Television Meteorologists Improvise During Lockdown

Betty the weather cat poses for a quick photo while preparing a
weather forecast for the Evansville, Indiana area, with her
meteorologist human, Jeff Lyons

Very many television meteorologists are giving their reports from home, given most of us are in lockdown while we wait for the coronavirus pandemic to at least ease.

That means these meteorologists need to improvise.  Some of them create new celebrities.  For instance, WFIE-TV Chief Meteorologist Jeff Lyons set up at home during the quarnantine to give his daily weather forecasts for the Evansville, Indiana area.

A few weeks ago his cat, named Betty, made a quick cameo during a forecast. Now, Betty is a regular on Lyons' daily forecasts and is his full co-host. 

There's even graphics that Betty uses to offer forecasts. For instance, when she's forecasting rain, there's an image of her tail going up vertically, and it turns into an umbrella to ward off the wet weather.

Betty the weather cat has become a star, having been seen worldwide in viral clips on social media.  It'll almost be a bummer when Lyons eventually goes back to providing forecasts from a television studio. I hope they find some way to keep Betty on the air.

Here's a clip of Lyons and Betty, then we'll move on to another television meteorologists who is making do just fine during these trying times.



You can't have a proper televised weather forecast without intro and outro music, so what do you do when you're working from home?

Here's Welsh BBC weatherman Owain Wyn Evans, who decided he need to figure out the BBC's outro music at the end of his forecast. So he came up with this totally mean drum solo:

Watch Out For Those Extremely Scummy Disaster Scammers!

Be very cautious when going on Instagram and viewing appeals
to help disaster zones like Australia. There's lots of scams out there. 

Lots and lots of people want to help the people, animals and the entire nation and continent of Australia these days.

Who can blame them? Those extreme bushfires over the past few months have been absolutely tragic. There's big loss of life for people - 28 at last count.

So many Australians homes and livlihoods have been destroyed. So many Australian animals need our help. And the fire season
is far from over, despite recent rains that have thankfully doused some of the blazes.

So yes, give, give, give to Australia!

However, some of the scummiest human beings in the world are on social media, claiming they want to help and are more than willing to take your money toward that aim. But their real aim is to just enrich themselves with your heartfelt but naive donation. To them, the hell with Australia, that wild fire is a great opportunity to make themselves some big cash.

Even better for the scammers, there always seems to be new disasters elsewhere in the world to exploit. It's a constant money making machine to them.

Social media giants like Instagram are willing to help with this scam, because it makes money for them, too.

As HuffPost tells us:

"Popular Instagram profiles are exploiting the crisis for personal gain, making empty promises to plant trees or donate money in exchange for traffic with posts such as "1 LIKE = $1 DONATION."  Some falsely claim to be affiliated with legitimate aid organizations. Others have promoted personal PayPal accounts, urging their tens or hundreds of thousands of followers to donate to them directly while vowing to give those funds to charity later on."

Here's some examples provided by Huff Post:

Instagram accounts @thewildfund and @australiasafety, each have well over 50,000 followers. Both of them said they would donate $1 per like to their "partner," National Geographic. For every follow, each of these said they would give $5.

The accounts got more than a million "likes" and a surge of new followers. That translates into big income on Instagram, but there's no evidence money went to Australians who needed it. Both of the above Instagram pages HuffPost contacted were removed right after that contact, which all but proves they were scams.

Here's more from HuffPost:

"@australiasafety also claimed that it had already given away $450,000, linking to a nonexistent website, australiasafety.org. Neither of the account owners responded to requests for comment."

Of course they didn't.

Facebook owns Instagram, and Facebook really doesn't give a crap if these scams flourish on their social media platforms.  Facebook and Instagram policy is to not run scams on their platforms, but very often, these scam sites aren't taken down unless they generate an outcry or bad publicity.'

Even when they are  taken down, the scammers reappear instantly with new scams.

On the bright side there are other Instagramers who are fighting back against the scammers.   According to Slate, there is an Instagram account called @exposinginstascams, which it calls one of the most diligent bullshit detectors.

Apparently, @exposinginstascams is run by a 15-year-old named Nico from the San Diego area. He's the one who contacted National Geographic (see above) and blew up the scam by making National Geographic aware of it.

Nico told Slate:

"Instagram can be super profitable when it comes to ads and selling accounts....People use emotional tactics to get people to follow them, then they can easily make a big buck off of this exploitation of global issues."

On one other small bright side, Nico has investigated other Instagram accounts that claimed to be raising money for Australia and found them to be on the up and up. He posts links to those accounts. For instance, one Instagram account pledged $1 for every person who shared that Instagram post. About 5,000 people did so, and that Instagram account legitimately sent $5,000 to Australian bush fire relief.

Unfortunately, these truly charitable Instagram accounts appear to be the exception rather than the rule. As Slate writer Jane C. Hu notes:

"....when there's a major disaster in the news, the scam machine runs into overdrive. New accounts (or old ones, repurposed for whatever new disaster has occurred) pop up, and reporting them to Instagram is like whack-a-mole; in spending just two minutes scrolling through posts with the hashtag #prayforaustralia, I found at least three more sketchy-looking accounts claiming to donate up to $10 per 'like.' 

 A rash of fake donation accounts also followed the Amazon wildfire disaster and the Sudan crisis, and I asked Nico why these scams take off. 'People want to help, but they want someone else to do it for them,' he says. 'They want to feel like they are contributing to the world.'"

So how is a poor, compassionate person who wants to help Australia make sure they're not being scammed.

Take Nico's advice. Don't let someone else do it for you.  Or at least investigate to exactly to whom you want to contribute.

I'd avoid Instagram, Facebook and other social media platforms when considering giving to any charity.  Look into a charity independently of any social media, and make sure it's well established and has a good reputation.

Avoid the middlemen. Some people who say they will give your money to a major charity are scammers. Others are not, but are so inexperienced in this arena that they mess up, and the money doesn't go to the intended target.

If you insist on donating via Instagram or other social media advertiser, you can tap the menu and select "About This Account," advises CBS News. 

At that point, you can at least figure out when that account joined Instagram, in which country it originates, accounts with shared followers, and you can see all the ads the business is running.  That's a start, at least.

Just so you'd know what you're up against, though, consider this experience the HuffPost had when reporting their story. They contacted one Instagrammer regarding their lie about donating $25,000 to the Red Cross.

The Instagram account holder had two demands: That HuffPost give a shout out to his page in its article, and they wanted to be paid for the interview.

Yeah, pretty lame.

No, Climate Activists Are Not Setting Australia On Fire

One of the massive Australian bush fires this week. Most are started
by lightning, some by arsonists. Few, if any, are started
by activists. Photo by Glen Morey/Reuters 

Twitter and other social media can be a swamp of obsessions and conspiracies.

One of the latest crackpot ideas I'm seeing is that climate activists are setting those fires in Australia or getting others to do that to, I guess, "prove" their climate change point or score grants from NGO's and governments. Or something like that.

