Watching Gene Norman in Birmingham

[djjordan]

Streaming CBS 42 in Birmingham as this Tornado situation continues in the Birmingham Alabama area.......

http://cbs42.com/video/live-streaming-video/

[jasons2k]

Now that he's gone, I can say this. I never could stand him. Sorry. I never cringed so much in my life than when he tag-teamed with Dr. Frank during hurricane Ike. He couldn't even comprehend what an eyewall replacement cycle was and its relation to air pressure. I'm not one to criticize pro-mets, but that guy just wasn't top-tier material.

Now....I did enjoy streaming some James Spann last night out of Birmingham myself. He's the real deal.

Both my parents were both born and raised in Birmingham. Spent my first year of college there at Jeff State (and by sheer luck that was the year of the '93 superstorm). Lots of family and ties there. My uncle happens to be the Chief Deputy for the Jefferson County Sherrif's office and he works non-stop during these events. My heart goes out to those folks over there.

[jasons2k]

Yes, a PhD from MIT, no less. But I don't think he knew his stuff, for whatever reason. SO many times he'd use the incorrect terminology for things that any knowledgeable amateur could point out. And the Ike coverage....my GAWD what a disservice to the community that was.

FWIW I noticed "Dr. Jim" is guilty of the same thing on Fox at times, but not nearly as bad as Norman was.

It is amazing to me at times what 'professionals' in the field are allowed to get away with, because their bosses would probably fail a 6th grade physical science quiz, and don't know any better.

[wxman57]

His Linkedin profile only lists a Masters degree from the University of Maryland:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/genenorman

A degree in meteorology doesn't necessarily mean that you know much about tropical cyclones. I remember only a single course my junior year at A&M on "Tropical Meteorology". If you don't focus on TCs for your Master's or doctorate then you may have very little knowledge of TCs.

[BlueJay]

I have always admired those who report the weather. It is a difficult science with information that must be reported in matter of minutes using very few simple words. Pictures are always helpful. The Norman Number was a good concept but not all would agree on whether or not a particular temperature, etc. should be a "10".

My first weather person I ever remember watching was Jim Dawson on WOAI-TV in San Antonio. He used cartoons that he drew at the end of each of his weather reports.

RIP Mr. Dawson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUQEJ3H-diA

[jasons2k]

His Linkedin profile only lists a Masters degree from the University of Maryland:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/genenorman

A degree in meteorology doesn't necessarily mean that you know much about tropical cyclones. I remember only a single course my junior year at A&M on "Tropical Meteorology". If you don't focus on TCs for your Master's or doctorate then you may have very little knowledge of TCs.

There is no excuse for the Chief Met on a TV station of the largest media market on the Gulf Coast to not read-up on tropical meteorology and become an expert in that domain. People make life-or-death decisions based on that news coverage.

[Andrew]

His Linkedin profile only lists a Masters degree from the University of Maryland:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/genenorman

A degree in meteorology doesn't necessarily mean that you know much about tropical cyclones. I remember only a single course my junior year at A&M on "Tropical Meteorology". If you don't focus on TCs for your Master's or doctorate then you may have very little knowledge of TCs.

Sadly it is the same today, but I do have to say the school has made huge progress in operational meteorology. A lot more classes are geared towards forecasting than previously seen before.

[jeff]

I went through the A&M program and if you wanted to come out a forecaster...there was a lot left to desire. A lot of forecasting is experience you gain by working various events...theory is great and wonderful for research but there is just not the time during rapidly developing/life threatening weather to remember all the papers out there on each possible topic or even the weather event unfolding. I have worked many floods, ice storms, and TC's and each one is different with different impacts and the "I did not expect that to happen". So much of weather forecasting is becoming social science based as there is a disconnect between what forecasters put out and what people actually hear and understand. You can "warn" till your teeth fall out, but if no one understands what you are saying they are not going to react. A tornado warning use to mean something 15 years ago...now it has to be a tornado emergency to get the same reaction a tornado warning got in the 1990's.

As for TV weather it is a ratings game...those doing the weather professional or not sometimes have to do some things for ratings that they don't want to do...that is just part of the game. Severe weather coverage shows you pretty quick who knows their stuff and who does not...especially during wall to wall coverage. One of the biggest problems with TV weather (and I have seen it get a little better) is that during severe weather events it becomes rapidly overwhelming for one person to do the job....ie be on the air, look at data, ect...you have to bring in more people to help...some stations do this now which keeps viewers more up to date on the latest information. While I would like to see the "old" Weather Channel back, I will say they have done a good job the last few days on their coverage...

