Winter '23-'24 Piss and Moan/Banter Thread

[ChiTownSnow]

I feel like we all need a Lessons learned debrief after this one.  What went well, what did not....uggghhh this hobby sux

Edit.. or we listen to  Chicagostorm when he is "cautiously optimistic"@Chicago Storm

[RCNYILWX]

I feel like we all need a Lessons learned debrief after this one.  What went well, what did not....uggghhh this hobby sux

The morning thump was legit and for me, observational trends were still unclear enough to not drastically change the forecast overnight. Was leery of making a big change based on guidance (especially the HRRR/RAP), that's often unreliable until even closer in.

But once observations (such as 3-hour pressure falls) showed that the northwestern-most low would stay dominant much longer and as part of the process the 850 mb and 700 mb low tracks also farther northwest, how things played out makes total sense.

This scenario remained on the table even though a lot of the guidance didn't show it, though a few of the recent ECMWF runs did hint at it. These dynamic systems often surprise for better (the morning thump and legit higher end winter storm conditions) or for worse, lately for worse for us on the whole unfortunately. So it goes.

Another challenge for us from a public notification and impacts perspective is that while the snow enthusiasts will be mad at us if we bust high, a significant under forecast is worse than an over forecast.

Not that I want to cry wolf, but to an extent as a meteorologist with a public safety responsibility, and we're right on the line, it's not the worst to err on the too snowy side. If we fully go with a warmer solution and the colder, higher impact scenario played out this afternoon, and there's major traffic incidents as a result, that ends up being more problematic.

As a good example, on Tuesday, we leaned a bit on the too optimistic side down in the heart of the metro. With the changeover back to accumulating snow/parachutes happening faster in the early afternoon, the roads deteriorated pretty quickly and we had to reissue the WWA for areas that we canceled more quickly than expected.

Ultimately, it's all part of the learning process and the challenge for us as forecasters in weighing all of these competing factors. I get the disappointment, and I'm personally disappointed that it didn't work out better during the day down this way and into the city and south.

Glad the northwest burbs got into the goods though, a part of the forecast that worked out nicely. Trying not to beat myself up too much, because the warning was definitely warranted this morning.

Finally, we've had misses that were much worse than this, without even the morning fun. One of the tops CIPS analogs was 12/19-20/2012, the MSN blizzard, and that one had all the rain and drizzle and no front end snow for us, and the deformation area fell apart as it tried to push across the metro.

[KeenerWx]

@RCNYILWX - feel like the LOT headline amounts verified for at least a significant portion of the WFO, correct? I know population trumps geography in terms of impacts forecasting, but I honestly think y’all did a great job.

[ChiTownSnow]

1 hour ago, RCNYILWX said:

The morning thump was legit and for me, observational trends were still unclear enough to not drastically change the forecast overnight. Was leery of making a big change based on guidance (especially the HRRR/RAP), that's often unreliable until even closer in.

But once observations (such as 3-hour pressure falls) showed that the northwestern-most low would stay dominant much longer and as part of the process the 850 mb and 700 mb low tracks also farther northwest, how things played out makes total sense.

This scenario remained on the table even though a lot of the guidance didn't show it, though a few of the recent ECMWF runs did hint at it. These dynamic systems often surprise for better (the morning thump and legit higher end winter storm conditions) or for worse, lately for worse for us on the whole unfortunately. So it goes.

Another challenge for us from a public notification and impacts perspective is that while the snow enthusiasts will be mad at us if we bust high, a significant under forecast is worse than an over forecast.

Not that I want to cry wolf, but to an extent as a meteorologist with a public safety responsibility, and we're right on the line, it's not the worst to err on the too snowy side. If we fully go with a warmer solution and the colder, higher impact scenario played out this afternoon, and there's major traffic incidents as a result, that ends up being more problematic.

As a good example, on Tuesday, we leaned a bit on the too optimistic side down in the heart of the metro. With the changeover back to accumulating snow/parachutes happening faster in the early afternoon, the roads deteriorated pretty quickly and we had to reissue the WWA for areas that we canceled more quickly than expected.

Ultimately, it's all part of the learning process and the challenge for us as forecasters in weighing all of these competing factors. I get the disappointment, and I'm personally disappointed that it didn't work out better during the day down this way and into the city and south.

Glad the northwest burbs got into the goods though, a part of the forecast that worked out nicely. Trying not to beat myself up too much, because the warning was definitely warranted this morning.

Finally, we've had misses that were much worse than this, without even the morning fun. One of the tops CIPS analogs was 12/19-20/2012, the MSN blizzard, and that one had all the rain and drizzle and no front end snow for us, and the deformation area fell apart as it tried to push across the metro.

