But is it a Nor'easter?

Folks this week have been all aflutter with news of a major storm that finally hit Rutland early this morning, though it's nearly done as I type this. The buzz word here in Vermont has been, of course, Nor'easter, a word that didn't enter my vocabulary until I read Carry On, Mr. Bowditch a few years back. But seeing as how simple Vermont folk are, like myself, hopeless landlubbers, I really don't know if they're using the term correctly. So what is this? A big winter storm or an actual nor'easter?

Using a Google News search doesn't clear things up. Like my Vermont friends, the local press and wire services seem to love a buzz word like nor'easter, whether they actually know how to define one or not. Lots of press articles about the "nor'easter," but little mention of what makes a nor'easter or why this storm should be called one. Yes, it's quite the storm. But it's the same storm that hit the Plains and Midwest earlier this week. But we wouldn't call a foot of snow over Kansas a nor'easter now, would we?

So is a nor'easter just a hella big storm that hits the Northeast US? Well, no. Big storms happen a few times a year, but not every one gets labeled a nor'easter. If we can trust Wikipedia, and I for one, really think we can within reason, then a nor'easter "describes a low pressure area whose center of rotation is just off the East Coast and whose leading winds in the left forward quadrant rotate onto land from the northeast." Aha! We've found it! Of course!

But wait a tic, I didn't understand that either. Let's try again. A nor'easter is a low pressure area, kind of like a hurricane or other large storm system. But unlike a hurricane, nor'easters feed off cold air. From Wikipedia again: "Nor'easters thrive on the converging air masses; that is, the polar cold air mass and the warmer ocean water of the Gulf Stream."

So for a storm to be a nor'easter, it has to be a two-parter. Part one is cold polar air, which is what a low front or storm system picks up when it breezes through Vermont. The storms that just blew through the Midwest are doing just that, bringing in loads of cold, Arctic air as they pass from West to East. Part two, however, is warm ocean water from the south, specifically the Gulf Stream. So do we have that?

I have no effin' idea.

According to the Weather Channel, I don't think so. For two reasons. One, the weather maps don't show a mass of warm air coming up from the south. Now, there's got to be some warm air off the North Atlantic Coast because of the Gulf Stream. But according to the radar (and of course, I could be terribly wrong), there isn't anything out of the ordinary. But the second reason is probably the best reason: there's no mention of a nor'easter on the Weather Channel's website. Not that these guys are the final word on weather, but if they ain't, then who is?

So if this isn't a nor'easter, why do people keep calling it one? Lundlubbing ignorance, I guess. I bet merchant marines and coastal fishermen up and down New England just hate it when the White Plains Journal (just to pick on one of many) calls every big snow storm a nor'easter. Typical, they mutter.

What's ironic is, there may be an actual nor'easter in our sights within the next few days. The remains of Tropical Storm Olga are menacing parts of Florida as we speak. Should that mass of warm, ocean air find its way up the Coast, we could very likely have that Part Two we were looking for earlier. Who knows, maybe that's what all the rumors this week were about. Maybe we all just got confused and jumped the gun by 48 hours. Cold arctic air? Check. Warm Gulf mass? We'll see.

The Future Is Now

ABC News Expands Foreign Bureaus (Washington Post)

Due to an explosion in hand-held digital technology, ABC News is opening seven new news bureaus overseas, to be staffed by only a single person equipped with a DV camera and laptop. The reporter/producers will shoot and edit their own pieces, with long-distance help from ABC News offices, sending in their work via broadband or satellite connections from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

While this type of reporting has become a staple of blogs and independent journalists, it's the first I've heard of one of the major American news-broadcasters joining the fray. And it's good news, too. It used to be a given that a network's news division wasn't going to make much money -- the Big Three (ABC, NBC and CBS) reported anyway because of a strange marriage of journalistic integrity and network branding. The thought was that if people tuned into your nightly news program, they might stick around for Prime Time, too. In recent years, though, this model has been scrapped for a new one emphasizing cost cutting and increased national coverage (at the expense of foreign news bureaus). These seven new bureaus, while tiny in comparison to the old models, are exactly the shot in the arm that Network News needs. Foreign correspondence shouldn't be sacrificed to the bottom line; it needs be streamlined and brought into the 21st Century. Digital technology allows just that.

And it's better than the alternative: Reporting only in the "hot spots" where there is a sizable American interest (i.e., Europe, Israel, Iraq, etc.) while virtually ignoring the rest of the world -- if, for nothing else, to know something about other nations before we invade them.

Just kidding. Sort of.