Dissecting The Bust

[MANDA]

A REAL MAN HERE

 

 

Gary Szatkowski, meteorologist-in-charge at the National Weather Service in Mt. Holly, New Jersey, apologized on Twitter for the snow totals being cut back.

 

“My deepest apologies to many key decision makers and so many members of the general public,” Szatkowski tweeted. “You made a lot of tough decisions expecting us to get it right, and we didn’t. Once again, I’m sorry.”

 

I believe he was also the one that made a personal public plea just before Sandy for residents to evacuate the Jersey shore.

A class act of a guy in my opinion.

[ag3]

The issue was in NJ where most of the public was expecting 18" plus and received under 6".

Yeah man.

For NJ it was a monumental bust.

But from Manhattan to Nassau County it was 10"-20".

Which is a fantastic snowstorm.

[Animal]

Here you go.

 

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2904

 

Why was the snowfall forecast for New York City too high?
On Monday morning, the National Weather Service predicted storm-total snowfall amounts of 20 - 30" for New York City. As of 9 am EST Tuesday, snowfall amounts in the city ranged from 7.8" in Central Park to 11" at La Guardia Airport, with just 1 - 2" more snow likely. So what went wrong with the forecast? Heavy snow forecasts are notoriously difficult, since our computer models struggle to accurately predict where the very narrow bands of heavy snow with snowfall rates of 2 - 4" per hour will set up. Furthermore, an error of 50 miles in predicting the track of the storm can make a huge difference in snowfall amounts, and a 50-mile error in track in a 24-hour forecast is fairly common for a storm system 1000 miles across. The 7 am EST (12 UTC) Monday run of what is usually our top forecast model, the European model, predicted that the storm would track about 100 miles farther west than it actually did. The American GFS model, which just underwent a significant upgrade over the past month to give it increased horizontal resolution, performed better, putting the storm farther to the east. Forecasts that relied too heavily on the European model put too much snow over New York City. The heaviest snows were about 50 miles east of the city, over central Long Island (Islip Airport, located 50 miles east of New York City, got 20.9" of snow as of 9 am EST Tuesday.) Moral of the story: the European model, which famously out-predicted the GFS model during Hurricane Sandy, is not always right. The GFS model is also a top-notch model, and will sometimes outperform the European model. The Weather Channel forecasts relied less heavily on the European model, and predicted 15" of snow for NYC early on Sunday. The forecast snow amounts were cut to less than 10" by Sunday evening, and stayed that way for the duration of the storm.

As recently as Monday morning, the Short-Range Ensemble Forecast system suggested a wide range of possibilities for total snowfall in the New York area (considerably wider than for Boston, where models were in closer agreement on a big storm). Forecasters are increasingly looking to probabilistic tools as a way to convey the uncertainty inherent in multiple model solutions. As we noted yesterday, the NWS Boston office released maps showing the lowest and highest 10% of accumulations that might be expected based on a range of model guidance. Such maps remain experimental, and it is not yet clear what formats will be most useful to the wide range of public and specialized users of NWS forecasts. The recent growth in collaboration among social scientists and meteorologists could shed light on the best routes forward as probabilistic guidance grows in complexity (and potential usefulness). For more on the probabilistic aspects of the Blizzard of 2015, see Lee Grenci’s Wunderground post “Misleading Snowfall Forecasts.” We will continue to update our live blog on

 

 

 

[bluewave]

KNYC 12 

N shore Nassau County  reports of 20

Suffolk County reports of 28

 

Not sure if that constitutes a  hurt ?

It only feels like it hurt because the forecasts were so high .

If the forecast was for 10 - 15 @ KNYC and 20 -25 on Long Island  , we all would have though that a great event about to unfold.

 

I was always under the impression that pos AO and plus 6 inch snowstorms @ KNYC were very hard to come by , this would shatter that no ?

 

See the AO thread as I posted the detailed information in there. The low closed off too late to hit NYC with

the higher totals that were expected. NYC clearing  the 6 inch mark matches the other times following 

a drop below -1.5 that we recently had. But none of the top ten heaviest events since 1950 happened 

in such a +AO pattern. Something rivaling a top ten event was what was being discussed before the 

storm. I know the February 78 analog was thrown out, but that happened in an extreme -5 AO

pattern as a closed off bowling ball plowed through the GL to the coast. This isn't to takeaway 

from the fact that it was still a really nice storm for many. It Just didn't measure up against

the top ten.

