Winter 2023-24 Longrange Discussion

[michsnowfreak]

On 10/19/2023 at 7:09 PM, RogueWaves said:

Translation - it sucked. 

I mean again. It did suck for us hardy WINTER lovers because it was a very mild winter, but snowfall managed to be around average.

[michsnowfreak]

17 hours ago, roardog said:

It seems silly to have U.P. counties that have a 6 inch criteria bordering counties with an 8 inch criteria. That is unnecessarily confusing in my opinion. 

Agree. It's so dumb. And warnings should not be based solely on inches.

[Powerball]

So in effect, the NWS is just simplifying the criteria for WSW.

As an example, going forward, a 7" snowfall would meet the critetia for a Winter Storm whether it falls in 12 hours or 24 hours.

[wxman_ind]

4 hours ago, Powerball said:

So in effect, the NWS is just simplifying the criteria for WSW.

As an example, going forward, a 7" snowfall would meet the critetia for a Winter Storm whether it falls in 12 hours or 24 hours.

Yes, this is the reasoning behind it. Criteria is for an event, not a 12 or 24 hour period.

[Powerball]

19 hours ago, wxman_ind said:

Yes, this is the reasoning behind it. Criteria is for an event, not a 12 or 24 hour period.

And the truth is, the criteria is somewhat arbitrary and will never be perfect. Just as before, the decision for headlines will ultimately boil down to forecaster judgement.

I can also understand the west-wind LES belts in MI having a slughtly higher threshold of 8", as they see heavy snow events more frequently.

 

[RogueWaves]

9 hours ago, michsnowfreak said:

I mean again. It did suck for us hardy WINTER lovers because it was a very mild winter, but snowfall managed to be around average.

Yes, strangely it had slightly AN plowable events and managed to reach within 3% of a normal seasonal total. But snow cover was a negative number, and Christmas at 57F and the entire holiday week 50s-60F blew chunks. I'd call it the mildest winter of my life that still managed avg snow, lol. If I did what many here do (try to grade a winter) I would have to admit that snow cover/retention is heavily weighted in my scoring and extended deep snow pack even more my thing would bump a grade.   

[RogueWaves]

On 10/20/2023 at 6:02 PM, Lightning said:

I understand the lake shore counties (LES belts).  I agree that over here it makes little sense. 

Josh could now get three 6.9" snow events in one winter and still not get warning criteria .  

Conversely, he could be forecasted 12+ and not even reach 6.9". If only the headlines meant a guaranteed total, lol

[Frog Town]

On top of the arbitrariness of the forecaster, the timing impact( weekday commute vs. weekend) and early in the season storms vs. battle hardened end of the season is another big factor.  So why are we talking about this again??

[nwohweather]

2 hours ago, Frog Town said:

On top of the arbitrariness of the forecaster, the timing impact( weekday commute vs. weekend) and early in the season storms vs. battle hardened end of the season is another big factor.  So why are we talking about this again??

I’d argue as well that the general public cares more about actual accumulation than whether or not there is a warning

[RogueWaves]

2 hours ago, Frog Town said:

On top of the arbitrariness of the forecaster, the timing impact( weekday commute vs. weekend) and early in the season storms vs. battle hardened end of the season is another big factor.  So why are we talking about this again??

Cuz bored waiting for more active wx I guess. Doesn't impact yby, KTOL unchanged anyway. 

Couldn't help but notice IN and it's mismatch across state line with OH. As for MI changing, now IWX will be issuing warnings that will dead-end at the MI state line (at least in theory & knowing GRR). 

And how do the LES counties of NWIN not get the same treatment as in MI? For that matter, could be said of IL & WI as well. Guessing the only way IL & IN beat MI on its state record 24 hr snowfall was due to some obscure LES events lost to time (SMH).

[Stebo]

18 hours ago, wxman_ind said:

Yes, this is the reasoning behind it. Criteria is for an event, not a 12 or 24 hour period.

