weathergy Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Honestly, the media should just stick to disseminating NWS products, because at the end of the day, your local NWS office is more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beavis1729 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Gino's point about overperformace of surface temps today is a good one. A 90-100% sunny day in late Feb is nothing to sneeze at, even with snow cover. Both Chicago and Milwaukee hit the upper 30s today, several degrees above guidance. Kansas City was in the low 40s, even with their significant snowpack. Good discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gino Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 after reading his discussion, I realize why he is paid to do what he does and I am not. Also I like the subtle shade at skilling.... deserved as well. skilling is irresponsible with that rpm crap. Honestly, I did not intend for that to be a jab against Tom or any one in particular. While I'm not 100% sure, my hunch is that the TV stations that have "in house models" are paying for them and I'm sure their station mgmt dictates that they show that model each newscast. The reason I have this hunch is that I've many times seen when they will show the output and say well this isnt really what they think is going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimChgo9 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Since the decision I made not to go with a watch has become a heated topic of discussion, I figured I'll chime in and elaborate a bit more here than what was in the AFD. First, the notion that there has to be a watch out before every decent snow event I think is absurd. The public is aware a storm is coming and I'm not sure there is anything different 99% of the general public would do at 5 pm Sunday if there was a watch that they can't still accomplish if a watch goes out at 4 am. Those with weather sensitive plans for Tuesday will see our website which is highlighting a winter storm potential as is our official forecast. Winter storm watches are not designed to be issued prior to winter weather advisories, a watch means there is a high likelihood of meeting warning criteria (6" in 12hours or 8" in 24 hours). We do have some flexibility to take into account mitigating factors (extreme blowing/drifting, hitting at rush hour, first storm of season, etc) and that is one reason I considered issuing a watch today. Regarding the whole in the W/W/A map, there was collaboration between me, IWX, DTX, GRR, DVN, MKX, and ILX today. ILX/DVN were both not planning to change there watch and ILX even thought of trimming the eastern extent of their watch. IWX/GRR/DTX were not going to issue a watch, then literally as my AFD was going out at 255 pm, IWX sent a message saying they changed their mind and were going to do one. Had I known that GRR/DTX/IWX were going to issue a watch, that is something that I would have considered and weighed into my decision. Meteorologically speaking, Tuesday's event is far from a slam dunk heavy snow event. Thermally there are HUGE question marks, particularly at the surface. While I would agree and did mention in the AFD that there is a chance for a significant, high impact event, I think there is a slight higher chance that most areas end up with less than 3" of snow from Chicago south and east. Models struggle horribly with 2m temps when there is WAA over a snowpack and exhibit a cold bias. While yes, the SREF does have temps at 30F and Tds in the mid 20s when the snow starts, what does the SREF have for temps this afternoon? It and all the other models were too cold with temps today, even 6 hours after initialization the NAM and GFS temps over the snow pack were 4F+ too cold. If can't get BL temps right 6 hours after initialization, how can anyone have high confidence that they are right 48 hours out? Not to mention we saw a lot of snow melt today (looking like areas of our SE CWA have bare ground already) and will see more snow melt tomorrow, which the models will no doubt be oblivious to still treat it 2m temps like there is a glacier on the ground! While winds will be easterly, due to the screwy pattern, we will be experiencing strong low level WAA on Tuesday. Model 2m temps generally climb above freezing over about the SE 1/2 of my CWA and MOS temps are in the mid to upper 30s. Models are definitely hinting at dynamic and evaporative cooling taking place and cooling the column enough for snow, but with a known cold bias at 2m they still keep temps at or just above freezing. That will make it hard for snow to accumulate quickly unless it's snowing like a SOB and even then it might be hard for it to stick on roadways for an extended period of time. Also, the sun angle is higher and even though we will be cloudy, the sun this time of year will have an impact on accumulation potential when temps are marginal like they are progged to be on Tues. Even if temps get below freezing, much of the lift is progged to be focused above the prime dendritic growth zone during the most intense snowfall, which is also not conducive for high SLRs. Is there potential for dynamic cooling to be really strong and it snow hard enough to cool temps below freezing and allow for significant accums over 6"? Yes. Do I think that is likely? No. I think the more likely scenario is it snowing hard for a few hours and picking up accums similar to what we saw with the last storm. For what it's worth, our forecast pretty much all along was 3-5" or 3-6" and that verified well with 2.5-5" across the CWA, yet how many people griped and moaned about us being wrong again. There is already a perception out there in the public that forecasters are always overhyping storms and to some extent I think there is some validity to that point. There were schools that no doubt saw some TV mets showing their in house models spitting out 8"+ the day before that last storm and actually closed schools for a 3" snow in Chicago!! The difference between a big problem and a total bust with late and early season storms is very small and it makes them notoriously difficult to forecast. I think the chances of getting 6" of snow by 00z Wed are low and I think the chances of getting less than 3" of accumulation are higher with a decent shot we end up somewhere in the