Snow Squall Warning

[Hoosier]

New product will be available for select forecast offices around January 3, and all offices in time for the 2018-19 winter.

The Snow Squall Warning will be used for quick hitting snow that doesn't accumulate a lot, but severely reduces visibility.  As far as what the actual visibility criteria will be, I'm not sure.  I guess if visibility is near zero.

 

[michsnowfreak]

I think this is a GREAT idea. I cant tell you how many times absolute whiteouts hit from the Lake that no one except us weather weenies know are coming. They usually get no fanfare unlike an actual storm and road crews are caught flat footed.

[Chicago Storm]

Idiotic.

They take away LES products, but are testing snow squall warnings? Come on now...

[Hoosier]

I actually agree with both of you guys.  It's good to cover squally sub-advisory situations (not just lake effect, but squalls with an arctic front or something), but in the context of consolidating winter weather products, it seems a little contradictory to roll this one out now.

[OHweather]

27 minutes ago, Chicago Storm said:

Idiotic.

They take away LES products, but are testing snow squall warnings? Come on now...

This is an interesting take.  I don't agree with them taking away LES products, as lake effect snow typically produces different hazards than synoptic snow, and people who live in lake effect prone areas tend to understand that difference.  The eastern offices are keeping LES warnings (but not advisories) for now, although I have to imagine that won't be permanent.  I honestly didn't see how consolidating the winter headlines helped the public or more direct partners at all, but perhaps more thought went into it before they decided to do it.

As for the Snow Squall Warnings, I think they are a good idea.  Legitimate snow squalls are a pretty significant hazard to drivers, and almost always fall below advisory criteria, meaning they get almost no fan fair.  My personal preference, as opposed to trying to whack individual squalls with short-fused polygon warnings, would be to issue a Winter Weather Advisory for a few hours when snow squalls are imminent across a region or occurring.  The odds of someone who is in their car driving finding out there is a Snow Squall Warning for the area they're driving in are lower than a longer-fused product being issued with more than 10 minutes of lead time.  I'm sure some wouldn't like the idea of a Winter Weather Advisory for snow squalls, as the number of advisories in some areas would go up by a few per winter, but I think they need some sort of headline.  It's rather silly that 2" of snow falling between 5am and 7am with 30MPH wind gusts may not get an advisory from offices that are stringent with issuing headlines when the criteria isn't hit, but 5" falling between 6pm and 6am with little wind gets an advisory.  It's also silly that the same 5" event with visibility possibly not dropping below a mile with fairly steady road conditions throughout gets an advisory while a squall dropping 1" in half an hour (or half an inch in 15 minutes) gets nothing. 

[IWXwx]

I agree with OHweather on this one. If there is the need to issue a snow squall warning, consolidate it like they've done with the other products under a WWA and use "Snow Squall/Rapidly changing visibility" in the text.

[nwohweather]

Yeah it should be an advisory for a blanketed area as these things dissipate pretty randomly once they run out of moisture. Too unpredictable of an event

[slow poke]

7 hours ago, OHweather said:

This is an interesting take.  I don't agree with them taking away LES products, as lake effect snow typically produces different hazards than synoptic snow, and people who live in lake effect prone areas tend to understand that difference.  The eastern offices are keeping LES warnings (but not advisories) for now, although I have to imagine that won't be permanent.  I honestly didn't see how consolidating the winter headlines helped the public or more direct partners at all, but perhaps more thought went into it before they decided to do it.

As for the Snow Squall Warnings, I think they are a good idea.  Legitimate snow squalls are a pretty significant hazard to drivers, and almost always fall below advisory criteria, meaning they get almost no fan fair.  My personal preference, as opposed to trying to whack individual squalls with short-fused polygon warnings, would be to issue a Winter Weather Advisory for a few hours when snow squalls are imminent across a region or occurring.  The odds of someone who is in their car driving finding out there is a Snow Squall Warning for the area they're driving in are lower than a longer-fused product being issued with more than 10 minutes of lead time.  I'm sure some wouldn't like the idea of a Winter Weather Advisory for snow squalls, as the number of advisories in some areas would go up by a few per winter, but I think they need some sort of headline.  It's rather silly that 2" of snow falling between 5am and 7am with 30MPH wind gusts may not get an advisory from offices that are stringent with issuing headlines when the criteria isn't hit, but 5" falling between 6pm and 6am with little wind gets an advisory.  It's also silly that the same 5" event with visibility possibly not dropping below a mile with fairly steady road conditions throughout gets an advisory while a squall dropping 1" in half an hour (or half an inch in 15 minutes) gets nothing. 