 

 

[nyblizz44]

Yeah man.

For NJ it was a monumental bust.

But from Manhattan to Nassau County it was 10"-20".

Which is a fantastic snowstorm.

Yeah but from within the 5 boroughs and NJ it was an 8-12 inch storm. hardly 10-20 and most certainy not a historic life threatening blizzard with 20-30 inches. God bless Boston and surrounding areas. THAT is a blizzard! This was child's play. I personally experienced veritable Blizzard conditions for 1 hour. This was a monumental bust. Nowhere near as big as March 2001 but this is a close second because in first nstance models gave honts two days out but in this case The Nam and Euro were predicting 48 inches and 25 inches with the storm upon us. This was , by all measures, a forcasting disaster.

[MJO812]

Every model run predicted 2-3 feet of snow back in March of 2001. This time it was the Euro, Euro Ensembles and 2 runs of the Nam. The other model runs weren't impressed at all. I was a little nervous when I didn't see the GGEM,Ukie,GFS and GEFS not come board. In the end, I got way more snow with this storm than I did in March of 2001. It would have been great to get the snow totals that SNE is getting right now. I want to experience a raging blizzard like I did in 1996 and 2010. I really thought we were going to get a crippling blizzard but I guess we have to wait for that. This was still a good storm for NYC. Always great when you get near a foot of snow. Pattern looks active moving forward so we will have more fun times ahead.

[Weathergun]

The progressive nature of the pattern recently with the strong +AO hurt us here. 

A blocking pattern near Greenland or the Davis Strait instead of to

the south would have probably facilitated the low closing off further SW.

The UL captured the storm late as it was already too far east. I found 

numerous examples of big hits east of NYC where lows closed off a little

too late in more progressive +AO patterns. 

 

I agree. With no big block over Atlantic, we should gave more weight to the progressive solutions, from the onset.

[weatherpruf]

Here you go.

 

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2904

 

Why was the snowfall forecast for New York City too high?

On Monday morning, the National Weather Service predicted storm-total snowfall amounts of 20 - 30" for New York City. As of 9 am EST Tuesday, snowfall amounts in the city ranged from 7.8" in Central Park to 11" at La Guardia Airport, with just 1 - 2" more snow likely. So what went wrong with the forecast? Heavy snow forecasts are notoriously difficult, since our computer models struggle to accurately predict where the very narrow bands of heavy snow with snowfall rates of 2 - 4" per hour will set up. Furthermore, an error of 50 miles in predicting the track of the storm can make a huge difference in snowfall amounts, and a 50-mile error in track in a 24-hour forecast is fairly common for a storm system 1000 miles across. The 7 am EST (12 UTC) Monday run of what is usually our top forecast model, the European model, predicted that the storm would track about 100 miles farther west than it actually did. The American GFS model, which just underwent a significant upgrade over the past month to give it increased horizontal resolution, performed better, putting the storm farther to the east. Forecasts that relied too heavily on the European model put too much snow over New York City. The heaviest snows were about 50 miles east of the city, over central Long Island (Islip Airport, located 50 miles east of New York City, got 20.9" of snow as of 9 am EST Tuesday.) Moral of the story: the European model, which famously out-predicted the GFS model during Hurricane Sandy, is not always right. The GFS model is also a top-notch model, and will sometimes outperform the European model. The Weather Channel forecasts relied less heavily on the European model, and predicted 15" of snow for NYC early on Sunday. The forecast snow amounts were cut to less than 10" by Sunday evening, and stayed that way for the duration of the storm.

As recently as Monday morning, the Short-Range Ensemble Forecast system suggested a wide range of possibilities for total snowfall in the New York area (considerably wider than for Boston, where models were in closer agreement on a big storm). Forecasters are increasingly looking to probabilistic tools as a way to convey the uncertainty inherent in multiple model solutions. As we noted yesterday, the NWS Boston office released maps showing the lowest and highest 10% of accumulations that might be expected based on a range of model guidance. Such maps remain experimental, and it is not yet clear what formats will be most useful to the wide range of public and specialized users of NWS forecasts. The recent growth in collaboration among social scientists and meteorologists could shed light on the best routes forward as probabilistic guidance grows in complexity (and potential usefulness). For more on the probabilistic aspects of the Blizzard of 2015, see Lee Grenci’s Wunderground post “Misleading Snowfall Forecasts.” We will continue to update our live blog on

 

Here you go.

