I agree with Jim.

It's important that younger people tap into the passion they have for weather.

Obviously someone should not make a life or death decision based on a social media or forum post. I think most everyone realizes that. I've seen stupidity from some people on social media, but also from meteorologists as well. I've seen people say every storm is coming to them and then one happens to. That does not demonstrate accuracy. I've seen people who truly think they know best. (they don't, but that will not stop them from telling you they do)

But then I've seen meteorologists, who people do pay more attention to, say such things as a storm is definitively not going to a certain place (and then it does) or forget that a storm is not a point. (and have an obsession with the center of the storm and paying less attention to the cone) There have been so many instances where meteorologists have incorrectly talked about the cone. I haven't seen some of the stupidity here in Tampa, mostly from meteorologists from other places which can be relived on YouTube. Although I have seen some meteorologists locally fail to explain the cone properly and at times rely a little too much on being perhaps a mere few miles away from being in the cone.

I just think the question in that tweet is absurd:

"Is the combination of social media fueling a surge of bad science?"

Yes. But if you ask this question:

Is the combination of social media fueling a surge of good science?

The answer would also be yes.

The majority of interesting things I have read usually come from people without science backgrounds. It's kind of great to question everything.

Einstein, a really intelligent dude:

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day."

Not that I am saying that in regards to being convinced not to evacuate. I am talking about in general, often when there is not a storm, that various topics on social media, whether they are weather related or about science in general, can have great questions and discussions.

No one should ever not evacuate because of something said on social media. If you should be evacuating, and social media gives you that extra push to do so, excellent. If you are a little unsure, perhaps you are on the edge of the evacuation area, maybe there is a voluntary evacuation, maybe you have lots of large trees over your house, maybe you know your area is more prone to flooding and/or maybe the structure you live in is not well suited for wind (like a mobile home), in which case then maybe let social media give you that extra push to evacuate. Never let someone convince you not to evacuate, but if you are a little unsure of whether you should evacuate, then maybe let that give you a push to evacuate ahead of a storm.

It might be nice to listen to everything when you are an independent observer, but that is not the case when you are being impacted by the storm itself. For those in the path, don't get lost in all the extra voices. Pay attention to the NHC and local NOAA forecast offices above all else. If you happen to trust your local meteorologists, then them too. Most people here can probably tell the difference between ones that seem to know what they are doing more and ones who do not as much. (If they love congratulating themselves on being right a lot and love stating things definitively, maybe that met not so much.)

There is so much you can learn from social media, from professionals to weather hobbyists, when you have the time to learn for yourself if something is informative or not so much. You don't have that kind of time when you are threatened, so official sources should be your primary outlet, but for everyone else we enjoy all sorts of various opinions, as long as there is some rational. If it turns into everyone screaming "First!", like comments from popular YouTube videos, then I'm not paying attention. If you post long range models dozens of times, eventually one might actually get it somewhere close to right. But you don't get congratulations for that.

Talking about something that is likely not going to happen in the long term is fine as long as someone doesn't talk about it like that's likely to happen every time. I have literally seen models go from something, to nothing, from Mexico, to around Canada. I've seen things on Facebook and Twitter as if everything is the end of the world. You don't have to scream in capital letters about a long term model. If people took some things at face value from some social media, you would find a lot of people who think very highly of themselves, even more so than the NHC. Those people, ignorable.

But for more responsible people, Jim's right, it might be helpful for someone to simply be aware of the possibility of something long term. There's the caveat that NHC forecasts are through 5 days for a reason. The cone is huge at 5 days, imagine what it would be just a few days beyond, let alone a full two weeks or more out. And the cone is based on a team of experts 5 year average error, where only two thirds of the time the storm is within the cone. And that's the center, not counting all the impacts beyond the center point. And the team of experts at the NHC use their expertise and many, many models, over many runs, along with many other tools. So a long term model, just one, and maybe just one run, likely is not going to be anywhere close to being right most of the time, but if there are multiple models saying the same thing 10 days out, over multiple runs, you might only hear about that on social media. It is absolutely going to happen, who knows, but maybe you might be less likely to go camping or go on a sailing trip in a particular area without any means of communication. Heck, that could save a life. (As a reminder for those that do go camping in flash flood prone areas, not even simply regarding hurricanes, be aware of forecasts.)

At least people here know better. Long range models are usually for entertainment purposes. You want to see more than one run and multiple model support. We see informative discussion here. We question the NHC sometimes, but they get it right more often than anybody else. Sure, we'll have a comment when we think they can do better, but they have social media too and work on ways they can do even better and communicate things better to people.

With or without a degree, people can have valuable insight. When someone stops learning or rejects something outright because of the source, that can be problematic. When there is a serious situation, listen to official sources, but in the meantime, lets be open to new ideas, no matter who it comes from.

Always good to be reminded of what the cone represents:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutcone.shtml

And that a storm is not a point.

And it only takes one.

And ever storm is unique.

And a storm doesn't have to be a major hurricane to have major damage. (Ike and Sandy, though Sandy was more than a hurricane, and not officially a hurricane at landfall)

And turn around, don't drown.

A storm is more than about wind. And more than surge. There's fresh water flooding, tornadoes, rip currents and other dangerous impacts even after the storm passes, such as power that you may think is out, broken gas lines, candles, space heaters, running generators that are not ventilated that build up gasses. Weakened structures, falling trees and traffic accidents. Dangerous things in the water, from swimming in it to clean drinking water.

There's lots of things that can ordinary people can talk about and be helpful. It doesn't simply take a meteorologist with a degree to save someone's life. In the social world we live in, sharing a post from a friend with valuable information can be just as lifesaving. (Just ignore the especially dumb ones, cause, yea, they exist too.)

Ramble... over and out.

Well, not quite. WXGeeks?

Their Twitter bio:

"A show produced by Meteorologists, for Weather Geeks. Every Sunday at 12pm on The Weather Channel."

Who would this be aimed at if there were not weather geeks? (Over 99.9%+ of those watching likely do not have a degree in meteorology.) Sure, people shouldn't be reckless obviously, and the clip I saw was too short to see where the conversation went, but there is always going to be some crazy people on social media. It's too easy to use not to have that. (and it sure isn't limited to just weather) But just as there is someone being crazy, there is probably someone sane to call them out on it, and most of the time, that person will likely be a weather geek, without a degree. It's kind of how Wikipedia works. If you see something on Wikipedia, you look to see if it is sourced. If not, okay it is questionable, can't trust it. If so, great. It is a repository of information built by ordinary people, often without a degree in the particular topic. It can work just great. I understand weather information is more important, but I like to think that people are smart enough to understand that you listen to official sources over someone on social media that tries to convince you not to evacuate. I assume that is what they mean when they are talking about lives being at stake and honestly I have not really seen people try to do that kind of thing on social media. (Who cares if the NHC says it is coming your way, ignore them... who would say that?) Although I suppose they mean someone who says this is likely not, or not, going to come here several days out, then it does, and then someone else is caught off guard. (So kind of stated in a less definitive way that they think they know better than the NHC, if it is something the NHC is covering.) Maybe there have been instances of that, although I have seen that with actual meteorologists too, though in that case when it is a week out and then the long term models change. But then again, usually people call people out on misleading or dangerous things. Sometimes social media polices itself. (and even corrects TWC when they make mistakes) And again, it's the weather geeks doing it.

Basically, anyone who ever says or implies that they know better than the NHC is not someone you want to waste your time listening too. And don't be shy in letting everyone else know it too. I know I wouldn't.