My only worry is that a 5-6" snowfall falling in 6-8 hours is more impactful but now will be advisory criteria which people don't take advisories as seriously.

[Brian D]

On 10/20/2023 at 3:36 PM, Lightning said:

Winter Storm Warning criteria has increased to 7" for MBY.  Changes for most of MI.  

Went ahead, and emailed NWS Duluth about this change. Here's the response. Take it for what it is, but it seems like they think it will be better, and give them more flex in their issuances. Personally, if it just a snow event with little wind or ice involved, it's not much of a big deal at accum levels of just under 6-8". Those are so typical around the lakes. But snow amounts for an event is one factor. Snow rates, wind speeds, icing are also in the mix. When vis gets low under higher snow rates, and/or combined with wind, that can trigger warnings irrespective of expected event totals.

The modernizing of the Winter Storm Criteria has been a two year effort of collaboration between NWS Headquarters, Regional Headquarters, WFOs and key local partners. 

 

The goal of this effort was to eliminate County Warning Area boundaries as visible features in the baseline criteria in order to improve decision support to our local, regional, and national partners (specifically, consistent weather headlines). In addition, the new criteria was designed to better represent different climatological regions and better aligns various winter weather toolsets (such as the Winter Storm Severity Index and the Winter Storm Outlook).

 

Additionally, the change to event-based criteria will allow for increased forecaster flexibility and enhanced collaboration and messaging.

[Lightning]

4 hours ago, Brian D said:

Went ahead, and emailed NWS Duluth about this change. Here's the response. Take it for what it is, but it seems like they think it will be better, and give them more flex in their issuances. Personally, if it just a snow event with little wind or ice involved, it's not much of a big deal at accum levels of just under 6-8". Those are so typical around the lakes. But snow amounts for an event is one factor. Snow rates, wind speeds, icing are also in the mix. When vis gets low under higher snow rates, and/or combined with wind, that can trigger warnings irrespective of expected event totals.

The modernizing of the Winter Storm Criteria has been a two year effort of collaboration between NWS Headquarters, Regional Headquarters, WFOs and key local partners. 

 

The goal of this effort was to eliminate County Warning Area boundaries as visible features in the baseline criteria in order to improve decision support to our local, regional, and national partners (specifically, consistent weather headlines). In addition, the new criteria was designed to better represent different climatological regions and better aligns various winter weather toolsets (such as the Winter Storm Severity Index and the Winter Storm Outlook).

 

Additionally, the change to event-based criteria will allow for increased forecaster flexibility and enhanced collaboration and messaging.

Thanks

The updating the criteria totally makes sense for the lakeshore counties as they get significantly more snow. Just not following why SE MI was changed to 7".  Most of MN and WI are still 6"  So is the southern part of the UP.  In the end I personally don't care what they classify it as I only care what actually falls 

[wxman_ind]

8 hours ago, Stebo said:

My only worry is that a 5-6" snowfall falling in 6-8 hours is more impactful but now will be advisory criteria which people don't take advisories as seriously.

Impacts are taken into consideration as well as the amounts, so a warning could theoretically be issued for 5-6"

[Stebo]

2 hours ago, wxman_ind said:

Impacts are taken into consideration as well as the amounts, so a warning could theoretically be issued for 5-6"

That's good, then there isn't as much of a change except long duration events get treated a bit more fairly now.

[TheClimateChanger]

On 10/20/2023 at 4:36 PM, Lightning said:

Winter Storm Warning criteria has increased to 7" for MBY.  Changes for most of MI.  

Weird. Why southeast Michigan? Much of northern Indiana, all of northeast Ohio, northwest Pennsylvania - really all of northern Pennsylvania and at least parts of central Pennsylvania, plus the higher terrain of southwest Pennsylvania - are more prone to heavy snowfalls, yet they are at 6 inches. Even parts of the UP and Duluth/INL are at 6-inch criteria. Makes zero sense.

