Were too many blizzard warnings issued by east coast NWS offices before this real one?

[Don Cherry's Jacket]

Its an interesting question. I remember last winter's DC Feb storm and its warning (which got windy, but failed when the wind didn't sustain over the target), but I think it served the purpose: there is a significant chance of whiteout conditions. And it was definitely ugly. If the winds were 20 and not 35, that's not a blizzard, but the conditions are still hazardous and worthy of a warning. Maybe its a public perceptions thing. "Winter Storm Warning" just doesn't have the same attention-grabbing standard as a "Blizzard Warning".

[CAPE]

Its an interesting question. I remember last winter's DC Feb storm and its warning (which got windy, but failed when the wind didn't sustain over the target), but I think it served the purpose: there is a significant chance of whiteout conditions. And it was definitely ugly. If the winds were 20 and not 35, that's not a blizzard, but the conditions are still hazardous and worthy of a warning. Maybe its a public perceptions thing. "Winter Storm Warning" just doesn't have the same attention-grabbing standard as a "Blizzard Warning".

good point.

[Rainshadow]

Someone who works at Upton came into our subforum and told us it doesnt have to be gusting at 35 mph + for three hours straight, there just need to be "frequent gusts" 35 mph + in that time period. So a momentary lull would not matter.

That is true.

[Rick G]

Keep in mind the general public doesn't know what a blizzard warning is. If you asked the man on the street what is a blizzard his response would be: a very bad snow storm. The general public doesn't care about the technical detials or directives. They care about accurate warnings.

My thinking is that a blizzard warning should be reserved for massive snowstorms that are going to cripple the CWA.

[Analog96]

Someone who works at Upton came into our subforum and told us it doesnt have to be gusting at 35 mph + for three hours straight, there just need to be "frequent gusts" 35 mph + in that time period. So a momentary lull would not matter.

That is the new definition, yes. And I really hope the thread starter is not saying that the blizzard warnings were not justified for this storm. This is the first storm with so many widespread blizzard reports since PD II, OR MAYBE 1996. If blizzard warnings were not justified for this storm, then they never are.

[gymengineer]

I thought the Blizzard Warnings for the event were well placed and certainly justified.

=============================================================

Blizzard Warning:

A blizzard means that the following conditions are expected to prevail for a period of 3 hours or longer:

a. Sustained wind or frequent gusts to 35 miles an hour or greater; and

b. Considerable falling and/or blowing snow (i.e., frequently reducing visibility below 1/4 mile).

=============================================================

I obviously was not talking about this storm.. that's the whole point of my thread...that this storm was a true blizzard and the other ones that had blizzard warnings up were not. The sub-heading of the thread and my post were both saying that the blizzard warnings from last winter and before (like for PDII, 2/11/06, 12/19/09, etc.) for storms that did not come close to verifying in some of the major cities might have contributed to people thinking that there is not much difference between a bad snowstorm and a true blizzard.

So. my question is: when a real blizzard like this one happened, did people think they can maneuver in the same way that they did in the past non-blizzard "blizzards."

[okie333]

I think that we should go back to the old classification and include very cold temperatures. That would make blizzard rarer and more deserving of the moniker.

The distinction never included cold temperatures for what I know. There was (and supposedly still is) a Severe Blizzard Warning that did (does?) take temps into account though.

[gymengineer]

That is the new definition, yes. And I really hope the thread starter is not saying that the blizzard warnings were not justified for this storm. This is the first storm with so many widespread blizzard reports since PD II, OR MAYBE 1996. If blizzard warnings were not justified for this storm, then they never are.

There were no widespread blizzard verifications in PDII or even 1/96. Famartin confirmed Trenton, NJ as verifying blizzard for 1/96, but no other official site verified.

[A-L-E-X]

The distinction never included cold temperatures for what I know. There was (and supposedly still is) a Severe Blizzard Warning that did (does?) take temps into account though.

I believe the cold temperature limits were removed for Severe Blizzards too-- all you need are 45 mph gusts. Actually, this storm probably came close to verifying that, as it had 35 mph sustained winds for 3 + hours! So 45 mph gusts for 3 hours definitely were not a problem!

[gymengineer]

Herb@MAWS, on 28 December 2010 - 06:51 AM, said:

Based on the current NWS definition for a blizzard (subject to debate), they were fairly accurate. Don't forget it's as much about the wind as it is the snow. And it's all about the public safety and grabbing the public's attention, especially on some of the busiest travel days of the year.