 

Thanks for the reply.. And I hope you know my comment was not meant to be at any certain audience.  If anything it's for us arm chair quarterbacks that think we know more than we do when we see model runs that favor our backyard and ride it to the bank.

It's hard for us to keep emotions out of it.  It's what separates the hobbiest from the professionals.  LOT did pretty good job with extremely tough forecast.

Appreciate all you guys do and on to the next one!  

[Stebo]

This was/is definitely a weird storm that is for sure.

[michaelmantis]

4 hours ago, RCNYILWX said:

The morning thump was legit and for me, observational trends were still unclear enough to not drastically change the forecast overnight. Was leery of making a big change based on guidance (especially the HRRR/RAP), that's often unreliable until even closer in.

But once observations (such as 3-hour pressure falls) showed that the northwestern-most low would stay dominant much longer and as part of the process the 850 mb and 700 mb low tracks also farther northwest, how things played out makes total sense.

This scenario remained on the table even though a lot of the guidance didn't show it, though a few of the recent ECMWF runs did hint at it. These dynamic systems often surprise for better (the morning thump and legit higher end winter storm conditions) or for worse, lately for worse for us on the whole unfortunately. So it goes.

Another challenge for us from a public notification and impacts perspective is that while the snow enthusiasts will be mad at us if we bust high, a significant under forecast is worse than an over forecast.

Not that I want to cry wolf, but to an extent as a meteorologist with a public safety responsibility, and we're right on the line, it's not the worst to err on the too snowy side. If we fully go with a warmer solution and the colder, higher impact scenario played out this afternoon, and there's major traffic incidents as a result, that ends up being more problematic.

As a good example, on Tuesday, we leaned a bit on the too optimistic side down in the heart of the metro. With the changeover back to accumulating snow/parachutes happening faster in the early afternoon, the roads deteriorated pretty quickly and we had to reissue the WWA for areas that we canceled more quickly than expected.

Ultimately, it's all part of the learning process and the challenge for us as forecasters in weighing all of these competing factors. I get the disappointment, and I'm personally disappointed that it didn't work out better during the day down this way and into the city and south.

Glad the northwest burbs got into the goods though, a part of the forecast that worked out nicely. Trying not to beat myself up too much, because the warning was definitely warranted this morning.

Finally, we've had misses that were much worse than this, without even the morning fun. One of the tops CIPS analogs was 12/19-20/2012, the MSN blizzard, and that one had all the rain and drizzle and no front end snow for us, and the deformation area fell apart as it tried to push across the metro.

 

The morning snow was legit. And it was heavy as hell.

If *exactly* what fell was forecast in advance, as a weather nerd I would have loved it. The potential was there for a bunch more but it just didn't. Models are models and the whole downside of all the ensemble models is that someone can find just the scenario that works for them.

As I type this (12:20 AM on Saturday) we're getting another 2-3 inches of back side snow that is actual snow, not slush or a mix. Will be a nice cover when the deep freeze hits. Wind picking up and it is going to be a shitty week of insanely cold weather. 

All in all, a great storm and a forecast that was pretty darn good given the warm air impacts all around the NE IL and N IN areas. 

[Powerball]

I have to echo everyone's sentiment. Definitely a weird storm.

[bowtie`]

Do the birds call this weather fit for only the humans?

[Baum]

we got blue balled. Face it.

[Snowstorms]

Total snoozefest next 8-10 days. And that'll pretty much take us until the end of January. Finally got some cold air and the storm production shuts off. 

I'd say the pattern change was a semi-fail. We got two big storms in less than a week with nearly identical tracks but there was no cold air around for any substantial snow for most of us (minus parts of Michigan, Iowa, and Illinois). Kinda sucks. Hoping the last few days of the month, despite a potential warm-up, or February play out better.

[bowtie`]

Sensor issue at KIND?  Wind 5 gusting to 22 for several five minute increments.

[mississaugasnow]

4 hours ago, Snowstorms said:

Total snoozefest next 8-10 days. And that'll pretty much take us until the end of January. Finally got some cold air and the storm production shuts off. 

I'd say the pattern change was a semi-fail. We got two big storms in less than a week with nearly identical tracks but there was no cold air around for any substantial snow for most of us (minus parts of Michigan, Iowa, and Illinois). Kinda sucks. Hoping the last few days of the month, despite a potential warm-up, or February play out better.

I agree. The only plus side is it will finally feel like winter for 10 days. This might be the best stretch of winter for consistent snow cover. 

[Chicago916]

Possible WAA snow set-up in the region Thursday? I feel like years ago we had a couple of those with big over performers in the local area?