I agree OHweather, very good points. I wonder if they could make watches and warnings for snow squalls more like summer time thunder storm watches and warnings. Post a "Snow Squall Watch" for a certain time frame and area and issue a "Warning" for a specific area when that area is getting hit by a Squall. Just a thought.

[josh_4184]

8 hours ago, Chicago Storm said:

Idiotic.

They take away LES products, but are testing snow squall warnings? Come on now...

That was my exact thought

[OHweather]

3 hours ago, slow poke said:

I agree OHweather, very good points. I wonder if they could make watches and warnings for snow squalls more like summer time thunder storm watches and warnings. Post a "Snow Squall Watch" for a certain time frame and area and issue a "Warning" for a specific area when that area is getting hit by a Squall. Just a thought.

Personally, I think watches and warnings are a bit much.  I think they should have more than nothing and a little lead time is preferable, which is why I think an advisory lasting a few hours for a general area is a better route.  

[IWXwx]

FYI, I attended an EMA meeting this morning and a met from IWX was there. He said that their office will also be utilizing the Snow Squall Warning. I voiced my concerns and he said that there have been some internal "discussions" i.e. pushback, but it is being implemented nonetheless. I forgot to ask him about the specific criteria for issuance.

[RogueWaves]

17 hours ago, michsnowfreak said:

I think this is a GREAT idea. I cant tell you how many times absolute whiteouts hit from the Lake that no one except us weather weenies know are coming. They usually get no fanfare unlike an actual storm and road crews are caught flat footed.

It is, and long overdue. I remember some wicked squalls in SEMI back in the 80's and thought then that they should have something. Better late then never as they say..

14 hours ago, Hoosier said:

I actually agree with both of you guys.  It's good to cover squally sub-advisory situations (not just lake effect, but squalls with an arctic front or something), but in the context of consolidating winter weather products, it seems a little contradictory to roll this one out now.

And yes, the timing couldn't be more ironic could it? Arctic fronts are a great example-very short lived but very intense. Those are how non-bliz prone regions get to see what real bliz conditions are like. 

[michsnowfreak]

Especially in more populated areas these white out snow squalls can be very treacherous on traffic. To be honest many severe thunderstorm warnings actually do not cause as much in the way of dangerous driving as many of these white out snow squalls. 

[PyroCu]

The idea is to baseline the snow squall warnings now, and as HazSimp progresses for short-fused products, the snow squall warnings can be folded into whatever form that ultimately takes. 

[Harry Perry]

Lol for all those snow squalls DTX gets...  Thought for sure when I read Michigan it would've been either Marquette, Gaylord or Grand Rapids. Suppose Detroit will be the guinea pig for GRR to see how it works out.

 

If anything I think it's best to utilize some sort of a short term warning - I live in Calhoun county in Michigan and we have both I-94 and I-69. I'm a firefighter for two departments and one of them cover the I-94/I-69 corridor. In the winter months, 80% of our call volume are slide-offs and PI Accidents that are generally the direct result from a quick-hitting lake effect band of snow that traversed through the area. With this warning, we can populate Facebook and other social networks with automated warnings just as we do now for svr tstm and tor warning's. Some also have it push directly through to their phone. 

 

Case in point - two winters ago 2015. I-94 EB and WB shut down due to a huge pileup of 150 vehicles - I'm sure most of you heard about it. The pileup claimed the life of one trucker from Ottawa, and sent 16 to the hospital with varying injuries. This was the direct action of two things. Weather and speed. There was a snow squall that produced a white out within 10 seconds of its approach. The reason I can't entirely blame it all on the drivers and their speed is the fact that ANY speed other than stopped - was too fast for those conditions - and this is on a major highway where people just don't stop. Stopping results in yet more accidents. 

 

Am I saying that snow squall warnings will stop these pileups from happening? No. But I do know that'll increase awareness of the approaching squall and tempt drivers to head for the exit ramp and wait it out vs continuing on and being the cause of the next pileup. 

 

 

Just my .02 from a first responder standpoint. 

 

[RogueWaves]

Quote

and tempt drivers to head for the exit ramp and wait it out vs continuing on and being the cause of the next pileup. 

