Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Archive of NZ Weather & Climate
Forum rules
These topics are a read-only archive and may be subject to out-of-date information.

For today's weather discussion head to: New Zealand Weather & Climate
User avatar
TonyT
Moderator
Posts: 2878
Joined: Thu 08/05/2003 11:09
Location: Amberley, North Canterbury
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by TonyT »

I read this article http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10536171 (pasted below in case the hyperlink fails to work in the future) and I started to feel uncomfortable. This is not intended to be a dig at Phil specifically, but more so at the reporting of what he said and the way it is reported. Similar stories seem to abound in the media these days.

I do wonder about the value of articles like this - why should it be news that the winds gusted to 160km/h at the windiest place in New Zealand? The winds often gust to that speed there, but no one lives there. Its actually not important. Its irrelevant. Winds are not (yet) gusting to damaging speeds anywhere that actually matters, and when they do that will be news. But until then, are we just feeding the green eyed monster by wanting to have the most sensational and awful sounding news stories out there who's purpose can only be to impress or titilate, rather than actually inform? "My web site is better than your website because I reported a higher wind gust than you".

We see similar things with other weather stories - 10,000 lightening strikes in Fiordland, 300mm on the main divide, 170kmh at Castlepoint. What is the value of reporting these events in the sensationalist way that we do when in fact these things are not unusual or problematic? What purpose does it serve, and what potential harm can it do?

What would be problematic would be 10,000 strikes over Dunedin, or 300mm in Wellington, or 170kmh in Masterton. That would be news. So, what happens when there is "only" 150mm in Wellington, or "only" 85kmh in Masterton, or 2,000 strikes over Auckland? Do the public go "oh yeah, so what?" because those numbers are (literally) only half as impressive as the ones they are used to seeing? Is there a danger here that the more the public get used to the sensationalist numbers popping up regularly, the less they are going to appreciate the newsworthyness of numbers which are not nearly so impressive but potentially much more significant to them? Are we in fact leading the public down the garden path and pulling the wool over their eyes by pretending that numbers like these matter? Isnt it our job as meteorologists (professional, analytical, amateur or otherwise) to help educate the public, and the journalists which report to them, rather than lead them astray with trivia?

From http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10536171
Storm's winds hit 160km/h - forecaster
UPDATED 8:32AM Tuesday Oct 07, 2008
By Vaimoana Tapaleao

Wellington is already being battered and Auckland is expected to be hit this afternoon. Photo / Richard Robinson
Is the storm affecting where you live?
Send us your pictures

A severe storm hitting the country today has brought winds of up to 160km/h to Wellington this morning, one forecaster has reported.

Radio Network weather analyst Philip Duncan said there was a report of a wind gusts of 160km/h hitting Mt Kaukau in the capital.

Earlier, he reported gusts of 102km/h downtown in Wellington. Further north, the Manukau Heads are experiencing gusts of 83km/h.

Meanwhile, the conditions were bringing heavy rain to parts of the South Island and some snow to Queenstown.

Mr Duncan said the heavy winds will hit lower lying areas later this morning.

He said Aucklanders have woken to a calm morning but ferry trips could be disrupted later in the day.

MetService yesterday issued a severe weather warning for wind and rain to hit the North Island today before moving on to the rest of the country tomorrow.

Weather ambassador Bob McDavitt yesterday said northwest gales may reach 150km/h on the higher hills of Wellington and 120km/h from Auckland to Marlborough.

"People in the North Island and northern parts of the South Island need to brace themselves for a few days of wind and rain," Mr McDavitt said.

Temperatures would remain high with an average in Auckland of 20C.

Mr Duncan said today's storm will affect many people. "The big difference to all the other storms, is that they've mostly affected the remote places - Fiordland, Stewart Island and the likes.

"This one, unlike previous storms, is all over the North Island," he said.

Winds of up to 130km/h will mainly hit the top of the South and all of the North Island today, Mr Duncan said, with gales reaching 150km/h set to hit parts of Auckland's Waitakere Ranges and the Manukau Heads.

Last night he said winds were beginning to build up, but this afternoon would be "the main event. It's going to be pretty windy".

"We're just advising people that even in downtown Auckland, some of the winds could gust at 130km/h. That's enough to throw people while they're standing at the traffic lights."

