letters to the editor

letters to the editor Comment s on "Operational Omission 1) Trace events such as flurries and drizzle and 2) POPs are optional when precipitation is occurring an d Misuse of Numerical Precipitation or imminent, when warnings are issued, or when Probability Expressions": Part I the forecast areas are huge. Vislocky et al. (1995) present an interesting and Perhaps a reluctance of operational forecasters to thought provoking look at the numerical "probability of include specific, numerical POP statements in the precipitation" (hereafter referred to as POP) state- forecasts stems from a widespread perception that ments in National Weather Service (NWS) forecasts. the public does not understand these expressions. The authors appear to be strong proponents of the Curtis and Murphy (1985) have some empirical evi- inclusion of POP statements in public forecasts and dence to indicate that "interested" people in the gen- their utility. Their criticism of the inconsistent usage of eral public do not understand POP statements, POPs has merit and can stimulate discussion as to the whether properly or improperly expressed. Sink (1995) proper usage of these expressions. presents compelling evidence that there is confusion in understanding POPs in public forecasts throughout As an NWS forecaster who writes forecasts that a diverse http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society American Meteorological Society

letters to the editor

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ams/letters-to-the-editor-DTOZ0gQiMg
Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Copyright
Copyright © American Meteorological Society
ISSN
1520-0477
D.O.I.
10.1175/1520-0477-76.10.1812
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Comment s on "Operational Omission 1) Trace events such as flurries and drizzle and 2) POPs are optional when precipitation is occurring an d Misuse of Numerical Precipitation or imminent, when warnings are issued, or when Probability Expressions": Part I the forecast areas are huge. Vislocky et al. (1995) present an interesting and Perhaps a reluctance of operational forecasters to thought provoking look at the numerical "probability of include specific, numerical POP statements in the precipitation" (hereafter referred to as POP) state- forecasts stems from a widespread perception that ments in National Weather Service (NWS) forecasts. the public does not understand these expressions. The authors appear to be strong proponents of the Curtis and Murphy (1985) have some empirical evi- inclusion of POP statements in public forecasts and dence to indicate that "interested" people in the gen- their utility. Their criticism of the inconsistent usage of eral public do not understand POP statements, POPs has merit and can stimulate discussion as to the whether properly or improperly expressed. Sink (1995) proper usage of these expressions. presents compelling evidence that there is confusion in understanding POPs in public forecasts throughout As an NWS forecaster who writes forecasts that a diverse

Journal

Bulletin of the American Meteorological SocietyAmerican Meteorological Society

Published: Oct 1, 1995

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off