As I commute back and forth on 94 that's my exact M.O. for low visibility conditions! As a matter of fact, I was west-bound near BC as that very squall was about to cause the fatal pile-up. When I looked ahead, I immediately took the next exit. Only later did I hear of the massive wreckage. I wasn't shocked as I've come to understand staying on that highway in those conditions is literally rolling the dice with the safety of one's life and limb

[OHweather]

29 minutes ago, Harry Perry said:

Lol for all those snow squalls DTX gets...  Thought for sure when I read Michigan it would've been either Marquette, Gaylord or Grand Rapids. Suppose Detroit will be the guinea pig for GRR to see how it works out.

 

If anything I think it's best to utilize some sort of a short term warning - I live in Calhoun county in Michigan and we have both I-94 and I-69. I'm a firefighter for two departments and one of them cover the I-94/I-69 corridor. In the winter months, 80% of our call volume are slide-offs and PI Accidents that are generally the direct result from a quick-hitting lake effect band of snow that traversed through the area. With this warning, we can populate Facebook and other social networks with automated warnings just as we do now for svr tstm and tor warning's. Some also have it push directly through to their phone. 

 

Case in point - two winters ago 2015. I-94 EB and WB shut down due to a huge pileup of 150 vehicles - I'm sure most of you heard about it. The pileup claimed the life of one trucker from Ottawa, and sent 16 to the hospital with varying injuries. This was the direct action of two things. Weather and speed. There was a snow squall that produced a white out within 10 seconds of its approach. The reason I can't entirely blame it all on the drivers and their speed is the fact that ANY speed other than stopped - was too fast for those conditions - and this is on a major highway where people just don't stop. Stopping results in yet more accidents. 

 

Am I saying that snow squall warnings will stop these pileups from happening? No. But I do know that'll increase awareness of the approaching squall and tempt drivers to head for the exit ramp and wait it out vs continuing on and being the cause of the next pileup. 

 

 

Just my .02 from a first responder standpoint. 

 

From what I heard Marquette opted out of being a test office for Snow Squall Warnings, with the logic being they usually only get snow squalls with LES.  My argument against that logic is if it's a significant squall but doesn't hit their higher total amount advisory criteria (especially if it's a higher ratio snow which they tend to not issue for unless it's solidly above criteria up there) then there'd be absolutely no product without the Snow Squall Warning.  That basic logic right there is why I agree with Snow Squall Warnings...if offices won't issue a Winter Weather Advisory for sub-advisory amounts but still briefly severe conditions (which they tend not to in the Great Lakes), then something else needs to be issued.  As your experiences state, there needs to be increased awareness of briefly severe winter conditions that in the past have gotten no fan-fair until after the fact when a lot of accidents happened. 

As for GRR and APX they led the charge to get rid of LES products so I'm not sure what their reasoning was not to be a part of this test. 

[RogueWaves]

3 hours ago, OHweather said:

From what I heard Marquette opted out of being a test office for Snow Squall Warnings, with the logic being they usually only get snow squalls with LES.  My argument against that logic is if it's a significant squall but doesn't hit their higher total amount advisory criteria (especially if it's a higher ratio snow which they tend to not issue for unless it's solidly above criteria up there) then there'd be absolutely no product without the Snow Squall Warning.  That basic logic right there is why I agree with Snow Squall Warnings...if offices won't issue a Winter Weather Advisory for sub-advisory amounts but still briefly severe conditions (which they tend not to in the Great Lakes), then something else needs to be issued.  As your experiences state, there needs to be increased awareness of briefly severe winter conditions that in the past have gotten no fan-fair until after the fact when a lot of accidents happened. 

As for GRR and APX they led the charge to get rid of LES products so I'm not sure what their reasoning was not to be a part of this test. 

I wouldn't use both of those in the same sentence when it comes to their winter headlines, but to your point, I've noticed that the occasional SWS has been issued to cover some of these situations (moreso DTX)

[PyroCu]

The software vendor was only able to support a limited number of NWS offices this year with the initial operational demonstration of the snow squall warnings. Provided everything goes as expected, the snow squall warnings will be expanded to the entire country for winter 2018-19. The experiences of the 7 initial sites this winter will help to refine things moving forward, so that should be a good thing before the national rollout. And yes, in the meantime, WFOs not included this year can continue to use special weather statements to cover snow squalls and their impacts as needed.