Winds are expected to ease on Friday and clear by the weekend.
User avatar
Vertigo
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun 09/12/2007 23:50
Location: Henderson, Auckland
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Vertigo »

interesting topic - however, i need to go to work, so my long spiel will have to wait :)
Philip Duncan
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon 27/08/2007 21:02
Location: Waitakere City
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Philip Duncan »

Simple answer: It's interesting! News stories have to be interesting otherwise people won't read them. If you'll notice I've been adding a far more balanced view lately - pointing out that winds are gusting to certain speeds in isolated areas but not in populated areas. In fact all my interviews yesterday and this morning have been pointing out that the Manukau Heads and Castlepoint are pretty much irrelevant - BUT they are still of interest to the public who have a desire to hear about extreme conditions - it's the same in all news topics from politics to the economy - extreme stories create interest.....but you're right that it is irrelevant to some degree- we could put a weather station on the summit of Mt Cook and it would have sensational readings, so it needs to be balanced....it would still be interesting though!

I'm not going to ignore high readings on the hills around Wellington though - it affects motorists on the Rimutaka Ranges. In fact I have stayed well clear of talking about damage in my stories over the past two days and rather forcused on the risk for travel disruptions - in which case, gusts are definitely relevant. Flights are now being cancelled in Wellington and damage is also being reported.

I'll also point out that MetService feed these readings to the media too.

I see no harm of mentioning extreme gusts - as media and weather organisations worldwide report in this mannor - so long as it's balanced with what wind speeds we're having in populated places. It's also worth noting that I've taken on board your comments about average speeds being more damaging and will introduce that gradually to our stories.

But the general public love hearing this - and at the end of the day 160km/h wind gusts create interest in the weather industry - talking about sustained winds of 70km/h does not. It's not up to you, or me, to decide what is news-worthy. Believe me, we know when the public think we've put too much sensation into a story ... we don't get the ratings - the click off the story straight away - and we learn from that.

Also - seperate to me - some reporters focus solely on the extreme conditions written on our site or given to them by MetService forecasters - there's nothing we can do about that except slowly educate these reporters in the interviews and that takes time.

Tony I have to say for a forum that tries to improve how the media reports on weather stories you never ever point out what we do well or right. We never receive praise for anything just complaints in here for what people don't like. It's hard to think comments are fair and balanced by some members of this forum!
User avatar
David
Posts: 7578
Joined: Sat 18/08/2007 21:02
Location: Howick, Auckland
Has thanked: 416 times
Been thanked: 825 times
Contact:

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by David »

I am interested in extreme reports, and I'm sure many others are as well. I think your site is informative Philip but I think there are some exaggerations. Such as the story a few days ago 'Gales move into Auckland' - I don't think that was an appropriate headline because the only place actually experiencing gales was the Manukau Heads, and the highest gusts in populated areas were only 60km/h.
Image
Philip Duncan
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon 27/08/2007 21:02
Location: Waitakere City
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Philip Duncan »

Very fair comment David - and we're trying to move away from doing that because obviously it causes harm to our credibility. To be honest that headline should've been removed when it became clear that gales were not affecting Auckland city. I've just updated our site to cover some new wind speeds - I think what we've written is fair and balanced.
User avatar
TonyT
Moderator
Posts: 2878
Joined: Thu 08/05/2003 11:09
Location: Amberley, North Canterbury
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by TonyT »

You might have slightly missed my point Phil, or at least taken it more personally than was intended. I know what its like dealing with the media - they ask "So how windy was it today?" so we look down the list of numbers and see the highest gust was 160kmh at Kaukau and tell them that in all innocence, then it becomes the headline. But its not actually important. its only interesting because its a number which if it occurred in a populated area would result in death and destruction. Thats the only reason it has any value. However, reporters have no concept of this, and if you try to balance what you tell the reporter by saying "gusts in the city were 80kmh" then you are lucky if that gets mentioned at all.

My point is not to criticise you Phil, but to criticise the reporting process which ends up with headlines like this.

Sure its interesting, but why is it interesting? Because its an exteme number. Extreme numbers happen all the time, in extreme places. My fear is that if all the public get fed (by the reporters, whether or not it originates from you or anyone else) is extreme numbers from extreme places, then we are conditioning them to ignore (or at least fail to attach enough weight to) lesser numbers which might impact on them.

I'll give you a local example - first flooding event in North Canterbury in August - prediction was for 40-60mm in 24 hours (turned out to be wrong, ended up being double that or more, but thats not the point this time). That is a heavy rainfall for this part of the world, yet there is clear evidence from the enquiries which have taken place subsequently that local council staff took a wait and see attitude, rather than having any concern. Sure there are many other factors involved, but is that at least partly because 40-60mm doesnt sound like much? Even though for this part of the world it is?

