248 Million for E.C. (over 5 years)

[SlideShowBob]

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!

[DarkSky]

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)

[davefootball123]

Originally Posted by DarkSky

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[davefootball123]

Originally Posted by Storm Chaser

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.

[DarkSky]

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!

[davefootball123]

Originally Posted by DarkSky

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?

[DarkSky]

Originally Posted by davefootball123

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).

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.

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.

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.