Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,792
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    manaja
    Newest Member
    manaja
    Joined

Good riddance 2012. Rockin 2013? Obs and Banter


Bob Chill

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If recent history tells us anything, 2016-2017 will be our winter. Nothing else will be truly rockin'.

Then again, a normal winter (which we really don't have) would seem rockin' after the last three years.

Actually, if you look at the pattern, it should be next winter when we get a 8"+ storm.  I know zwyts and others have said its just one big coincidence... but its an interesting one:

 

2009-2010

2005-2006

2002-2003

1999-2000

1995-1996

1992-1993

1986-1987

1982-1983

 

Ever since the 1980s... about every 3-4 winters we have a major snowstorm in DC.  Once again, its most likely just coincidence... but I find this lil tidbit interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DCA snow drought got me wondering about Baltimore.  I don't think BWI has had a snowfall of greater than 1" since 2/22/11.  That's nearly 700 days.

yep. i noted it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/washington-dc-in-longest-drought-without-a-2-inch-or-greater-snowfall-event/2013/01/03/38c6a4c0-548b-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_blog.html

 

i didn't do the history there as it would have taken a long time.. but it's gotta be the longest stretch there as well as it's now longer than any of the prior dc ones and balt has at least a bit better climo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just fulfilling my duty as a sensible weenie. Just pointing out what I'm seeing until a red tag fulfills their responsibility of putting the smack down on sensible weenies not making any sense...if that makes any sense...

 

 

Wes is busy.  He'll be along later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wes is semi-busy and still has stuff to do and has decided to leave the medium range stuff to Bob as he may be able to cheer everyone up though I may make a post later today. 

 

Sounds like you are calling for 8-10" if I read between the letters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know some have poo pooed the upcoming cold snap, but 5-7 consecutive days with highs in the 20s/30s is pretty good for us. Of course, I'd love to be in NNE shoes where they'll get 2-3 consecutive days with highs around 0 and lows in the -10s, but that just isn't going to happen around here. The mountains areas to our west should do well. NWS forecast for jon jon shows three consecutive days with highs in the low-mid 10s with snow Sat night - Mon night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like CWG thinks the NWS issuing the WSW was "one of its worst winter weather forecasts in recent memory".

 

Do they not know what a watch means? Am I out of line here or is that statement outlandish?

 

When it was clear DC wasn't getting warning criteria snow, or any for that matter, the watches were dropped. I just don't understand the argument there and to be frank, it annoys me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like CWG thinks the NWS issuing the WSW was "one of its worst winter weather forecasts in recent memory".

Do they not know what a watch means? Am I out of line here or is that statement outlandish?

When it was clear DC wasn't getting warning criteria snow, or any for that matter, the watches were dropped. I just don't understand the argument there and to be frank, it annoys me.

I was upset to see that. Whether we agreed with it or not, I subscribe to the philosophy that professional meteorologists do not throw colleagues under the bus, at least not in a public forum like that. It's highly unprofessional. But I suppose when you're a private entity, when your bread and butter are through ratings, the gloves can come off. It must be nice to not have the accountability for watches/warnings/advisories. Not that I condone some of the 'hasty' headlines that occasionally come out, or when I see an office seemingly give into the urge to be "the first with the worst". It's one thing to badmouth a forecast near the water cooler, or on FB, or even on a forum such as this. But to go through the press, ugh, that's just wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have not pushed it past the initial comments myself. I think there is a tendency to pile on lately. From the outer ring it seems like the media has it out for the NWS lately tho specifically about warnings etc.

I think however Jason has a solid argument and he sees CWG as a voice which might hasten change within the system. I do worry that bridges could be burnt though... Not to mention we all bust and the NWS doesn't write up an AFD about it. Plus I think it partly skirts the issue that no forecast were fantastic and that the forecast was particularly difficult given the forecast edge etc... But being among the least wrong is a plus.

I kinda wish there was less opinion overall in the blogs but people like it I guess. Tricky lines sometimes tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the playing field can be vastly different depending on where you work. For example, my last office (NWS Wakefield), we were more conservative than otherwise when it came to WWAs (watch/warning/advisories). That philosophy might cut into the lead time, as well as on occasion have a negative effect on the POD (probability of detection). But at the same time, our false alarm rate was pretty low. People weren't getting the impression that we were warning on anything that moved.

However, what might have worked in the backwoods of central and southern VA doesn't translate up here apparently. The local DC offices (that includes us at HPC) get crushed by the political and media storm when an event is missed, and I mean buried. You've heard the saying, in defense of our judicial system: "it is better for 10 guilty people to be walk free than one innocent be condemned for life". Well, some around here would subscribe to tbe philosophy that "I'd rather have 10 false alarms and no missed events" rather than 10 warned events (no false alarms) but with one missed event. The people up here, politicians and media especially, are absolutely brutal when impactful weather events are missed. That is a fact. If that culture can somehow change, I think you will see the weather forecast and warning philosophy for the DC area change as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the area has a lot to do with it. Same thing can be said with the reaction to Sandy. Of course, adding a few extra counties to a watch along 95 has much larger implcations for population and commerce than in most places at least in theory.

Probably just another sign the language is outdated and the primary focus should be impacts and numbers rather than a blanket advisory. No doubt the hysteria surrounding weather events in the area makes even a fairly benign watch seem like the end of the world.

Education is better than bickering IMO. Use the chance to teach why forecasting is hard when you have the audience if possible. Many more people than youd think still believe mets are full of **** all the time.

Also LWX should ditch that map or refine it. Tho still odd they ran so high to start either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the area has a lot to do with it. Same thing can be said with the reaction to Sandy. Of course, adding a few extra counties to a watch along 95 has much larger implcations for population and commerce than in most places at least in theory.

Probably just another sign the language is outdated and the primary focus should be impacts and numbers rather than a blanket advisory. No doubt the hysteria surrounding weather events in the area makes even a fairly benign watch seem like the end of the world.

Education is better than bickering IMO. Use the chance to teach why forecasting is hard when you have the audience if possible. Many more people than youd think still believe mets are full of **** all the time.

Also LWX should ditch that map or refine it. Tho still odd they ran so high to start either way.

Good points Ian..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points Ian..

I think we CWG would have been wiser to wait until the dust settled and the forecast were little farther away so Jason's post wouldn't be perceived as bashing the NWS as I do think there are questions and discussion that needs to be done concerning the watch and warning process in general. An article explaining the rules for issuing them and then exploring and offerings opinions by  experts  on what could be done to improve the entire watch process would be informative and might help get dialogue started about how the watch process might eventually be improved.   I personally think it is broken and leaves the NWS forecaster in a untenable position. Part of problem in the watch process itself is how the watch is typically worded and how close the watch wording headlines are to the headlines used in a warning.  A watch sounds pretty alarming which is great in a Dec 2009 or feb 2010 type event but can lead to overreaction during the really iffy situations like this one.  

 

Also,  a watch needs to put in a context that includes the probabilities of it occurring or for that matter completely busting.  That may seem like a hedge and would engender more work for the poor forecaster but really would be  supplying people with more information about the impending storm.   As I understand a watch, it is supposed to be issued when there is a 50% chance of the watch verifying but that is not included in the watch that is released to the public.  Instead the watch wording is much mushier leaving it to the reader to really guess about the odds of the event occurring.  Without clearly stated probabilities, I'm guessing  some forecasters are inclined to  put watches out at probabilities much lower than at 50%.  That seemed to be the case this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...