I mentioned this problem of "climate activists setting fires" in a post a few days ago, but I want to dive deeper now.

I know I will never change the minds of anybody who firmly believes these conspiracies. However, I think it's my duty to do whatever little I can to counteract those beliefs, in an effort to stop the spread of really fake news.

Conspiracy theories like the arsonist climate activists is in some ways hard to fight because it's such a simple narrative. They're doing evil things to advance their agenda. Simple as that.

By contrast, the real truth is messy and complicated and sometimes ambiguous.  Which is why we do need to be patient as I and others try to set the record straight, at least to the best of our knowledge.

ARSONISTS AND ACTIVISTS

Most conspiracy theories begin with a grain of truth and then go off in some odd direction.  That's the case with Australia's fires.

There's no question at least some of the catastrophic fires were started by arsonists.

Back in November, as Australia's fires were getting going in earnest, the BBC reported that Australia's National Centre for Research in Bushfire and Arson said 13% of the bushfires are started deliberately and 37 percent are suspicious.

Australian research suggests that revenge is a primary motive for these arsons, says the BBC.  They start a fire with the intent of destroying property belonging to a former employer or ex-partner, for example.

The BBC says other arsonists are the "weird Pete down the road" who is odd, marginalized or angry at the world in general.

Now, it's most certainly possible a handful of these "weird Petes" are extremely concerned about the climate and start fires to prove some sort of point that only their own mind can understand. Remember, no matter which group you single out - climate activists, fossil fuel executives, men, women, straights, gays, religious, atheist, you name it - there's going to be a couple crackpots among all the rest of the normal people in these groups.

So yeah, somebody outspoken about climate change could conceivably have started a few of the fires. We just don't know. At least not yet.

However, there's no grand conspiracy among climate activists.

That's not going to stop the conspiracy theorists from pushing this idea anyway.

Some odd website called Granite Grok, which looks to be a right wing activist page (which is fine!)  out of New Hampshire said that four members of an climate NGO set fires in the Amazon last year.   They allegedly took photos of the fires they set and sold them to the World Wildlife Federation for a pile of cash.

Supposedly, Leonardo Di Caprio donated a lot of money toward this effort.

Turns out that's not true. As Voice of America reported on December 4:

"Police last month accused several volunteer firefighters of setting forest firest to get funding throuh local NGOs in Alter do Chao, a tow of fewer than 10,000 people on the bank of the Tapajos River in Para state (Brazil).  Federal prosecutors quickly said their investigation found no such evidence, the local pollice officer leading the investigation was removed from  the case, and a judge ordered that the firefighters be released from prison."

But still, conspiracy-friendly publications like the obscure Granite Grok keep repeating the false narrative to a willing fan base.  Right wing Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro is also keeping up this story, despite the complete lack of evidence.

Pressed by reporters, Bosonaro said he could not name the NGOs involved, that he had no written records of these allegations and the accusation against the NGOs was just his feeling.

Riiiiight.

Social media is rife with the climate activists setting fires on even flimsier basis.

One Twitter user, who I don't want to identify because I don't want to give them publicity, wrote. "Hundreds of arsonists have purposely lit bushfires in Australia to perpetuate a fake linkage between #ClimateChange. The UN's #ClimateChangeHoax elites are getting desperate now, because, they know that you know, CO2-driven climate change is a hoax! Wake up."

This Twitter user did not offer a shred of evidence backing up their accusation.

MEDIA ROLE

The conspiracy theorists will tell you that these shenanigans are really happening, but the mainstream media is covering it up because they are in bed with climate change activists.

I was in journalism for more than two decades before a media corporate cost cutting move resulted in my getting laid off and deciding to take my life in a new direction.

But I'm still very familiar with how a journalist's mind works and what any mainstream newspaper or television station would do if presented with proof climate change activists and organizations were deliberately setting fires for money and using it to promote their agenda.

First of all, there would be the impulse to report with the motivation of doing the right thing. On top of that, this would be a blockbuster scoop, one that would earn a newspaper or television station more viewers, more awards, and more income.

It's called capitalism, and these big (and small) media companies would love to win the fame and fortune to find a story like that, provided it's true.

And what of those alleged climate activist arsonists?  Climate activists are by definition big environmentalists. Do you really think they enjoy those photos of suffering, burned koala bears and kangaroos in Australia? Like the rest of us, those activists are horrified by those images.

Plus, a climate organization that sets fires would be exposed sooner or later. These activists know that. Even if one or a few of these groups are corrupt, that's strong motivation to keep their noses clean.

We all need to learn media literacy is thoroughly as possible. Learn what news organizations and media outlets are most professional and strive for accuracy as best as possible.

When activists on any side of any debate say something, think critically. If you follow their logic, does it make any sense? It's also worth it to check with trusted sources to verify whether these activists and organizations are really what they say they are, and not "sock puppets" for some industry or political group.

For gawd's sake, before you donate to either a climate change activist group or a climate change denial group, check to see if they are not crooks. There are sources to determine whether charitable donations for groups actually go for the intended purpose.

On social media, take things with a big grain of salt.  There are plenty of bots, sock puppets, political groups disguised as regular people and charlatans out there.  Learn who to trust and who not to.

All this will make you a smarter person. And maybe help solve some of world's problems instead of just yelling about them.

Idiots Who Want YouTube Clicks Are Interfering With CA Wildfire Fight With Drones

Don't fly a drone over a wildfire or any other disaster unless you are intent
on hurting people are making property damage worse. Idiots are flying
drones over California fires, grounding firefighter aerial effotrts.

Apparently, to some people a greater number of getting themselves more clicks on YouTube and other social media is more important than firefighters' efforts to save life and property.

That's the only conclusion I can draw from an article on the Weather Channel site that reports of people flying drones above wildfires in California.  

Drones have interfered with firefighting operations in California at least 19 times so far this year, says The Weather Channel, citing other media soures like the Los Angeles Times. 

The Weather Channel offers this illustration during the Maria fire in southern California on Friday.

"A Ventura County Fire Department helicopter pilot radioed in at 3:19 a.m. local time to report that a drone was flying above the flames, presumably to capture photos or video of the dramatic scene below, the Los Angeles Times reported. The aerial fight against the wildfire was immediately stopped and aircraft remained grounded for at least 45 minutes."

I'm not inherently against flying drones to capture images of disasters or other weather drama.  If you can do it with permission from authorities, in a way in which  you know it won't interfere with operations, then it's fine.

Drones are actually helpful in disasters, if they're run by authorized people, such as emergency personnel, police, firefighters and rescue services. The trick is, they coordinate things so there's no trouble.

Drones can help emergency managers assess structural damage, where relief supplies are most needed, and the location of people that need help. Here in Vermont, State Police will be using drones for things like crime scene investigations, car crash reconstructions and search and rescue, including during weather disasters, reports VTDigger.  Drones will make these activities much more efficient.

Many legitimate news organizations also use drones, and there's nothing wrong with that, because they check with authorities first to make sure they're not screwing things up.