Wasn't implying there is any question about the definition but other posters earlier in the thread indicated they don't like the definition, implying maybe there should be a debate. My emphasis was on public safety aspects.

I think the criteria themselves are definitely fine--- and hard to reach. My post was about verification of the critieria in past storms that just weren't all that windy.. and whether the warnings themselves were issued for too large of regions in the past, contributing to a false sense that this blizzard was going to be the same as those others.

[Analog96]

There were no widespread blizzard verifications in PDII or even 1/96. Famartin confirmed Trenton, NJ as verifying blizzard for 1/96, but no other official site verified.

If I work at NWS and it comes close, I would issue a Blizzard Warning. For one thing, the public does not necessarily know all the technicalities, and they take Blizzard Warnings much more seriously than ordinary Winter Storm Warnings. That's probably the main reason you see blizzard warnings issued in borderline situations. Additionally, the exact wind speed is one of the hardest things to predict in meteorology.

[MJW155]

There were no widespread blizzard verifications in PDII or even 1/96. Famartin confirmed Trenton, NJ as verifying blizzard for 1/96, but no other official site verified.

That's just because of the wind. The public doesn't really care about that. There can be calm winds but if 2 feet of snow falls, guess what? People are going to say it's a blizzard. The media is going to say it and the public is going to say it. Yea, technically speaking it's not a blizzard. But good luck convincing people that had to dig 30 inches of snow in 1996 or the PD2 storm that they didn't experience a blizzard. They'll laugh and call you an idiot.

[snowman21]

There were no widespread blizzard verifications in PDII or even 1/96. Famartin confirmed Trenton, NJ as verifying blizzard for 1/96, but no other official site verified.

How does one verify it? From what isohume posted, it seems pretty subjective. I've always thought of it in pretty strict quantitative terms, but I guess that's not right. Who is to say what constitutes frequent with regard to gusts over 35 and visibilities at or below 1/4 mile?

[gymengineer]

Disagree...in all of the scenarios outlined, the storms experienced were more extreme than storms of the past....the reason blizzard warning were not issued more often in the 80's/90's for these areas is simple...there were few to no storms that even came close to meeting the criteria.

Well, for the LWX forecast area, I really don't think you can justify that 12/18-19/09 was more extreme than storms of the past by any measure. Yeah, there was hours of heavy snow, but the wind criteria came nowhere close at all to verifiying for the DC/Baltimore metro region. Patuxent River Naval had the winds, but it was freezing rain during that burst of strongest winds.

[snowman21]

If I work at NWS and it comes close, I would issue a Blizzard Warning. For one thing, the public does not necessarily know all the technicalities, and they take Blizzard Warnings much more seriously than ordinary Winter Storm Warnings. That's probably the main reason you see blizzard warnings issued in borderline situations. Additionally, the exact wind speed is one of the hardest things to predict in meteorology.

The wind is the easy part. It could be a perfectly nice sunny day out and I'll have a wind gusting to 20-25 since I live at the shore. Pretty much every nor'easter brings wind gusts to 35+ to those living on the coast though often times it comes with rain rather than snow. The visibility criteria is the hardest to meet.

[Analog96]

The wind is the easy part. It could be a perfectly nice sunny day out and I'll have a wind gusting to 20-25 since I live at the shore. Pretty much every nor'easter brings wind gusts to 35+ to those living on the coast though often times it comes with rain rather than snow. The visibility criteria is the hardest to meet.

Not really. You can look at the models showing a perfect mixing scenario for 50 MPH winds and only get 30-35 MPH. OTOH, there are cases when the wind is forecast to only get in the low 20s and it gets to 35-40. Models have a lot of difficulty with that in the short term.

[Analog96]

That's just because of the wind. The public doesn't really care about that. There can be calm winds but if 2 feet of snow falls, guess what? People are going to say it's a blizzard. The media is going to say it and the public is going to say it. Yea, technically speaking it's not a blizzard. But good luck convincing people that had to dig 30 inches of snow in 1996 or the PD2 storm that they didn't experience a blizzard. They'll laugh and call you an idiot.

If you think about it, it's almost impossible to get 2 feet of snow to fall near the coast and have little wind. In order to have a storm that strong, you would assuredly have a decent wind.

[gymengineer]

If I work at NWS and it comes close, I would issue a Blizzard Warning. For one thing, the public does not necessarily know all the technicalities, and they take Blizzard Warnings much more seriously than ordinary Winter Storm Warnings. That's probably the main reason you see blizzard warnings issued in borderline situations. Additionally, the exact wind speed is one of the hardest things to predict in meteorology.