Are the media conditioning the public to accept a false level of security around severe weather events by over-reporting (or at least over sensationalising) extreme events in extreme places? How many Wellingtonians are going to read that Herald article this morning, and think to themselves "I'm alright, I survived the 160kmh winds this morning, so bring it on...".

As for your final point, I think you are being very unrealistic if you hope people are going to go around praising you all the time. Thats not in people's nature. I've been involved in weather forecasting for 25 years, and I can tell you that if the ratio of praise to criticism exceeds 1:10 then you are very lucky. Its as much in people's nature to complain about weather forecasting as it is to complain about All Black coaches, the government, and TV news readers. Its part of life. You get a fair proportion of people on this forum saying they like what you do (there is one such post above this one) so take it and enjoy it. I know that I do not enjoy the sensationalism that misdirected reporting of the weather has introduced. Thats not your fault Phil and I'm not suggesting it is. But if you are the one the media go to for comment and, pun fully intended, analysis, then you are in a strong position to correct it.
Philip Duncan
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon 27/08/2007 21:02
Location: Waitakere City
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Philip Duncan »

Thanks for the clarification Tony.
I know what you're saying - but I still think the public are intelligent enough to work out that strong winds on Mt Kaukau are different to 160km/h in downtown Wellington. And it is relevant - the Rimutaka Ranges highway has now been closed as has the airport - if we were reporting winds of 50km/h shutting the region down it would just sound bizarre.

I understand your concerns about the public thinking 40-60mm is insignificant and I think that that is where people like you and me need to ensure our language is very clear. I laughed at your comments about praise - I agree with you totally - and when we do receive praise it's usually about of laymans terms - describing weather events in every day language. The problem with stats on their own is that they mean very little to the general public...as you mentioned above, a list of numbers doesn't mean much. So it's up to you and me to ensure that we point out 40-60mm of rain "on top of recent rains" or "for this region" is "serious". Likewise with winds, which I think I've done in the story I've written. I've also noticed the news media don't tend to run with stories unless MetService has issued a tonne of weather warnings - so I don't think we have to worry about sensational weather headlines on a daily basis.

Oh and your last comment, about being up to me to correct it - yes I agree, but it takes time and it takes building relationships to do that.
User avatar
TonyT
Moderator
Posts: 2878
Joined: Thu 08/05/2003 11:09
Location: Amberley, North Canterbury
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by TonyT »

philip duncan wrote: It's not up to you, or me, to decide what is news-worthy.
I guess this comment cuts close to the heart of my ill ease - if we are going to put ourselves up as experts in the field so that journalists (who are not experts in the field, but who do decide what is newsworthy) value our opinion, then do we have some repsonsibility to guide the journalists? Isnt that why the journalists see us experts in the first place?
User avatar
TonyT
Moderator
Posts: 2878
Joined: Thu 08/05/2003 11:09
Location: Amberley, North Canterbury
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by TonyT »

philip duncan wrote: Likewise with winds, which I think I've done in the story I've written.
Just for clarification, my concern is not with what you have written (I haven't even read it, sorry! :oops: ) but with what was written by a journalist, on a mainstream media site.
Philip Duncan
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon 27/08/2007 21:02
Location: Waitakere City
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Philip Duncan »

TonyT wrote:
philip duncan wrote: It's not up to you, or me, to decide what is news-worthy.
I guess this comment cuts close to the heart of my ill ease - if we are going to put ourselves up as experts in the field so that journalists (who are not experts in the field, but who do decide what is newsworthy) value our opinion, then do we have some repsonsibility to guide the journalists? Isnt that why the journalists see us experts in the first place?
We can guide all we like but they'll still only run with stories that get high ratings. I try to guide but don't get so much luck!! :-)

And no worries - re your comment above!
User avatar
TonyT
Moderator
Posts: 2878
Joined: Thu 08/05/2003 11:09
Location: Amberley, North Canterbury
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by TonyT »

philip duncan wrote:We can guide all we like but they'll still only run with stories that get high ratings. I try to guide but don't get so much luck!! :-)
This icon feels right :banghead:

:)
User avatar
Nev
Moderator
Posts: 6216
Joined: Tue 07/03/2006 15:24
Location: Waiheke Island, Hauraki Gulf
Has thanked: 468 times
Been thanked: 1064 times

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Nev »

Stuff's 'Flights suspended as gales lash capital' story includes this report posted by MR Nick at 10am in the comments section...
I live near the Rimutaka hills. The winds are fierce and intense. Livestock, small children and horse's and carts have been hurtling past my living room window for the last two hours.
I think this young chap may have a future in journalism ... :lol: :mrgreen: :D
Philip Duncan
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon 27/08/2007 21:02
Location: Waitakere City
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Philip Duncan »

haha! I KNOW that feeling Tony..... :-)
Thunder
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed 12/03/2003 19:47
Location: Mt Somers
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Thunder »

Ahh Media, I love it when they ring up wanting something big and amazing! I just sort've water things down alot often, lol.

