This is the worst bust I have ever experienced by far

[das]

 I think it was paying too much attention to the model forecasts. Lighter precip allowed the MArch sun to win big time. 

 

I tend to agree.  From 7am through noon, the temp in Clarksburg wavered from 30.9F to 31.4F during periods of light to moderate snow and the 2" that fell in the overnight was sitting on previously frozen ground.  That is a recipe for accumulating snow for that 5 hour period starting 7am.  The irradiance spiked significantly as the energy transferred to the coast and clouds overhead thinned.  Even though it was snowing and air temps were below freezing, there was significant melting going on until much heavier snow moved in around noon.

[Ji]

this storm was a photographic bust too. I thought heavy wet snow would of looked really nice on the trees like this

 

[EastCoast NPZ]

Did the models outside of the Euro have that coastal low tracking SE off the VA coast before heading ENE?  I remember people discussing the SE jog on the Euro as being the only model to show it; therefore, the coastal was hoped to move ENE.  In the end it was clear that the Euro was right, because that system center had a clear SE move, something I don't ever recall seeing before.  Any one else?  That movement screwed us out here as it turned the flow more out of the NW and we lost our moisture fetch.

[Ian]

that map isnt bad except for one or two counties and DC

Everyone is going to run to how they got the bullseye right... Of course models showe that or 10 days without question.

[real]

I think the public would have taken this "bust" better if there had been more qualifers, which perhaps could have prevented the mass shut down. For example, why didn't more METS warn that, even if the snow accumulates well on the grass/trees, it's very likely that it wouldn't really pile up on roads during the day -- especially with  salt -- due  to the March sun.  And if it does at times, roads should quickly clear up as snowfall rates fall. 

 

Even out in  Western Virginia, I looked a few times and it seemed for most part the interstates remained wet. 

 

Instead, it seemed too many on-air mets were talking as if this storm was going to cripple the region.  That never seemed plausible, given the uncertainity over temps and the fact its March.

[Ian]

Computers will be better then mets once they perfect the algorithms. Computers don't care about what they are predicting.

[Bob Chill]

One met in Philly got death threats after the bust. not sure how you didnt pay attention to a storm that had modeled a 970 low stalled at the VA capes:)

 

I probably paid attention but it didn't even leave a scrape on me. I barely remember it if at all. But I was in a way different place at that time. I worked for a co ski resort from 92-99 and skied 100 days a year (no kiddin either). The first few years back here I was still getting over not living out there. It was a tough transition. DC snow meant nothing to me for a while even though I was a life long weenie. 02-03 took care of that though. I've been all in ever since. 

 

I was a terrible weenie in CO too. We lived and died with snow forecasts. I was a junkie. I had our orographics down to a science after surviving several epic busts out there. We had many forecasted 1-2' storms turn to flurries overnight. It was sickening so I had to learn my county's micro-climate quickly so I could set realistic expectations. The fun part about the rockies is that 75% of the biggest storms are way under forecast. Especially the n half of the state. We don't seem to have an under forecast problem here. 

[J.Mike]

In the IT world that I work in, when an application makes an serious error in production, we have a process (emergency fix) to analyze the problem with the Business Unit, isolate the code, implement the fix, turn it over to QA for verification, and then schedule an out of sequence deployment with CM.

 

I'm led to believe that a number of models busted really bad for this storm. Is there a process within the NWS to analyze what happened, review the initialization code and analytics, come up with a fix, and get it into production quickly?

[EastCoast NPZ]

Computers will be better then mets once they perfect the algorithms. Computers don't care about what they are predicting.

 

Unless they put in some weenie code.

 

Pretty sure the NAM has a few lines.