Firefighters themselves use drones to track the path of wildfires and assess damage. The difference is that everything's coordinated.  The helicopter and water dropping aircraft know where those firefighter drones are, and the firefighter drone operators know where the aircraft are. So it works.

Firefighters just don't know where the drones are that people send up to get cool shots of the disaster.

This type of thing keeps happening. Drones interfered with relief operations during the aftermath of Category 5 Hurricane Michael in the Florida panhandle last year. The same thing happened with drones in the Carolinas after Hurricane Florence. 

I would like to think the amateurs whose drones interfere with emergency operations just are clueless and don't know the terrible effects they're having.  But I'm afraid some of them do know and just don't care.  After all, it's not the drone operator's grandparents stuck in their hilltop home as the flames approach.  It's not their own home burning down. So the logic is, who cares, it's not affecting me.

The solution, of course, is to make it affect these drone operators. I hope these drone operators amid the California wildfires are caught and made a very public example of through aggressive criminal prosecution.

That might make the wannabe YouTube storm chasing stars think twice before sending their drones up.

Vermont Storms: I Took A "Shelfie" Also, More Details On Storms Later Today

Me enjoying a shelf cloud as a strong thunderstorm approached
South Burlington, Vermont Wednesday. 

I only have a little time this morning, so I'll just share this quick photo. I finally got a chance to take a "Shelfie" on Wednesday.

A severe thunderstorm warning was effect when this storm was approaching South Burlington on Wednesday.

The storm had a shelf cloud, which is a sort of wedge shaped cloud that sets up along the gust front along the leading edge of strong to severe thunderstorm.

This thunderstorm turned out to be not all that severe, but it did give this weather geek an opportunity. We all know how much people like to take selfies for social media. Weather enthusiasts like to take "shelfies" which is a photo of themselves with a shelf cloud.

So I did.

I gotta run, as I'm busy this morning. But later today, I'll share more information and images of the storminess and detail the possibilities of more "interesting" weather in the coming days. Don't worry: "Interesting" doesn't mean "dire.'

"Show Your Stripes" Climate Change Chart All The Summer Solstice Rage

Climate change strips for Vermont. Notice the
heavier reds toward the right, which represent
more recent years

There's a campaign on social media called "Show Your Stripes,"

It's all related to climate change, and is a way for activists, weather and climate geeks and others to highlight how things have changed since the 1800s. 

As the Boston Globe reports:

"The climate stripes project was developed by Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, England. In these images, the stripes show how temperatures have changed since the mid to late 1800s. Blue represents a colder than average year while red represents a warmer than average one and the deeper the color, the more extreme the (departure from average)."

You can obtain the stripes for anywhere in the world at this link.  The stripes in this post represent the state of Vermont. As you can see, there's a lot more red and orange to the right, representing warmth which is the more recent years.

I've checked out stripes for other locations and have seen quite a lot of variability in the degree the stripes change. Some areas have barely warmed, others have really heated up. Vermont seems to be heating up a little more strongly than many other locations.

 
.

Interesting Theory: Man Thinks Roundabouts Create Tornadoes

A Pennsylvania man thinks that roundabouts like this one
cause tornadoes. I'm not sure how, but this guy is confident.

For some reason, there has arguably been more tornadoes than usual this year and last year in Pennsylvania.

Nobody is sure why.  It's probably just bad luck. But a Pennsylvania man has a novel theory as to why his state has had more than its share of twisters.

Traffic roundabouts. That's right. Traffic circles.  This guy is convinced that the growing popularity of traffic circles and roundabouts is causing those Pennsylvania twisters. 

By the way, the man has an alternative pronunciation of the word "tornado." He pronounces it "tornader."

Here's what he said when he called into television station WNEP's "Talkback 16" segment:

"We didn't have tornaders here until we started putting in traffic circles. Cause, on account of the - you want to know why? When people go round and round in circles, it causes disturbances in the atmosphere, and causes tornaders."

That is, um, interesting explanation for Pennsylvania's bad weather. And laughable. Which means of course, this unidentified dude has gotten a lot of reaction on Twitter.

One person wrote: "Not to mention that carousel rides ramp up in the spring. A mere coincidence?"

Another Twitter wag said Donald Trump should appoint this tornader guy as EPA chief.

Yet another person wrote: "Jesus, tornado alley must be in England then. There is a roundabout everywhere there."

For the record, Great Britain, on average gets about 30 tornadoes per year. The United States, though admittably much larger, gets more than 1,000 twisters annually.

Where I live in Vermont, they've installed several roundabouts on the states roads in the past few years. The Green Mountain State averages one tornado per year, but we haven't had one in five years. I wonder what "tornader" guy thinks of that?

Do Winter Hype Forecasts Kill The Ski Industry?

Stowe Mountain Resort posted this inviting photograph on Instagram
today. According to an Outside magazine article, ski areas like
Stowe often find themselves battling perceptions that weather
is too severe for skiing, which hurts the bottom line. 

When they tell you the wind chill is terrible, or the roads are glare ice or that you shouldn't travel because it's going to snow, do you cancel your plans?  

Often, that's a good thing to do. You don't want to be reckless.

To many others, this caution is not always a great thing. According to a recent article in Outside, over-hyped winter weather forecasts are damaging the ski industry. The article is worth the full read. 

According to Outside:

"'Negative weather reporting absolutely has an effect on ski area attendance,' says Kelly Pawlak, president of the National Ski Areas Association. It's especially true, she says, for smaller resorts near population centers that rely on the casual, two-or-three times per year skier. 'A negative report on Thursday can scrap a lot of upcoming wekeend ski plans for a resort that relies on day trips.'"

Anything that affects the ski industry here in Vermont is of course important. The Vermont Ski Areas Association said there were nearly 4 million skier days in the Green Mountain State last year, according to VTDigger.  A skier day is one person skiing one full day, which a standard way of counting business in the ski industry.

This winter has been good, so the number of recent visitors to Vermont might have gone up. We'll have to wait until the end of the season for statistics.

The Vermont Ski Areas Association says the industry creates about $900 million in direct spending, $120 million in taxes, reports VTDigger. The business supports 12,000 direct jobs and roughly 22,000 indirecrt jobs here.

Which leads us to the constant tension between reasonable warnings to people who would otherwise be careless with winter weather, and the tendency for many media outlets and weather geeks on social media to overhype winter cold and storms.

Ski enthusiasts tell Outside, and by extension the rest of us, that wind chill alerts are overdone. When you hear a forecast for 20 below wind chills, that doesn't mean it will constantly feel that cold out there. The 20 below "real feel" as some call it, come during peak gusts when the sun isn't out.

During these cold weather events, the wind chill is usually warmer than 20 below, plus the sun makes it feel a little warmer out. Plus, winter clothing is better than ever these days, shielding outdoor sports types from some of the worst weather winter can fling at us.

You've heard the saying: "It's not bad weather, it's bad clothing."  That logic is, if you get too cold and wet outdoors during the winter, it's because you're not wearing the right clothes.