And your avatar Tony, it does actually resemble you I must admit :)
Image
Aaron Wilkinson
User avatar
TonyT
Moderator
Posts: 2878
Joined: Thu 08/05/2003 11:09
Location: Amberley, North Canterbury
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1146 times

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by TonyT »

Its all in the way my head wobbles from side to side when I try to turn around.. :)
Manukau heads obs
Posts: 12305
Joined: Mon 10/03/2003 16:30
Location: West Coast Road, Manukau Peninsula, North Island
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Manukau heads obs »

one coment I will make, is that people do live at the Manukau heads, and there was property damage around the area today.
The signal station/now casting site only reached 75 knots there this aftenoon, as the NNW wind does not get the funneling effect of the harbour entrance...i.e other hill top/ridge top areas around the area were recording 60 knot winds gusts this afternoon as well (we drove around with an anenometer on the roof of the car (looked like a tornado chase vehicle!)
In a WNW wind, the funneling of the harbour entrance means they record 85 knot (157kmh) winds there
Auckland side and the Hauraoki Gulf was only getting half the windspeeds that were occuring on this side alot of the time...due to an interesting split that occurs, with a river of wind pressure running down the west coast...
Image
Brian Hamilton, weather enthusiast. My weather dataEmail: [email protected]
Philip Duncan
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon 27/08/2007 21:02
Location: Waitakere City
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Philip Duncan »

Very good point Brian. Was also thinking Tony, that M/S also places quite an emphasis on predicted gust speeds - so I guess the media and public are very used to only hearing the upper speeds. To be honest I doubted many of Auckland's suburbs would see winds gusting over 100km/h, except for downtown (which I mentioned in my story yesterday - that some suburbs wouldn't feel the strong winds). The strongest gusts I saw all day were about 75km./h at the airport and 90km/h at Whenuapai.

Windy and raining still here in West Auckland. Have the heater back on again tonight! (which my puppy is very happy about!)
User avatar
Nev
Moderator
Posts: 6216
Joined: Tue 07/03/2006 15:24
Location: Waiheke Island, Hauraki Gulf
Has thanked: 468 times
Been thanked: 1064 times

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Nev »

philip duncan wrote: To be honest I doubted many of Auckland's suburbs would see winds gusting over 100km/h, except for downtown ... The strongest gusts I saw all day were about 75km./h at the airport and 90km/h at Whenuapai.
Interesting ... and thanks for the above info Phil.

Going by 3-hourly-obs for the Hauraki Gulf, Channel Island in the Colville Channel appears to have the only site recording 'Strong Gales', with mean-winds of around 80 km/h (45 kts) for most of today.

I'd be interested to know if Bean Rock in the Waitemata Harbour reached 'Gale-force' and what both the max sustained-winds and gusts were there (also max mean-wind for Whenuapai)?
Manukau heads obs
Posts: 12305
Joined: Mon 10/03/2003 16:30
Location: West Coast Road, Manukau Peninsula, North Island
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Manukau heads obs »

listenging on the now casting, yes, only Channel island was getting anything decent on the Auckland side ,...others were just 25 knots mainly

other NW blows it can be just as strong in the gulf as on the west coast side....just the way the pressure works out
Image
Brian Hamilton, weather enthusiast. My weather dataEmail: [email protected]
User avatar
Michael
Posts: 7210
Joined: Thu 27/03/2003 12:04
Location: Rainy Manurewa, Auckland - "City of Gales"
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Michael »

Our winds were only strong at times/mainly when raining and that was only from 3pm to about 7pm.before 1pm theyre were light.
Philip Duncan
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon 27/08/2007 21:02
Location: Waitakere City
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Philip Duncan »

Nev wrote: Interesting ... and thanks for the above info Phil.

Going by 3-hourly-obs for the Hauraki Gulf, Channel Island in the Colville Channel appears to have the only site recording 'Strong Gales', with mean-winds of around 80 km/h (45 kts) for most of today.