[NJ_Ken]

I think that's right: "As much as 30 in (0.76 m) fell west of the New York City metropolitan region, which generally reported 10 to 16 in (0.25 to 0.41 m) of snow, making it the biggest snowstorm at the time since the North American blizzard of 1996. Washington, D.C. and Baltimore recorded little or no snowfall, while 10 in (25 cm) impacted Philadelphia." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2000_nor%27easter

 

FWIW, PHL gots it's 10" in that event by the skin of their teeth.  Even the immediate western and southern burbs got nothing.  PHL itself only had about 4" or so (after a forecast of 8" to 14") and the snow had pretty much stopped.... then the deformation band worked its way southeast just barely far enough to include PHL and nobody else west or south of there.  Those under the deformation band had several more hours of moderate snow that got Philly up to the low end of the forecast.  If this board had existed back then, the Philly region obs. thread would have had plenty of unhappy campers, too.    

[EastCoast NPZ]

I probably paid attention but it didn't even leave a scrape on me. I barely remember it if at all. But I was in a way different place at that time. I worked for a co ski resort from 92-99 and skied 100 days a year (no kiddin either). The first few years back here I was still getting over not living out there. It was a tough transition. DC snow meant nothing to me for a while even though I was a life long weenie. 02-03 took care of that though. I've been all in ever since. 

 

I was a terrible weenie in CO too. We lived and died with snow forecasts. I was a junkie. I had our orographics down to a science after surviving several epic busts out there. We had many forecasted 1-2' storms turn to flurries overnight. It was sickening so I had to learn my county's micro-climate quickly so I could set realistic expectations. The fun part about the rockies is that 75% of the biggest storms are way under forecast. Especially the n half of the state. We don't seem to have an under forecast problem here. 

 

Only when it comes to temps.

[Ji]

The days of the Met are dying. in 20 years, the models will blow the mets out and the best Mets will be the ones who learn how to translate the models the best. You will see alot more weenie blogs of people boasting they are better than pro Mets

[Bob Chill]

The days of the Met are dying. in 20 years, the models will blow the mets out and the best Mets will be the ones who learn how to translate the models the best. You will see alot more weenie blogs of people boasting they are better than pro Mets

 

In 50 years computers will be controlling the weather

[Ger]

for me 3/5/01 is the day that will live forever in infamy. I wasn't on any wx boards then and had no idea how the storm could end up failing. at least this week I had some information on how it could disappoint.

I was 16 in 2001 and I believe I was on the wright-weather forum. I remember the debacle somewhat but I'm missing a few details.

Did we have a WSW up?

When did NWS pull the plug; was it just a day before the event?

I seem to recall having knowing it wasn't going to happen a few days beforehand but it seems like it was only a day before cancellation?

[Ian]

In the IT world that I work in, when an application makes an serious error in production, we have a process (emergency fix) to analyze the problem with the Business Unit, isolate the code, implement the fix, turn it over to QA for verification, and then schedule an out of sequence deployment with CM.

 

I'm led to believe that a number of models busted really bad for this storm. Is there a process within the NWS to analyze what happened, review the initialization code and analytics, come up with a fix, and get it into production quickly?

 

Models are a tool... too often they are treated as gospel ACROSS THE BOARD.

 

There are margins of error within that are quite apparent in certain situations.. this was one of them. Not sure we can expect accuracy to a 1-2 (I know in this case it was closer to 5) degree margin etc.

 

The 0z suite night of was perhaps one of the worst all time right before a storm. Forecasts were on their way to busting either way but the bust would have been easier to talk ones way out of. I think there was probably too much initial 'excitement' with the short range models that are known to be really iffy.. but then it was backed up by the NAM and the GFS et al.

 

In early or late season you probably just need to hedge mild no matter what. A 1987 might happen once in every 50 years but people are more forgiving in a snowier bust.

 

One thing that was perhaps poorly voiced throughout is this was never that likely to be a truly "high impact" storm. MAYBE if trees came down all over the place but not really sure that happens in 6-12" of snow. The roads were warm, the March sun torches through the clouds. Even the harder hit areas had largely passable roads during and then for sure immediately after.