I agree that when it's borderline, and you will get blizzard conditions like for an hour instead of three, it's worth it to issue. I guess it's like wind advisories vs. high wind warnings--- in my area, when high wind warnings are issued, we usually only verify wind advisory conditions at the reporting sites. So wind forecasts are often a bit too high for the region.

So, would it make sense for this past storm to get an even more extreme warning to distinguish it from all the other non-verifying blizzard warnings? Like the 'severe blizzard' mentioned in this thread?

[IsentropicLift]

The NWS definitly made the right call for this storm with the Blzzard Warning. I'm thirty miles inland and it reminded me of being inside a tropical storm except with sideways snow instead of rain.

[A-L-E-X]

If you think about it, it's almost impossible to get 2 feet of snow to fall near the coast and have little wind. In order to have a storm that strong, you would assuredly have a decent wind.

Extremely high winds (50 mph + gusts) have just as much impact on people as heavy snowfall does-- thats what set apart the crippling of NYC in 1/96 and this storm compared to 2/06 where it's not remembered as well.

[blizznd]

Hi...

I am a NWS met out in Grand Forks ND. I wanted to chime in our thoughts and how we do things here in regards to Blizzard warnings and verification. In our area....we have a huge city versus rural difference in terms of blizzards. Many of our blizzards are not accompanied by much snowfall, more so wind blowing the dry snow around. In town or at airports where AWOS/ASOS equipment is located, it is often difficult to get below 1/2sm vsby in wind driven blowing snow events, whereas in the rural countryside it is often zero. Though no observational equipment are present in these rural areas, we rely on calling the public and/or sheriff offices to report visibiliity. So if they see it is near zero we take that and use that to verify our blizzard warnings or to justify a blizzard warning is needed. Many school kids are bused into town from rural areas and to ignore the vsby there and to base it only on official equipment would not be correct for our part of the country. We have had several blizzard warnings out where in the city where I live you can see 1 or 2 miles as we are protected from blowing snow from the trees and buildings, but going out into the open country, you can't see anything.

Also, in the verification scheme we dont really split hairs in the hours of 1/4 or less vsby. We use our meteorological judgement whether to verify or not a BZW using all reports, from official sources or the public.

It is also correct to say that the public takes blizzard warnings much more seriously than winter storm warnings. Schools will often shut down in a BZW but not for a WSW. Thus in borderline situations, if we want to highten awareness we will go ahead and pull the trigger.

Dan

NWS Grand Forks ND

[gymengineer]

The NWS definitly made the right call for this storm with the Blzzard Warning. I'm thirty miles inland and it reminded me of being inside a tropical storm except with sideways snow instead of rain.

No one in here is saying they didn't.....the question was not about this storm at all.

Let me give another analogy to what I'm talking about-- in 2004 and 2005, for the major landfalling hurricanes, the WFO's had hoisted inland hurricane warnings well before landfall. But at landfall and as the eyewall started moving inland, the WFO's started to issue a 'tornado warning' for the eyewall. Why weren't the inland hurricanes sufficient to get people to be aware of roofs ripping off, etc.? This 'new' product was used to convey the complete severity of the situation..

My point has been that blizzard warnings seemed to be like that in the past-- something so out of the ordinary and severe that the public knew to treat it as a completely different type of winter storm. But with enough blizzard warnings isssued in the past decade, has the public become desensitized to the warning itself so that when a 'real' blizzard like this one hits, they do not react with the same urgency anymore?

[MJW155]

No one in here is saying they didn't.....the question was not about this storm at all.

Let me give another analogy to what I'm talking about-- in 2004 and 2005, for the major landfalling hurricanes, the WFO's had hoisted inland hurricane warnings well before landfall. But at landfall and as the eyewall started moving inland, the WFO's started to issue a 'tornado warning' for the eyewall. Why weren't the inland hurricanes sufficient to get people to be aware of roofs ripping off, etc.? This 'new' product was used to convey the complete severity of the situation..

My point has been that blizzard warnings seemed to be like that in the past-- something so out of the ordinary and severe that the public knew to treat it as a completely different type of winter storm. But with enough blizzard warnings isssued in the past decade, has the public become desensitized to the warning itself so that when a 'real' blizzard like this one hits, they do not react with the same urgency anymore?

If you are going to get a ****load of snow, people are going to prepare. A WSW is not going to have the same impact as a blizzard warning.

