The Science Behind Naming Winter Storms at The Weather Channel

By Tom Niziol
Published: November 18, 2014

The process of evaluating the potential to name a storm is a continual process that includes a daily hemispheric map briefing among the Global Forecast Center’s team of meteorologists at The Weather Channel.

(MORE: Why The Weather Channel Names Winter Storms)

During the map briefing, candidate weather systems are identified as potential winter storms up to a week out. As the certainty for an impactful storm increases, a storm naming committee schedules a conference call to discuss the potential named storm.

The committee is composed of three members: Tom Niziol, winter weather expert;  Stu Ostro, senior meteorologist and senior director for Weather Communications; and Dr. Peter Neilley, senior vice president of Global Forecasting Services for The Weather Channel. Based on a thorough discussion of meteorological and societal factors that could produce a winter storm, a decision is made to name or not name. It is important to note that the decision to name a storm is solely held by this committee of meteorologists. 

IMPACT Winter Storm Naming Tool Implemented in 2013-14

For the 2013-14 winter season, after the first season of refining objective methods, the team developed and implemented a quantitative procedure to evaluate the potential impacts of winter storms. The process, referred to as IMPACT for Integrated Meteorological Population and Area Calculation Tool, calculates the population and area that is forecast to be impacted by winter weather based on thresholds set by the National Weather Service for winter weather warnings.

The National Weather Service products have a proven track record and impacts are adjusted locally to account for the part of the nation being impacted by winter weather. So, as an example, a winter storm warning is issued for Atlanta when 2 inches of snow is expected in 24 hours, but it takes 9 inches to trigger a winter storm warning in Burlington, Vermont. The IMPACT method includes both actual (current or expired) National Weather Service warnings, as well as those that the naming committee anticipates are likely to be issued as the storm progresses. Only winter precipitation warnings are considered.

(MAP: Current Winter Alerts)

Thresholds have been established and there must be reasonably high confidence that those thresholds will be exceeded before a storm is named. To calibrate these thresholds, winter storms from the 2012-13 season were re-evaluated based on the footprint of actual winter weather warnings that were issued by the National Weather Service in association with each storm. Those storms were then plotted to choose a representative population and area that could trigger naming a winter storm (Figure 1).

Based on the plot of named winter storms, a base population and area thresholds were defined for warnings to separate the more significant named storms from other events. Those thresholds are used as a strong guideline to quantify the naming process.

In the image at the top right, the red lines show the chosen warning thresholds for population (2,000,000) and area (400,000 square kilometers, or 248,548 square miles). You can see that all storms from the 2012-13 season exceed the threshold for either population or area impacts, and most exceed both.

Guidelines for Naming Consideration:

  • Winter Storm Warnings: 2 million people or 400,000 square kilometers

Based on these results, for 2014-2015, the general guidance for naming a winter storm was that either the areal or population thresholds must be met for warnings. While these guidelines are considered fairly strict, the storm naming committee still reserves the right to override the quantitative decision in certain circumstances. Some of the factors that may influence decisions to override the naming rules include the degree of historical significance of the event (e.g. accumulating snow in South Florida, a summer season snowstorm, etc.).

One exception is lake-effect snowstorms. The Weather Channel is currently not naming lake-effect snowstorms even if they meet the above criteria.

The IMPACT process brings a more quantitative approach to assessing impacts from winter storms. Below is an example from Winter Storm Hercules, which produced a wide swath of winter conditions from the Central Plains through the Northeast. Over the history of this storm, more than 50 million people covering an area over 300,000 square kilometers were impacted by winter weather. The storm exceeded the warning and population thresholds.

Winter Storm Naming Process Improvements Ongoing

The Weather Channel continues to explore opportunities to improve the assessment of winter storm impacts through other quantitative processes. For example, The Weather Channel has developed a version of a Regional Snowfall Index based on the National Climatic Data Center’s (NCDC) Regional Snowfall Index (RSI). Although the process only considers snowfall amount, it is adjusted through eight different climatological zones across the U.S. for population and areal coverage. The system is being tested again this winter and if it proves valuable in improving the process to name winter storms it may be used to augment the winter storm naming process in the future. 

The meteorological team at The Weather Channel will continue to work to improve efforts to assess winter weather with the latest scientific methods to quantify the potential impacts from winter storms. Our goal is to provide the most up-to-date information to keep our users informed and prepared to handle whatever Mother Nature has to offer.

Featured Blogs

Paris Climate Talks Begin; Five Reasons Why They Are So Important

By Dr. Jeff Masters
November 30, 2015

A momentous two weeks of United Nations meetings that will shape the future of Earth’s climate have begun. The 21st annual UN Conference on Climate Change (also known as the Conference of Parties, or COP21) will unfold at Le Bourget, France, about six miles northeast of downtown Paris. COP21 is bringing together some 40,000 diplomats, scientists, journalists, and observers, as well as 151 heads of state--the largest such gathering of world leaders in history. This year’s meeting represents the best chance at a workable global agreement since Copenhagen--and perhaps our last chance for a long time to come. What makes COP21 so critical?

Incredible November Warmth for Portions of the U.S., Europe and Beyond

By Christopher C. Burt
November 10, 2015

The first 10 days of November 2015 have seen record-breaking warmth for many locations in Florida and elsewhere in the U.S. while all-time November monthly national heat records have so far been broken in the U.K., Ireland, France, Estonia, Slovenia, and Finland. All-time record heat (for any month) was also observed in parts of Australia and French Guiana. Here is a brief summary.

An extraordinary meteorological event; was one of its results a 1000-year flood?

By Stu Ostro
October 5, 2015

The confluence of meteorological ingredients the first weekend in October 2015 resulted in an extraordinary weather event with severe impacts. Was one of them a 1000-year flood?

Why the Arrest of a Science-Loving 14-year-old Matters

By Shaun Tanner
September 16, 2015

By now, many of you have heard or read about the arrest of Ahmed Mohamed, a 14-year-old high school student from Irving, Texas. Ahmed was arrested because school officials called the police after he showed one of his teachers his homemade clock. Mistaken for a bomb, Ahmed was taken into custody, interrogated, shamed, suspended (still on suspension today, Wednesday), and reprimanded. All of this after it has been found that the "device" he brought to school was indeed, a homemade clock.

2013-14 - An Interesting Winter From A to Z

By Tom Niziol
May 15, 2014

It was a very interesting winter across a good part of the nation from the Rockies through the Plains to the Northeast. Let's break down the most significant winter storms on a month by month basis.

What the 5th IPCC Assessment Doesn't Include

By Angela Fritz
September 27, 2013

Melting permafrost has the potential to release an additional 1.5 trillion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, and could increase our global average temperature by 1.5°F in addition to our day-to-day human emissions. However, this effect is not included in the IPCC report issued Friday morning, which means the estimates of how Earth's climate will change are likely on the conservative side.