[ohleary]

In retrospect, the bust makes perfect sense.  When you have the SREF mean giving DCA 12 inches of snow hours before the event...with the lowest member showing 4 inches...what else can you predict?  Plus, temps were the definition of marginal area wide.  One or two degrees one way or the other made all the difference.  It would have taken Earth-sized diamond balls to forecast mostly rain over central MD into BWI giving what the models were showing.  Looking back at DCA forecast soundings, yeah they were snow mostly, but ANY warmer and it's rain.  And any warmer happened.

[Ji]

In 50 years computers will be controlling the weather

maybe DC being the new Richmond isnt a bad thing

[Kay]

Winterymix,  As for wish casting.  I don't think that was the problem. I think it was paying too much attention to the model forecasts. Lighter precip allowed the MArch sun to win big time. 

 

I'm glad Wes said this because just as a weenie with very little cred I feel like there's been too much self-doubt among those more experienced over snow-drunkenness or wishcasting or whatever. JUST speaking about this board, when even the most skeptical forecasters overcome innate conservatism, and when mets outside the region w/o emotional investment are thinking the storm will perform, I feel like it's unfair -- and all too easy -- to pin it on wishcasting. Too much attention to model forecasts, and the models themselves, are other questions, and all psychology aside, more nuanced ones. I trust folks like Wes and others here to not just blindly "see what we want" and will continue to do so. :-)

[clskinsfan]

I think this was a bigger bust for DC/Balt. than 2001. The Models back in 2001 had been trending the precip north up until the event started. This storm had very good consensus that it was going to be a big storm for the area. The only red flags were some of the temp issues. Also the radar for this storm compared to 2001: The radar on Tuesday night looked incredible and matched up with the model forecast. In 2001 it became apparent by watching the radar that the storm was going to miss. 2001 was a bigger bust for Philly IMO.

[midatlanticweather]

Ian and Matt - we had the exact things you guys always talk about work against that you two always remind folks of!

 

Climo and time of day! Otherwise you need PERFECT set up. Perfect does not happen often and it definitely has not been that way for several years now!

 

Sucks! I am not adding anything new... we just have to hold on to these obvious warnings with us being so borderline. Borderline rarely wins - especially during the day in March! What the heck was I thinking! The folks that did well had their accumulations at night, or the dynamics that were perfect and right on top of them...

 

This one stung! Had the freaking stomach flu yesterday too... could have been weather related!

[ohleary]

Models are a tool... too often they are treated as gospel ACROSS THE BOARD.

 

There are margins of error within that are quite apparent in certain situations.. this was one of them. Not sure we can expect accuracy to a 1-2 (I know in this case it was closer to 5) degree margin etc.

 

The 0z suite night of was perhaps one of the worst all time right before a storm. Forecasts were on their way to busting either way but the bust would have been easier to talk ones way out of. I think there was probably too much initial 'excitement' with the short range models that are known to be really iffy.. but then it was backed up by the NAM and the GFS et al.

 

In early or late season you probably just need to hedge mild no matter what. A 1987 might happen once in every 50 years but people are more forgiving in a snowier bust.

 

One thing that was perhaps poorly voiced throughout is this was never that likely to be a truly "high impact" storm. MAYBE if trees came down all over the place but not really sure that happens in 6-12" of snow. The roads were warm, the March sun torches through the clouds. Even the harder hit areas had largely passable roads during and then for sure immediately after.

 

This storm was riding on a bifurcation point.  A tiny shove one way or the other would change it radically.  If it performed EXACTLY as shown, it would have given what the models showed.  But when do the models ever perfectly model the atmosphere?  Like I said, it was a bust waiting to happen.

[SeminoleSullivan]

In retrospect, the bust makes perfect sense.  When you have the SREF mean giving DCA 12 inches of snow hours before the event...with the lowest member showing 4 inches...what else can you predict?  Plus, temps were the definition of marginal area wide.  One or two degrees one way or the other made all the difference.  It would have taken Earth-sized diamond balls to forecast mostly rain over central MD into BWI giving what the models were showing.  Looking back at DCA forecast soundings, yeah they were snow mostly, but ANY warmer and it's rain.  And any warmer happened.

