The blizzard that dumped eight to 10 inches of snow around Chicago moved on late in the evening Tuesday, when it was already touching parts of Maryland and threatening the same totals in many areas, especially in the mountain regions in the western part of the state.
The Chicago Weather Center, powered by WGN-TV, reported total snowfall for March 5, as of 6:45 pm Central Standard Time, of 7.7 inches at O’Hare International Airport, 8.2″ at Midway, and 7.8″ in Batavia. Some areas came in even higher, with Elburn reporting 9.2 inches, Rockford 9.1, Burr Ridge 8.5, Downers Grove 8.2, and Aurora 8.0. An additional one to three inches of new snow was expected around the region before the storm left the Chicago area.
The official Chicago total for March 5 was 9.2 inches, the most snow the city has received in a calendar day since 11.5 inches fell on March 2, 1954.
Although some weather forecasters on TV in Baltimore were saying snowfall of a foot or more was possible north and west of the city, the National Weather Service, as of 11 pm Eastern Standard Time, had upgraded the Winter Storm Watch to a Winter Storm Warning. The National Weather Service predicts snowfall around Baltimore to be in the six- to 12-inch range.
Illinois residents witnessed the heaviest snowfall since the 2011 Ground Hog Day Blizzard, during which 21.2 inches of snow officially covered the city. In addition to heavy snowfall, several schools were closed for the day, with the list being well over 300 schools and school districts as of 8 am Tuesday morning.
The naming of snowstorms
Has anyone noticed the Weather Channel has started giving names to snowstorms just as we give names to hurricanes? This is an interesting practice, and so far, nobody has really said why the Weather Channel started doing this.
For the record, this isn’t the first year the Weather Channel decided to name snowstorms, and several national weather services in Europe also name storms of different types, such as windstorms.
Taking advantage of the snow day, I looked into why the Weather Channel names snowstorms. Interestingly, I found some responses to my query on the Weather Channel’s website:
- Naming a storm raises awareness.
- Attaching a name makes it much easier to follow a weather system’s progress.
- A storm with a name takes on a personality all its own, which adds to awareness.
- In today’s social media world, a name makes it … easier to reference in communication.
- A named storm is easier to remember and refer to in the future.
Let’s just delve into these a little, one by one.
No. 1: To raise awareness
“Raising” awareness would imply that humanity’s awareness of winter snowstorms was at some level—let’s call it θ—before the Weather Channel started naming storms and at some higher level—θ + ε, perhaps—after they were named. As far as that goes,
In other words, the increase in awareness is so small that it is essentially null. Either that, or we just don’t have the technology available to measure the increase in awareness caused by naming of the storm. Besides, they’re pretty hard to miss.
Also, when it comes to Earth Science, I have a problem with this practice. Naming winter storms as if they were some type of hurricane is misleading. The public should not be made more aware of winter storms as if they were hurricanes, because their patterns are often very different, as are their preparedness actions. It’s misleading to put them in the same category as hurricanes, even by something as superficial as a name.
No. 2: It’s easier to follow its progress
Radars are pretty good these days. Ground reports come in from ordinary people using their iPhones. How much easier do you want?
No. 3: It takes on personality and therefore, see No. 1
Who cares? When Australian weatherman Clement Wragge started naming tropical cyclones in the late 19th century after local politicians he disliked, just so he could report that so-and-so is wreaking havoc or this downpour is wandering aimlessly about the Pacific Ocean, people didn’t think it was very amusing.
No. 4: Easier to reference in communication
I possibly think it’s better to call a storm “Saturn” than “The Big One of 2013,” but what does my opinion matter? It’s more specific, anyway. Now, winter storms aren’t nearly as well formed as hurricanes: they often dissipate or diffuse, and it can actually be more difficult to refer to them by name when they aren’t quite the same storm anymore. Do we call one track Saturn-A and another track Saturn-B? However, this rationale parallels the one used by meteorologists for naming hurricanes. They needed a way to refer to the storms, and giving them names was as convenient an approach as any to solving the problem.
No. 5: Easier to remember in the future
No, it’s not. And, who cares?
Possible hidden agenda
We note that many homeowners’ insurance policies have higher deductibles for damage caused by a “named” storm. Now, this is not the National Weather Service naming the storm, but what if the Weather Channel’s practice catches on? (Don’t worry, it won’t.)
Is it a hidden agenda of the Weather Channel to advertise its services of naming storms to potential advertisers like big insurance companies? We have to wonder, as we relax our brains for a few hours on this snow day.