[TheClimateChanger]

Wow, I was looking at calendar days with at least 7.0 inches of snowfall and I was surprised at how poorly Columbus, Ohio fares in that department. In the threaded history for the city (1884-present), there have only been 17 calendar days with at least 7.0 inches of snow at Columbus.

By comparison, Tri Cities, TN has had 19 in its threaded history, which only dates to 1937.  Louisville, KY has had 32 days. Lexington, KY has had 26 days. Cincinnati has had 19 such days. Charleston, WV has had 43 days (since 1903). Clarksburg, WV had 38 such days between 1922 and 1998 [no snowfall records since]. Morgantown, WV - with no snowfall records since 1998 - has had 53 days. Richmond, VA has had 37 such days.  Washington, DC 49 days. Knoxville, TN 25 days.  Even Raleigh-Durham, NC 25 days. Charlotte, NC 18 days. Chattanooga, TN has had one fewer - at 16 days. Nearby Zanesville - with no snowfall records since at least the late 1990s - has had 27 days. Indianapolis has had 33, nearly twice as many. St, Louis has had 35 - more than twice as many. Even Little Rock, Arkansas and Tulsa, Oklahoma match Columbus's 17 days of 7"+ snowfall. Lubbock, Texas has had 19, while Amarillo, Texas does incredibly well on this metric with 46 such days.

Who would think RDU and Charlotte have had more 7"+ calendar days than Columbus, and Little Rock and Tulsa the same number of such days?

[hardypalmguy]

16 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Wow, I was looking at calendar days with at least 7.0 inches of snowfall and I was surprised at how poorly Columbus, Ohio fares in that department. In the threaded history for the city (1884-present), there have only been 17 calendar days with at least 7.0 inches of snow at Columbus.

By comparison, Tri Cities, TN has had 19 in its threaded history, which only dates to 1937.  Louisville, KY has had 32 days. Lexington, KY has had 26 days. Cincinnati has had 19 such days. Charleston, WV has had 43 days (since 1903). Clarksburg, WV had 38 such days between 1922 and 1998 [no snowfall records since]. Morgantown, WV - with no snowfall records since 1998 - has had 53 days. Richmond, VA has had 37 such days.  Washington, DC 49 days. Knoxville, TN 25 days.  Even Raleigh-Durham, NC 25 days. Charlotte, NC 18 days. Chattanooga, TN has had one fewer - at 16 days. Nearby Zanesville - with no snowfall records since at least the late 1990s - has had 27 days. Indianapolis has had 33, nearly twice as many. St, Louis has had 35 - more than twice as many. Even Little Rock, Arkansas and Tulsa, Oklahoma match Columbus's 17 days of 7"+ snowfall. Lubbock, Texas has had 19, while Amarillo, Texas does incredibly well on this metric with 46 such days.

Who would think RDU and Charlotte have had more 7"+ calendar days than Columbus, and Little Rock and Tulsa the same number of such days?

How many does MKE have?

[TheClimateChanger]

3 minutes ago, hardypalmguy said:

How many does MKE have?

131 calendar days of 7.0"+ snowfall. The most in a calendar year was 6, in 1881.

[hardypalmguy]

13 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

131 calendar days of 7.0"+ snowfall. The most in a calendar year was 6, in 1881.

Damn it's a different world up here.

[michsnowfreak]

I kind of agree that its dumb to change the warnings, but i also think warnings are VERY prone to conditions moreso than inches. A 3-4" snowfall can absolutely be more treacherous than a 7" snowfall depending on conditions. But again, this is for the public only, as I never care what warnings/advisories are or are not in place, its all about the actual snow for me.

 

Speaking of snow, the beginning of November begins the annual "lose-lose" pre-winter jitters for winter lovers. If its mild & sunny with little in the way of cold/snow, we hear "where is winter? so much for snow. Feels like mid-Fall. etc". If it is cold with snow we here "you dont want to see snow in Nov. Bad sign for winter. Dont waste this pattern now. etc". 

