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

[Rib]

I think it was warranted for this storm at least.

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

I definitely do not think blizzard warning was overkill for NJ-BOS for this latest storm. If this wasn't blizzard warning worthy what is?

[eduggs]

Would a higher confidence threshold for this most extreme of winter weather warnings have helped yesterday's storm to stand out more as a weather phenomenon to absolutely stay put for? In other words, I wonder if the public venturing out during some of the past, pretty frequent, blizzard warnings and *not* getting stuck has contributed to a desensitizing to future warnings. We seem to have many more reports of stranded vehicles in the NYC region last night than for any of the other blizzard warnings lately. Would it be better for plain Winter Storm Warnings to be issued for storms that are longer shots to verify?

I think you're right. People aren't taking as much notice as in years past. But road crews and even automobiles themselves are better equipped to handle deep snow. Everyone has a cell phone or wireless device, so most people are more confident in severe winter weather than they used to be. The NWS could be more selective about issuing blizzard warnings - but would that even address the issues you've brought up? For this past storm the warnings issued by Mt. Holly and Upton were completely justified. But if banding hadn't set up the way it did, it could have ended up a relatively run-of-the-mill snowstorm with gusty winds - just like several storms of recent memory. If they are doing their job right, it would seem the NWS would have to be a little cautious.

With models being run more frequently and with higher resolution, it's a lot easier to anticipate the high end potential of storms - hence there has been and will likely continue to be more blizzard warnings issued.

[eduggs]

I don't think the original poster was asking if blizzard warnings were justified for the Sun/Mon storm. A quick check of the obs from several reporting stations confirms that the criteria were met in several locations.

[Analog96]

I definitely do not think blizzard warning was overkill for NJ-BOS for this latest storm. If this wasn't blizzard warning worthy what is?

This. If you're not going to issue a blizzard warning for the storm we just had, then get rid of them entirely.

[isohume]

Depends on the goal of the blizzard warning (or any warning for that matter). How are those verification numbers used? Are they ever used against an employee of the NWS? I mean if I'm the one issuing those things, and in the back of my mind I know those numbers are going to come up at performance review time in some way, I'm probably going to approach the problem of where to issue what warnings a little differently. If the goal is to just warn as many people as possible, then yeah the NWS is absolutely doing the right thing by issuing a blizzard warning for any forecast zone that has a good chance of seeing those severe conditions. From isohume's stats, only about 3 out of every 10 warned forecast zones are verifying blizzard conditions. I actually thought the FAR for those would be a little closer to .55 or .6 at least in the BOX/OKX areas where I pay the most attention since that's where I live.

This isn't a concern while formulating forecasts and products. GPRA goals may come to mind a little for other products, but performance reviews don't play into decision making. At least at my office they don't. For a specific event or product the forecaster makes the call on what they believe is most likely to happen based on the available data.

Blizzard conditions as they are defined in the directive are tough to get, especially away from the immediate coast. We really need the heavy snow to coincide with the winds which isn't always the case and inland the problem almost always is lack of wind. I would think most of the FAR is coming from inland zones. Blizzard warnings are not part of the NWS GPRA goals. I know there is some back of the head processing that goes on with some mets concerning GPRA goal criteria, but blizzard warnings are not one of them.

Yeah, this is almost a built in fail zone....leading to the high FAR numbers for BZ.Ws. It's a challenging product for that part of the country no doubt and it's normal to have some sort of "buffer zone" based on forecast uncertainty.

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.

This why we put phrases like "A BLIZZARD WARNING MEANS....FALLING AND BLOWING SNOW WITH STRONG WINDS AND POOR VISIBILITIES ARE LIKELY" in our products. This is where the the media can also help by being more definiitive in relaying this information to the public.

If by "cripple"...you mean visibilities so low that they shut down major airports and commerce and create very hazardous driving conditions for the public, then yes, this is what a blizzard warning is reserved for.

[eduggs]

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 lived in the Wasatch mountains where east coast blizzard criteria was met on more than a dozen occasions in one winter. NWS SLC does not issue them for mountain regions and I'm sure that the same is true for the rest of the intermountain west. But they will definitely issue them for the flats and valleys, especially for extreme winds with snow/blowing snow.

