Dissecting The Bust

[wxman]

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.

 

I think climo is considered, not just straight numerical output.  Not sure what you would do different. Norfolk has had big snowstorms.  Do you ignore or downplay the models because they're uncommon?  In other words, what would a more cautious approach look like?   Your comment implies that that the pros around here were not duly cautious, but I'm not sure I agree.  They went with what they thought was most likely to be the outcome.  What might be good is a confidence factor attached to the forecast.  Then again, that might only add to confusion, e.g., there is a 70% chance of Sandy occurring.  What does one do with that information?  Perhaps the best course is to do nothing.  Busts in weather will happen given the state of technology.  I'm also certain Worcester has had its share of busts, that doesn't change because they get more snow then Norfolk, especially from late blooming Miller B's.

[wxman]

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 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.

 

BINGO!

[Nibor]

I hope we get another big storm this winter and the nws nails the forecast.

Busts happen. This was a big one. Lessons will be learned.

[Blizzard-on-GFS]

The Euro needs to be dethroned from its place of superiority and placed on a level equal to that of the GFS. The NAM needs to be chucked entirely. And short range models, such as the RGEM should always be taken seriously.

People, mets included it seems, had their incredible love of snow bow down too strongly to the Euro and neglect models that went against their hopes and wishes. All while giving an unreasonable amount of credence to a bipolar model known as the NAM. Consider this storm a wake up call.

THIS. Amen. The RGEM is one of my favorite models and it is very accurate in the short range. That model in junction with the RAP AND HRRR showing a swing and a miss was a huge red flag and many of us including myself decided to ignore it. In the future the short range models I believe need to have a much larger weight in making forecast as they have proven the last 2 years to be much more accurate than the globals in these situations (less than 12 hours out). As for the NAM... at 18z it was showing 40" for NYC, less than 6 hours out from the start of the storm! It is garbage and quite frankly should be retired soon; the RGEM, HRRR, and RAP are significantly more accurate; weighting the NAM in short range forecasts just complicates things unnecessarily. As for the GFS, it performed greatly, and the mantra that it is a garbage model because it often shows progressive solutions (which have been mostly verifying) needs to be eliminated. The GFS should have considerable weight in making short and mid range forecast. As for the EURO, it is not perfect, and from now on, if it is an outlier in the short range, it needs to be tossed just as any other middle would if it significantly went against the consensus.

[Guest Pamela]

I think climo is considered, not just straight numerical output.  Not sure what you would do different. Norfolk has had big snowstorms.  Do you ignore or downplay the models because they're uncommon?  In other words, what would a more cautious approach look like?   Your comment implies that that the pros around here were not duly cautious, but I'm not sure I agree.  They went with what they thought was most likely to be the outcome.  What might be good is a confidence factor attached to the forecast.  Then again, that might only add to confusion, e.g., there is a 70% chance of Sandy occurring.  What does one do with that information?  Perhaps the best course is to do nothing.  Busts in weather will happen given the state of technology.  I'm also certain Worcester has had its share of busts, that doesn't change because they get more snow then Norfolk, especially from late blooming Miller B's.

Norfolk's records date back to the 1800's. In that time span they have had seven (7) snowstorms of 12 inches or more. That means that they almost never see a major snowstorm.

Worcester has more 20 inch snowstorms than Norfolk has 20 inch seasons.

What I am trying to convey is that while model output is to be given great weight...this consideration should not be absolute. Of course, if models were correct 100% of the time...then no other factors would need to be considered...no mets would even be needed. However models are not right 100% of the time...and that is where the critical question of interpretation must factor in.

I do not blame NWS for following the models...that was correct...but I do think that because the probability of the extreme (though best model) solution actually transpiring would be practically historically unprecedented...it might have been prudent to temper the forecasts just a bit...and knock them to 12 - 24 rather than 24 -36 to start.

Before the 78 storm...NWS NYC went with "a foot or more"...and NWS Boston went with "8 to 16"...simply because the odds of such a huge snow event coming to pass from a historical perspective were low. As the storm went along...the numbers were upped.

My thoughts are that a bit of a balance may need to be struck...yes, weigh the models...but also factor in past experience and history.

"He who refuses to remember the past is condemned to repeat it."

___Santayana

 

[winterwx21]

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.  

 

 

Lee Goldberg and Jeff Smith gave a good explanation. The storm being a little more to the east caused more of a north wind, rather than a moisture laden northeast wind. The north wind draining down the Hudson was very dry, causing the western side of the precip shield to erode and not make it much past NYC. Had the storm been a little more west as expected, the northeast wind would have allowed the heavier snow to make it to NJ.

