The Weather Channel or Weather Nation (1 Viewer)


Messages
177
Location
Daleville, AL
Special Affiliations
I only watch when something major is going on but I think TWC is still better. Weather Nation seems amateurish and last I noticed, they aired recorded weather info and they updated it every once in a while and claimed to show all weather all the time. Weather channel just don't show weather much of the time but at least it's honest and you know when they do it is live.
 

Mike S

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,331
Location
Huntsville, Al
when actual major weather events are unfolding, TWC is by far the better choice. I forget WN even exists. Say what you want about the state of The Weather Channel today, but they still provide great live coverage.
 
Messages
389
Location
Madison, WI
The main benefit of WeatherNation is that you don't need cable or satellite to receive it. Most markets have a station with a subchannel dedicated to it. Here it Madison, WI it's my employer, WMTV/NBC 15, which has it on our fourth subchannel 15.4. We can also insert forecasts recorded locally by our meteorologists every 10 minutes, on the 5s every hour.
 

Mike S

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,331
Location
Huntsville, Al
when actual major weather events are unfolding, TWC is by far the better choice. I forget WN even exists. Say what you want about the state of The Weather Channel today, but they still provide great live coverage.
Let me add the caveat that I prefer TWC WHEN THEY DEEM AN EVENT IS WORTHY OF THEIR TIME, because obviously Saturday wasn't.

With that said, if I'm following something out of my area I'm streaming a local channel anyway.
 

warneagle

Member
Messages
1,665
Location
Silver Spring, MD
Special Affiliations
SKYWARN® Volunteer
TWC certainly didn't cover itself in glory this weekend, but I agree that when they actually bother to do the weather, there's no one better at it.

I often mute them and pull up a local stream during severe weather events, though. If anything were happening here, I'd also pull up the local guys but Maryland is boring, so.
 

pritchlaw

Member
Messages
43
Location
Warrior, AL
I watch Weather Nation because I don't like being lied to about global warming at every turn and I don't like being treated like a child or an old widow woman by having every weather event being blown into some great potentially catastrophic occurance. I also think its very WWE pro wrestling to name every winter storm. I still don't know what a system has to do to get a name from TWC. Its just so typical of today's media that they talk to their audience like we're idiots.
 

akt1985

Member
Messages
503
Location
Madison, Alabama
I don’t know how the women on Weather Nation dress but has anyone noticed the ladies on The Weather Channel often wear short and tight dresses? I’m starting to wonder if The Weather Channel now mostly hires the females for their looks rather than their knowledge of meteorology? I swear one of the ladies on that channel looks like Kim Kardashian.
 
Messages
409
Location
Niagara Falls, Ontario
I watch Weather Nation because I don't like being lied to about global warming at every turn and I don't like being treated like a child or an old widow woman by having every weather event being blown into some great potentially catastrophic occurance. I also think its very WWE pro wrestling to name every winter storm. I still don't know what a system has to do to get a name from TWC. Its just so typical of today's media that they talk to their audience like we're idiots.
There is a warming trend in global average temperatures; that is a fact. There is a trend towards melting polar ice; that is a fact. There is a trend towards rising sea levels; that is a fact. There are dozens of peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted by universities, government organizations and more, around the world, which support this.

People can argue all day about the causes or the long-term effects of those trends, whether or not they're anthropogenic, and so on, but I'm not sure how anyone can deny that it's happening.

I don’t know how the women on Weather Nation dress but has anyone noticed the ladies on The Weather Channel often wear short and tight dresses? I’m starting to wonder if The Weather Channel now mostly hires the females for their looks rather than their knowledge of meteorology? I swear one of the ladies on that channel looks like Kim Kardashian.
I feel like you're overthinking that a bit. Maybe they're following the unspoken rule of "don't put any women who aren't drop dead gorgeous on TV", but even that's a bit of a stretch. I'll also add that I'm in my second year in a university-level meteorology program, and hardly any of the female students in my program could ever be called ugly.
 

pritchlaw

Member
Messages
43
Location
Warrior, AL
There is a warming trend in global average temperatures; that is a fact. There is a trend towards melting polar ice; that is a fact. There is a trend towards rising sea levels; that is a fact. There are dozens of peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted by universities, government organizations and more, around the world, which support this.

People can argue all day about the causes or the long-term effects of those trends, whether or not they're anthropogenic, and so on, but I'm not sure how anyone can deny that it's happening.