Has there been a blizzard warning in the NE that didn't have at least a foot of snow w/ winds? A blizzard warning tells people the storm is the real deal and they pay attention.

[A-L-E-X]

If you are going to get a ****load of snow, people are going to prepare. A WSW is not going to have the same impact as a blizzard warning.

Has there been a blizzard warning in the NE that didn't have at least a foot of snow w/ winds? A blizzard warning tells people the storm is the real deal and they pay attention.

Yeah, and it actually matters the degree of winds. With firsthand experience, I can assure you that it's a completely different ballgame having 35 mph gusts and having sustained winds of 40-50 with gusts of 60-70. Those who think high winds dont make up a major part of a storm's impact just dont know.

[okie333]

If I work at NWS and it comes close, I would issue a Blizzard Warning. For one thing, the public does not necessarily know all the technicalities, and they take Blizzard Warnings much more seriously than ordinary Winter Storm Warnings. That's probably the main reason you see blizzard warnings issued in borderline situations. Additionally, the exact wind speed is one of the hardest things to predict in meteorology.

Tulsa definitely doesn't do it that way lol. There was heavy snow and gusty winds one time and they said "will not issue Blizzard Warnings because sustained winds are only 33 mph" or something to that accord.

[Analog96]

Tulsa definitely doesn't do it that way lol. There was heavy snow and gusty winds one time and they said "will not issue Blizzard Warnings because sustained winds are only 33 mph" or something to that accord.

Lol, maybe that's because they don't have much experience with them?

[ice1972]

What about places where the Blizzard Warning criteria are easily met with an average storm - like in the Sierra Nevada or Rockys? Do blizzard warnings come with regional criteria like a Freeze Warning would or is it a blanket one over the entire country........Sierra Nevada storms can blow upwards of 75 mph under heavy heavy snow for hours.....yet you never see NWS issue these here....only WSW......

Granted not a lot of people live in the Sierras and they all know what the deal is with storms so the BZW seems to be subjective by NWS office and what that office deems the real impact would be to the area.....

[snowman21]

What about places where the Blizzard Warning criteria are easily met with an average storm - like in the Sierra Nevada or Rockys? Do blizzard warnings come with regional criteria like a Freeze Warning would or is it a blanket one over the entire country........Sierra Nevada storms can blow upwards of 75 mph under heavy heavy snow for hours.....yet you never see NWS issue these here....only WSW......

Granted not a lot of people live in the Sierras and they all know what the deal is with storms so the BZW seems to be subjective by NWS office and what that office deems the real impact would be to the area.....

I'd imagine there are differences set out by the NWS, regional HQ, and even more local policies tailored to where the WFO is. For example, the special heat advisory criteria just for NYC, or the fact that WSW minimum criteria decreases as you go south, etc. Many of the watches, warnings, and advisories are based on the extremity relative to the local climate.

[Stormlover74]

Criteria definitely depends on the location. 4" is enough for warnings in some parts of the country and others it would need to be 7 or 8".

To me I think we get a little hung up on the criteria rather than the impact. Last year for example we had about 1.5 to 2" on the morning of New years eve. It all fell in a short time during the height of rush hour and was unexpected. There was no advisory whatsoever. However we get 4 or 5" in march on a saturday afternoon with temps around freezing and we get an advisory. Why? It isn't even going to stick to the roads.

What about places where the Blizzard Warning criteria are easily met with an average storm - like in the Sierra Nevada or Rockys? Do blizzard warnings come with regional criteria like a Freeze Warning would or is it a blanket one over the entire country........Sierra Nevada storms can blow upwards of 75 mph under heavy heavy snow for hours.....yet you never see NWS issue these here....only WSW......

Granted not a lot of people live in the Sierras and they all know what the deal is with storms so the BZW seems to be subjective by NWS office and what that office deems the real impact would be to the area.....

[snowman21]

Criteria definitely depends on the location. 4" is enough for warnings in some parts of the country and others it would need to be 7 or 8".

To me I think we get a little hung up on the criteria rather than the impact. Last year for example we had about 1.5 to 2" on the morning of New years eve. It all fell in a short time during the height of rush hour and was unexpected. There was no advisory whatsoever. However we get 4 or 5" in march on a saturday afternoon with temps around freezing and we get an advisory. Why? It isn't even going to stick to the roads.

I remember that well. Roads were very icy that morning. It caught DOTs off-guard more than anything. If they had been out sanding/salting and plowing it would have been fine. If I recall correctly that snow wasn't forecast well and that was the real issue.