OT: Light snow to rain event Sunday afternoon into Monday

[WhiteBus]

I don't see any post from RU#s calling anyone a moron. And I do not understand the antipathy some posters have toward RU#s, who performs a valuable service. I do understand, WhiteBus, that you abhor snow while RU#s likes it, but all he's doing here is providing information that would be otherwise hard to get.

No I don't hate snow at all. What I abhor is the over zealous reporting of storms by the media that never materialize or never come close to the over inflated worst case scenarios that always fall short.
And what hard to get information are you speaking About? Instead of logging into here just go to the NWS sites like he does. Not hard to get at all.

 

[retired711]

No I don't hate snow at all. What I abhor is the over zealous reporting of storms by the media that never materialize or never come close to the over inflated worst case scenarios that always fall short.
And what hard to get information are you speaking About? Instead of logging into here just go to the NWS sites like he does. Not hard to get at all.

To answer your second question first, RU#s often has information on model runs (e.g. the Euro or the NMS) that I have not been able to find on the NWS site.

If I remember right (and I may not), you are in a business that suffers a lot when there are false predictions of snow. I can't blame you for being upset about predictions that don't pan out, particularly when those predictions just seem designed to attract eyeballs. OTOH, consider that, from the standpoint of protecting people, it is better that people be given "overprotective" information that will encourage them to take steps to minimize their exposure to the threat (e.g. by encouraging me to drive Friday instead of Saturday morning). Certainly one doesn't want people surprised by a storm that was not predicted for that risks severe public health consequences.

This kind of approach is characteristic of public health protection. We can never be certain that our predictions are right -- especially of the weather to come. So we have to decide which errors are the more acceptable : errors that risk over protecting people or errors that risk underprotection. Usually we make the choice in favor of the former kind of errors. That's why, for instance, EPA's estimates of cancer risk are usually on the high side. I can certainly understand that there are people like you who suffer when a risk is overestimated, and I feel for you. OTOH, your suffering is in a good cause.

 

[WhiteBus]

To answer your second question first, RU#s often has information on model runs (e.g. the Euro or the NMS) that I have not been able to find on the NWS site.

If I remember right (and I may not), you are in a business that suffers a lot when there are false predictions of snow. I can't blame you for being upset about predictions that don't pan out, particularly when those predictions just seem designed to attract eyeballs. OTOH, consider that, from the standpoint of protecting people, it is better that people be given "overprotective" information that will encourage them to take steps to minimize their exposure to the threat (e.g. by encouraging me to drive Friday instead of Saturday morning). Certainly one doesn't want people surprised by a storm that was not predicted for that risks severe public health consequences.

This kind of approach is characteristic of public health protection. We can never be certain that our predictions are right -- especially of the weather to come. So we have to decide which errors are the more acceptable : errors that risk over protecting people or errors that risk underprotection. Usually we make the choice in favor of the former kind of errors. That's why, for instance, EPA's estimates of cancer risk are usually on the high side. I can certainly understand that there are people like you who suffer when a risk is overestimated, and I feel for you. OTOH, your suffering is in a good cause.

But the media isn't doing it to protect the public. The media does it because it increases ratings. Plain and simple.

 

[retired711]

But the media isn't doing it to protect the public. The media does it because it increases ratings. Plain and simple.

But even if the media is doing it for that reason, the effect is to protect the public, as I said in my previous post. Sometimes (as is generally the case in our market system) conduct that is designed for individual gain serves a valuable social purpose -- that's why it's good that people seek economic gain.