middle. That to me does not scream that a watch is necessary or needed at this point. I'm sure everyone will be well informed about the snow potential even though there's no watch out and if the midnight shift decides a watch is justifiable, they can have it out before most people wake up tomorrow and everyone will still have more than 24 hours to prepare for the storm. Today's forecast and headline decision was not an easy one and a case could have certainly been made to go with a watch, so I can totally understand the discussion here, but I just wanted to explain some of my reasoning a bit further. For what it's worth, I drove into work today fully anticipating putting out a watch, it wasn't until I started really digging into the analysis and models did I change my mind! One of the parents here at our grade school got mad at the Superintendent for not closing school the other day. She couldn't fathom that 2" of snow is not a cause for school closing. She said. "Well children should not be exposed to such hazardous and unhealthy weather." ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Gino said "First, the notion that there has to be a watch out before every decent snow event I think is absurd." Amen. This isn't going to sneak up on anyone. Also, "While yes, the SREF does have temps at 30F and Tds in the mid 20s when the snow starts, what does the SREF have for temps this afternoon? It and all the other models were too cold with temps today, even 6 hours after initialization the NAM and GFS temps over the snow pack were 4F+ too cold" Is this a fair comparison going from sunny and calm to dense overcast and precipitating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 I don't think I've seen an in house model from any tv met around here come close in a long time. That begs the question why they aren't treated more carefully when used. So many mets are playing this one much more carefully, which is the right thing, after just getting burned by the public last week. A good broadcast met friend has received a lot of flack and has considered taking his social media page down. Always better to have more data than not enough before hoisting headlines. Gino did the right thing, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDude Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Yes. Today felt like mid March with all that sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAFF Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 To simpilly follow the leader and do what everyone else is doing is a difficult thing not to do. From your specific geographicial knowledge of the region and your write up the choice you made is justified and the corect one. Thanks for posting and helping all of us understand the difficulty of your position and how you and your local peers work as a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gino Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Gino said "First, the notion that there has to be a watch out before every decent snow event I think is absurd." Amen. This isn't going to sneak up on anyone. Also, "While yes, the SREF does have temps at 30F and Tds in the mid 20s when the snow starts, what does the SREF have for temps this afternoon? It and all the other models were too cold with temps today, even 6 hours after initialization the NAM and GFS temps over the snow pack were 4F+ too cold" Is this a fair comparison going from sunny and calm to dense overcast and precipitating? No and yes. You're absolutely right that it is different, but I guess I was more trying illustrate just how poorly models handle 2m temps when there is a snow pack. They have a tendency to practically lock the 2m temp in right around freezing and not let it go up regardless of the sunshine or warm advection. The model also seems to treat model initialized 0.5" of snow cover seemingly the same as 12". Countless times I've seen strong WAA over snowpack and the models blow chunks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago WX Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Pretty cool to have the guy who made the decision explain the thought process behind it. Thanks for doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chitown Storm Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Gino, thanks for the explanation. Nothing better than hearing it directly from the source. You guys have a tough job, and don't get the credit you deserve. Unfortunately, the public only remembers the forecasts that don't pan out. But you already know that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilbertfly Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Thanks, really wasn't defending the decision so much as explaining it further. No one has the definite right answer this far out and this is a great discussion debate to have! Thanks for taking the time Gino...it seems, with the winter weather headline cache available, that forecasters are frequently setup to be in a "Hero or Zero" role when it comes to their forecasts. Fortunately, you always take the time to explain your forecasts via the AFD's...so "surprises" are null and void 99% of the time...thanks again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone77 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 I don't think I've seen an in house model from any tv met around here come close in a long time. That begs the question why they aren't treated more carefully when used. So many mets are playing this one much more carefully, which is the right thing, after just getting burned by the public last week. A good broadcast met friend has received a lot of flack and has considered taking his social media page down. Always better to have more data than not enough before hoisting headlines. Gino did the right thing, imo. I was going with 1-3" for the QC earlier. Part of it was just me being a pessimistic bastard on here lol. Not usually like that but the past two winters and last week's debacle has scorned me a bit. In all honesty it looks like the QC should be good for a nice 4-6" type event. Will hope for higher amounts, but would be more than happy with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimillman Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Hi everyone, I've been browsing the boards for a while and thought I'd finally try my luck at