AP claims NWS stayed with a forecast they didn't believe in yesterday afternoon

[gymengineer]

I commented on this article in another thread but I think it's important enough to discuss in its own thread:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_WINTER_WEATHER_FORECAST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-14-17-17-34

Thoughts? Were these just comments taken out of context and put into a conclusion to fit the story or did the NWS/WPC really just admit they continued with forecasts they didn't believe in?

[gymengineer]

8 hours ago, WxWatcher007 said:

This sounds like standard operating procedure (in a good way). I don't think anyone really knew Monday afternoon that rain and taint would end up all the way into NYC and through half of CT. Sure, there was a west trend, but everything seemed to be within the envelope with regard to the SLP track. The QPF totals modeled were absurd and we weren't sure about the extent of the warming up top, but imagine if the concerns noted on Monday had been overplayed and they cut totals only to have those areas get smoked.

There's a reason why forecasters have to smooth out their forecasts. It's not just about getting it right technically, you have to effectively communicate potential hazards to a public that is deeply skeptical of "experts", gets information from new (and sometimes awful) sources, and tends to focus on the worst case scenario. 

I think they made a judgment call based on the evidence they had. I don't see a problem with what they did. 

But LWX did adjust their totals down for the metro areas Monday afternoon. DC went down to 5" (4" for the "National Mall" in the table). I don't think a modest shift would have been a bad idea for NYC. Their watch started with 12-18", so it wouldn't have been that much a shift to return to that range vs. the 20" top-7 event they stayed with. 

[Eskimo Joe]

Crapital Weather Gang's schtick of digging at NWS (esp. LWX) after every event is getting old.  

 

 

[snjókoma]

1 minute ago, Eskimo Joe said:

Crapital Weather Gang's schtick of digging at NWS (esp. LWX) after every event is getting old.  

 

 

I like how they call it a bust for DC because 3-6" was predicted and 1.7" fell.

 

1. The 1.7" was at DCA, 2.5-4" fell elsewhere.

2. Thats not a bust. If you predict 4" and 3" falls in most of the city that is no means a forecast bust. Its kind of ridiculous that they would even criticize LWX's forecast for DC... 

[BTRWx]

We're no longer in storm mode right?  The difference between reporters and scientists is reporters look for anomalies in people while scientists look for anomalies in nature.  Throw in politics and CWG-AP is what we get!

[AlaskaETC]

35 minutes ago, BTRWx said:

We're no longer in storm mode right?  The difference between reporters and scientists is reporters look for anomalies in people while scientists look for anomalies in nature.  Throw in politics and CWG-AP is what we get!

+1

[snowfan]

Didn't realize there was a separate thread for this. Unofortunately, this is becoming a pattern with CWG going after NWS after events. Not to mention that CWG changed its own forecasts at least 3 times leading up to the storm and they were still wrong. A few years back they went after a local school district for not closing schools despite the forecast. Funny thing is.....if NWS went after schools for not following their forecast, CWG would likely go after NWS for doing so. Makes them look like they have a serious case of ***** envy, which is unfortunate because CWG is great 90% of the year. If you really want to take a dig at NWS, produce better forecasts than they do. 

[WinterWxLuvr]

Yawn.  Better to be over prepared than under.

[Amped]

They need an impact scale instead of an inches scale.      Is 6" of sleet with 2.0" water content really that much less impact than 20" of snow with 2.0" water content?

 

Any forecast above 8-12 might as well call for 30".  People don't react any differently once the lower end is above 10".  So 8-12 would be a good cap on a low taking an inside the benchmark track in march.  That was about what the 93 blizzard produced.

[isohume]

CWG is hung up on snow totals and trying to make it a big deal. Warning criteria was well met, almost doubled in NYC, and severe impacts occured. The NWS up there was correct in not downplaying the event, imo. 

[gymengineer]

7 minutes ago, isohume said:

CWG is hung up on snow totals and trying to make it a big deal. Warning criteria was well met, almost doubled in NYC, and severe impacts occured. The NWS up there was correct in not downplaying the event, imo. 

I don't disagree in general, although I do think a more nuanced forecast would be even better late in the game: high impact event, uncertain snow amounts (So increase the range--NYC 8-20"), but changing to sleet does not diminish impact.

For the original article though, I don't understand why any employee would go on the record and say what Carbin said. That AP article is what got this into the national media, *not* the CWG.

[RevWarReenactor]

I think they are too slow to react though, and try to downplay their mistakes, once and awhile it would be nice to get "we messed up and here is why" instead they just kind of play games with slowly backing off a forecast. It was so obvious somewhere around 4am in the morning that the Blizzard warnings in central Jersey shore were a total joke, but instead of correcting it right away, they sort of ease off the gas peddle almost as if to say "maybe if we slowly bring this forecast down, people won't notice as much". It is such a joke to punch in a zip code like 07753 and see current conditions as "rain and 37 degrees" and the NWS calling for 8-12 inches of snow in their forecast.