Ski areas are lobbying meteorologists and other weather types about being careful with their winter forecasts and not being too negative.

Says Outside:

"In December, at one of the summits (to) combat negative winter weather reporting, the North American Snowsports Journalist Association organized an event for a dozen broadcast meteorologists at Stratton Mountain Resort (in Vermont).

The three-day event featured technical climate presentations, but also a discussion, led by a North Face employee, on layering, wind proofing, and other snowsports dress techniques. There was plenty of time for skiing and snowshoeing, too. 

The idea, says organizer Adam White, is to make weather journalists more comfortable with winter conditions and to reduce their bias on-air or even Instagram. 'Meteorologists are surprisingly popular on social media,' says White. 'Everyone wants to know about the weather.'"

In my opinion, there's a lot of things going on here. It's always complicated, and you're never going to make everybody happy.

First of all, there is indeed a tendency to overhype things, particularly on social media. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other platforms are rife with breathless reports of impending Blizzards of the Century. If you were to believe social media, the Blizzards of the Century come about once every hour.

Wind chill alerts become gloom and doom on social media, telling everyone that if they step outdoors for just one second in these conditions, they will magically turn into an ice cube from which they will never thaw.

The point is eyeballs and clicks. The more hype there is, the more potential clicks and the more money to be made. Social media is certainly not the most ethical place in the world.

On the other hand, Outside magazine caters mostly to people who know what they're doing. An experienced skiing, rider or snowshoe enthusiast, upon learning of a severe wind chill forecast, will just bring along the right gear and they'll be all set and happy.

But there's plenty of stupid people out there, too. You have to hammer home the dangers to people who think nothing of hopping into their cars in a light sweater when it's 30 below for a road trip in a blizzard. Then when they get stuck, they freeze, because they didn't prepare.

Still, the Outside article might prompt me to be a little more nuanced in my reports. Like most weather geeks, I get excited over the drama of storms and weather extremes. I try to keep it in my sneaker, but sometimes my thrill of the weather betrays me.

I can probably try to play to two audiences: One piece of my essays would play to the people who might not be so prepared for the weather, while the other side of me would tell people to go out and play in the extreme weather, if they're smart enough to do it.

God forbid I stop anyone from going out and playing in the snow if they can. Because frankly, the snow and ice that I can see out my window is a total waste unless we find a way to enjoy it.

Huge Nor'easter And Frigid Arctic Blast Obnoxiously Heated Up Climate Change Debate

Huge expanses of coastal New England ocean water froze over
during last week's record cold spell. The Arctic outbreak did not
prove or disprove climate change, but activists on either side
seized on this big time, facts be damned 

The long Arctic siege that gripped much of the eastern half of the country finally ended Sunday, and the cleanup is well underway from that super powerful nor'easter last week.

Although the Arctic wasteland spell is over, the heat that the cold blast generated in the climate change activist wars show few signs of abating, though.

The brutal stretch of winter weather proved to be a sort of climate Rorschach test of sorts between climate activists on one hand, the climate change denialists and skeptics on the other.

I think the climate change activists did have the intellectual upper hand in this latest battle, but there was still over the top claims on either side.

SILLY DENIALISTS

Surprise, surprise, Donald Trump was the most simplistic of the denialist bunch. We were barely one day into the Arctic siege when he declared global climate change a hoax. Hey, it was cold on the U.S. East Coast, so that's the only indicator of whether the world was hot or cold, right?

Yeah, or something like that. Trump is a real friggin'  climate scientist. (If you didn't notice, my snark font is on.)

Then there was the familiar trope that came roaring back along with the Arctic winds that activists had somehow "rebranded" global warming into climate change, so that they could allegedly blame every kind of weather on fossil fuel emissions.  Hey, now they're saying any weird weather is humans' fault! Silly climate activists! (Ugh.)

For instance, Rex Murphy in Canada's National Post had his sarcasm font on in full blast as he wrote about all those silly little people worried about global warming, er, climate change:

"During the most savage Hyperborean blasts and numbing cold even the little ones busy themselves with exercises to remind themselves of the truth of things. Children in schools hang up posters of the Amazon rainforest, check the temperature in Tanzania, have revivalist reruns of "An Inconvenient Truth" to keep the sense of global peril fresh in their anxious empty little heads."

Cripes, Murphy's prose is as purple as my frostbitten fingers were during the worst of the Arctic blast.

NUANCES, NUANCES, NUANCES

I suppose was a faint glimmer of a point in Murphy's rant about "branding."

Here's why I think that: A number of climate scientists and other activists during the winter siege pointed out that the extreme weather was "consistent" with climate change.

Notice the careful wording. They weren't drawing much of a direct line between the frigid weather pattern and climate change. The climate change crowd was more accurately saying the spell of weather was paradoxically "consistent." with global warming. No proof, but the weird weather pattern might, just might, have had something to do with climate change.

A few activists did flatly say that the cold wave and nor'easter were definitive signs of climate change. Those activists were wrong. A single weather event is proof of nothing. Weather is variable. A world that's overall warmer than it used to be can still have cold weather. It can still have winters. Life goes on, after all.

However, back to that careful working, and the crux of why I said Murphy had a slight point about branding.

The basic science of climate change is simple: Put more carbon dioxide in the air, and more of the sun's heat gets trapped in that atmosphere. So all things being equal, the world warms up.

Then mix in all the nuances of the many ways climate change can affect how things are where you live. And then consider the  million different ways it can affect conditions at all other points of the world. On top of that, add in the complexities that exists with or without global warming. Examples include local effects, natural ocean and air circulation cycles, and factors we might not even know about yet.

Which means you get the simple, if incorrect arguments: "It's cold out where we are, therefore there's no global warming." say the climate denial crowd.

That, versus the scientists: "The weather pattern we are in is consistent with climate change, but it's hard to blame one weather event on climate change. Plus, there are many factors involved that may or not be influenced by climate change, and scientists are still studying these aspects. Melting sea ice in the Arctic might be screwing around with the jet stream and might be bending it in ways that make these Arctic outbreaks in the eastern United States. However, there are winters that aren't so cold because..........."

See the problem? Us humans crave simple explanations for what's going on around us. I know I do. Explanations of how climate change might be affecting us are often not simple at all. We tune out. That's why Donald Trump's tweet got so much attention. It was a simple if wrong sales/con job. He's a great marketer. Simple messages sell.

It's hard to market climate change in ways the public easily understands.

Under climate change, weather extremes will probably continue to get, well, more extreme. You get into the weeds arguing with climate deniers and skeptics on this point, too.

One example is Accuweather Meteorologist Joe Bastardi, among others. Now, I respect Bastardi as a talented meteorologist. He's one smart cookie, and my snark font is definitely OFF when I say that. Where I have a problem with Bastardi is his climate change skepticism. He's not a denialist, but he is very skeptical.   His argument often goes as follows:

Yes, the weather here is exceptionally cold/hot/wet/dry/windy ---- whatever, but it's happened before, so there's nothing going on that's out of the ordinary so there's no human caused climate change. (I'm oversimplifying his argument a bit here.)