[jasons2k]

Jeff, that's exactly what Harold Taft used to do and that's what James Spann did the other night. Harold would get his info from Scott Chesner or David Finfrock (degreed mets too), and it was always - always - always technically and scientifically accurate. Same with James Spann the other night.

I think you nailed it by calling out 'wall to wall' coverage as a good test. Yes, it's during the live events when you can truly tell when people know their stuff.

And there are only a handful of truly great ones like Harold Taft and Roy Leep, who could explain a complex situation in such a way that the novice easily understood it, while the advanced amateur or fellow met could appreciate the technical (and correct) analysis presented. Those guys would never think of taking out the dew point from the weathercast, because their audience was educated by them to know the dew point was pretty important, especially when you're monitoring the dryline in May or close to an ice event.

But I guess the audience, in general was smarter back then too.

[Andrew]

I went through the A&M program and if you wanted to come out a forecaster...there was a lot left to desire. A lot of forecasting is experience you gain by working various events...theory is great and wonderful for research but there is just not the time during rapidly developing/life threatening weather to remember all the papers out there on each possible topic or even the weather event unfolding. I have worked many floods, ice storms, and TC's and each one is different with different impacts and the "I did not expect that to happen". So much of weather forecasting is becoming social science based as there is a disconnect between what forecasters put out and what people actually hear and understand. You can "warn" till your teeth fall out, but if no one understands what you are saying they are not going to react. A tornado warning use to mean something 15 years ago...now it has to be a tornado emergency to get the same reaction a tornado warning got in the 1990's.

As for TV weather it is a ratings game...those doing the weather professional or not sometimes have to do some things for ratings that they don't want to do...that is just part of the game. Severe weather coverage shows you pretty quick who knows their stuff and who does not...especially during wall to wall coverage. One of the biggest problems with TV weather (and I have seen it get a little better) is that during severe weather events it becomes rapidly overwhelming for one person to do the job....ie be on the air, look at data, ect...you have to bring in more people to help...some stations do this now which keeps viewers more up to date on the latest information. While I would like to see the "old" Weather Channel back, I will say they have done a good job the last few days on their coverage...

I know that going into Texas A&M, I heard this complaint a lot about the disconnect from operational forecasting and the more theoretical side. Luckily this has changed from what I have seen. Forecasting and operational meteorology is more involved in the curriculum than it used to be. Not only that, but there are various activities outside of the classroom that are offered to teach you about forecasting. With that being said, you get out what you put in. It takes a certain involvement in current weather events to connect what you learn in the classroom to real life weather. Those that have very little interest in what is going on weather wise usually have trouble in creating accurate and reliable forecasts.

I do agree with TV weather and its political ties. The unfortunate truth to TV is it's all about the ratings. That is one of the biggest issues I have with broadcasting and it's connection with meteorology. Too many times have I seen bad information or an exaggeration of that info. It was that political aspect of the job that really turned me away from pursuing a career in that field. The biggest excuse I have seen from people who weren't prepared when they got hit with severe weather is that they didn't believe the warning. Sadly many will argue that they have heard "wolf" one too many times and they don't listen to warnings or suggestions until it is too late.

[Belmer]

As a junior meteorology major at the University of Oklahoma, we don't have ANY forecasting classes offered at OU. Lots of math and derivations. OU is a very heavily research institution. Though, apparently in the next couple years they are about to do a major change in the meteorology degree program that will have some forecasting classes offered.
If you want any forecasting skills or pracitce, there is an organization called OWl (Oklahoma Weather Lab - http://owl.ou.edu/) as well as HOOT (http://hoot.metr.ou.edu/) to help with that.

As far as Tropical Meteorology goes at nasty A&M (okayyyy... I had to...) y'all are lucky. I would love to take a course like that in my undergrad. Unfortunately, Tropical Meteorology is only offered as a grad level course at OU.

[Texaspirate11]

Sorry, couldn't stand to watch him in Houston
sure wouldn't stream him in Birmingham.
Pales in comparison to Dr Frank.

But, then again, we do have Chita now