gllitz wrote:...
Phil Duncan says himself his site is not meant to be scientific. So getting him to change the wording is unlikely to happen. I do see a discrepancy with his claims that a) the public should not be treated like they are stupid (
http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/weathe ... id=1501977 - "Those that actually care about a weather forecast are usually intelligent enough to work out what's accurate") and b) lack of scientific detail on his website, glossing over some areas and treating some things as minor details, when they are, in fact very important.
Two cases in point: Commentators pointed out to him errors such as him claiming that overnight minima occur just before sunrise, when under the weather situation at that time (surface inversion) they actually happen just after sunrise. A key point. Another was where he referred to the sub-tropical jet stream as the "tropical jet stream". His response was that it was irrelevant and it would just confuse the public to be more specific. This is at odds with his earlier claims.
Unfortunately I don't see an end to this in the future and we may just have to grin and bear it. Meteorology is science, regardless of whether you think "forecasting" is art or science, and I believe we should stick with informed views from the scientists.
I also find it concerning that he does not even really know what "wind shear" is. It is a change of wind direction OR speed with height.
http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/w ... ing?page=1
"Warm water,
little wind shear (strong winds above going the opposite way to cut the growth of clouds etc) are helping making this storm grow...
plus it's moving fast in the sub-tropical jet stream - a conveyer belt from the Coral Sea to northern NZ."
A jet stream is an area of very strong shear. The storm could not simultaneously be in an area of "little wind shear" AND the "sub-tropical jet stream". That's impossible.
I find such errors worrying. And often they are blamed on "it's a long day", but that just doesn't fly all the time!
I could be picky and point out that a conveyor belt is not a jet-stream, it is something different.
It also seems that when things don't go his way, or when he's out of his league, he claims arguments are irrelevant. A key issue is the distinction between "cyclones" and "tropical cyclones". He claimed these arguments were "pedantic". Now I introduced him to this word in a post I made here, and over the next week he used it almost everywhere. I am glad to be of service. But seriously, it's a very real issue. People have to be careful when talking to the public. It really *is* a case of "say something enough times and everyone will think it is the truth".
I have no issue in principle with lack of knowledge. Who knows everything about the weather? No one. But I don't believe he should be in the position that he is in. It *could* be bad for the public.
Really if you are going to be in the position of educating or informing the public about the weather you have to have some form of formal education in meteorology. Meteorology is physics....simple fact. You don't see laymen setting up websites about particle accelerators and predicting what will happen in the next collision. But somehow the weather is fair game.
In terms of the man himself, I think he comes across as great on TV and radio. He has an easy going style and seems pretty genial....my beef is with the things that he says/writes.
Unfortunately this thread or post may not last long given that there appears to be an unwritten rule here that you may not criticise anyone other than Metservice. Personally I think they do a damn good job despite being hounded and bitched at constantly......although I'd prefer for them to be more "vocal" and "pro-active" with the public...but that's not really their mandate I guess. .
For those who dissent my opinion, I leave you with the words of Mr Duncan himself:
I'm right....get over it.