[isohume]

I lived in the Wasatch mountains where east coast blizzard criteria was met on more than a dozen occasions in one winter. NWS SLC does not issue them for mountain regions and I'm sure that the same is true for the rest of the intermountain west. But they will definitely issue them for the flats and valleys, especially for extreme winds with snow/blowing snow.

We issue them for our mountain counties. In fact, last winter we issued for 7 zones. We didn't verify any of them, but we will issue for the mtns. I noticed BOI has a BZ.W in effect right now.

[wx.1028]

this could be a stupid question. but i need to know something concerning lake effect snow.

is a lake effect event considered " winter storm warning " criteria or merit for a blizzard warning ?

[isohume]

this could be a stupid question. but i need to know something concerning lake effect snow.

is a lake effect event considered " winter storm warning " criteria or merit for a blizzard warning ?

Yeah a Lake Effect Snow Warning is considered a WS.W. However, it has no wind and vsby criteria like a BZ.W. It is mainly used for lake effect piling up hazardous amounts of snow.

[wx.1028]

Yeah a Lake Effect Snow Warning is considered a WS.W. However, it has no wind and vsby criteria like a BZ.W. It is mainly used for lake effect piling up hazardous amounts of snow.

thanks for the reply isohume

[tamarack]

The two WSO I'm most familiar with, GYX and CAR, have been fairly sparing in their use of blizzard warnings. This past event featured the most widespread BZW I can recall, though 1993 might've been greater and I just was unaware of the extent. In terms of snowfall, this was a solid Maine northeast storm, but nothing extraordinary. However, the extent and duration of winds gusting into the 40s was noteworthy. AFAIK, the only locations verifying BZ conditions were BGR, WVL, and AUG, but those areas are representative of the whole midsection of the state.

During the run-up to this storm, having BZW in effect cetainly caught folks' attention, especially in the GYX CWA, where I don't remember the most recent past one - VD07? CAR, in the middle of potato country, rightfully issues more such warnings.

[eduggs]

We issue them for our mountain counties. In fact, last winter we issued for 7 zones. We didn't verify any of them, but we will issue for the mtns. I noticed BOI has a BZ.W in effect right now.

I noticed that one but it looks like it's primarily for the valleys/prairie. Sierra, Tetons, Wasatch would be tough... since these ranges are perpendicular to the main flow, receive plentiful snow, and therefore would likely experience blizzard criteria frequently, even during relatively minor events.

[Wx4cast]

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.

This brings up another interesting question. I know that the (Blizzard) warnings are verified based on observations from official sites BUT in areas of the country where "official" sites are few and far between one could argue that blizzard conditions could be "met" and sustained yet not observed. An example of this possibility occurred in March (4th-6th) 2001 storm during which many of our wx spotters and observers across the Berkshires, S'rn VT and Washington Co (in NYS) , experienced severe falling, blowing and drifting of snow

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.

See my above post.

This isn't a concern while formulating forecasts and products. GPRA goals may come to mind a little for other products, but performance reviews don't play into decision making. At least at my office they don't. For a specific event or product the forecaster makes the call on what they believe is most likely to happen based on the available data.

Yeah, this is almost a built in fail zone....leading to the high FAR numbers for BZ.Ws. It's a challenging product for that part of the country no doubt and it's normal to have some sort of "buffer zone" based on forecast uncertainty.

This why we put phrases like "A BLIZZARD WARNING MEANS....FALLING AND BLOWING SNOW WITH STRONG WINDS AND POOR VISIBILITIES ARE LIKELY" in our products. This is where the the media can also help by being more definiitive in relaying this information to the public.

If by "cripple"...you mean visibilities so low that they shut down major airports and commerce and create very hazardous driving conditions for the public, then yes, this is what a blizzard warning is reserved for.