 

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2904

 

Why was the snowfall forecast for New York City too high?

On Monday morning, the National Weather Service predicted storm-total snowfall amounts of 20 - 30" for New York City. As of 9 am EST Tuesday, snowfall amounts in the city ranged from 7.8" in Central Park to 11" at La Guardia Airport, with just 1 - 2" more snow likely. So what went wrong with the forecast? Heavy snow forecasts are notoriously difficult, since our computer models struggle to accurately predict where the very narrow bands of heavy snow with snowfall rates of 2 - 4" per hour will set up. Furthermore, an error of 50 miles in predicting the track of the storm can make a huge difference in snowfall amounts, and a 50-mile error in track in a 24-hour forecast is fairly common for a storm system 1000 miles across. The 7 am EST (12 UTC) Monday run of what is usually our top forecast model, the European model, predicted that the storm would track about 100 miles farther west than it actually did. The American GFS model, which just underwent a significant upgrade over the past month to give it increased horizontal resolution, performed better, putting the storm farther to the east. Forecasts that relied too heavily on the European model put too much snow over New York City. The heaviest snows were about 50 miles east of the city, over central Long Island (Islip Airport, located 50 miles east of New York City, got 20.9" of snow as of 9 am EST Tuesday.) Moral of the story: the European model, which famously out-predicted the GFS model during Hurricane Sandy, is not always right. The GFS model is also a top-notch model, and will sometimes outperform the European model. The Weather Channel forecasts relied less heavily on the European model, and predicted 15" of snow for NYC early on Sunday. The forecast snow amounts were cut to less than 10" by Sunday evening, and stayed that way for the duration of the storm.

As recently as Monday morning, the Short-Range Ensemble Forecast system suggested a wide range of possibilities for total snowfall in the New York area (considerably wider than for Boston, where models were in closer agreement on a big storm). Forecasters are increasingly looking to probabilistic tools as a way to convey the uncertainty inherent in multiple model solutions. As we noted yesterday, the NWS Boston office released maps showing the lowest and highest 10% of accumulations that might be expected based on a range of model guidance. Such maps remain experimental, and it is not yet clear what formats will be most useful to the wide range of public and specialized users of NWS forecasts. The recent growth in collaboration among social scientists and meteorologists could shed light on the best routes forward as probabilistic guidance grows in complexity (and potential usefulness). For more on the probabilistic aspects of the Blizzard of 2015, see Lee Grenci’s Wunderground post “Misleading Snowfall Forecasts.” We will continue to update our live blog on

 

 

Here you go.

 

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2904

 

Why was the snowfall forecast for New York City too high?

On Monday morning, the National Weather Service predicted storm-total snowfall amounts of 20 - 30" for New York City. As of 9 am EST Tuesday, snowfall amounts in the city ranged from 7.8" in Central Park to 11" at La Guardia Airport, with just 1 - 2" more snow likely. So what went wrong with the forecast? Heavy snow forecasts are notoriously difficult, since our computer models struggle to accurately predict where the very narrow bands of heavy snow with snowfall rates of 2 - 4" per hour will set up. Furthermore, an error of 50 miles in predicting the track of the storm can make a huge difference in snowfall amounts, and a 50-mile error in track in a 24-hour forecast is fairly common for a storm system 1000 miles across. The 7 am EST (12 UTC) Monday run of what is usually our top forecast model, the European model, predicted that the storm would track about 100 miles farther west than it actually did. The American GFS model, which just underwent a significant upgrade over the past month to give it increased horizontal resolution, performed better, putting the storm farther to the east. Forecasts that relied too heavily on the European model put too much snow over New York City. The heaviest snows were about 50 miles east of the city, over central Long Island (Islip Airport, located 50 miles east of New York City, got 20.9" of snow as of 9 am EST Tuesday.) Moral of the story: the European model, which famously out-predicted the GFS model during Hurricane Sandy, is not always right. The GFS model is also a top-notch model, and will sometimes outperform the European model. The Weather Channel forecasts relied less heavily on the European model, and predicted 15" of snow for NYC early on Sunday. The forecast snow amounts were cut to less than 10" by Sunday evening, and stayed that way for the duration of the storm.