[wxman]

Norfolk's records date back to the 1800's. In that time span they have had seven (7) snowstorms of 12 inches or more. That means that they almost never see a major snowstorm.

Worcester has more 20 inch snowstorms than Norfolk has 20 inch seasons.

What I am trying to convey is that while model output is to be given great weight...this consideration should not be absolute. Of course, if models were correct 100% of the time...then no other factors would need to be considered...no mets would even be needed. However models are not right 100% of the time...and that is where the critical question of interpretation must factor in.

I do not blame NWS for following the models...that was correct...but I do think that because the probability of the extreme (though best model) solution actually transpiring would be practically historically unprecedented...it might have been prudent to temper the forecasts just a bit...and knock them to 12 - 24 rather than 24 -36 to start.

Before the 78 storm...NWS NYC went with "a foot or more"...and NWS Boston went with "8 to 16"...simply because the odds of such a huge snow event coming to pass from a historical perspective were low. As the storm went along...the numbers were upped.

My thoughts are that a bit of a balance may need to be struck...yes, weigh the models...but also factor in past experience and history.

"He who refuses to remember the past is condemned to repeat it."

___Santayana

 

 

The better question is how many false signals for a 12" storm occur in Norfolk....or a 20+" storm here?  When the best model sees such an event for many runs in a row, including the day of, prudence suggests you mainly go with it.  If NWS were to say "Nah no way that happens in these parts" you end up with the Atlanta fiasco alluded to above.  BTW, all the models saw this event within 24 hours, each differed on exact details.  In a way, wasn't relying on the euro based on its history with east coast storms the way to go? (kind of like your climo suggestion?) Put differently, if the GFS forecast for my backyard (like 6") was used and even "blended" to 10" to12", lives would have been lost if the euro 24"+ verified.  In retrospect, we'd all be saying how could you blend the GFS with the euro? 

[Guest Pamela]

The better question is how many false signals for a 12" storm occur in Norfolk....or a 20+" storm here?  When the best model sees such an event for many runs in a row, including the day of, prudence suggests you mainly go with it.  If NWS were to say "Nah no way that happens in these parts" you end up with the Atlanta fiasco alluded to above.  BTW, all the models saw this event within 24 hours, each differed on exact details.  In a way, wasn't relying on the euro based on its history with east coast storms the way to go? (kind of like your climo suggestion?) Put differently, if the GFS forecast for my backyard (like 6") was used and even "blended" to 10" to12", lives would have been lost if the euro 24"+ verified.  In retrospect, we'd all be saying how could you blend the GFS with the euro? 

 

Model history is of course materially different than climate history...it does not invalidate it...but we are talking about two entirely different things.

 

As for the lives lost part...again...I don't fault anyone who goes with a worst case scenario when a thing as irreplaceable as life is at stake...not at all...I guess it just comes down to the way you want to approach things.  I do believe in "better safe than sorry" and "ABC...always be careful"...I guess it just comes down to the degree you want to adhere to those principles...I mean, you can hire three bodyguards to walk with you every time you go to the candy store...but is that a practical way to go through life?

[Clinch Leatherwood]

This is all MONDAY MORNING QB SHT . Dumb

 

I'd disagree.  It's these exact discussions after similar (but much more localized - just the cape) busts last spring at the feet of the Euro that led to some being so adamant about the Euro being unreliable in this case.

 

Besides the massive negative backlash...it'll be many years before any pro falls for a mostly unsupported yet persistent Euro again when it comes to negative tilting east coast troughs and cyclogenesis.  What I believe will become a documented bias...exists up to the low is reaching near max strength...at which point for whatever reason the Euro is fine.

 

(NOTE:  I don't consider the NAM as supporting any model.  It's useless outside of 6-12 hours in all cases, if it gets anything right beyond 12 hours that's because the pattern is so explicitly clear a kindergartner to get it right)  Having the NAM in the Euro camp should almost have been a red flag at times IMO.  It was like having the NOGAPS agree with anything five years ago - you knew that solution was wrong.

 

 

I won't agree with anyone that says there were no clues this would happen.  The euro has ben doing this most of the time post upgrade.  It's still curious to me so many ignored the RGEM, and I'd love to hear HPC/NCEP's reasoning for repeatedly, and summarily TOSSING the CMC for no technical reason other than "it didn't agree or make sense" or whatever they were saying.  That really surprised me, and I'm not one to criticize.  Every 12 hours they'd note the OP Euro was too slow, and that it was catching up with the other guidance, yet they kept taking it over the other models on that fast side. 