 

Agreed 100% - A few friends of mine toyed with the possibility of trying to account for some warmer temps and bringing totals down to a 1-3 style event for the cities...but the ultimate decision was 'Go all or nothing' Because really, there isn't a middle ground. You're either right or wrong in these situations in the public eye.

 

It's brutal, but it was amazing to watch it come together...it was equally amazing just how accurate (in reality) the models were. As you said, we KNEW that a tick in either direction could turn the tide. We knew that not just because of knowledge conferred to us from years of education and first-hand accounts...but from the computer models that so many put so much (sometimes too much) faith into.

[Ian]

Ian and Matt - we had the exact things you guys always talk about work against that you two always remind folks of!

 

Climo and time of day! Otherwise you need PERFECT set up. Perfect does not happen often and it definitely has not been that way for several years now!

 

Yep, mostly. which is why I feel like a total ass myself at this pt. We were missing a good cold air source but I think we all just believed that below avg in March was enough to do it with the "dynamics".

 

I was not that surprised with how it ended up IMBY.. Part of my overall 'pessimism' is I try to stay disconnected from the forecast. I think by Tue we all thought we were getting more snow than we got and the 0z models sent it into overdrive. That was not a good 6-12 hours+ for the community... which arguably continued into morning. By sunrise it was apparent we were totally fooked IMO... I grasped, others grapsed, but it was over.

[Ian]

This is a good graphic to see CWG forecast v verification.. tho the color scheme is kinda misleading probably.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/snowquester-results/?hpid=z3

[Ian]

This storm was riding on a bifurcation point.  A tiny shove one way or the other would change it radically.  If it performed EXACTLY as shown, it would have given what the models showed.  But when do the models ever perfectly model the atmosphere?  Like I said, it was a bust waiting to happen.

 

Yep.. it was referred to off and on at least a few times leading up that there was a high disappointment factor in this all.

 

The low seemed poorly organized initially to me. I think the backend was pretty solid but who cares if it's mod rain.

[ravensrule]

I believe 12/30/2000 was the date of the storm you guys are referring to.

Yes it is, that is by FAR the worst bust in this area and I have been living here for 37 years. We were supposed to get at least a foot and we woke up to completely sunny skies. 12 years later it still makes me cry.

[Ji]

people had different views of this bust i guess

 

rscott251

10:54 AM EST

 

 

I think the weather people should be the first to be sequestered.

 

equinimity

10:34 AM EST

 

 

I live fairly close to Dulles Airport, and we had at least 6 inches of snow. The amounts really varied this time even though areas were in close proximity.

 

 

weathergrrl

10:31 AM EST

 

 

We here in Broad Run fell squarely in the light lavender zone. We're situated at the foot of Bull Run Mountain and we got about 10-12 inches. It varied because of all the drifts and our mountainside terrain. I posted on CWG's FB page that their forecast was absolutely on the mark for us!

 

 

twocents

10:21 AM EST

 

 

TV meteorologists, who now are more personalities than scientists, "predict" the worst possible scenario so that if less than that happens, few people are really upset. If most of us performed our jobs to the same level, we would be out of our jobs!

[Ji]

the map is horribly done...both maps should have the same color code....whoever did this map should be furloughed

[Ian]

Jason said it was the worst bust for CWG in a quote in the Post .. I assume he won't skirt it  as many will try. 

 

Definitely less of a bust if you were supposed to get 8-16" and you got 6" but still not a great call.

 

Again, no one should focus too much on the bullseye.. every model had that. If you missed that you should not be allowed to forecast ever again.

[Ji]

Jason said it was the worst bust for CWG in a quote in the Post .. I assume he won't skirt it as much as many will try. 

 

Definitely less of a bust if you were supposed to get 8-16" and you got 6" but still not a great call.

 

Again, no one should focus too much on the bullseye.. every model had that. If you missed that you should not be allowed to forecast ever again.

yea but every model had DCA getting at least 2 inches too right? Dulles at least 4