[stormtracker]

56 minutes ago, Mdecoy said:

I think they are too slow to react though, and try to downplay their mistakes, once and awhile it would be nice to get "we messed up and here is why" instead they just kind of play games with slowly backing off a forecast. It was so obvious somewhere around 4am in the morning that the Blizzard warnings in central Jersey shore were a total joke, but instead of correcting it right away, they sort of ease off the gas peddle almost as if to say "maybe if we slowly bring this forecast down, people won't notice as much". It is such a joke to punch in a zip code like 07753 and see current conditions as "rain and 37 degrees" and the NWS calling for 8-12 inches of snow in their forecast.

PhD in meteorology right here folks.  

[motsco]

where do the weather people get their information from?  

 do we have a bunch of readers , reading a model then passing on the intel? note how many time locals switched back and forth.

 

is there actually a media weather pearson that goes outside to look at the sky?

 

who is in charge of theses cpu generated models that we can subscribe to?  and why did they over rate the storm that the weather tv people over rated?

idk but the house that bob built is a good book.

 why did the governor of german town totally dance around the question of how much money that was "saved "  not to have over use salt and brine?  

'who knows.   $ lol.  this sprinter was great.

[isohume]

4 hours ago, Mdecoy said:

I think they are too slow to react though, and try to downplay their mistakes, once and awhile it would be nice to get "we messed up and here is why" instead they just kind of play games with slowly backing off a forecast. It was so obvious somewhere around 4am in the morning that the Blizzard warnings in central Jersey shore were a total joke, but instead of correcting it right away, they sort of ease off the gas peddle almost as if to say "maybe if we slowly bring this forecast down, people won't notice as much". It is such a joke to punch in a zip code like 07753 and see current conditions as "rain and 37 degrees" and the NWS calling for 8-12 inches of snow in their forecast.

Independent service assessments are performed on major events warranting review, which this one likely will due to the publicity involved. Additionally, each office performs local case studies and root cause analyses for significant events and/or forecast challenges/issues. 

http://www.weather.gov/publications/assessments

[H2O]

8 hours ago, Mdecoy said:

I think they are too slow to react though, and try to downplay their mistakes, once and awhile it would be nice to get "we messed up and here is why" instead they just kind of play games with slowly backing off a forecast. It was so obvious somewhere around 4am in the morning that the Blizzard warnings in central Jersey shore were a total joke, but instead of correcting it right away, they sort of ease off the gas peddle almost as if to say "maybe if we slowly bring this forecast down, people won't notice as much". It is such a joke to punch in a zip code like 07753 and see current conditions as "rain and 37 degrees" and the NWS calling for 8-12 inches of snow in their forecast.

Is it the same disappointment when you log on to omegle hoping for 20yr olds and getting fat, bald 40 yr old dudes?

[mappy]

14 hours ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Yawn.  Better to be over prepared than under.

Yup. My thoughts exactly. 

[SlowerLowerDE]

I am grateful that we have the fine NWS that we do.  The mets are extremely good at what they do.  If you read their posts on here you soon realize that.  They must work with the models that they have.  Therein lies the limitations.  We are dealing with a Planetary system.  The models are handicaped because they have limited data from that planetary system.  Why is that?  It is because most countries do not have a NWS of the caliber that we do collecting the necessary data and sharing it so abundantley.

So use your head and do not beat on the finest weather asset and the dedicated people that make up the NWS.  Be thankful that you are not the people who make up a large portion of humanity, that are looking up at the sky today and wondering what the weather will be because they don't have an asset like that to consult.

[feloniousq]

I have medium confidence that CWG overstepped by 30% here, but I could always be convinced they actually held back by 25%.

[BTRWx]

2 hours ago, SlowerLowerDE said:

I am grateful that we have the fine NWS that we do.  The mets are extremely good at what they do.  If you read their posts on here you soon realize that.  They must work with the models that they have.  Therein lies the limitations.  We are dealing with a Planetary system.  The models are handicaped because they have limited data from that planetary system.  Why is that?  It is because most countries do not have a NWS of the caliber that we do collecting the necessary data and sharing it so abundantley.

So use your head and do not beat on the finest weather asset and the dedicated people that make up the NWS.  Be thankful that you are not the people who make up a large portion of humanity, that are looking up at the sky today and wondering what the weather will be because they don't have an asset like that to consult.

[Interstate]

3 hours ago, H2O said:

Is it the same disappointment when you log on to omegle hoping for 20yr olds and getting fat, bald 40 yr old dudes?

I guess you saw me.

[snowfan]

CWG has now tweeted their article no fewer than 3 times since yesterday.