The "What To Title The Storm?" Thread - Dec 8-9

[snow.]

I probably would have held off on 4 as I think for us the odds are really really low.  The Euro doesn't look like it gives us much more than an inch or so if I'm reading it right. 

 

I think CWG should have put my house at 48% instead of 45%...Why am I grouped in with you!

[snow.]

Bazinga!!!

 

They also might not realize that every model gives them less QPF as snow than West/NW VA

[snowfan]

so far it is only people from northern MD whining because they don't like that a map from 3 days out doesn't give them enough snow...hilarious...You are probably the same people who b**ch if a contour runs 1mm west of your backyard as if that matters....

I actually don't live in northern MD. You posted the map and some of us started to discuss it. Figures you would overreact to that.

[ravensrule]

I actually don't live in northern MD. You posted the map and some of us started to discuss it. Figures you would overreact to that.

I was thinking the same thing, you live SW of Glen Burnie. And the other guy G-D bless him he has been here for over 3 years and it was only his second post, i have no clue where he lives.

[Fozz]

so far it is only people from northern MD whining because they don't like that a map from 3 days out doesn't give them enough snow...hilarious...You are probably the same people who b**ch if a contour runs 1mm west of your backyard as if that matters....

 

I'm not whining

[snow.]

I actually don't live in northern MD. You posted the map and some of us started to discuss it. Figures you would overreact to that.

 

fair enough...my bad

[Ian]

CWG is mostly DC-focused so I don't expect them to be that specific about every geographical feature in northern MD, but if they were that would be nice.

i would assume a future map will be a bit more refined as usual.  

 

i'm not the hugest fan of probabilities on maps either they are confusing to the general public as seen on numerous occasions... but at the same time i think it's informative if you can decipher it.  

[Ian]

I probably would have held off on 4 as I think for us the odds are really really low.  The Euro doesn't look like it gives us much more than an inch or so if I'm reading it right. 

if i get 1" it will be a gigantic victory followed by rainy sadness 

[lsukev]

There's more banter in this thread than the banter thread

[ohleary]

I pulled up the 12Z NAM/GFS in Bufkit.  Sorry if someone else already posted it, I can't bear to read 10 pages of the same thing.  Anyway, both were pretty consistent.  I looked only at IAD and BWI but it showed onset of snow around 12 PM Sunday, light snow for the afternoon, sleet mixing in between 5-8pm, then ZR, then rain.  Snowfall about 2.5 inches for both (GFS) but the NAM gave BWI only .5 inches.  The NAM ended with a mix at 8PM Sunday...the GFS kept ZR going until the 2-5AM timeframe Monday morning.

[Fozz]

i would assume a future map will be a bit more refined as usual.  

 

i'm not the hugest fan of probabilities on maps either they are confusing to the general public as seen on numerous occasions... but at the same time i think it's informative if you can decipher it.  

 

After last March's debacle, I definitely think probabilities are a good idea when there's any significant uncertainty.

 

Not sure why the general public wouldn't understand them but I guess that's beyond the scope of this thread.

[mappy]

so far it is only people from northern MD whining because they don't like that a map from 3 days out doesn't give them enough snow...hilarious...You are probably the same people who b**ch if a contour runs 1mm west of your backyard as if that matters....

 

I haven't complained

[kurtstack]

i would assume a future map will be a bit more refined as usual.  

 

i'm not the hugest fan of probabilities on maps either they are confusing to the general public as seen on numerous occasions... but at the same time i think it's informative if you can decipher it.  

Agreed.  Probabilities totally confuse the average joe when it comes to weather for some reason.  People prefer that you make a definitive forecast so they can blame you when it fails.  Probability forecast is impossible to verify, and leaves the public wondering whether you got it right or wrong, and leaves the door open to excuses when the more probable scenario doesn't occur.  By using probabilities you can always claim you were right on a forecast, and defer responsibility, whereas the public wants forecasters to be responsible when the weather doesn't go according to plan.  It' s a societal thing - everybody is always looking to blame somebody when things don't occur as expected. 

[Ian]

After last March's debacle, I definitely think probabilities are a good idea when there's any significant uncertainty.

 

Not sure why the general public wouldn't understand them but I guess that's beyond the scope of this thread.

yeah the changes are in response to that event though we've always given probabilities in text.  

 

i think probabilities are kind of confusing when laid out in certain ways so i can understand the issues others have with them.  plus as kurtstack notes they've become a bit of a way out of a bad forecast over the years.  

 

that said, it's probably the best way to forecast... 

[snow.]

I haven't complained

 

why don;t we have up/down buttons here....it would be much easlier

[Bob Chill]

Average readers and news watchers are much more tuned to the 1-2/2-4 thing etc. We like probabilities but we are also a very odd bunch compared to most. 