As recently as Monday morning, the Short-Range Ensemble Forecast system suggested a wide range of possibilities for total snowfall in the New York area (considerably wider than for Boston, where models were in closer agreement on a big storm). Forecasters are increasingly looking to probabilistic tools as a way to convey the uncertainty inherent in multiple model solutions. As we noted yesterday, the NWS Boston office released maps showing the lowest and highest 10% of accumulations that might be expected based on a range of model guidance. Such maps remain experimental, and it is not yet clear what formats will be most useful to the wide range of public and specialized users of NWS forecasts. The recent growth in collaboration among social scientists and meteorologists could shed light on the best routes forward as probabilistic guidance grows in complexity (and potential usefulness). For more on the probabilistic aspects of the Blizzard of 2015, see Lee Grenci’s Wunderground post “Misleading Snowfall Forecasts.” We will continue to update our live blog on

Wow excellent analysis. It is a wonder hard sciences like meteorology have not worked more with social sciences, since weather forecasting, like medicine, has direct social and psychological implications, along with the physical. Frankly, I am wondering why meteorology is not a licensed profession. You need a license to cut hair or do nails, but not to forecast weather? Something that impacts millions? You wouldn't have to suffer the likes of Lonnie Quinn if professional training were required....

[Guest Pamela]

Wow excellent analysis. It is a wonder hard sciences like meteorology have not worked more with social sciences, since weather forecasting, like medicine, has direct social and psychological implications, along with the physical. Frankly, I am wondering why meteorology is not a licensed profession. You need a license to cut hair or do nails, but not to forecast weather? Something that impacts millions? You wouldn't have to suffer the likes of Lonnie Quinn if professional training were required....

 

Probably because, as a meteorologist, one is not likely to overtly enter into a contractual agreement with an individual or small group where a failure to satisfy the requirements of the contract (i.e. a proper weather forecast) could potentially lead to civil or criminal liability...you might hire someone to predict the weather for you...but you would probably be unable to collect damages in civil court if they failed to provide you with a "satisfactory" forecast. You might be able to sue them if you hired them to forecast for you, paid them, and they never provided you with any forecast...but failing to provide the "right" forecast does not sound like grounds for an actionable lawsuit simply based on the notion that a "correct" weather forecast is a concept utterly rife with ambiguity. 

[bluewave]

I agree. With no big block over Atlantic, we should gave more weight to the progressive solutions, from the onset.

 

Statistical teleconnection analog data often takes a backseat to what the models are showing.

Many times the analogs serve as a truth detector of sorts for model solutions look out of place for the

general 500 mb pattern.

[Superstorm93]

Well, this is unfortunate. Have to admit that I'm surprised this is from CNBC

[RU848789]

I'd like to hear some thoughts also from someone who has complete access to the EC, where and how it was wrong, and why the 75-100 mile shift E occurred

 

Exactly.  Since the NWS forecast was, as they said, heavily based on the Euro, given its superior scores in general and on east coast snowstorms, as well as its unwavering (relatively speaking) track and QPF forecasts for 6 straight model runs, since 00Z on Saturday morning through 12Z on Monday, what exactly went wrong in reality vs. what the Euro was depicting.  Not just that, but in addition to what differences were observed (in track and QPF) in time moving forward vs. what was predicted, what actually caused these major differences in track and QPF at a more fundamental level.  

 

Steve DiMartino's mea culpa on EasternPA focused on an inverted trough that formed in Central PA, leading to rising air west of the Delaware, leading to robbing of the moisture to the east (i.e., in eastern PA/NJ), as air in those areas was then subsiding.  Not sure if this is correct, but would love to hear what people think.  

 

And with regard to track, if the Euro did "move" 60-70 miles east of where it was modeled to be, perhaps that's enough, right there to explain the results, since the QPF forecast for, say the Lehigh Valley (they were in a 6-10" forecast, generally) is what was actually seen ~60 miles to the east in NENJ/NYC (6-10" of snow), and the forecast for NE NJ/NYC (18-30") is what was seen ~60 miles to our east on LI.  

[UnionWeatherWx]

If the sunday storm was to give big totals, no one would believe it. Heck, the schools wouldn't close until the last moment. Like snow88 said, I wouldn't give up yet. I still think we will have our fair share. (Don't put 100 percent into this as I don't know the future).

