If you watch me on TV or follow me on social media, you may have seen the weather seals next to my name. Those are professional certifications that allow me to call myself a broadcast meteorologist. One of them is the AMS Seal from the American Meteorological Society, a credential earned by meeting rigorous standards in both scientific accuracy and communication.
Last week, the AMS sent updated guidance to all seal holders on how weather information should be shared responsibly on social media. I wanted to share it with you because it highlights an issue that’s becoming increasingly important for anyone who relies on weather updates online.
First, let me say this clearly: if you live in Houston, this isn’t a problem. Our local weather community, on TV, in print, and even among independent bloggers, does a great job staying within the lines of responsible forecasting. And honestly, that’s something we should appreciate.
But not every market is this fortunate. I have friends in other cities who are constantly dealing with what they call “social media-ologists.” People who post exaggerated or misleading forecasts that create confusion for viewers and headaches for actual meteorologists.
Here’s one example.
I still remember getting questions about a “May hurricane” back in 2022. A single run of the American model showed a hurricane forming in the Gulf 15 days out, and it spread quickly online. But here’s the thing: early in hurricane season, that particular model always tries to spin up a storm in the Gulf about two weeks away. It’s a known quirk, and it’s almost never real.
That’s why I didn’t share it. It wasn’t accurate, it wasn’t reliable, and sure enough the very next day, the same model showed no hurricane at all. That’s how fast long-range guidance can flip, and why responsible meteorologists don’t treat those far-out runs as forecasts.
And take a look at the image above. This one really fired up my friends in the Carolinas. It had in the headline, “What your local news station isn’t telling you.” The implication was that meteorologists in South Carolina and North Carolina were hiding the truth about Irma heading their way.
The reality? Irma wasn’t headed there and it never did. That’s why local meteorologists weren’t sounding the alarm. There was nothing to warn their viewers about. But that didn’t stop the post from racking up nearly 8,000 shares.
This is the core of the problem. What used to be an occasional frustration has become a daily battle. Sensational, misleading content spreads far faster than accurate information, and it’s directly tied to how weather is being shared and rewarded online.
If you click on this image on social media, it takes you to a “Christmas week forecast.” It even shows snow getting very close to Houston in mid-December, which, by the way, is next week.
Could this person be right? In theory, yes. Long-range data does suggest the polar vortex may weaken or split, sending arctic air into parts of the United States. That’s a real possibility.
But here’s the crucial part: There isn’t a single model on Earth that can accurately predict the behavior of the polar vortex more than about seven days out. Not one.
So when someone shares a “Christmas snow” map 17 days in advance, they’re not forecasting they’re guessing. A snow forecast on Christmas Day is essentially a 17-day prediction, and that’s simply beyond the limits of modern meteorology.
Why This Is Becoming a Big Problem:
1. Sensational posts spread faster than accurate ones.
Social platforms reward content that triggers emotion, fear, excitement, shock. So when someone posts a single extreme model run, a 15-day snow map, or a wildly inflated storm headline, the algorithms push it to the top. Meanwhile, responsible forecasts, based on probability, uncertainty, and context don’t generate the same instant reaction.
2. Misinformation makes the job harder.
Several time a week I respond to these kind of posts debunking viral falsehoods. I sometimes feel like I do this more than communicating the actual forecast. Don’t feel sorry for me, I enjoy our conversations but explaining why something isn’t going to happen or is accurate does take time.
3. It pressures meteorologists to “play the game” just to stay visible.
When sensational posts consistently outperform solid science, some in the field feel pressured to push the limits just to keep engagement up. Meteorologists are now forced to compete with misinformation simply to get their verified, responsible updates seen. And some have been posting sensational headlines and posts just to compete. Hence, why the AMS felt it had to address this.
Bottom Line:
Irresponsible weather content isn’t just annoying, it’s becoming a public safety issue. It distorts reality, erodes public trust, and forces trained meteorologists to constantly counteract misinformation instead of focusing on accurate, timely forecasts.
What’s most frustrating to me is that there’s no consequence for being wrong. These “social media-ologists” are pulling long-range data that anyone can find online, posting it without context, and when it doesn’t verify, which it usually doesn’t, nothing happens. They still get paid through post engagement, and they rarely lose followers, even when their forecasts miss by a mile.
That’s why the AMS guidance matters now more than ever. Weather communication isn’t just part of the job anymore, it’s part of the online battlefield, where accuracy has to compete with attention-grabbing misinformation.
I’d genuinely love to hear your thoughts on this. What do you think of the AMS statement? Post below or email me at: ayanez@kprc.com