TBH Blizzard, like hurricane and tornado too, all are "catch" or "buzz" words for the media; they make for great hype. During a TV weathercast why should the weathercaster, especially if he is not ripping and reading NWS forecasts (thus these forecasts by the TV person may/could be contrary too those from the NWS') use his/her time to explain NWS terminology or criteria especially if one's forecast IS NOT "in tune" with that of the NWS'? (Let me also add I'm not saying that a TV meteorologist (I'm one) should be issuing there own watches and warnings (never would))

[gymengineer]

I think it was warranted for this storm at least.

I know there are several pages now and people don't read through each page to the thread, but then I guess it needs to be said again and again-- everyone agrees that THIS storm warranted blizzard warnings.

[gymengineer]

This brings up another interesting question. I know that the (Blizzard) warnings are verified based on observations from official sites BUT in areas of the country where "official" sites are few and far between one could argue that blizzard conditions could be "met" and sustained yet not observed. An example of this possibility occurred in March (4th-6th) 2001 storm during which many of our wx spotters and observers across the Berkshires, S'rn VT and Washington Co (in NYS) , experienced severe falling, blowing and drifting of snow

See my above post.

TBH Blizzard, like hurricane and tornado too, all are "catch" or "buzz" words for the media; they make for great hype. During a TV weathercast why should the weathercaster, especially if he is not ripping and reading NWS forecasts (thus these forecasts by the TV person may/could be contrary too those from the NWS') use his/her time to explain NWS terminology or criteria especially if one's forecast IS NOT "in tune" with that of the NWS'? (Let me also add I'm not saying that a TV meteorologist (I'm one) should be issuing there own watches and warnings (never would))

I agree with everything you wrote. I think that blizzard warnings were certainly warrented for the coastal counties in 1/96, since most of the sites had at least some observations of blizzard conditions, even if not continous for 3 hours. I do question blizzard warnings being issued for inland areas like the DC metro region, except for the most extreme wind cases like 2/9-10/10.

[Rib]

I know there are several pages now and people don't read through each page to the thread, but then I guess it needs to be said again and again-- everyone agrees that THIS storm warranted blizzard warnings.

I had some skepticism on whether they should have issued them for PDSII because that was a giant blob of overrunning without an intense low, but if the models had it progged I guess it's fine.

[gymengineer]

This why we put phrases like "A BLIZZARD WARNING MEANS....FALLING AND BLOWING SNOW WITH STRONG WINDS AND POOR VISIBILITIES ARE LIKELY" in our products. This is where the the media can also help by being more definiitive in relaying this information to the public.

This is part of the issue-- the media dubs every heavy snow event "The Blizzard of..." regardless of whether the storm is particularly windy. So, again, storms that did not need to be called a blizzard were called such in the past 10 years, contributing to a decrease in public's perception of how crippling a blizzard actually is. I was asking about the NWS's role in contributing to the overuse of the word blizzard, but I think definitely much more of the blame goes to the news directors who want catch-phrases and viewership.

As Donsutherland mentioned in a NYC thread, the very quick cleanup after 2/06, 12/09, and 2/26/10 perhaps led to complacency so that when this true blizzard struck, it seems like the city was just not prepared.

Maybe the solution is as simple as to compare the forecasted storm to past storms? So maybe in a discusssion-- something like "this storm will be more like 2/11/06 and not as much like 12/26/10."

If by "cripple"...you mean visibilities so low that they shut down major airports and commerce and create very hazardous driving conditions for the public, then yes, this is what a blizzard warning is reserved for.

Well, blizzard warnings were *not* issued for inland areas in PDII, and didn't need to be, even though of course the airports were shut down and driving conditions hazardous.

[isohume]

Well, blizzard warnings were *not* issued for inland areas in PDII, and didn't need to be, even though of course the airports were shut down and driving conditions hazardous.

Yeah that's true. A winter storm, regardless of whether or not it's classified as a blizzard, can certainly shut down airports and make for hazardous driving conditions. However, areas receiving blizzard conditions are more likely to cause these problems. Ice storms are also more likely to create major hazards and they are issued separately from a generic WSW, just like BZ.Ws are.

