue. This year EC is implementing a new text system to better outline the sub regions included in each warning so people can better understand if they are actually a part of the warning or not.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-27-2013, 07:54 PM
davefootball123's Avatar
davefootball123 davefootball123 is offline
Rank: Supercell Chaser
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 747
Thanks: 49
Thanked 103 Times in 81 Posts
Default Re: 248 Million for E.C. (over 5 years)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Chaser View Post
Yes, I too only use EC for forecasts. As for the false warnings, people may tend to believe they are in a false warning because they weren't hit by any severe weather, meanwhile 5km to the north there may be a tornado or severe thunderstorm. This is as said above by davefootball a warning region issue. This year EC is implementing a new text system to better outline the sub regions included in each warning so people can better understand if they are actually a part of the warning or not.
I agree fully, however 1 thing about the new warning text. Sub-regions will be the same...new will by the expiry time and impact statements...and sometimes the warning text will have "COMMUNITIES IN THE PATH INCLUDE:" when the forecaster feels like it. The communities in the path will definitely help to determine if you are in the direct path of the storm or not...but don't expect them in every single bulletin...especially blanket warnings.

Last edited by davefootball123; 03-27-2013 at 07:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-27-2013, 09:35 PM
DarkSky's Avatar
DarkSky DarkSky is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St. Catharines, ON [Niagara]
Posts: 1,625
Thanks: 678
Thanked 416 Times in 282 Posts
Default Re: 248 Million for E.C. (over 5 years)

I can't even start to count how many times a severe tstorm warning has been issued only to have nothing develop. Or, count the # of tornado warnings for Niagara (not watches... *warnings*) compared to how many tornadoes Niagara has. Maybe 1 in what.. 20? warnings are true?

For forecasts I find TWN and Accuweather to be more accurate (NWS out of Buffalo is good too). As for the inaccurate forecasts, I again can't start to count the number of times we've cancelled weekend trips to the cottage because it was forecast for rain, then be told by family that it's sunny and beautiful up there.

Maybe more $ will help their accuracy. I'm not saying they're not trying their best. I know they are. Maybe they just needs some more cash to help things. Here's hoping!
__________________
- DarkSky (St. Catharines, ON (Niagara) )
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-28-2013, 01:48 AM
davefootball123's Avatar
davefootball123 davefootball123 is offline
Rank: Supercell Chaser
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 747
Thanks: 49
Thanked 103 Times in 81 Posts
Default Re: 248 Million for E.C. (over 5 years)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkSky View Post
I can't even start to count how many times a severe tstorm warning has been issued only to have nothing develop. Or, count the # of tornado warnings for Niagara (not watches... *warnings*) compared to how many tornadoes Niagara has. Maybe 1 in what.. 20? warnings are true?

For forecasts I find TWN and Accuweather to be more accurate (NWS out of Buffalo is good too). As for the inaccurate forecasts, I again can't start to count the number of times we've cancelled weekend trips to the cottage because it was forecast for rain, then be told by family that it's sunny and beautiful up there.

Maybe more $ will help their accuracy. I'm not saying they're not trying their best. I know they are. Maybe they just needs some more cash to help things. Here's hoping!
Tornado warning false alarm ratio is extremely high, even in the U.S. This is because many of the storms have brief rotation or strong mid level rotation and never produce a tornado. Radars don't see what is occurring at ground level...usually about 1000ft or more above ground level depending on proximity to radar. Because a storm didn't produce a tornado doesn't mean that it didn't meet forecaster criteria for a tornado warning to be issued. Take June 8th 2011 for example. Broad rotation on radar in a supercell thunderstorm...tornado warning issued for Hamilton based off that as well as a spotter report of a possible tornado. No tornado was confirmed but the storm still produced a lot of straight line wind damage in the city. Was a tornado warning needed? I think so. Even though a tornado was never confirmed...the storm was likely capable of producing a tornado.

As for the EC forecasts. I have done quite a lot of work determining who has the bests forecasts. I find the government weather agencies (NWS and EC) to be superiour to other agencies as many of the other agencies have algorithms create a forecast off a blend of models with no forecaster input. NWS blends models and makes graphical forecasts that the forecaster can edit to his/her preference. EC from what I gather blends models and creates subregion based text forecasts with forecaster input.

I'm not trying to make EC sound the best here...just saying that while their warning products could improve a lot...their forecasts aren't half bad. Maybe they have trouble forecasting for Niagara?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to davefootball123 For This Useful Post:
Eabie (03-28-2013)
  #8  
Old 03-30-2013, 09:42 AM
DarkSky's Avatar
DarkSky DarkSky is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: St. Catharines, ON [Niagara]
Posts: 1,625
Thanks: 678
Thanked 416 Times in 282 Posts
Default Re: 248 Million for E.C. (over 5 years)

Quote:
Originally Posted by davefootball123 View Post
Tornado warning false alarm ratio is extremely high, even in the U.S. This is because many of the storms have brief rotation or strong mid level rotation and never produce a tornado.
That's what watches are for Watches are for the threat of a -possible- tornado. Warnings are for when they're already on the ground or imminent (GOING to occur).


Quote:
Radars don't see what is occurring at ground level...usually about 1000ft or more above ground level depending on proximity to radar. Because a storm didn't produce a tornado doesn't mean that it didn't meet forecaster criteria for a tornado warning to be issued.
Hmm. maybe they dont' need more money then - maybe they just need to re-do their criteria! Save warnings for times when they're sure a tornado is going to happen (read: SURE) and issue watches for times when there's the threat of it happening. Either that, or add yet a 3rd option: TORNADO OCCURRENCE. So it could go from Tornado Watch > Tornado Warning > Tornado Occurrence. But they need an option that tells the public "HEY! There's a tornado happening and you need to take cover!". Because "warning" sure isn't cutting it, 1 out of 20 times that it's accurate.


Quote:
Take June 8th 2011 for example. Broad rotation on radar in a supercell thunderstorm...tornado warning issued for Hamilton based off that as well as a spotter report of a possible tornado. No tornado was confirmed but the storm still produced a lot of straight line wind damage in the city. Was a tornado warning needed? I think so. Even though a tornado was never confirmed...the storm was likely capable of producing a tornado.
Severe thunderstorm warning / tornado watch.

Quote:
I'm not trying to make EC sound the best here...just saying that while their warning products could improve a lot...their forecasts aren't half bad. Maybe they have trouble forecasting for Niagara?
I think so! Like I said, I'm sure they're all trying their best. But when you can't rely on it, there's really no point in using it.
__________________
- DarkSky (St. Catharines, ON (Niagara) )
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

PICTURE OF THE MOMENT - Photo by: Itchy (Apr.12, 2014, London, ON)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All original material copyright OntarioStorms.com, all 3rd party material copyrights held by original publisher