Snow at a National Weather Service office.NWS

What is the allure of a social media post about a snow storm 10 to 20 days out? Yes, there is value when official sources like the National Weather Service provide guidance for planning and decision-makers. However, what is the “gold star” reward for everyone else on social media? This is a serious question. On Twitter, for example, you will see people say things like “this is only one model run but it has a gigantic storm 5 weeks from now.” Of course, I am exaggerating with that example since I said “5 weeks”, but I hope you get the point. What value is there for the person posting that information? Is it the desire to appear to be some “meteorological genius” because you can look at a run of one of many weather models? Is it to become “Twitter” famous? Some class elements that I see in such viral posts:

  • Unsubstantiated specific snow totals without ranges or statements of uncertainty
  • Out of context banter about the various models Euro and GFS as if those are the only two things to use to make a forecast.
  • Guaranteed snow totals
  • May or may not mention that it is one isolated model run
  • Incorrect information about previous storms
  • Usage of the word “blizzard” for situations that do not meet National Weather Service criteria.

This season before you click “share” or retweet some provocative snowstorm forecast to family and friends, please verify the source of the information. There is a lot of weather information on social media, but all of it is not created equal. ” I also recommend consilience thinking. What’s that? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word “consilience” means “the linking together of principles from different disciplines especially when forming a comprehensive theory.” I am borrowing from this definition to suggest that you look at the forecasts from different “sources” to see if there is a consistent message before you make something go viral that is dead wrong.

Speaking of “dead wrong,” two colleagues had to expend intellectual energy debunking inaccurate statements about climate change this week. Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein wrote a fact-checking piece about statements coming out of Washington in the wake of the National Climate Assessment report. Professor Katharine Hayhoe, a climate expert and effective science communicator, debunked 5 myths about climate change in the Washington Post.

4th National Climate Assessment ReportGlobalChange.gov

Which brings me to something else tat I saw on social media this week. This “talking point” reared its head again that there is no “debate” about climate change. I respectfully disagree. The peer-review process offers opportunities for anyone with a science idea, theory, or study to submit it for publication and evaluation by experts. There are even mechanisms within the publication process to respond to studies that you disagree with or find methodological flaws. Scientific conferences also offer sessions and forums to “debate” the science.

It is true that most people in the public sphere could care less about the minutia and procedure of the “science sausage making” process. However, these processes are essential for preventing flawed methodologies, random opinions or fringe positions from propagating. Does the process have flaws? Absolutely, but it works too as this article by Brenda Wingfield discusses in The Conversation. I suspect the public could care less about the process and methodology the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Centers For Disease Control (CDC) uses to warn us about bad lettuce or the approval of a new heart drug. Yet, I suspect they also appreciate why those things are done.

Finally, in true rant form, I am transitioning to a random thought that just will not go away no matter how often we write about it. It comes to mind as I reflect on the SEC Championship game last night. I was in attendance. I heard a few people lament that one of the kickers missed a field goal. That young man has been one of the best kickers in college football all year long, yet, some people will unfairly define him based on that kick. Meteorologists deal with this all of the time. Our forecast accuracy is pretty good, but most people don’t store in memory all of the correct forecasts. They simply remember the few that were wrong or that impacted their cookout. I suppose it is human nature to do this, but it sure is tiring as a meteorologist to have to respond to it all of the time.

Rant is over….Oh wait, not quite. The mini-ice age stuff has popped up again, and it is still wrong.

Now it’s over.

” readability=”64.164880140324″>
< div _ ngcontent-c14 ="" innerhtml="

Early mornings like this supply a best chance to discuss the subject that I enjoy. Your home is peaceful, and the household is still sleeping. I am a researcher and teacher enthusiastic about weather condition given that my science task, “Can A sixth Grader Predict The Weather Condition.” To this day, I stay really mindful to things that I observe about weather condition and environment. A reckless Facebook post about a snowstorm triggered this tirade, however I make certain it will head in a number of instructions as I compose this in free-flowing type (actually).