[Lightning]

20 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

I kind of agree that its dumb to change the warnings, but i also think warnings are VERY prone to conditions moreso than inches. A 3-4" snowfall can absolutely be more treacherous than a 7" snowfall depending on conditions. But again, this is for the public only, as I never care what warnings/advisories are or are not in place, its all about the actual snow for me.

 

Speaking of snow, the beginning of November begins the annual "lose-lose" pre-winter jitters for winter lovers. If its mild & sunny with little in the way of cold/snow, we hear "where is winter? so much for snow. Feels like mid-Fall. etc". If it is cold with snow we here "you dont want to see snow in Nov. Bad sign for winter. Dont waste this pattern now. etc". 

I know so many people act like November is a prime winter month around here.  Yet even as a kid from the 70s I always considered any accumulating snows before Thanksgiving a bonus snow.  Yes it happens but there are many years not so much before Thanksgiving.

What do thing of this:  What happens in November is history in December  

[michsnowfreak]

6 minutes ago, Lightning said:

I know so many people act like November is a prime winter month around here.  Yet even as a kid from the 70s I always considered any accumulating snows before Thanksgiving a bonus snow.  Yes it happens but there are many years not so much before Thanksgiving.

What do thing of this:  What happens in November is history in December  

Agree 100%. 

[Brian D]

On 10/22/2023 at 1:10 PM, Brian D said:

Went ahead, and emailed NWS Duluth about this change. Here's the response. Take it for what it is, but it seems like they think it will be better, and give them more flex in their issuances. Personally, if it just a snow event with little wind or ice involved, it's not much of a big deal at accum levels of just under 6-8". Those are so typical around the lakes. But snow amounts for an event is one factor. Snow rates, wind speeds, icing are also in the mix. When vis gets low under higher snow rates, and/or combined with wind, that can trigger warnings irrespective of expected event totals.

The modernizing of the Winter Storm Criteria has been a two year effort of collaboration between NWS Headquarters, Regional Headquarters, WFOs and key local partners. 

 

The goal of this effort was to eliminate County Warning Area boundaries as visible features in the baseline criteria in order to improve decision support to our local, regional, and national partners (specifically, consistent weather headlines). In addition, the new criteria was designed to better represent different climatological regions and better aligns various winter weather toolsets (such as the Winter Storm Severity Index and the Winter Storm Outlook).

 

Additionally, the change to event-based criteria will allow for increased forecaster flexibility and enhanced collaboration and messaging.

Emailed for further clarification on when they issue a WSW. It's more than snow total's for sure. Here the response.

Indeed, the Winter Storm Warning is sometimes issued for a combination of hazards, not just snow. 

 

Our full criteria is our local policy is defined as: "Winter storm event with snowfall exceeding heavy snowfall criteria during the entire storm “event” time frame (not to exceed 48 hours), or a combination of wind-driven snow, sleet and/or freezing rain"

 

Exceptional situations would be:

-Ice Storm Warning if 1/4 inch or more of ice accumulation forecast

-Blizzard Warning if blizzard criteria will be met (national standard of Sustained wind or frequent gusts greater than or equal to 35 mph accompanied by falling and/or blowing snow, frequently reducing visibility to less than 1/4 mile for three hours or more)

 

We don't have a long policy that goes into every possible scenario, and we take each winter storm on a case-by-case basis depending on the impacts expected, taking into account not just the meteorological factors like total snowfall, ice, sleet, snowfall rates, snow-to-liquid ratios, wind and wind-driven snow causing blowing/drifting, flash freeze scenarios, etc. but also non-meteorological factors such as the time of day (commute time versus overnight), day of the week, holidays, other local events, etc. We make the decision to issue a Winter Storm Warning when we think there will be a significant impact to lives and property, which usually means that traveling will be dangerous. And even this can be impacted by how roads are treated/plowed, which varies by who maintains the roads (state, county, local) which then in roundabout fashion is strongly influenced by our own forecast - if we fail to forecast snow, roads may be in MUCH worse shape despite lesser snowfall amounts!