[baroclinic_instability]

I lived in the Wasatch mountains where east coast blizzard criteria was met on more than a dozen occasions in one winter. NWS SLC does not issue them for mountain regions and I'm sure that the same is true for the rest of the intermountain west. But they will definitely issue them for the flats and valleys, especially for extreme winds with snow/blowing snow.

They don't need to issue them for mountain zones because there would be a blizzard almost every storm at 10,000 feet. Thankfully the only roads that traverse that high in the eastern Wasatch are the Cottonwood Canyons. Parleys/I-80 gets nailed, but they have massive road crews just for that location, and the summit only tops out at 7000 feet.

[Harry]

Yeah a Lake Effect Snow Warning is considered a WS.W. However, it has no wind and vsby criteria like a BZ.W. It is mainly used for lake effect piling up hazardous amounts of snow.

They have issued blizzard warnings though for Lake Effect. Not common but have seen it a few times ( Especially DTX for the Thumb area/Huron LES )and even had one here before. It is very hard to do though because with Lake Effect too much wind can kill the lake effect bands especially off of Lake Michigan/areas with a short fetch.

[isohume]

They have issued blizzard warnings though for Lake Effect. Not common but have seen it a few times ( Especially DTX for the Thumb area/Huron LES )and even had one here before. It is very hard to do though because with Lake Effect too much wind can kill the lake effect bands especially off of Lake Michigan/areas with a short fetch.

Yeah it's possible to get blizzard criteria for LES...but it's not common and generally across small areas or short durations. I used to work at the Gaylord office and once in a while we'd issue WSWs for Superior LES which included strong wordage for high winds and very low vsby, but we never issued a BZ.W or reached blizzard conditions in the 3 years I was there. The ern UP came close a few times tho.

[Harry]

Yeah it's possible to get blizzard criteria for LES...but it's not common and generally across small areas or short durations. I used to work at the Gaylord office and once in a while we'd issue WSWs for Superior LES which included strong wordage for high winds and very low vsby, but we never reached blizzard conditions in the 3 years I was there. The ern UP came close a few times tho.

Yeah i can't recall the last time i seen a blizzard warning from that office related to LES. The blizzard warning here was not realized and not really even close. Ended up being canceled anyways. Got the 2 inches of snow that was called for but the winds ended up weaker.

[famartin]

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.

That is ONLY true in the Northeast. Not anywhere else.

[famartin]

I know there are several pages now and people don't read through each page to the thread, but then I guess it needs to be said again and again-- everyone agrees that THIS storm warranted blizzard warnings.

Your title is too convoluted, its confusing everyone

[eyewall]

I have been through a number of major events when living on Long Island where blizzard warnings have been issued. None of them touched the wind of the boxing day event from the reports I have seen. None the less as said they probably made the right call in terms of heightened awareness and the fact that winds did frequently gust to 35 mph in these events in most cases, and vis certainly fell to very low levels. Some of the lowest visibility I remember was in Jan. '96 with perhaps just yards at the height of it. As someone said though it is an entirely different story when the winds ramp up to the levels they did on 12/26. I saw that first hand in Jan '96 when I was dumb enough at a young age to go over to Robert Moses State Park on Fire Island. That was some of the most brutal conditions I have ever seen.

[famartin]

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.

There have been debates about whether the wording is supposed to be "below 1/4 mile" or "1/4 mile or below" for the visibility. Using the latter, TTN was NOT the only site that verified... ABE, TEB, DOV and BDR also verified. Several other sites came very close with 2 consecutive hours (BLM, LGA, RDG, ACY, ISP, HPN), while many others were just shy of one of the criteria (wind or vis) for 3+ hours. I'd argue that the blizzard warning for 96 was indeed justified.

[gymengineer]

Your title is too convoluted, its confusing everyone

I know! I changed it with help from Ian but I guess it's still confusing. Did you get what I was trying to say overall?

As for your post about the debate about <1/4 mile or 1/4 mile and less, that's why different sources say different things about 1/96. Like John Nese was apparently using the <1/4 mile criteria, But, I did say in this thread that I think the warnings for 1/96 were certainly justified, and many areas in the warning experienced blizzard conditions, if not for 3 continuous hours.