posting. I'd first just like to commend Gino and Izzi for coming to terms with how marginal this situation is. I'm thankful that they take the time to post on this forum and let us know their thought processes. This is one of the trickier set-ups of the entire season, and it can't be an easy task for any met to try and forecast. We are dealing with a rather stale airmass and a sun angle that's not quite ideal for heavier snow accumulations. I think that models are honing in on what track this low will take. I believe that the main area of concern are the dynamics of the system, as they will be the deciding factor as to what kind of precipitation we get and how much of it actually accumulates. These text soundings are a great example of why this is such a tricky situation: http://68.226.77.253/text/GFS/GFS_KMDW.txt Yes, the layer above freezing is very thin, limited to the lower-most layers of the atmosphere. However, temperatures remain marginal (greater than -4 degrees celsius) all the way up to 750mb. If this were mid-January, there's no question that this would be a snowstorm. However, these soundings in late February are very tricky to interpret. Heavier rates should be enough to overcome the marginal surface temps, but we will need a little bit of luck. I certainly would not want to be meteorologist in this situation. Tricky indeed. But let's hope for the best! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersnow12 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Hi everyone, I've been browsing the boards for a while and thought I'd finally try my luck at posting. I'd first just like to commend Gino and Izzi for coming to terms with how marginal this situation is. I'm thankful that they take the time to post on this forum and let us know their thought processes. This is one of the trickier set-ups of the entire season, and it can't be an easy task for any met to try and forecast. We are dealing with a rather stale airmass and a sun angle that's not quite ideal for heavier snow accumulations. I think that models are honing in on what track this low will take. I believe that the main area of concern are the dynamics of the system, as they will be the deciding factor as to what kind of precipitation we get and how much of it actually accumulates. These text soundings are a great example of why this is such a tricky situation: http://68.226.77.253/text/GFS/GFS_KMDW.txt Yes, the layer above freezing is very thin, limited to the lower-most layers of the atmosphere. However, temperatures remain marginal (greater than -4 degrees celsius) all the way up to 750mb. If this were mid-January, there's no question that this would be a snowstorm. However, these soundings in late February are very tricky to interpret. Heavier rates should be enough to overcome the marginal surface temps, but we will need a little bit of luck. I certainly would not want to be meteorologist in this situation. Tricky indeed. But let's hope for the best! Two of the best forecasters I know. Should see them together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone77 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Two of the best forecasters I know. Should see them together. They make one hell of a team! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Storm Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Gino's point about overperformace of surface temps today is a good one. A 90-100% sunny day in late Feb is nothing to sneeze at, even with snow cover. Both Chicago and Milwaukee hit the upper 30s today, several degrees above guidance. Kansas City was in the low 40s, even with their significant snowpack. Good discussion... Made it up to 38 here and melted off about an inch. Should melt the rest tomorrow with slightly warmer temps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 we're essentially melted out aside from piles/shaded spots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowstormcanuck Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Hi everyone, I've been browsing the boards for a while and thought I'd finally try my luck at posting. I'd first just like to commend Gino and Izzi for coming to terms with how marginal this situation is. I'm thankful that they take the time to post on this forum and let us know their thought processes. This is one of the trickier set-ups of the entire season, and it can't be an easy task for any met to try and forecast. We are dealing with a rather stale airmass and a sun angle that's not quite ideal for heavier snow accumulations. I think that models are honing in on what track this low will take. I believe that the main area of concern are the dynamics of the system, as they will be the deciding factor as to what kind of precipitation we get and how much of it actually accumulates. These text soundings are a great example of why this is such a tricky situation: http://68.226.77.253/text/GFS/GFS_KMDW.txt Yes, the layer above freezing is very thin, limited to the lower-most layers of the atmosphere. However, temperatures remain marginal (greater than -4 degrees celsius) all the way up to 750mb. If this were mid-January, there's no question that this would be a snowstorm. However, these soundings in late February are very tricky to interpret. Heavier rates should be enough to overcome the marginal surface temps, but we will need a little bit of luck. I certainly would not want to be meteorologist in this situation. Tricky indeed. But let's hope for the best! Welcome to the board! FYI...it's the same person. Gino Izzi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpartyOn Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 For him (gino) to come on here and post his reasoning shows how tough of a forecast this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimillman Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Welcome to the board! FYI...it's the same person. Gino Izzi. Oops! Sorry for the confusion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Storm Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/39496-february-25-27-winter-storm-part-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimChgo9 Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Not sure howl likely it is. But, I would not be surprised if this system wound up raining on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.