[Snowstorms]

21 hours ago, mississaugasnow said:

I agree. The only plus side is it will finally feel like winter for 10 days. This might be the best stretch of winter for consistent snow cover. 

I agree. The first time since 2022 where it's felt and looked like winter for an extended period of time. 

I was bored so I looked at the total snow accumulations at North York (where EC is headquartered). North York began recording data in Nov 1994. I compared it to YYZ to see the differences in amounts. Let's just say YYZ is an actual joke and this whole "nipher" thing needs to be abolished. The ones in red font below are where YYZ recorded more snow than North York. The ones highlighted in blue are the exceptionally below normal winters and the ones in orange are the exceptionally snowy ones. Winters like 2000-01, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2013-14 stand out like sore thumbs. Consequently, North York has averaged 50.9" over the last 29 winters vs. 45.2" at YYZ. 

Edit: Fixed the "winter column". 

 

[DaveNay]

A short video from my dash cam this afternoon as I drive around checking out the snowpack (I drive past @SchaumburgStormer old house @11:25).

 

[mississaugasnow]

10 minutes ago, Snowstorms said:

I agree. The first time since 2022 where it's felt and looked like winter for an extended period of time. 

I was bored so I looked at the total snow accumulations at North York (where EC is headquartered). North York began recording data in Nov 1994. I compared it to YYZ to see the differences in amounts. Let's just say YYZ is an actual joke and this whole "nipher" thing needs to be abolished. The ones in red font below are where YYZ recorded more snow than North York. The ones highlighted in blue are the exceptionally below normal winters and the ones in orange are the exceptionally snowy ones. Winters like 2000-01, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2013-14 stand out like sore thumbs. Consequently, North York has averaged 50.9" over the last 29 winters vs. 45.2" at YYZ. 

 

Interesting data. I think EC is right off the hwy about 5km east of the airport so that could be the cause of a bit of it.  

The size of GTA means it's going to be difficult to get a good representation of the city. Everyone south of QEW-Gardiner has a much different climate. They all got nearly nothing and had no snow on the ground until today.  Next zone is QEW-401 and then 401-407 and 407 north.

 

[mississaugasnow]

The actual downtown of Toronto sees a similar climate to Toronto Island. So even using YYZ skews it higher for those in DT-Mimico-Port Credit-Oakville-Burlington 

If YYZ reports a lot less compared to the Island then I might start to think somethings wrong. But the way airports measure and where they are located has always been a thorn in the side of the weather community lol. 

Look at Buffalo airport. Its NE and doesnt represent the City or southern part that well in lake effect. Nor does it represent the temperature in spring and fall 

[Snowstorms]

14 minutes ago, mississaugasnow said:

Interesting data. I think EC is right off the hwy about 5km east of the airport so that could be the cause of a bit of it.  

The size of GTA means it's going to be difficult to get a good representation of the city. Everyone south of QEW-Gardiner has a much different climate. They all got nearly nothing and had no snow on the ground until today.  Next zone is QEW-401 and then 401-407 and 407 north.

 

I do agree. Areas much closer to the lake tend to be warmer and less snowier than areas further inland. This winter is a good example of that. However, mathematically speaking, YYZ and EC's headquarters are almost on the same plane. Both stations experience similar temperature's when it snows but vary during non-precip days.  

I'm not sure if YYZ still uses the nipher because the differences have substantially improved and almost netted out to near zero over the last 6 years but man, 2004-2014 was really bad lol. I know for a fact 07-08 was unofficially the snowiest winter ever recorded at YYZ, but they lowballed the Mar 08 storm quite a bit. YYZ only recorded 6" whereas every station in the GTA recorded 13"+. Hence why North York has averaged around 51" over the last 29 years, which I feel represents many areas quite well around the 401 and north towards Vaughan minus northern regions of Vaughan like Maple, Teston, etc. 

[mississaugasnow]

5 minutes ago, Snowstorms said:

I do agree. Areas much closer to the lake tend to be warmer and less snowier than areas further inland. This winter is a good example of that. However, mathematically speaking, YYZ and EC's headquarters are almost on the same plane. Both stations experience similar temperature's when it snows but vary during non-precip days.  

I'm not sure if YYZ still uses the nipher because the differences have substantially improved and almost netted out to near zero over the last 6 years but man, 2004-2014 was really bad lol. I know for a fact 07-08 was unofficially the snowiest winter ever recorded at YYZ, but they lowballed the Mar 08 storm quite a bit. YYZ only recorded 6" whereas every station in the GTA recorded 13"+. Hence why North York has averaged around 51" over the last 29 years, which I feel represents many areas quite well around the 401 and north towards Vaughan minus northern regions of Vaughan like Maple, Teston, etc. 