 

You may be interested in reading our national policy on winter products for further details: https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01005013curr.pdf

 

Hopefully that helps to answer your question! It's not a simple answer, but it's always a team approach with sometimes a dozen or more meteorologists at our local office, neighboring offices, and national offices working together to make the best decision.

 

[nwohweather]

On 10/23/2023 at 10:31 AM, TheClimateChanger said:

Wow, I was looking at calendar days with at least 7.0 inches of snowfall and I was surprised at how poorly Columbus, Ohio fares in that department. In the threaded history for the city (1884-present), there have only been 17 calendar days with at least 7.0 inches of snow at Columbus.

By comparison, Tri Cities, TN has had 19 in its threaded history, which only dates to 1937.  Louisville, KY has had 32 days. Lexington, KY has had 26 days. Cincinnati has had 19 such days. Charleston, WV has had 43 days (since 1903). Clarksburg, WV had 38 such days between 1922 and 1998 [no snowfall records since]. Morgantown, WV - with no snowfall records since 1998 - has had 53 days. Richmond, VA has had 37 such days.  Washington, DC 49 days. Knoxville, TN 25 days.  Even Raleigh-Durham, NC 25 days. Charlotte, NC 18 days. Chattanooga, TN has had one fewer - at 16 days. Nearby Zanesville - with no snowfall records since at least the late 1990s - has had 27 days. Indianapolis has had 33, nearly twice as many. St, Louis has had 35 - more than twice as many. Even Little Rock, Arkansas and Tulsa, Oklahoma match Columbus's 17 days of 7"+ snowfall. Lubbock, Texas has had 19, while Amarillo, Texas does incredibly well on this metric with 46 such days.

Who would think RDU and Charlotte have had more 7"+ calendar days than Columbus, and Little Rock and Tulsa the same number of such days?

Columbus is a surprisingly mild place. It makes sense though, there really are not many storm tracks that make their way into Columbus. Miller C’s and clippers are really the only way they see accumulations 

[Gino27]

15 hours ago, nwohweather said:

Columbus is a surprisingly mild place. It makes sense though, there really are not many storm tracks that make their way into Columbus. Miller C’s and clippers are really the only way they see accumulations 

It has also been a lot razor thin cutoffs, especially in the last decade. Places just 20 miles N and NW of Columbus consistently get 6"+ while Columbus proper will be all rain or sleet. There might be microclimate reasons relating to the Scioto Valley. 

[Stebo]

7 hours ago, Gino27 said:

It has also been a lot razor thin cutoffs, especially in the last decade. Places just 20 miles N and NW of Columbus consistently get 6"+ while Columbus proper will be all rain or sleet. There might be microclimate reasons relating to the Scioto Valley. 

This plus bad luck, you guys just get enough of that warm tongue aloft to ruin things.

[nwohweather]

22 hours ago, Gino27 said:

It has also been a lot razor thin cutoffs, especially in the last decade. Places just 20 miles N and NW of Columbus consistently get 6"+ while Columbus proper will be all rain or sleet. There might be microclimate reasons relating to the Scioto Valley. 

With that kind of storm track you're going to have that. I used to live in Dublin so I can certainly relate to seeing Delaware getting certainly more of the brunt. I always think a good measuring stick for Ohioans is to realize that Van Wert is the tornado capital of the state. It's because of the usual storm track we see in Ohio                                                                                                                                         

[iluvsnow]

I don't know about Van Wert...but Xenia may argue with you on the tornado capitol of Ohio.

[IWXwx]

21 hours ago, iluvsnow said:

I don't know about Van Wert...but Xenia may argue with you on the tornado capitol of Ohio.

Xenia obviously takes the honors for the most powerful tornado, but I am willing to bet that Van Wert leads in numbers. I will have to look it up when I have time.