Choppy, windy conditions are evident. But will it get better or worse? Coastal explorers depend on Environment Canada to tell us what's coming our way, but too often the information is wrong, incomplete or poorly presented. Here's how to fix the system.
A few examples to illustrate the issue to start this off.
I was biding my time at Rebecca Spit on Quadra Island awaiting the next forecast before heading south. When it came, it reported confidently that winds would be 5-15 knots in the region "Georgia Strait North of Nanaimo."
The weather stations had their own ideas. At Grief Point, the observed condition at the time of the new report was 16 knots. At Sentry Shoal, it was 14 knots gusting to 19 knots. In fact, most of the stations were outside the parameters of the latest forecast, proving the forecast to be wrong out of the gate.
The question is why would Environment Canada release a forecast already being proven demonstrably wrong by its own weather stations?
Another example. I was sitting at Thormanby Islands waiting to cross the Strait of Georgia to return to Nanaimo. The forecast had been for winds becoming light on the Saturday morning. Come Saturday morning it changed to winds to become light late in the morning. At 11 a.m. the wind was being recorded at the two most applicable stations was 9 knots at Entrance Island and 9 gusting 11 knots at Ballenas Island. Is 10 knots or less considered light? With the prospect of not terrible winds and the prospect of lighter winds to come, it seemed appropriate to head out.
Once in the strait wind waves and whitecaps were evident, as well as a strong breeze. Several nautical miles later, conditions worsened. Was this an anomaly along the east side of the strait, something to be quickly passed before hitting the light winds sure to arrive? Given the forecast, there was no reason to think it would get worse.
It did. Through the central strait it got nasty. With three to four foot wind waves and whitecaps, the wind was easily above 15 knots. It wasn't until near Nanaimo that the conditions leveled out and the wind waves became a gentle slosh.
How could Environment Canada have got it so wrong? Well, there is no weather station anywhere in the region I had just crossed. There is Ballenas Island, Sisters Islets and Entrance Island on the west side. On the east side there is Grief Point on the north end of Texada Island and Halibut Bank to the south. There is nothing in between or central.
The lack of weather stations on the east side is remarkable. Anyone who knows Malaspina Strait knows it has its own winds, and can be turbulent when other nearby areas are not. Additionally, conditions are complicated by Jervis Inlet, which has no weather stations at all.
The result is Environment Canada packages its weather into neat little bundles that, in actuality, are complex, varied and in many ways independent of one another. An example. As I write this, the forecast for the Strait of Georgia north of Nanaimo is wind southeast 15 to 20 knots. In that region we have these reports from Environment Canada weather stations:
Sentry Shoal: ENE 3 gusts 3.
Powell River airport: ESE 8.
Grief Point: ESE 14.
Comox Airport: ENE 4.
Sisters Islets: ESE 17.
I have been traveling the BC coast for more than 30 years now, using Environment Canada marine forecasts as a main source of information for making decisions that in many circumstances could be the difference between safety and catastrophe if conditions and predictions are ignored. Since my first outings more than 30 years ago, the only evident difference to the weather forecasting by Environment Canada is access to online information and duplicate broadcasts in French. Everything else seems as it was 30 years ago. The weather stations, the broadcast format, the arbitrary forecast updates four times a day -- it has all remained the same. The world has changed dramatically, yet Environment Canada has not. Here is why they need to do to get their very necessary service back on track.
1. Don't be cryptic
Many forecasts begin with something akin to this: "a high pressure ridge will lie offshore in a north-south line over the Explorer region." If this means anything to anyone other than a meteorologist I would be very surprised. The need, especially for a radio broadcast that can last fifteen minutes or so to run its full course through every region, should be fast, efficient and usable. Cryptic details add nothing. The same with vague terms. The term often used is "light winds." This is not calm, which is something else. How light are light winds? Under 10 knots? 5 knots? We don't know. Environment Canada does not tell us.
2. Be up front and correct mistakes
Let's say you are planning a trip based on the forecast. Tomorrow is said to be light winds. As you prepare your day, you see the latest forecast now states winds NW 15-20 knots. There is no explanation for this change, even though it is sudden, dramatic and impactful. Environment Canada seems to think this is perfectly fine and requires nothing on their part but an update that completely ignores what was stated before. No! These changes are the most impactful part of a weather statement. These should be highlighted and emphasized. Broadcasts should start with new information. Such as, "Winds in the Strait of Georgia north of Nanaimo forecast to be light are now amended and expected to be 15-20 knots this morning." And so on. This will prepare everyone for what's new and important and potentially highly impactful as early as possible.