Snow at a National Weather condition Service workplace. NWS

(******* )

(* )What is the attraction of a social networks post about a snow storm10 to20 days out? Yes, there is worth when main sources like the National Weather condition Service supply assistance for preparation and decision-makers. Nevertheless, what is the” gold star “benefit for everybody else on social networks? This is a severe concern. On Twitter, for instance, you will see individuals state things like” this is just one design run however it has an enormous storm 5 weeks from now. “Naturally, I am overemphasizing with that example given that I stated” 5 weeks”, however I hope you understand. What worth is there for the individual publishing that details? Is it the desire to seem some “meteorological genius” since you can take a look at a run of among lots of weather condition designs? Is it to end up being” Twitter “well-known? Some class aspects that I see in such viral posts: (** )

  • Dubious particular snow overalls without varieties or declarations of unpredictability
  • (************** )Out of context small talk about the numerous designs Euro and GFS as if those are the only 2 things to utilize to make a projection.

  • Surefire snow overalls(*************** )
  • Might or might not point out that it is one separated design run
  • (************** )Inaccurate details about previous storms(*************** )(************** )Use of the word “blizzard” for circumstances that
    do not fulfill(**************** )National Weather condition Service requirements.(*****************
    )

(** )

This season prior to you click” share” or retweet some intriguing snowstorm projection to friends and family, please validate
the source of the details

. There is a great deal of weather condition details on social networks, however all of it is not developed equivalent.” I likewise suggest consilience thinking. What’s that? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word” consilience” methods ” the connecting together of concepts from various disciplines specifically when forming a thorough theory.” I am obtaining from this meaning to recommend that you take a look at the projections from various” sources” to see if there is a constant message prior to you make something go viral that is dead incorrect.

Mentioning” dead incorrect,” 2 coworkers needed to use up intellectual energy exposing incorrect declarations about environment modification today. Associated Press author Seth Borenstein composed a fact-checking

piece about declarations coming out of Washington in the wake of the National Environment Evaluation report.(***************** )Teacher Katharine Hayhoe, an environment professional and efficient science communicator, exposed 5 misconceptions about environment modification in the Washington Post.(** )

(**** )

fourth National Environment Evaluation Report GlobalChange.gov

Which brings me to something else tat I saw on social networks today.

This” talking
point” raised
its head once again
that there is no” dispute” about environment modification. I respectfully disagree. The peer-review procedure(***************** )uses chances for anybody with a science concept, theory, or research study to send it for publication and assessment by specialists. There are even systems within the publication procedure to react to research studies that you disagree with or discover methodological defects. Scientific conferences likewise use sessions and online forums to “discuss “the science.(** )(* )It holds true that many people in the general public sphere might care less about the triviality and treatment of the “science sausage

making “procedure. Nevertheless, these procedures are important for avoiding problematic approaches, random viewpoints or fringe positions from propagating. Does the procedure have defects? Definitely, however it works too as this short article by Brenda Wingfield talks about in The Discussion. I believe the general public might care less about the procedure and approach the Fda( FDA) or Centers For Illness Control( CDC )utilizes to caution us about bad lettuce or the approval of a brand-new heart drug. Yet, I believe they likewise value why those things are done.(** )(* )Lastly, in real tirade type, I am transitioning to a random idea that simply will not disappear no matter how frequently we discuss

it. It enters your mind as I review the SEC National championship last night. I remained in presence. I heard a couple of individuals lament that a person of the kickers missed out on a basket. That boy has actually been among the very best kickers in college football all year long, yet, some individuals will unjustly specify him based upon that kick. Meteorologists handle this all of the time. Our projection precision is respectable, however many people do not keep in memory all of the proper projections. (***************** )They just keep in mind the couple of that were incorrect or that affected their cookout. I expect it is humanity to do this, however it sure is tiring as a meteorologist to need to react to everything of the time.(** )

Tirade is over … Oh wait, not rather. The mini-ice age things has actually appeared once again, and it is still incorrect.

Now it’s over.