And of course, Bastardi is right on one aspect of his argument. There have been cold snaps as bad or worse than the one we just had. There have been nor'easters as bad or worse than the one that socked New England and Atlantic Canada last week. There have been bigger heat waves than the ones that we've had in recent years. All these historic weather events happened without human-induced global warming.

However, Bastardi is missing the most on point of these questions.

Of course these weather patterns have happened before. But are they becoming more frequent than they used to, and if so, why? Are floods getting more frequent and worse in some parts ofthe country than decades ago? Are weather patterns that cause these long lasting cold outbreaks like the one we just had happening more often? again, f so, why? Those are the pertinent questions here.

I'm not sure I have the answer to these questions, but those queries are the ones most worth examining.

Another trope among denialists is to try and discredit all science, as way of trying to convince the public to not believe anything based on scientific fact.

For instance, on Sunday, the climate denial site Watts Up With That mocked NOAA for a winter forecast they put out last fall that said chances were greater than even that the southern and eastern United States would, overall, have a warmer than average winter.

Watts Up With That crowed about the cold weather in the East and parts of the South. Never mind that the winter is less than half over, and, despite the cold spell, these areas could, on the whole, have a milder than average winter. (Notice the January thaw that's now creeping into many of these areas.)

As many, including, to his credit, Bastardi pointed out, it's possible we could have warm weather the rest of the winter, which would make the season a bit on the mild side. We just don't know yet.

NOR'EASTER AS CLIMATE POSTER CHILD

The nor'easter that struck the U.S. and Canada east coasts last weekend strengthened at almost a record pace, and brought near record and even record storm surges to many coastal communities in New England and Canada, especially in Massachusetts.

Waves and coastal flooding batter Scituate, Massachusetts during
last week's epic nor'easter. The storm was huge, and inflated the
arguments over climate change. But it was just one storm, so I'm
counseling that everybody relax. 

The denialists claimed that it was a bitter cold storm, so no global warming. Yeah, it was cold on the western side of the storm, over eastern North America.

But it was super warm on the eastern side of the storm, over the Atlantic Ocean. Nobody lives in the middle of the ocean though, so that warm side of the storm was ignored.

Meanwhile, the climate change activists were a little more careful, but still emphasized that the unusually high tides that flooded Boston and other communtiies were the hallmarks of climate change.

Climate change might have had an influence on all that high water, but it wasn't the principal reason for the flooding. The storm struck when astronomical tides were higher than average, due to the position of the moon.

The worst of the storm also struck just when high tide was scheduled to come in during the early afternoon Thursday. Bad timing, to say the least.

Sea levels have risen due to climate change over the past several decades. Which means climate change did add to the strength and height of the storm tide, It was probably worse than it would have been without climat echange, but it wasn't the main reason for it.

Again, nuance strikes again, and we humans have little patience for that.

This keeps going around and around of course. The always obnoxious Brietbart News, among others, tried to stake the claim that climatologists automatically blamed global warming on the first signs of heat waves last summer, but pooh-poohed the idea that a cold wave on one sliver the globe -namely the eastern U.S., canceled out global warming.

Of course, no reputable climatologists said any such thing.

As long as the denialists have allies in government, sustained by huge campaign contributions by the oil industry and conservative bazillonaires, the science, details and nuances will be as lost in the public discourse as the stuff that floated out to sea when the storm surge hit Scituate, Massachusetts last week.

There will be other exreme weather events. They'll come fast and furiously. (Witness the fatal flash floods, debris flows and mudslides in California on Tuesday)

If you are interested in climate change, and you should be, here's my advice: Don't listen to the shrill public false "debate" when there's a big storm. Seek out the experts, the sober scientists, the politicians that resist hype, the media outlets that don't have much of an agenda, but just want you to know what's really going on.

Doing all these things can be difficult.  But at least you'll know what's really going on. And maybe, just maybe, you'll retain your sanity.

Nope, Hurricane Center Was Not Trolling President With Tropical Storm Don

Tropical Storm Don fizzled, but that's not a slam
against Donald Trump.

Some people make a lot of connections that aren't there.

Take the late, not so great Tropical Storm Don.  

As noted here, it formed Monday. Yesterday, the National Hurricane Center accurately described Tropical Storm Don as "small" and "not particularly well organized."

Which to many people meant that the National Hurricane Center intentionally named a wimpy storm Don to troll the president and then poke fun at him when the storm did not turn into a big monster.

Tropical Storm Don, by the way, has fizzled out as expected. 

The tweet storms involving the tropical storm and the president will probably continue full force for God knows how long.

Here are the facts: The World Meteorological Organization has committees that come up with the names of tropical systems all over the world, including in the Atlantic basin.

The same tropical storm and hurricane names rotate through, so you get the same names every five years. They come in alphabetical order. Don's first letter starts with "D, " the fourth letter in the alphabet.  It was the fourth tropical storm in the Atlantic this year.

Even though you normally get the same hurricane name every five years, the names of particularly destructive and memorable hurricanes are retired and replaced with new names. That's why you'll never see a Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy again.

Here's how Don got on the list: In 2005, Hurricane Dennis trashed the Florida panhandle. Dennis was then retired as a name. According to the Associated Press, because Dennis was an English male name, the World Meteorological Society allowed the United States to replace Dennis with another English male name.

Don was chosen. Max Mayfield, the former director of the National Hurricane Center, said nobody had anybody particular in mind when Don was chosen.

By the way, there have been other presidential hurricanes. In 1997, when Bill Clinton was president, there was a Hurricane Bill, which didn't amount to much and stayed far out to sea.

By the way, if the list of tropical storms gets up to the letter "H" in the eastern Pacific, it would become Tropical Storm or Hurricane Hilary.

So we would have been screwed on Twitter no matter who got elected president last November.

Some of the jokes on Twitter about this whole situation were kind of funny, though.

One tweet informed us: "Tropical Storm Don as formed in the Atlantic Ocean and we're predicting it will be spending some time at a NJ golf club by the weekend."

"Tropical Storm Don will tell you how much damage it will do and then fizzle out and blame Hurricane Hillary," said another tweet.

The bottom line is, some people might think President Trump is small and not well organized, but the fact that Tropical Storm Don had those characteristics was coincidental.

Man Mowing Lawn During Tornado Is Turning Into Weather Meme Of 2017

Theunis Wellels mows his lawn while
a large tornado spins in the background
last week in Three Hills, Alberta, Canada.

Have you seen the photo in this post yet?

You probably have, but that's OK.  

Last week, a large tornado passed through some open country near Three Hills, Alberta, Canada. As you can see in the photo, as the tornado raged in the background, a buy named Theunis Wessels calmly mowed his lawn.

His wife, Ceclia, snapped the photo, in between entreaties to get her husband to come into the house already.

Hey, you gotta get the lawn work done, right?

