Thursday, February 14, 2008

A Flood of Information

This is a question for weather nerds (like me) only. Should floods really be considered weather? Not flash flooding due to heavy rainfall in the immediate area; that I understand. I’m talking about rising river levels from some past storm or, worse, water coming from way upstream. The National Weather Service issues flood warnings like this, but I really don’t see that as weather.

Maybe the NWS is the best vehicle for issuing such warnings, I don’t know. Would the NWS forecast earthquakes if earthquakes were able to be forecast? Or does the event have to come from above ground for it to be weather?

The weather folks also track sunrise and sunset info but not meteor showers or lunar eclipses (well, some TV weather people do; the sky is their beat). We need a more consistent definition of weather. And where do the presidential candidates stand on this? Oh never mind, they’re all in the pockets of the powerful weather lobby.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, I get tired of NWS radio of listening to river levels and flood info. However, they are an all alert service, including amber alerts. Still some idiot people go boating etc in floodwaters. If they drowned, and the floods weren't announced ad nauseam, then NWS might get sued! It still does not keep ding dongs from drowning themselves. Darla

Chris Sloop said...

NWS definitely has the best capability to send out these alerts. They have the infrastructure in place and NOAA is charged with the monitoring of the waterways, so it makes sense. Long run, NWS is working hard on making sure the make the alerts they send more impactful. They do this by limiting the area that they need to alert. Check out this article. http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/1008-storm_warnings_right_on_track.htm