[bluewave]

Lee Goldberg and Jeff Smith gave a good explanation. The storm being a little more to the east caused more of a north wind, rather than a moisture laden northeast wind. The north wind draining down the Hudson was very dry, causing the western side of the precip shield to erode and not make it much past NYC. Had the storm been a little more west as expected, the northeast wind would have allowed the heavier snow to make it to NJ.

 

One of the clues that the storm was too far east yesterday was the temperatures running several degrees below

the forecast.

[PB GFI]

I'd disagree.  It's these exact discussions after similar (but much more localized - just the cape) busts last spring at the feet of the Euro that led to some being so adamant about the Euro being unreliable in this case.

 

Besides the massive negative backlash...it'll be many years before any pro falls for a mostly unsupported yet persistent Euro again when it comes to negative tilting east coast troughs and cyclogenesis.  What I believe will become a documented bias...exists up to the low is reaching near max strength...at which point for whatever reason the Euro is fine.

 

(NOTE:  I don't consider the NAM as supporting any model.  It's useless outside of 6-12 hours in all cases, if it gets anything right beyond 12 hours that's because the pattern is so explicitly clear a kindergartner to get it right)  Having the NAM in the Euro camp should almost have been a red flag at times IMO.  It was like having the NOGAPS agree with anything five years ago - you knew that solution was wrong.

EC capture and tug scenarios are rare , but they are not unicorns . If you under forecast for 50 million people you are in front of a sub committee .

Sure looking back if they said 10 to 20 which BTW 20 at KNYC gets you into the top 5 and that's over 150 years . KNYC ratios were actually 13 to 1 . The 2.5 on the Euro and NAM would have done so much damage so all 3 offices pulled the trigger

 

It didn't happen . 1st time in my life I have ever been pissed while getting a foot of snow so maybe I am falling into the weenie trance this board sometimes puts me in

[SnowGoose69]

I was just watching TWC, they were interviewing a woman by phone in Huntington and when they asked her how this storm compared to others she mentioned how there had been alot in the last few years and just in her thought process said "I don't know if its global warming..." and she soon as she said that they cut her off and said "Thank you!" and ended the call...too funny TWC of all networks does that.

[weatherpruf]

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.

Disagree. We are well versed in snow in the north and know that a 4-6 forecast can potentially blow up. It is disruptive but would not mean kids would be stranded in school. I have seen storms come up fast with little public notice, like Dec 03. the schools let out early if the snow is coming down and it  is progged to continue; During Nemo they let out early, and Feb 26 2010 they let out early even tho it was only raining in the beginning here for both storms. Now what we are less prepared for are hurricanes, Tornados, earthquakes. A small quake in 2011 had people running to the streets; people in earthquake zones tell me this is the one thing you shouldn't do, as you could be hit by debris. I have friends and family in Atlanta metro; folks do not have any conception of how to deal with snow because you only get a few inches every couple years on average, so 4-6 really can leave people stranded. I readily admit motorists could be stranded here, and saw a lot of that in the Jan 87 storm, which came during a mild decade when folks had kind of forgotten the effects of big snows. NWS and most weather outlets blew it. And everyone knows it. And it will happen again. Suburban Atlanta also has sprawling high schools where lots of kids are bussed regionally on major highways. Most kids up here attend local schools and are not bussed too far. Many walk to school in their own neighborhoods. We pay higher taxes for that.

[wxman]

I'm not sure there was this blind adherence to the euro as many seem to suggest.  There were many reasons to go with it, including it was the first to diagnose the threat and held fairly steady.  The other models did a fair amount of jumping around, usually a red flag. Finally, the NAM (yes the NAM) has to have some weight for what's going to happen inside of 18 hrs!  Come on, most thought it finally was moving to the euro and even overshooting it.  There have been a number of mea culpas (good for them), but I'm still not convinced any "mistake" was made.  If there was, it was not pulling the forecasts around 8pm last night, when it was pretty clear it wasn't going to happen for my area.

[WeatherFox]

This graphic was originally put out by the National Weather Service (NWS).  I think they should put out such disclaimers as well as probabilites so the public has a better understanding that snowstorm forecasts are challenging and a slight variation in storm track, intensity, other meteorological parameters will make a difference in accumulations.  Forecaster are not prophets and are only scientists but need to be better communicators.

[Guest Pamela]

Put differently, if the GFS forecast for my backyard (like 6") was used and even "blended" to 10" to12", lives would have been lost if the euro 24"+ verified.  In retrospect, we'd all be saying how could you blend the GFS with the euro? 