According to CBC, Wessels said the tornado was further away from him than it looks in the photo, and that it was moving away from him. "I was keeping an eye on it," he said.

The photo is funny, but still, in a brief serious note, what the guy did isn't safe, as you'd expect.

First, there's a slight chance the tornado could have changed directions, but Wessel is right, it appears by the slant of the tornado it was heading away from him.

But no doubt the tornado was produced by a supercell thunderstorm, which could have touched off another satellite tornado right near him, or suddenly started dropping large, dangerous hail on his head, or zapped him with lightning.

The lawn really could have waited. (Hell, I'm wimping out on mowing the lawn today because there's a steady light rain out there.)

Some people on social media imagined conversations before the photo was taken. Like this imaginary exchange:

Grandma: "Didn't I tell you to mow the lawn?"
Grandson: "But there's a tornado outside.
Grandma: "So is my switch."

This isn't the first time I've seen somebody do something crazy in extreme weather in the name of making the lawn look nice. In the video below, you'll see some oddball six years ago mowing the lawn amid golf ball sized hail.

Must have been painful.

Watch:

Would Be Internet Weatherman Sets Wildfire To Increase Clickviews

Authorites accuse Johnny Mullins of setting a Kentucky wildfire
to bring attention to his weather-related social media.  

As I've noted earlier this month, the southeastern United States is plagued by dozens of wildfires that are taking advantage of a severe and deepening drought in that region.

Unfortunately, many of the wildfires have been started by arsonists.

It turns out that one of the wildfires was started by a would-be internet weatherman named Johnny Mullins who figured that starting a wildfire, and him reporting on it, would increase views on his Facebook page, says ArsTechnica.

According to ArsTechnica:

"According to Jenkins Police Chief James Stephens, the 21-year-old Mullins now faces a charge of second degree arson or setting a fire in Letcher County (Kentucky.) The chief told the Associated Press on Friday that Mullins said he started the fire he was charged with 'because he enjoyed the attention he got from the Facebook stuff.'"

Few, if any other online weather geeks and meteorologists would resort to something like starting a wildfire, but, as ArsTechnica points out, bad, dramatic or dangerous weather brings attention to meteorologists and weather geeks, including me. You get more viewers, more clicks, and increases TV ratings.

That leaves us feeling conflicted. Obviously, few people want to see death and destruction from severe weather. But to be honest, it's that very severe weather that helps bring meteorologists' and weather weenies their paychecks. It's ghoulish, to say the least.

I'm not sure what to do about it. Other than not setting wildfires to make people read our Facebook pages.  

Hurricane Hermine? So Far, Pffft! So Much For The Hype. At Least For Now

Those little patche of thunderstorms near
Cuba and south of the Bahamas was supposed to
be a nasty hurricane or tropical storm, the
hype went. But not so.
That bigger patch of clouds on the right side
of the satellite pic is Tropical Storm Gaston,
which is not a threat to the United States.   

For the past week or more, some of us weather nerds on Twitter and elsewhere on social media have been hyping the idea of a big hurricane hitting Florida by this weekend.

I wasn't one of of the hypsters because I knew long range hurricane forecasts were iffy at best.

So do many meteorologists. The saner heads were saying wait and see, and if it gets to the point where we should be alarmed, we'll let you know.

Meanwhile, just chill.

So, this morning the thing that's headed toward Florida is --- not much at all.

The would-be Hurricane Hermine is just a disorganized patch of thunderstorms heading into the Bahamas. No Category 3 or 4 winds, no massive storm surge, just..... unpleasant weather.

That's not to say we should all just completely relax. The weather disturbance, such as it is, could still cause flooding in the Bahamas and Florida. Thunderstorms around this disturbance did start to increase in size and intensity late this morning, so it might be trying again to form into something, we'll see.

(It does look a bit healthier as of noon than the pic in this post from early this morning.)

Plus, the National Hurricane Center says this disturbance will probably eventually make its way to the Gulf of Mexico, where it still could develop into a tropical storm or even hurricane, since atmospheric conditions might be a little better to allow a tropical storm to get going.

It's something we'll have to watch, but no panic yet.

 I'm also a little disappointed on my Twitter feed this morning that there's an air of disappointment and frustration that this thing, the Non-Hermine, is so lame.

I thought it was good news. A tropical storm or hurricane threat that so far has not materialized. We should all be happy that Miami is not being blown away and drowned.

Us weather geeks love our atmospheric excitement, I'll give you that. But let's not actually hope for a destructive storm.

I hope Non-Hermine continues to choke and fizzle and sputter and die as it heads toward the Gulf of Mexico.

Maybe She Shouldn't Have "Commanded" The Tornado To Go Elsewhere

Sabrina Lowe said she "commanded" God to divert
last weekend's tornado away from her house
If that's true it hit these dozens of houses
instead, destroying them. 

A woman named Sabrina Lowe of Rowlett, Texas is lucky in that one of those big Texas tornadoes last weekend just missed her house, and it's still standing, all good and secure.

But now, she's is - fairly or not - facing an even bigger tornado on social media for her comments to NPR.

I almost drove off the road while I was listening to NPR on the way to work the other morning. They interviewed her and she said this:  

"We actually went outside and started commanding the winds because God had given us authority over the winds - the airways. And we just began to command this storm not to hit our area. We - we spoke to the storm and said, 'go to unpopulated places.' It did exactly what we said to do because God gave us authority to do that."

I'm probably too cynical, but I have a lot of problems or questions about this quote.

First of all, you don't go outside when a tornado is approaching to "command the storm." Despite Lowe's heartfelt religious beliefs, the tornado missed because it just wasn't exactly on a path to her house.

I'm glad it wasn't. Because:

You could easily get killed by flying pieces of sheet metal, trees, and all sorts of fast moving debris while "commanding" a tornado to go away. Especially if the tornado isn't listening to you. Tornadoes never listen to you.

Too many people died in this tornado. We didn't need additional casualties.

Even if you believe God made it turn away from her house, why would He make it hit other houses? Like the 101 destroyed ones and 345 others damaged in Rowlett.

Lowe said she and her friends commanded the storm to go to unpopulated places. Which would have been great. I love it when tornadoes miss towns and cities and spin harmlessly over abandoned fields.

But, as noted, this tornado didn't exactly hit just unpopulated places. It mowed down what looked like what had been perfectly pleasant neighborhoods.

Maybe Lowe didn't think of this, but if she really had the power to tell God what to do with tornadoes, why didn't she tell him to make it just fall apart? Then nobody would have gotten hurt, and nobody's house would have gotten wrecked.

Plus, there's what? 7 billion or so people on the planet. Why would God give Lowe the power to divert tornadoes and nobody else gets that power?  I don't want to steal Lowe's thunder, but would God give me some lesser power to wield?  Something more modest than changing the course of EF4 tornadoes?

Like maybe melting the ice off my Vermont driveway after yesterday's snow/sleet/freezing drizzle storm? Just askin'

Of course, social media lit up after NPR aired Lowe's story about commanding the tornado. Most called her an idiot. Or worse.