I feel like you're overthinking that a bit. Maybe they're following the unspoken rule of "don't put any women who aren't drop dead gorgeous on TV", but even that's a bit of a stretch. I'll also add that I'm in my second year in a university-level meteorology program, and hardly any of the female students in my program could ever be called ugly.
Its called weather. TWC is on board the quack science that attributes this to man-made causes and uses its bogus "science" to pump money into environmental policy that is dreadfully damaging to the economy and totally unnecessary. If you want to have a good throw-down on the issue, message James Spann and prepare to get hammered.
 

pritchlaw

Member
Messages
43
Location
Warrior, AL
I don’t know how the women on Weather Nation dress but has anyone noticed the ladies on The Weather Channel often wear short and tight dresses? I’m starting to wonder if The Weather Channel now mostly hires the females for their looks rather than their knowledge of meteorology? I swear one of the ladies on that channel looks like Kim Kardashian.
And frankly, they say alot of really dumb stuff.
 

Mike S

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,331
Location
Huntsville, Al
If we want to discuss climate change, feel free to create a new thread and keep it there. Otherwise, the topic will derail every thread in which it comes up. Thanks.
 

rolltide_130

Member
Messages
799
Location
Harvest, Alabama
Special Affiliations
TWC has some interesting shows (Wunderground is really good), but I stay away from both for Severe Weather events. I'll occasionally check Greg Forbes' Facebook page for TORCON indexes before a sig outbreak, but if I need coverage I exclusively use live local streams.

I don't even really use local coverage that much anymore. I just work with the tools readily at my disposal (Radar, mesoanalysis, etc) when monitoring outbreaks.
 
Messages
409
Location
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Its called weather. TWC is on board the quack science that attributes this to man-made causes and uses its bogus "science" to pump money into environmental policy that is dreadfully damaging to the economy and totally unnecessary. If you want to have a good throw-down on the issue, message James Spann and prepare to get hammered.
Scientific consent is virtually never universal, but the vast majority of climatologists agree that there is a trend of increasing average temperatures, rising sea levels, and melting ice caps. The vast majority of climatologists also agree that the causes of this are anthropogenic. The fact that there are a few outliers does not change the general consensus. Those outliers might even be experts, like Spann, but it still doesn't change the overall consensus. Again, 100% universal scientific consensus is pretty much unheard of.

This study should be useful to you, and one paragraph in particular stands out:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf
Tol (2016) reports consensus estimates ranging from 7% to 100% from the same studies described above. His broad range is due to sub-groupings of scientists with different levels of expertise. For example, the sub-sample with 7% agreement was selected from those expressing an ‘unconvinced’ position on AGW (Verheggen et al 2014). This selection criterion does not provide a valid estimate of consensus for two reasons: first, this subsample was selected based on opinion on climate change, predetermining the level of estimated consensus. Second, this does not constitute a sample of experts, as non-experts were included. Anderegg (2010) found that nearly one-third of the unconvinced group lacked a PhD, and only a tiny fraction had a PhD in a climate-relevant discipline. Eliminating less published scientists from both these samples resulted in consensus values of 90% and 97%–98% for Verheggen et al (2014) and Anderegg et al (2010), respectively. Tol’s (2016) conflation of unrepresentative non-expert sub-samples and samples of climate experts is a misrepresentation of the results of previous studies, including those published by a number of coauthors of this paper.
Occam's Razor also applies here. It doesn't take that many assumptions to say "here is a trend of increasing average temperatures, rising sea levels, and melting ice caps" (forget the anthropogenic/non-anthropogenic debate for a minute).

On the other hand, it takes a lot of assumptions to say that "almost all climate data is fake, and every study that has found that there is was actually funded by green energy corporations to increase their profits. Even though there's no record or evidence of this for the majority of these studies, that's because the green energy industry is just really good at covering their tracks".
 

warneagle

Member
Messages
1,665
Location
Silver Spring, MD
Special Affiliations
SKYWARN® Volunteer
TWC has some interesting shows (Wunderground is really good), but I stay away from both for Severe Weather events. I'll occasionally check Greg Forbes' Facebook page for TORCON indexes before a sig outbreak, but if I need coverage I exclusively use live local streams.

I don't even really use local coverage that much anymore. I just work with the tools readily at my disposal (Radar, mesoanalysis, etc) when monitoring outbreaks.
I'm not necessarily relying on them for information/analysis so much as I just like watching the coverage of events, if that makes sense?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top