I remember that low ball haha 

I guess since I’ve only lived in south Mississauga and now south of Hamilton the 40ish inches average always seemed right. 
 

Next few years I’m going even further south to the shores of Lake Erie. Weirdly my average will go up to my highest ever lol 

[Snowstorms]

26 minutes ago, mississaugasnow said:

The actual downtown of Toronto sees a similar climate to Toronto Island. So even using YYZ skews it higher for those in DT-Mimico-Port Credit-Oakville-Burlington 

If YYZ reports a lot less compared to the Island then I might start to think somethings wrong. But the way airports measure and where they are located has always been a thorn in the side of the weather community lol. 

Look at Buffalo airport. Its NE and doesnt represent the City or southern part that well in lake effect. Nor does it represent the temperature in spring and fall 

You do have a good point but for a long time while the "Toronto" station was operational, it was usually recording more than YYZ. And that "Toronto" station was in downtown near University of Toronto, if i recall, based on what another poster here was saying. It's been recording data since 1840.

I'll give you an example. That Toronto station recorded an astounding 84" during the 1959-60 winter vs 55" at YYZ. That 84" is a random winter that nobody has ever talked about, but it recorded more snow than the official snowiest winter at YYZ (1938-39) lol. 

Based on that alone, YYZ has always been questionable. Buffalo's differences might be attributed primarily to lake effect as LES is always localized. Plus, unlike EC, NWS has like 10 stations per city lol. 

Temperatures I do agree with and thats because of the urban heat island effect which is more profound in rural vs urban areas. 

[mississaugasnow]

Just now, Snowstorms said:

You do have a good point but for a long time while the "Toronto" station was operational, it was usually recording more than YYZ. And that "Toronto" station was in downtown near University of Toronto, if i recall, based on what another poster here was saying. It's been recording data since 1840.

I'll give you an example. That Toronto station recorded an astounding 84" during the 1959-60 winter vs 55" at YYZ. That 84" is a random winter that nobody has ever talked about, but it recorded more snow than the official snowiest winter at YYZ (1938-39) lol. And this is a downtown station, close to the lake too. 

Based on that alone, YYZ has always been questionable. Buffalo's differences might be attributed primarily to lake effect as LES is always localized. Plus, unlike EC, NWS has like 10 stations per city lol. 

Temperatures I do agree with and thats because of the urban heat island effect which is more profound in rural vs urban areas. 

Ya, YYZ has been questionable throughout its history. 
 

EC should have more official sites around GTA. 

[Snowstorms]

3 minutes ago, mississaugasnow said:

Ya, YYZ has been questionable throughout its history. 
 

EC should have more official sites around GTA. 

You're right. And they did long ago but massive budget cuts have led to limited stations now lol. And if you're going to cut back on stations, then at least improve the way you record data at the existing ones. 

[Lightning]

Hmmmm where have I seen this before.

Warm Dec. => 2 weeks of strong winter in Jan. => warmth returns.

98/99??? 

[buckeye]

Subscriber numbers among weenies must be way down.   Don’t know why else he would use an 850 Celsius temp map to hype cold.   Pathetic

[Gino27]

 

With the warmup coming, it seems likely that Columbus's drought of winters without a 6"+ snowfall will reach 9 years. Last time was Feb 21, 2015. I've played around with plotting for cities in our region and have only found Louisville, KY to have a drought this long.

[Lightning]

11 minutes ago, buckeye said:

Subscriber numbers among weenies must be way down.   Don’t know why else he would use an 850 Celsius temp map to hype cold.   Pathetic

 

18Z GFS hour 384 ....  

[buckeye]

29 minutes ago, Gino27 said:

 

With the warmup coming, it seems likely that Columbus's drought of winters without a 6"+ snowfall will reach 9 years. Last time was Feb 21, 2015. I've played around with plotting for cities in our region and have only found Louisville, KY to have a drought this long.

I also thought Indy was our sister city in winter futility.   

[Gino27]

36 minutes ago, buckeye said:

I also thought Indy was our sister city in winter futility.   

They did really well in the Feb 15, 2021 storm where they reported 6.8" and the Feb 3, 2022 where they reported 7.3"...along with a handful of others during the same time frame. Just in Ohio both Cincinnati and Dayton have also had multiple 6"+ storms during this time as well.

[Snowstorms]

Extended GFS looking warm after early next week with mostly rain threats except maybe early next week due to the lingering cold HP in Quebec. 

Chances of a futilty winter keep going up with each passing day. A wasted week of cold. @mississaugasnow

[Pascy619]

Late January and the start of February looking real ugly.