[Cheeznado]

*Disclaimer* I am associated with TWC, but opinions here are my own

 

A lot of folks were ripping TWC for lowering the snow amounts first to 12-18" then 8-12" by Monday evening. The reason is the partially automated system used by the network (and also Weather Underground) began to get inputs from the WSI RPM and other sources which were drastically lower that some of the higher-res models-

 

Here is what one rather infamous Met that posts to this group had to say even late Monday:

 

 

ANOTHER WEATHER CHANNEL MASSIVE SCREW UP --TWC & on camera mets saying NYC=8-12" NWS in NYC= 24-36". WX channel just killing the science

 

Got to give credit where credit is due......

[bluewave]

*Disclaimer* I am associated with TWC, but opinions here are my own

 

A lot of folks were ripping TWC for lowering the snow amounts first to 12-18" then 8-12" by Monday evening. The reason is the partially automated system used by the network (and also Weather Underground) began to get inputs from the WSI RPM and other sources which were drastically lower that some of the higher-res models-

 

Here is what one rather infamous Met that posts to this group had to say even late Monday:

 

 

ANOTHER WEATHER CHANNEL MASSIVE SCREW UP --TWC & on camera mets saying NYC=8-12" NWS in NYC= 24-36". WX channel just killing the science

 

Got to give credit where credit is due......

 

That was a fast pick up for you guys before the 0z NAM with the shift east came out. Stu Ostro and many others

at the TWC are the best in the business IMHO.

[SnowGoose69]

That was a fast pickup for you guys before the 0z Nam with the shift east came out. Stu Ostro and many others

at the TWC are the best in the business IMHO.

I think DT was of the mind the decision was coming from TV mets there but I doubt that was the case. I thought they were going to be somewhat wrong at the time and that they had things maybe 6-8 inches too low. Carl Parker I think when he came on shift made the move probably coupled with some other off camera mets, the previous guy (forgot his name) was emphasizing he was buying the Euro still.

[Cheeznado]

I think DT was of the mind the decision was coming from TV mets there but I doubt that was the case. I thought they were going to be somewhat wrong at the time and that they had things maybe 6-8 inches too low. Carl Parker I think when he came on shift made the move probably coupled with some other off camera mets, the previous guy (forgot his name) was emphasizing he was buying the Euro still.

The official forecast from TWC is NOT produced by any on-camera folks, although they sometimes express an opinion that may differ slightly. Off-camera mets massage an automated forecast system that constantly gets input from the latest models.

[Animal]

*Disclaimer* I am associated with TWC, but opinions here are my own

 

A lot of folks were ripping TWC for lowering the snow amounts first to 12-18" then 8-12" by Monday evening. The reason is the partially automated system used by the network (and also Weather Underground) began to get inputs from the WSI RPM and other sources which were drastically lower that some of the higher-res models-

 

Here is what one rather infamous Met that posts to this group had to say even late Monday:

 

 

ANOTHER WEATHER CHANNEL MASSIVE SCREW UP --TWC & on camera mets saying NYC=8-12" NWS in NYC= 24-36". WX channel just killing the science

 

Got to give credit where credit is due......

 

 

Man did he go bat crap crazy last night over that map.

Great call. You should print up his rant from his facebook, sign it and mail it to him.

[winterwx21]

Yeah man.

For NJ it was a monumental bust.

But from Manhattan to Nassau County it was 10"-20".

Which is a fantastic snowstorm.

 

 

An excellent snowstorm yes, but let's be very clear. When the forecast for NYC is 2 to 3 feet, and instead they get 1 foot .......  it is a massive bust. There's a huge difference between 1 foot, and 2 to 3 feet mega blizzard. It was a huge bust for NYC.

[Absolute Humidity]

Not sure why the forecast went gang busters from 10-14 to 3 feet. Leaving at 10-14 then scaling up or down seems more plausible as the storm had bust written all over it once the euro lost the GFS and ggem Sunday and Monday. Having had about 7" here would not have been a hard pill to swallow.