I'd be interested to know if Bean Rock in the Waitemata Harbour reached 'Gale-force' and what both the max sustained-winds and gusts were there (also max mean-wind for Whenuapai)?
I dont have the extremes but most of the day Bean Rock was around 40km/h with gusts only reaching about 65km/h for much of the afternoon - although Im sure it peaked higher than that. Definitely stronger at Whenuapai, closer to the Waitaks - I think average speed there at 4pm was about 57km/h gusting to 90. As i say this was all from memory - I have about 40 Obs sites updated hourly so it's hard to keep track on them all!
User avatar
Nev
Moderator
Posts: 6216
Joined: Tue 07/03/2006 15:24
Location: Waiheke Island, Hauraki Gulf
Has thanked: 468 times
Been thanked: 1064 times

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Nev »

philip duncan wrote:I dont have the extremes but most of the day Bean Rock was around 40km/h with gusts only reaching about 65km/h for much of the afternoon - although Im sure it peaked higher than that. Definitely stronger at Whenuapai, closer to the Waitaks - I think average speed there at 4pm was about 57km/h gusting to 90. As i say this was all from memory - I have about 40 Obs sites updated hourly so it's hard to keep track on them all!
Thanks Phil. Yes, those Bean Rock figures sound about right. Winds seem to have peaked around Auckland at about 4pm yesterday, when Bean Rock recorded mean-winds of 54 km/h (29 kts), although Whenuapai then was only on 39 km/h (21 kts).

Apart from the obvious extremes produced by the Manukua Heads and some areas downwind of the Harbour, max mean-winds around most of Auckland (incl. the Sth Kaipara) appear to have been about 50-55 km/h, with max gusts in most more exposed places probably around 70 km/h.

I'm still a little sceptical of your estimates of 120 km/h gusts for downtown Auckland and the Harbour Bridge though. And perhaps I should also point out that the local ferries are capable of sailing in conditions far worse than those initially forecast. Fullers have only briefly suspended services twice in the last 2 years, which in itself is an extremely rare stat.

I also see you've lead today's report with a comment about 'yesterday's hurricane force winds'. Presumably this in reference to the notorious but more remote Rimutakas or Mt Kuakua, rather than the rest of Wellington, which would have only experienced 'Strong Gales' or at best 'Storm-force' winds. As Tony has suggested, you might end up with a lot Wellingtonians (or even Aucklanders) thinking they had survived 'hurricane force winds' and underestimating its power when faced with the Real McCoy.

Just my 2 cents worth. ;)
spwill
Posts: 9907
Joined: Sun 29/06/2003 22:39
Location: Mt Eden Auckland
Has thanked: 839 times
Been thanked: 866 times

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by spwill »

There will have been local gusts with the heavy showers that came through on the Front.
RWood
Posts: 3745
Joined: Sat 24/01/2004 16:56
Location: Wellington
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 123 times

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by RWood »

I think Tony is right, and the public could be drowned in a welter of numbers, of which only a small proportion will be really meaningful. The result could be the "cry wolf" problem. On the other hand I saw some critical comment on a British forum about a BBC report that the first 8 months of the year had been the wettest on record for some large proportion of the UK (may have been the whole UK averaged out). Given a lengthy record of measurement this was certainy significant, and the hostile comments made no sense to me at all.
Philip Duncan
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon 27/08/2007 21:02
Location: Waitakere City
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: Are we feeding the green eyed monster?

Unread post by Philip Duncan »

Well this arguement could go around and around...the winds that gusted ato 160km/h on the Manukau Heads were considered irrelevant to some - but to those living there it was major and a person was injured. My comments about the gusts to 160km/h on the hills around Wellington were also considered sensational by some but the Rimutaka Ranges road was closed for 6 hours due to them - affecting a lot of people - and in all my reports I always balanced them extremes with the lower figures at the airports and downtown. Fair and balanced.

I don't think there's a risk of "crying wolf" in these situations so long as it's clear that these high readings are in extreme places - which I clearly made in ALL of my radio interviews and my online reports. If other media take some of my comments/stats but don't include them in full I can't be held responsible for that other than asking them to be careful in the future - which I've done.

Some people have been angry at us for saying the nation's high was 27 degrees say in Napier, when actually it was 29 in some remote place where very few people live...others complain when we include temperatures for places where no one lives, such as Milford or Haast.

I also think most Aucklanders and Wellingtonians have survived enough wind events to know that this wasn't a "hurricane"...and the more often we talk about these severe winds in these remote, but important, places - the clearer it will become to the public. A lot of people don't know where these places are - eventually it'll become well known that these winds speeds are relatively 'normal' for these areas and the public will see the difference between what happens there and what happens where they live.

So one rule doesn't work all the time. It takes common sense and judging each story seperately. Your thoughts/comments are all valuable though and are taken onboard.
Locked