 

The map could have been a simple <1  1-2  2-4 and it would still be fine. A broad brush "this is what we see as possible for now but subject to chance as we get closer". Those #'s are very realistic for the most part. Even if the cities get .5" nobody is going to come back and say "hey your map busted!". If we get zip on the other hand....

[usedtobe]

Agreed.  Probabilities totally confuse the average joe when it comes to weather for some reason.  People prefer that you make a definitive forecast so they can blame you when it fails.  Probability forecast is impossible to verify, and leaves the public wondering whether you got it right or wrong, and leaves the door open to excuses when the more probable scenario doesn't occur.  By using probabilities you can always claim you were right on a forecast, and defer responsibility, whereas the public wants forecasters to be responsible when the weather doesn't go according to plan.  It' s a societal thing - everybody is always looking to blame somebody when things don't occur as expected. 

You need some way to express uncertainty.  The Feb 5 event in 2010 was lock to be a big storm.  This is far from a lock.  Giving one number dupes people into thinking there is lot of certainty in forecast.  I guess we'll have to disagree.  As you stated, in depth discussion of pros and cons of using probabilities doesn't belong in this thread. 

[Ian]

Average readers and news watchers are much more tuned to the 1-2/2-4 thing etc. We like probabilities but we are also a very odd bunch compared to most. 

 

The map could have been a simple <1  1-2  2-4 and it would still be fine. A broad brush "this is what we see as possible for now but subject to chance as we get closer". Those #'s are very realistic for the most part. Even if the cities get .5" nobody is going to come back and say "hey your map busted!". If we get zip on the other hand....

Hopefully not sine there's a 55% chance of less than 1" though that was a background debate whether the less than 1" should be there.  

[Bob Chill]

Hopefully not sine there's a 55% chance of less than 1" though that was a background debate whether the less than 1" should be there.  

 

True. T-2" covers that well and is easy to understand. I'm not trying to pick anything apart here anyways. Mostly just pointing out that the vast majority of people are programmed to understand absolutes and not probabilities. 

[yoda]

It seems like the Canadian is the fastest to get precip into VA... GFS and NAM take longer.  Not sure where Euro falls into that grouping

 

EDIT:  Its snowing in DCA at 15z SUN per 18z NAM

[wxmeddler]

NAM is still on the weak OV LP train with the 18z.

Edit: But wetter.

[olafminesaw]

The 18z nam looks drier so far. Colder though maybe?

[DDweatherman]

You need some way to express uncertainty. The Feb 5 event in 2010 was lock to be a big storm. This is far from a lock. Giving one number dupes people into thinking there is lot of certainty in forecast. I guess we'll have to disagree. As you stated, in depth discussion of pros and cons of using probabilities doesn't belong in this thread.

Wes, using 2/6/10 is not a great examlle, that was an unorthodox forecast, and everyone was tuned into the local news outlets as well. Events like those are hard to come by in this profession. There is a skill in forecasting and that very skill is needed sometimes to nail a forecast. I understand CWG's approach and love it, you gus do a good job. You are a conservative agency, and to us wx personalities your methods make a lot of sense. However, the layman does play a big part in the forecast. The important issue is using your gifted skill in making a forecast, and I'd like to see what you have to offer.

[snow.]

NAM looks like the globals...The models are struggling with precip orientation...I have unclear idea what radar will look like or how the shield will be positioned..

[yoda]

18z NAM has snow for DC till around 3 or so... then we start pinging

[snow.]

18z NAM has snow for DC till around 3 or so... then we start pinging

 

that looks about right

[usedtobe]

Wes, using 2/6/10 is not a great examlle, that was an unorthodox forecast, and everyone was tuned into the local news outlets as well. Events like those are hard to come by in this profession. There is a skill in forecasting and that very skill is needed sometimes to nail a forecast. I understand CWG's approach and love it, you gus do a good job. You are a conservative agency, and to us wx personalities your methods make a lot of sense. However, the layman does play a big part in the forecast. The important issue is using your gifted skill in making a forecast, and I'd like to see what you have to offer.

Then we need to educate them.  Chaos is real and some patterns are much easier to forecast than others.  If you used the range idea, there are times when you'd have to really spread your number apart and one end of that range is probably more likely than another. 

[Bob Chill]

NAM looks like the globals...The models are struggling with precip orientation...I have unclear idea what radar will look like or how the shield will be positioned..

 

Yea, it's tricky with the first wave. Most solutions have narrow stripes for qpf maxes during the front end. Unfortunately, they are moving targets. 

[DDweatherman]

Then we need to educate them. Chaos is real and some patterns are much easier to forecast than others. If you used the range idea, there are times when you'd have to really spread your number apart and one end of that range is probably more likely than another.

I guess in the end you have that point, and I have mine about the simple necessity of making an actual forecast. I mean for some ice is the one that has the predominant impact in our area. However, risk/reward factor isnt as big for CWG. Tv stations will have weather regardless, so they have more leeway to put something out there.

[Ian]

#snowhole