Weathermen and bluster

I long ago took an interest in George Orwell's pleas for good English usage, and more and more I'm critical of overused, misused, or meaningless cliches. I now turn my wrath on the weathermen.

Last night on WCCO (sorry, Sven, for the disloyalty...wait, we've got mixed feelings, I don't have to be loyal...alright, screw loyalty), Paul Douglas described why the roads were suddenly so dangerous. There's snow, then the snow melts, then the snow freezes: a combination of factors converges, and the result is a dangerous situation. Of course, the cliche for this is "the perfect storm." And Paul Douglas used this cliche.

I suggest weathermen (and women...sorry that the term "weathermen" is gendered, but I can't use weatherpeople comfortably, and I won't call them forcasters, I don't have to play their game) never use a cliche that has to do with the weather. In this case, Douglas said the snow came, melted, and re-froze, creating "a perfect storm" that caused the traffic issues. But it wasn't a storm. Moreso, it wasn't a perfect storm. This was a cliche from weather that is used for non-weather situations being brought back in and used as a cliche for weather--but NOT the weather phenomenon being described. It makes it confusing and meaningless.

The weatherpeople (OK, there, I did it, and it's a hopelessly ugly word) should avoid cliches in general (though in their attempt to be folksy, it's not bloody likely), but absolutely MUST avoid cliches that originated in weather. Do you see the confusion?

1. A term from weather is used.
2. That term from weather is then used for non-weather phenomena, used to illustrate the nature of the non-weather phenomena.
3. the term is now brought back into weather but used for a weather phenomena that was NOT the weather phenomena that originated the term.