 

Just following up on this point...I did write in that earlier post how I would have went with 12 -24 to start with rather than 24 -36...if people are going to go hang gliding over Paramus or swimming in Sheepshead Bay with a forecast like that on the table...they're not the listening type. 

[wxman]

This graphic was originally put out by the New York NWS.  I think they should put out such disclaimers as well as probabilites so the public has a better understanding that snowstorm forecasts are challenging and a slight varition in storm track, intensity, other meteorological parameters will make a difference in accumulations.  Forecaster are not prophets and are only scientists but need to be better communicators.

 

 

The problem is that 80% of the public think that "weather models" are the chicks who announce the forecast on TWC.  My friends know (from me) what we know about models.  Basically, I told them that the most reliable model had us getting a historic blizzard, but others had us getting almost nothing, and that certainly could happen.  There probably should have been some more of that. 

[WintersGrasp]

THIS. Amen. The RGEM is one of my favorite models and it is very accurate in the short range. That model in junction with the RAP AND HRRR showing a swing and a miss was a huge red flag and many of us including myself decided to ignore it. In the future the short range models I believe need to have a much larger weight in making forecast as they have proven the last 2 years to be much more accurate than the globals in these situations (less than 12 hours out). As for the NAM... at 18z it was showing 40" for NYC, less than 6 hours out from the start of the storm! It is garbage and quite frankly should be retired soon; the RGEM, HRRR, and RAP are significantly more accurate; weighting the NAM in short range forecasts just complicates things unnecessarily. As for the GFS, it performed greatly, and the mantra that it is a garbage model because it often shows progressive solutions (which have been mostly verifying) needs to be eliminated. The GFS should have considerable weight in making short and mid range forecast. As for the EURO, it is not perfect, and from now on, if it is an outlier in the short range, it needs to be tossed just as any other middle would if it significantly went against the consensus.

I completely agree with this and the post that you replied to as well. This storm was done to me yesterday once I saw the RGEM along with RAP/HRRR were consistently and strikingly not on board one bit. Around 5 pm or so I made a pretty negative post on the main thread because I was rather frustrated, but knew at that point that it was over for us. My fear is that I actually do think that we will have a major storm (10-20" NJ/NYC and suburbs) very very soon (in the next 5-10 days) and people just simply will not make a big deal about it (the general public). I hope that I'm wrong though.

[wxman]

Just following up on this point...I did write in that earlier post how I would have went with 12 -24 to start with rather than 24 -36...if people are going to go hang gliding over Paramus or swimming in Sheepshead Bay with a forecast like that on the table...they're not the listening type. 

 

Agree, but where does that get you in the big picture?  In my area, the blend would have been 10 to 12, we ended with 4.5" Better yes, but still a significant bust.  My conclusion is you make your best forecast, not an "averaged out" one, at least in yesterday's scenario.  There can be situations where a blend makes good sense.

[bluewave]

EC capture and tug scenarios are rare , but they are not unicorns . If you under forecast for 50 million people you are in front of a sub committee .

Sure looking back if they said 10 to 20 which BTW 20 at KNYC gets you into the top 5 and that's over 150 years . KNYC ratios were actually 13 to 1 . The 2.5 on the Euro and NAM would have done so much damage so all 3 offices pulled the trigger

 

It didn't happen . 1st time in my life I have ever been pissed while getting a foot of snow so maybe I am falling into the weenie trance this board sometimes puts me in

 

We are still doing much better forecast wise than we did when I was growing up in the 70's to early 90's.

Big snowstorm misses in both directions were fairly common. Those were the days when the nowcast

was king. I don't even know how the crew at the NWS prepared winter storm forecasts back then

with such primitive models that were very crude looking when the came off the Alden Difax machine.

 

One of my preferred ways for knowing that a snowstorm was missing to the east was the moon

visible through a thin overcast when NOAA weather radio was calling for 3-6 inches. Another

technique for for knowing that the models busted in a positive way was hearing snowplows 

going by before sunrise  and running to the window after a forecast of rain.

[wxman]

We are still doing much better forecast wise than we did when I was growing up in the 70's to early 90's.

Big snowstorm misses in both directions were fairly common. Those were the days when the nowcast

was king. I don't even know how the crew at the NWS prepared winter storm forecasts back then

which such primitive models that were very crude looking when the came off the Alden Difax machine.