To be honest, maybe we're being too hard on Lowe. Everybody, including Lowe, must have been scared to death as that tornado approached Rowlett and Garland. She might have just been acting out of fear.

Nobody is the most rational person in the world when they're terribly frightened.

Anyway, now that the tornado has destroyed a bunch of homes near Lowe's house maybe she can ask God to restore those wrecked houses to the way they were before the storm?

Or at least lets hope she's donating money, material or time to help those unfortunate tornado victims recover from this disaster.

Tiff Between Storm Chaser and National Weather Service Raises Social Media Worries

Storm spotters and chasersare invaluable to help the National Weather
Service warn people of dangerous weather, but how
do they weed out non-credible sources, and how
do they encourage reputable spotters? 

Saturday, a weak tornado briefly touched down in the eastern Texas panhandle.

Compared to some tornadoes, this one wasn't much of a storm, as it didn't cause much damage in the rural area it hit.

However, there was a much bigger storm concerning this twister in the form of a social media tempest between a reputable storm chaser who saw the tornado and the Amarillo National Weather Service office, which didn't believe the report.

The dispute touched off a Twitter  storm among the storm chasing and meteorological community, though everybody, including the storm chaser and the Amarillo NWS office,  kissed and made up during the day Sunday.

But the dispute highlights the double edged sword that is storm reporting via social media.

Reputable storm chasers can be invaluable. They provide "ground truth," - observing what is actually going on in terms of severe storms and tornadoes, whether or not meteorologists are also picking up the action on radar.

However, the National Weather Service is also plagued by trolls - people who falsely report severe weather and tornadoes, trying to invoke panic or at least weather warnings, in spots where no threatening weather is actually occurring.

I guess that's fun, but what do I know about the mind of a troll?

The National Weather Service is loathe to pass along storm reports that might be false, because nobody wants to cause false panic, and nobody wants the National Weather Service crying wolf. That would mean people would dangerously ignore legitimate tornado or other weather warnings in the future.

On Saturday, storm chaser Dick McGowan spotted that relatively brief tornado in the eastern Texas panhandle.  Back at the National Weather Service office in Amarillo, the storm that wss producing the twister McGowan saw didn't look all that impressive on radar.

Certainly nothing that would produce a tornado, or so the Amarillo National Weather Service office meteorologists though. The NWS office dismissed McGowan's report.  The NWS responded to McGowan: "There are no storms where you are. This is NOT a valid report."

Meteorologists there apparently assumed it was an Internet troll at work, trying to stir up needless panic.

So no tornado warning.

It turns out McGowan was right. There was a tornado and he had a photograph to prove it.

McGowan is a reputable storm chaser,  (check out his Twitter feed) and has developed the expertise to parse whether any given storm is dangerous or not. The one he saw Saturday was dangerous, since it did produce a tornado.

Sometimes, a so-so looking storm will briefly organize into something that can produce a tornado, and all the fancy dancy Doppler radars and velocity analysis and doohickies don't pick up on this.

Apparently, the storm McGowan saw did just that.

That's why "ground truth" from actual observers is still important. 

The National Weather Service issued a mea culpa Sunday. The office released a statement (which you can see in full on the image in this post; click on it to make it bigger and easier to read.)

The statement said the National Weather Service in Amarillo values all the storm reports it receives and works hard to confirm the legitimacy to the report.

Amarillo also said this in the Facebook post:

"Unfortunately, many NWS offices have recently been the target of erroneous storm reports and this impacts our ability to discern questionable reports. We would like to extend an invitation to the storm chaser and spotter community to help us find a way that we can filter these reports, and to better handle storm reports that we may receive in the future in a timely manner."

Trained spotters can telephone National Weather Service offices directly, but of course cell service is iffy in rural areas, and in the middle of nasty storms, things get even more iffy in the cell phone department.

I would be very interested to see if there are any blanket proposals coming on how or whether the National Weather Service can accept social media storm reports, and whether they can be very quickly verified as legit or possible hoaxes.

Readers, if you have any ideas, sent them along.

Meanwhile, there were a couple tornadoes Saturday in eastern Texas that everybody immediately agreed actually occured.

One of them was captured on video by a motorist in Willis, Texas.  I love the reaction of the people in the car who happened upon the tornado, then followed it as it moved roughly in the direction they were driving:

The People Who Shoveled The Boston Marathon Finish Line

The now infamous photo, probably of Chris Laudani,
shoveling snow away from the Boston Marathon Finish Line.  

There's always sub-stories to major news events, like the New England blizzard this week, and the people who shoveled the Boston Marathon finish line seems to be one of them.

I put a photo of one of the shovelers in this morning's post about the blizzard and forecasts for more snow.

Meanwhile, other media was sleuthing around, looking for the person or person shoveling the finish line. It turns out it was persons.

It started with a photo taken during the blizzard by Philip Hillman, from a window several floors above Bolyston Street in the Charlesmark Hotel, right above the finish line.

The photo showed somebody shoveling, the photo went viral on social media under the hashtag #whoshoveledthefinishline. The Boston Police Department even got in on the act, trying to figure out who the mad shoveler was.

One of them turned out to be Chris Laudani, a bartender at the Back Bay Social Club, says Boston Magazine.

"I only did it to send a message... I love the Boston Marathon and everything it stands for. The finish line doesn't deserve to be covered in snow."

On its Twitter Feed, Ironman Triathlon noted Laudani is a triathlete, having done rather well in the 2013 Lake Placid Ironman, so he clearly has an affinity for athletes like those who run the Boston Marathon.

There are at least two finish line shovelers, says Mashable, citing photographic evidence of one guy in dark pants, another in khakis.

I'm sure the Internet will sniff that person out, too.

Meanwhile, according to the Washington Post another trend has seized Boston and surrounding blizzard-socked areas. Its Twitter hashtag is #BostonBlizzardChallenge, and involves teens stripping to their underwear and diving into the two or three foot deep snows.

Kids these days.

National Hurricane Center Like Many of Us: Hot On Twitter, Cool To Facebook

If you live in any hurricane prone area of the nation this year and want immediate updates if a storm threatens, go to Twitter, not Facebook.  

Sorry, Facebook.  Hurricane forecasters say if you
want quick storm updates go to Twitter.  

That's the message direct from the National Hurricane Center. It turns out the hurricane center has the same frustration with Facebook that I and many others have.

Facebook's algorithms decide what they think is most relevant to what you want to read, and not necessarily a nice chronilogical feed of information onto your Facebook page.

That's nice for advertisers who want to target their marketing to you and whoever else is looking at Facebook.

It's not so nice if you are looking for immediate news updates. To me, the most relevant information of the day is whether a hurricane is going to wash my house away in an hour; updates on Justin Bieber's antics are not so important but what do I know?

Anyway, the National Hurricane Center says if you must use social media to get updates on storms they're tracking, go to Twitter. Your feed is usually at least somewhat in chronological order.