[gymengineer]

Here is a detailed examination on the bust, focusing on the communication aspect, from The Capital Weather Gang (Washington Post):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/01/27/why-the-snow-forecast-for-new-york-city-was-so-bad-and-what-should-be-done/?hpid=z5

 

Quote from Uccellini included in the article: “We all need to learn how we communicate forecast uncertainty.....The NWS will be more aggressive in addressing this particular component of the forecast.....We’re going to review this very carefully and assess a different approach as we deal with these types of storms.”

What's interesting about the quote is that he himself actually began to convey the uncertainty about New York City in a live interview on CNN yesterday afternoon around 5 pm. But, Wolf Blitzer pretty much pushed him into talking about how awful and dangerous the storm was going to be-- in other words, the worst case scenario. 

[ILoveWinter]

Would really appreciate someone answering this question:

Did the models that showed lesser amounts for nyc verify because they correctly saw the eastward track beforehand or did they verify simply due to an unforeseen jog east by the storm?

If the jog east literally came out of nowhere the euro would have been right with practically all other models being incorrect.

To answer this question I guess you would have to see what the tracks were for all the models. If they were all very similar then you can't say they outperformed the euro, they only verified from that jog to the east...

[Cheeznado]

Another good take:

 

http://thevane.gawker.com/why-nycs-historic-blizzard-didnt-live-up-to-the-hype-1681962448/+maxread

[tmagan]

Link?

http://meteocentre.com/models/models.php?mod=cmc_reps&map=na〈=en

[PB GFI]

I agree. With no big block over Atlantic, we should gave more weight to the progressive solutions, from the onset.

Gun  you and I missed  getting 2 feet by 30 miles . You I ended with close to 12  there was 20 at my other house in Laurel Hollow  that's 20 miles east of you and 30 miles east of me  . The 70 mile hiccup was a not by product of a pos AO .

the SLP jumped to the strongest convection . All storms have CFI this deepened aloft and the fact that it didn`t close was the back side SW was 3 hours too slow catching it . A 30 MILE deviation in the atmosphere  from OBX to CC has not a $%^&* thing to do with the AO .

 

There was 12 in NYC  30 miles of there  east 20  30 miles east of there 30

[Guest Pamela]

Regarding the topic of the hour...the so called missed forecast...I debated a former member here...who was also a met...about the merits of computer output in the context of making a good forecast and the role historical climatology should properly play. I told him it would be absurd to give the same weight to the same computer model forecasting 2 feet of snow in Norfolk Virginia 2 days before the forecast onset of the snow as compared to the same model forecasting 2 feet for Worcester Massachusetts in the same time frame. He inexplicably told me he would "give the same weight to both".

I think this lesson can be applied here. In an area like Philly & NYC...where a very large snowstorm has a much lower climatological likelihood than say up in Massachusetts...caution must be given and history must be considered.

[Mophstymeo]

Here's a write-up by Joe Cioffi:

http://www.meteorologistjoecioffi.com/joestradamus.html

[PB GFI]

Here's a write-up by Joe Cioffi:

http://www.meteorologistjoecioffi.com/joestradamus.html

That's 100 percent correct . 3 hours cost us 70 miles and that was the forecast breaker  . Now take your location extend it 70 miles east and that was your snow .

Happens and sucks at the same time .

[Mophstymeo]

That's 100 percent correct . 3 hours cost us 70 miles and that was the forecast breaker  . Now take your location extend it 70 miles east and that was your snow .

Happens and sucks at the same time .

Location, location, location!

[CherokeeGA]

This is all MONDAY MORNING QB SHT . Dumb

 

As an outside observer, I can't say I disagree with the simple sentiment expressed above.

 

Yeah, you guys in NYC got a free day off and only 1/3 - 1/2 the inches of snow predicted.  However, if they had done what was done in ATL Metro last year (in terms of impact scale, 4-6" to our roads is like 12-18" to yours, really), and gone with the lowest output amongst the models and told you 6-8", and the storm had shifted a few miles west and dumped 30" on your city... you, too, could have had your school kids spending the night on buses, people sleeping in the train tunnels, and every major road and the bridges clogged with cars that couldn't move.  It's all a matter of scale but the end result of under-forecasting would have been the same.  You would have been raging at them for an entirely different reason.

 

The western edge of that storm was pretty close.  I doubt the local NWS people just decided to be snow weenies this week.  Give them a little credit for trying to do right by a densely populated area.  It's better to bust on the low side than the high side, trust us, we know about that down here in the South.  Heh.

 

It's all Monday morning QB.