 

One of my preferred ways for knowing that a snowstorm was missing to my east was the moon

visible through a thin overcast when NOAA weather radio was calling for 3-6 inches. Another

technique for for knowing that the models busted in a positive way was hearing snowplows 

going by before sunrise  and running to the window after a forecast of rain.

 

Funny and true! 

[kevbo81]

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.

 

There is no precedent for what was forecasted. I believe your point is spot on here. Just thumb through The KU book like i did today clearly shows this idea. Consider the 96 blizzard: in spite of its greatness, the 30 inch plateau only happened in isolated spots. Certain forecasts that had 24-36" should have been a red flag just on that basis. 

[SnowGoose69]

We are still doing much better forecast wise than we did when I was growing up in the 70's to early 90's.

Big snowstorm misses in both directions were fairly common. Those were the days when the nowcast

was king. I don't even know how the crew at the NWS prepared winter storm forecasts back then

with such primitive models that were very crude looking when the came off the Alden Difax machine.

One of my preferred ways for knowing that a snowstorm was missing to the east was the moon

visible through a thin overcast when NOAA weather radio was calling for 3-6 inches. Another

technique for for knowing that the models busted in a positive way was hearing snowplows

going by before sunrise and running to the window after a forecast of rain.

Or seeing the pink glow through the window when you wake up

[Guest Pamela]

Agree, but where does that get you in the big picture?  In my area, the blend would have been 10 to 12, we ended with 4.5" Better yes, but still a significant bust.  My conclusion is you make your best forecast, not an "averaged out" one, at least in yesterday's scenario.  There can be situations where a blend makes good sense.

 

But you want to get as close to correct as possible.  Being off by 6 inches is a good deal better than being off by 18 inches. 

[Guest Pamela]

There is no precedent for what was forecasted. I believe your point is spot on here. Just thumb through The KU book like i did today clearly shows this idea. Consider the 96 blizzard: in spite of its greatness, the 30 inch plateau only happened in isolated spots. Certain forecasts that had 24-36" should have been a red flag just on that basis. 

 

Thank you...I'm glad I finally get some agreement from someone somewhere in my life...

[wxman]

The synergy of poultry & weather...will wonders never cease...

 

*thumbs down*

 

No offense intended, but reminds me of one of the great lines from the Wright WX days...during a Saturday night 2am euro watch...when someone astutely observed, "we're looking at the wrong models"! 

[weatherpruf]

This graphic was originally put out by the National Weather Service (NWS).  I think they should put out such disclaimers as well as probabilites so the public has a better understanding that snowstorm forecasts are challenging and a slight varition in storm track, intensity, other meteorological parameters will make a difference in accumulations.  Forecaster are not prophets and are only scientists but need to be better communicators.

Yes this is the main idea. my interest in weather stems from my training in mental health and as a social scientist. For what is weather without the socio-cultural implications? When we deal with disasters like Sandy or Irene, or Joplin, it is up to the social scientists to help people process it. Children must be reminded that events like Sandy are rare, if not reassured serious lifetime pathology can result. The psychology of denial is important when people refuse to evacuate. Blown forecasts reinforce denial. How do the weather folks get the message through without panicking the public? They walk a difficult line. There are other implications that are fascinating to study; people might help each other in a snowstorm; they might help clean a neighbor's driveway; they might share a generator in a power outage. But if gas is unavailable, suddenly you aren't going to share what you have. I saw ugliness while waiting four hours to get gas after Sandy. I had been warned about this by a colleague who lives in the south and has been through plenty of hurricanes, so I gassed up heavily before the storm. My 4 hour wait was for surplus only, and I never needed it.And today I used my gas I purchased for my generator for my cars. Because my interest in weather is purely a psycho-social one ( and I find snow weenies, of which I am one, utterly fascinating as they enjoy something most adults find objectionable )  it gets me into trouble here because I am not versed in the science, so people become rude and quite a few of my posts are deleted. But I take no real offense at this.

[wxman]

It's funny, the two times I recall the NWS using the term "historical" in connection with a snowstorm was yesterday and March 2001.  I guess the counsel of some is that it's probably poor judgement to call for anything "historical" before it happens.  I suppose that's a legit point of view.  I keep coming back to what would happen if that wisdom was applied to Sandy forecasts, about as "historical" as they come.

[Guest Pamela]

I'm drowsy; I'm happy my job was closed today. 

[wxman]

Don't worry about it, I'll delete mine...you can do what you like with yours...

 

It was a poor choice of words on my part, but the point is not so off the mark.  All most of the public cares about is the forecast, not how the soup was made.  Given that backdrop, it's hard to provide a real solution to what just happened.