Hell, I often go to Twitter to see about breaking news, so that makes total sense to me.

National Hurricane Center updates that pop up on Twitter will direct you to their home page for more information.

It's probably just as well to just keep their page in mind if a hurricane or tropical storm is on its way.

Meteorologists and weather forecasters who focus on a wide variety of severe weather warnings also say Twitter has become more valuable than Facebook to issue alerts.

Here's How To Cut Through The Hype And Get Real Weather Forecasts.

New York City might get a dusting to an inch of snow Sunday night, February 8.     

One of the maps that set of a panic
about a 30" blizzard in NYC
that actually was not going, and didn't happen.  

I'm sharing this totally unremarkable weather news because the New York City area is still recovering from a giant snowball of ugly hype last week that left New Yawkers scared out of their minds that they would get buried beneath a blizzard with three feet of snow.

The cause of those fears was a comedy of errors involving people on the Internet hyping an unreliable forecast computer model that indicated a big storm, a website mistakenly running a year old story about a snowstorm forecast, and other weather bloggers and online types misinterpreting what was going on.

A National Weather Service office in New Jersey actually had to put out a special statement to the public telling everyone to just chill, that they weren't all going to die in Blizzard To End All Blizzards.

So, going forward, as you (hopefully!) keep reading my weather blog, and all those other weather blogs, weather web sites and other weather media, here are some tips to help you sort out fact from fiction as you try to sort out the forecasts.

1. Hype A Week In Advance Is Probably Wrong: Ever since some, but not all computer models in 2012 accurately forecast the extreme destruction from Hurricane Sandy a week in advance, people have been hanging their hats on long range computer generated forecasts.

The truth is, those long range forecasts, though they can give a rough idea of what MIGHT happen several days in advance, usually don't reflect what actually ends up happening. So people like me might show you a long range forecast, just for kicks,  and I'll remember to tell you to take it with a grain of salt. Use long range forecasts as vague information, and nothing to bank on.

2. Some Bloggers Hype More Than Others: The dirty little secret is that weather geeks like me and most of those other weather gurus out there get a rush out of big, huge nasty storms. Actually, a lot of non weather geeks do, too. That explains the popularity of "weather porn" all those videos on the Internet showing extreme weather events.

So, as you look around for your sources of weather information, watch for patterns. If a weather forecaster seems to repeatedly yell and scream the Big One is coming, and time and time again the storm doesn't end up amounting to much, it's time to look for a better forecaster.

On the other hand, if a forecaster who usually doesn't get too overly excited about upcoming storms starts yelling and screaming and pulling his or her hair out over a forecast, pay attention. Things could actually really get bad.

3. Beware the Lingo: For whatever reason, certain weather terms or nicknames get seized by social media these days and become overused, or worse, wrongly used.  The best recent example is the so-called polar vortex in January.

Not every cold snap is a polar vortex  

As you might remember, the polar vortex is a spinning pool of very cold air that pretty much always sits up there by the North Pole. Sometimes, the polar vortex heads south and ends up close to or even in the northern United States.  That's a fairly normal and well known phenomenon among meteorologists.

But the polar vortex got hyped so that it looked to some people as if it were a very rare, extreme thing. Worse, the term "polar vortex" gets used as shorthand for any spell of chilly, wintry weather that hits anywhere.

The other morning, when it was snowing in New York City, I heard a host on one of those network morning shows refer to the snow as the "polar vortex."  It wasn't.

So, if you hear an unfamiliar term, absolutely seek out reputable sites for explanations of what they mean if you are curious. But don't necessarily pay attention to the first reference you see. And if you're not all that curious, just tune out those fancy schmancy words and just listen to the parts of the forecast that tell you how hot, cold, rainy or snowy it's going to get.

4. Results May Vary:   Even the best forecasts by the most responsible, most accurate, most knowledgable weather bloggers, geeks and outlets will have some minor glitches.

But believe it or not, the forecasts often aren't wrong at all.  While a forecast might prove accurate for the vast majority of the area the prediction covered, local effects will cause some towns to be outliers.

A classic example: Last week, the National Weather Service in South Burlington, Vermont said most of Vermont would get a snowstorm amounting to 4 to 12 inches. I passed along that information in my blog.

It turns out the forecast was remarkably accurate, except for in a teeny, tiny portion of northwestern Vermont. That part of the state was only supposed to get 2 to 5 inches of snow, but got 6 to 10 inches instead. Local variations aren't always picked up in forecasts.

5. "Wrong" Forecasts Aren't Always Wrong: Weather is imprecise, so the level of detail a lot of people want in forecasts are just not possible. Here's an example: Say the forecast for your area was for a 60 percent chance of showers, and it didn't end up raining. Was the forecast wrong? Probably not.

Showers are inherently hit and miss, and the forecaster might have believed that 60 percent of the forecast area would get hit by showers. You just happened to be in the 40 percent of the area that stayed dry.

Also, a forecaster often can't tell you the precise moment the thunderstorm will arrive, the exact second the sky will clear, or the intensity of the snowfall at 1:30 p.m. Thursday. They can give you a general idea, within a few hours,  and you'll just have to live with that. Sorry.

6. We Don't Know Exactly How To Formulate Weather Warnings.  When people are surprised by the level of destruction and danger in a storm, you sometimes hear. "We had no idea it was going to be that bad."

That might be because storms are often warned about repeatedly and most of the time, they don't turn out to be that horrible. Dangerous, yes, but not apocalyptic. So people tune out the warnings to some extent. Then when a truly horrific storm comes, people are surprised.

It's hard to gauge the psychology of the general public and how they react to warnings. That's not an insult. It's just an example of human nature.  Some forecasters are experimenting with enhanced wording in some warnings, rather than using the same boilerplate for every storm.

For instance, weather forecasters will often detect a spinning thunderstorm and issue a tornado warning, even if a tornado has not quite formed yet. There's a strong potential, but no guarantee one will form, and people need to be informed.

But if the forecasters know a tornado is on the ground, and it's really super big and strong, they'll start throwing around words like "extremely dangerous and life threatening" and "TAKE SHELTER IN A BASEMENT IMMEDIATELY"

The bottom line: Always heed the instructions in severe weather warnings, even if the weather doesn't seem at first to be that bad. If it turns out to be a false alarm, what's the harm? You heard a tornado warning and you went to your basement and there was no tornado.

Is your life ruined because you wasted 20 minutes hiding in the basement? Of course not. But if there was a tornado, the life you saved might have been your own.

7: Feedback is Excellent, and Vote With Your Feet: If you don't like the way I or any other weather geek presents weather news tell us! Most of us are not just SEO junkies trying to get web hits at any cost. Almost all of us want to do a good job. If you think of ways we can do better, offer suggestions.

Also, if one particular weather blogger, forecaster or outlet seems irresponsible to you, don't reward them. Don't view them. Don't click on their sites. Move on, and find a competent weather geek.

Believe it or not, there's a lot of us out there.