Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,589
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Jan 17-18th disco thread--1st big threat of the year


Midlo Snow Maker

Recommended Posts

I think I'm in between you (CWG) and Sterling.   I don't think we get more than 4"...and that's pushing it.   I think 2 to 4 seems reasonable.

 

same thoughts. :thumbsup: 

I think CWG is a "good" forecast for now until we see afternoon models I guess. 24 hours out is fine for a watch though...so I'm not sure the LWX watch is "premature" as they said. A watch is just that...a WATCH - they can downgrade if needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

i hate to disagree with jason but the nws mission is not the same as cwg. if there is potential that's what a watch is for. we could end up with no snow and still require a watch.

 

Jason's post seemed a little over the top.  The watch is fine.  They can go to an advisory when we get closer and it looks like the 5"+ range is no longer a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem for them is now *is* the time to issue the watch. By late tonight, they would have to go either warning or advisory, and of course they don't want to go straight from nothing to a Winter Storm Warning.

Right especially if it can be a high impact commuting event. It's too close even on 'bad' models save perhaps the Euro to unequivocally state it's the wrong move IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason's post seemed a little over the top.  The watch is fine.  They can go to an advisory when we get closer and it looks like the 5"+ range is no longer a possibility.

 

 

Right especially if it can be a high impact commuting event. It's too close even on 'bad' models save perhaps the Euro to unequivocally state it's the wrong move IMO.

100% agreed on both counts.   And it's rare than Ian and I agree, but I think he has it right here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LWX is doing their job...a watch is the right call (think about how often a STW (or Torn Watch) covers an area that doesn't materialize....happens all the time)....for CWG its a win-win...drive traffic today, then if you're right you're good...if you're wrong...you just say we would have waited until the evening package if we were LWX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right especially if it can be a high impact commuting event. It's too close even on 'bad' models save perhaps the Euro to unequivocally state it's the wrong move IMO.

Given this areas horrible rush hour with NO weather I see no reason to prep for the worst if the timing puts it in one of those rush hour times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LWX is doing their job...a watch is the right call (think about how often a STW (or Torn Watch) covers an area that doesn't materialize....happens all the time)....for CWG its a win-win...drive traffic today, then if you're right you're good...if you're wrong...you just say we would have waited until the evening package if we were LWX.

 

I think both LWX AND CWG are fine. But CWG shouldn't be bashing LWX for their watch. Can't they just issue their own forecast and let that ride? I'm sure there are people out there who don't even use NWS and just go to CWG. The NWS bashing is not warranted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LWX is doing their job...a watch is the right call (think about how often a STW (or Torn Watch) covers an area that doesn't materialize....happens all the time)....for CWG its a win-win...drive traffic today, then if you're right you're good...if you're wrong...you just say we would have waited until the evening package if we were LWX.

I just don't know if we can have it both ways. Take Sandy.. people wanted more watches/warnings. Take "commuteageddon" and the aftermath. I dunno. I'm not strongly wedded to a watch at this time as it could certainly screw us but we're not that far out. If it was a warning that's one thing but a watch is a watch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both LWX AND CWG are fine. But CWG shouldn't be bashing LWX for their watch. Can't they just issue their own forecast and let that ride? I'm sure there are people out there who don't even use NWS and just go to CWG. The NWS bashing is not warranted. 

 

they have different missions too....hard to compare...but i hate nws-bashing when it comes out of accuweather...same deal here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add me to the chorus of folks saying the LWX's watch is the right call. The potential absolutely exists for >5" in the DC area (even if just 10 percent as CWG is saying), and given the likely timing of everything, this needs to get on people's radar screens now. DMVers are accustomed to snow forecasts busting low, and many are cynical enough to think that every forecast will bust low. But getting this out now gives people enough time to start making contingency plans for tomorrow should a decent storm materialize. 

 

CWG's minimizing of the threat may be the smart thing if it wants to verify, but it's not going to be CWG taking heat if the storm causes massive disruption in people's lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add me to the chorus of folks saying the LWX's watch is the right call. The potential absolutely exists for >5" in the DC area (even if just 10 percent as CWG is saying), and given the likely timing of everything, this needs to get on people's radar screens now. DMVers are accustomed to snow forecasts busting low, and many are cynical enough to think that every forecast will bust low. But getting this out now gives people enough time to start making contingency plans for tomorrow should a decent storm materialize. 

 

CWG's minimizing of the threat may be the smart thing if it wants to verify, but it's not going to be CWG taking heat if the storm causes massive disruption in people's lives. 

 

The fact that they made warning criteria 5" a few years ago when we have so few 5" events was one of the dumbest moves....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they have different missions too....hard to compare...but i hate nws-bashing when it comes out of accuweather...same deal here

 

I was actually going to mention when JB used to bash NWS and such. You are correct. I think CWG may end up correct but really...the NWS is just doing their job in increasing awareness. CWG doesn't issue watches/warnings so that validates your point about different missions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't know if we can have it both ways. Take Sandy.. people wanted more watches/warnings. Take "commuteageddon" and the aftermath. I dunno. I'm not strongly wedded to a watch at this time as it could certainly screw us but we're not that far out. If it was a warning that's one thing but a watch is a watch.

 

100% agree.....there's a lot of social science when it comes to watches/warnings....and something the nws hasn't fully gotten pinned down....and people should remember the 5" is just standard watch criteria....i mean maybe the issue is what do you do when you have a 2-3 inch high impact (i.e. rush hour event)....not really allowed to deviate from *Watch* criteria....i think the better argument to have is should we have such rigid criteria for a winter storm watch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second this.

Add me to the chorus of folks saying the LWX's watch is the right call. The potential absolutely exists for >5" in the DC area (even if just 10 percent as CWG is saying), and given the likely timing of everything, this needs to get on people's radar screens now. DMVers are accustomed to snow forecasts busting low, and many are cynical enough to think that every forecast will bust low. But getting this out now gives people enough time to start making contingency plans for tomorrow should a decent storm materialize.

CWG's minimizing of the threat may be the smart thing if it wants to verify, but it's not going to be CWG taking heat if the storm causes massive disruption in people's lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SInce the public generally do not understand what a watch is, CWG has a responsibility to clarify that a 5" and greater event is not a high probability.  The fact that Sterling is wed to 5" plus wording because of a NWS mandate when a "watch" for 2-4" would be so much more sensible is a result of very poor decision making by the government

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% agree.....there's a lot of social science when it comes to watches/warnings....and something the nws hasn't fully gotten pinned down....and people should remember the 5" is just standard watch criteria....i mean maybe the issue is what do you do when you have a 2-3 inch high impact (i.e. rush hour event)....not really allowed to deviate from *Watch* criteria....i think the better argument to have is should we have such rigid criteria for a winter storm watch

 

100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SInce the public generally do not understand what a watch is, CWG has a responsibility to clarify that a 5" and greater event is not a high probability.  The fact that Sterling is wed to 5" plus wording because of a NWS mandate when a "watch" for 2-4" would be so much more sensible is a result of very poor decision making by the government

 

Great point. When phrased this way it does make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still convinced you have a close family member that works there....CWG are mostly mets too BTW...How did LWX do on 12/26/10 with their warning based on the NAM when everyone who could breathe knew it was over?

 

 

No, however I'm convinced most accountable Meteorologists don't put out forecasts that they know have little chance of verifying. No one wants to be wrong.

 

Better safe than sorry, especially when you're in the position of NWS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...