3. Be flexible and responsive, not regimented
Weather forecast updates are always scheduled: 4 a.m., 10:30 a.m., 4 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. This is regardless of what happens in between. This schedule may have made sense when communications were more difficult to update. That is no longer the case. Changes can and should be instantaneous. Let's take the example above but change it slightly. The family, based on the earlier forecast, sets out expecting light winds before an updated forecast is broadcast. An hour later they will receive the updated forecast with information that would otherwise have caused them to delay their trip. If Environment Canada knew of this change in conditions and sat on it for the sake of the arbitrary schedule it keeps, that is unforgiveable. There is no reason a forecast known to be outdated at some point after 4 a.m. should be continuously broadcast until 10:30 a.m. just because that is when the update is scheduled. Environment Canada should be proactive and responsive. That means changes should be reported at the earliest opportunity.
4. Forecast for smaller, more precise regions
The idea that the Strait of Georgia north of Nanaimo is a uniform system with one weather forecast applicable to all corners is a laughable. The area is too large and it is prone to too many variations in the range of winds to be accurate under a single forecast. This is true for many other regions, of course. Occasionally Environment Canada will provide variations (such as differing conditions for near Vancouver Island). This still isn't sufficient. As illustrated above, if Sentry Shoal is experiencing winds at 3 knots at Sisters Islets at 17 knots, they have no business being in the same forecast. Break it up.
5. Add more weather stations
It is ironic that the main weather service for Canada has a handful of stations along the coast, and private services such as Weather Underground can have hundreds. These services utilize volunteer weather stations, and there is is little reason to think Environment Canada couldn't do the same. The technology certainly exists. If volunteer services can't be utilized for whatever reasons, weather stations have decreased in cost. I expect most marinas would happily host a station if it helped Environment Canada's forecasts. Or remote stations with solar power should cost a fraction of what it would have cost decades ago.
(Addendum: It's notable that a good number of the so-called marine weather stations, or at least stations part of the marine weather broadcast system, are airport stations. Therefore they may be an indicator of local weather, but in no way can be assumed to be a representation of the weather on the water. And yet that is their purpose.)
6. Add more weather stations where needed the most
It is appalling that a marine weather service can entirely neglect and ignore weather monitoring in an area as vast and diverse as Malaspina Strait and adjacent Jervis Inlet. These two large bodies of water share no similarity to other coastal areas in terms of wind experienced and should absolutely be monitored to indicate the local winds. There are many locations where critical voids exist. If local winds vary greatly within the same area, a weather station should be added to each. A good rule of thumb should be 5 knots. If the wind differs by that amount or more within an hour of one another, a weather station should represent each variation. Or some other model so dramatic unmonitored variations don't exist.
7. If Environment Canada can't do it, team up with those that can
Services such as windy.com are filling a void created by the lack of precision offered by Environment Canada. If Environment Canada does not have the resources or finances to create a useful service, it should augment its limited capacity with information from other forecasting services. Ideally Environment Canada would be the leader and other services would follow behind. But if budgetary restraints make it impossible to fulfill a meaningful mandate, then sadly partnerships with commercial services may be the only option.
(Addendum: While windy.com is a magnificent service, it has its own issues. I am currently at Sturt Bay in Texada Island. It is blowing 13 knots inside the bay, so probably worse in central Malaspina Strait. Windy.com is stating it is currently 3 knots in the channel and to go no higher than that for the day. Oops.)
Wrapping it up
To be blunt, the stakes are simply too high for a broken weather forecasting system on our coast. At its best, wind predictions and expected precipitation levels can help gauge forest fire risks, as an example, meaning towns can prepare before potentially devastating fires can wreak havoc. If indeed it is a matter of budget, certainly there is a good case to be made that an accurate and responsive weather monitoring system is a good investment in helping avoid or minimize catastrophes. If not towns, then paddling and boating trips can certainly be enjoyed in better safety and comfort given accurate and timely information. The technology exists. The fact Environment Canada is still operating at least 30 years in the past is appalling, and should not be tolerated by anyone who relies up that service for safety and security.
- John Kimantas