Are there any blizzard warnings that got issued that you personally would not have issued? I think I know of one at least, based on another post you've made in the past. : )

[billgwx]

Am jumping in late to this thread after recovering from the blizzard to start a short run of midnights. OKX doesn't throw blizzard watches/warnings around like candy, and in fact I've issued them only twice...the first time for the February 2006 event, the second time for this past event. Both times I felt justified that we were going to meet the strict criteria...mainly in coastal sections and in the immediate NYC area which tend to be winder than inland spots (with the possible exception of the highest elevations). Even with this last event the raw model data were screaming blizzard for the lower Hudson Valley, but remained cautious about extending the blizzard warning too far inland based on what happened in the 2006 event, and waited until the morning of the event to pull the trigger.

Fully agree with Dan from FGF that there is an element of the blizzard watch/warning decision/verification processes that is more subjective, and does not necessarily require verification by ASOS observations. On the morning of the February 2006 event, I briefly drove off the grounds of BNL thinking I was going to make it home--I don't recall ASOS obs on Long Island showing true blizzard conditions, but I can tell you I was beaten back to the lab pretty quickly by what I can only call blizzard conditions--howling winds causing whiteout conditions in falling/blowing snow while driving through a more open area not sheltered by very many trees. Would have to imagine those conditions continued all that morning there and at many similar spots across Long Island.

[blizznd]

Am jumping in late to this thread after recovering from the blizzard to start a short run of midnights. OKX doesn't throw blizzard watches/warnings around like candy, and in fact I've issued them only twice...the first time for the February 2006 event, the second time for this past event. Both times I felt justified that we were going to meet the strict criteria...mainly in coastal sections and in the immediate NYC area which tend to be winder than inland spots (with the possible exception of the highest elevations). Even with this last event the raw model data were screaming blizzard for the lower Hudson Valley, but remained cautious about extending the blizzard warning too far inland based on what happened in the 2006 event, and waited until the morning of the event to pull the trigger.

Fully agree with Dan from FGF that there is an element of the blizzard watch/warning decision/verification processes that is more subjective, and does not necessarily require verification by ASOS observations. On the morning of the February 2006 event, I briefly drove off the grounds of BNL thinking I was going to make it home--I don't recall ASOS obs on Long Island showing true blizzard conditions, but I can tell you I was beaten back to the lab pretty quickly by what I can only call blizzard conditions--howling winds causing whiteout conditions in falling/blowing snow while driving through a more open area not sheltered by very many trees. Would have to imagine those conditions continued all that morning there and at many similar spots across Long Island.

Hi there from the northern Plains!

It is important to realize that as a meteorologist (NWS), there is such a thing as good meteorological judgement. We issue 3-4 blizzard warnings a year for our area, and never once do we feel any pressure from management in regards to if we verified or not. It is not used against us. In fact, we are to take into account impact to the public. For example, the first snow of the season, you can issue advisories or warnings for lower snow totals than you would in the middle of the season. These "rules" for adv/warnings are not set in stone and can be massaged. For instance, in our fcst area of eastern ND and northwest MN, we have a winter storm warning for 4 inches of snow in combination with 25 mph or more wind. We know from experience that 4 or more inches of snow and wind of 25 mph will cause issues in open country.

For blizzard verification (and other winter storm warnings), you must take into the account the entire weather spectrum. Yes you must include the awos/asos obs, but you must go by other things as well. Say the local awos has winds of 30-32 mph (just short of the 35 mph bzw criteria). Can you say there wasnt a wind of 35 or more 10 miles away? You can use your judgement in verification, we do all the time.

For today I did a blizzard watch for eastern ND for Friday aftn-night. Do I think the local Fargo and Grand Forks ASOS will see 1/4sm for 3 or more hours. Probably not, but dont tell that to the rural resident who sits in zero out in a non-protected area. I realize of course, cant compare our area to NYC metro and OKX cwa.....but wanted to pass on more midwestern perspective.

Dan FGF