” readability =”64164880140324″ >

Early mornings like this supply a best chance to discuss the subject that I enjoy. Your home is peaceful, and the household is still sleeping. I am a researcher and teacher enthusiastic about weather condition given that my science task, “Can A sixth Grader Predict The Weather Condition.” To this day, I stay really mindful to things that I observe about weather condition and environment. A reckless Facebook post about a snowstorm triggered this tirade, however I make certain it will head in a number of instructions as I compose this in free-flowing type( actually ).(** ).

Snow at a National Weather condition Service workplace.
NWS

.

.

What is the attraction of a social networks post about a snow storm 10 to 20 days out? Yes, there is worth when main sources like the National Weather condition Service supply assistance for preparation and decision-makers. Nevertheless, what is the “gold star” benefit for everybody else on social networks? This is a severe concern. On Twitter, for instance, you will see individuals state things like “this is just one design run however it has an enormous storm 5 weeks from now.” Naturally, I am overemphasizing with that example given that I stated “5 weeks”, however I hope you understand. What worth is there for the individual publishing that details? Is it the desire to seem some “meteorological genius” since you can take a look at a run of among lots of weather condition designs? Is it to end up being “Twitter” well-known? Some class aspects that I see in such viral posts:

    .

  • Dubious particular snow overalls without varieties or declarations of unpredictability
  • Out of context small talk about the numerous designs Euro and GFS as if those are the only 2 things to utilize to make a projection.
  • Surefire snow overalls
  • Might or might not point out that it is one separated design run
  • Inaccurate details about previous storms
  • Use of the word “blizzard” for circumstances that do not fulfill National Weather condition Service requirements.
  • .

This season prior to you click “share” or retweet some intriguing snowstorm projection to friends and family, please validate the source of the details. There is a great deal of weather condition details on social networks, however all of it is not developed equivalent.” I likewise suggest consilience thinking. What’s that? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word “consilience” methods “the connecting together of concepts from various disciplines specifically when forming a thorough theory.” I am obtaining from this meaning to recommend that you take a look at the projections from various “sources” to see if there is a constant message prior to you make something go viral that is dead incorrect.

Mentioning “dead incorrect,” 2 coworkers needed to use up intellectual energy exposing incorrect declarations about environment modification today. Associated Press author Seth Borenstein composed a fact-checking piece about declarations coming out of Washington in the wake of the National Environment Evaluation report. Teacher Katharine Hayhoe, an environment professional and efficient science communicator, exposed 5 misconceptions about environment modification in the Washington Post.

.

.

fourth National Environment Evaluation Report GlobalChange.gov

.

.

Which brings me to something else tat I saw on social networks today. This “talking point” raised its head once again that there is no “dispute” about environment modification. I respectfully disagree. The peer-review procedure uses chances for anybody with a science concept, theory, or research study to send it for publication and assessment by specialists. There are even systems within the publication procedure to react to research studies that you disagree with or discover methodological defects. Scientific conferences likewise use sessions and online forums to “discuss” the science.

It holds true that many people in the general public sphere might care less about the triviality and treatment of the “science sausage making” procedure. Nevertheless, these procedures are important for avoiding problematic approaches, random viewpoints or fringe positions from propagating. Does the procedure have defects? Definitely, however it works too as this short article by Brenda Wingfield talks about in The Discussion. I believe the general public might care less about the procedure and approach the Fda (FDA) or Centers For Illness Control (CDC) utilizes to caution us about bad lettuce or the approval of a brand-new heart drug. Yet, I believe they likewise value why those things are done.

Lastly, in real tirade type, I am transitioning to a random idea that simply will not disappear no matter how frequently we discuss it. It enters your mind as I review the SEC National championship last night. I remained in presence. I heard a couple of individuals lament that a person of the kickers missed out on a basket. That boy has actually been among the very best kickers in college football all year long, yet, some individuals will unjustly specify him based upon that kick. Meteorologists handle this all of the time. Our projection precision is respectable, however many people do not keep in memory all of the proper projections. They just keep in mind the couple of that were incorrect or that affected their cookout. I expect it is humanity to do this, however it sure is tiring as a meteorologist to need to react to everything of the time.

Tirade is over … Oh wait, not rather. The mini-ice age things has actually appeared once again, and it is still incorrect.

Now it’s over.

.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here