Snowmageddon 2022 (3 Viewers)

[TheIronSheik]

Took a break from here for the weekend. Did I miss anything?

WTF? You took a break during the biggest storm of the year?

"Some" of us were worried sick about you!

I was home from work and I was spending most of my day watching models and "crunching data." There was a very high bust potential to this storm for many areas, so it was actually a fun storm to watch. Things that needed to happen, ended up happening, but other things fell apart. Up until very late last night, it was still uncertain as to whether this storm would bust for the west or blossom like it was supposed to.

I was talking with a bunch of different mets all day yesterday, and each one was worried about the call. Regardless of what people think, predicting the future is extremely difficult. And no matter what their call was, they were going to catch hell.

Are you actually a meteorologist or is this just a passionate hobby you have?

Passionate hobby. When I was in high school, I had planned on going to PSU for meteorology. Then I learned you had to be good at math. So I picked something else.

Been thinking of getting a weather station , you know the type the people at WU use, what is a good way to start?

Not sure. I don't have one so I wouldn't even know where to point you to.

 

[TheIronSheik]

That's BS.

There was no mention that this was a tough call or there could be a 75% reduction in the forecasted amounts.

The talking heads used terms like "historic," "snow-bomb" and "life-threatening" for NYC proper.

It was on pace to be historic. It did bomb out, just ask the people in New England. And it is life threatening. The track just shifted west. This is something we see a lot with storms like this. Same thing with hurricanes.

That's why I specified NYC proper. The guys in Boston are getting hammered and maybe didn't get enough attention because all eyes were on NYC.

The storm wasn't on pace to be historic, there was a chance for it to be historic. The chances for it to be a 6" event were never given.

The storm was on pace to be historic. Again, up until almost 3 AM there was still a solid chance that NYC would get hammered. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I have one real complaint:

There was absolutely a point last night when every meteorologist figured out this gigantic storm was going to miss NYC. I watched the news until almost 1am, and not a single one of them backed off of their "historic blizzard" forecast. Zero integrity, and at that point strictly telling lies for ratings. This is equivalent to journalists / news stations telling blatant lies or exaggerations to promote their agendas, and every single one of them did this last night.

There was a chance that NYC could see a foot or more of snow probably up until about 3 am.

But there was a point when this started becoming less probable. Nobody shifted their forecasts or even said 6 inches was probable (or even possible!), they stuck to their guns...

Like here for example

 

[Balco]

I do not want to shovel.

 

[The Big Guy]

It is still snowing by me in NJ and it looks like there is a foot of snow on the ground. Even if the weather forecasters were off by a foot, it is still a lot of snow for me to deal with.

Where are you? It's flurrying by me here in Flemington, but we've got nowhere near a foot. I think we got more from the snow over the weekend honestly.

Ocean County. I may been off on what I thought I saw earlier. It might be more like eight inches which is still something. I haven't been outside yet to actually measure it. I will do that in an hour or so.

I am in Ocean Cty and we got 5 1/2" based on a picture posted by the local patch site. Snowmageddon rules!!

 

[JetMaxx]

Took a break from here for the weekend. Did I miss anything?

WTF? You took a break during the biggest storm of the year?

"Some" of us were worried sick about you!

I was home from work and I was spending most of my day watching models and "crunching data." There was a very high bust potential to this storm for many areas, so it was actually a fun storm to watch. Things that needed to happen, ended up happening, but other things fell apart. Up until very late last night, it was still uncertain as to whether this storm would bust for the west or blossom like it was supposed to.I was talking with a bunch of different mets all day yesterday, and each one was worried about the call. Regardless of what people think, predicting the future is extremely difficult. And no matter what their call was, they were going to catch hell.

Are you actually a meteorologist or is this just a passionate hobby you have?

Passionate hobby. When I was in high school, I had planned on going to PSU for meteorology. Then I learned you had to be good at math. So I picked something else.

Been thinking of getting a weather station , you know the type the people at WU use, what is a good way to start?

http://www.davis.com/Category/Weather_Stations/51740?referred_id=3561&mkwid=sKDc2hRu5&pcrid=49924566485&kw=davis%20weather%20station&mt=e&pdv=t&gclid=CPi-mrXXtMMCFVNp7AodkVQAlQI've used the Vantage Pro for about 10 years. Great product. Use its data to send in my local reports to the NWS.

 

[3C's]

That's BS.

There was no mention that this was a tough call or there could be a 75% reduction in the forecasted amounts.

The talking heads used terms like "historic," "snow-bomb" and "life-threatening" for NYC proper.

It was on pace to be historic. It did bomb out, just ask the people in New England. And it is life threatening. The track just shifted west. This is something we see a lot with storms like this. Same thing with hurricanes.

That's why I specified NYC proper. The guys in Boston are getting hammered and maybe didn't get enough attention because all eyes were on NYC.

The storm wasn't on pace to be historic, there was a chance for it to be historic. The chances for it to be a 6" event were never given.

The storm was on pace to be historic. Again, up until almost 3 AM there was still a solid chance that NYC would get hammered. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

You're not going to convince them of anything other than "they were wrong and won't admit it!"

 

[Wrigley]

East Coast lol

 

[DCThunder]

A postmortem of sorts from the CWG at the WaPo on their storm forecasts for DC Metro:

How was the forecast?

This was a very complicated event and one which I feel we did a solid job forecasting.

On Saturday, it appeared it would be a straight forward forecast, with a clipper passing just to our south, putting us in a sweet spot for cold temperatures and up to a few inches of snow.

But the forecast changed markedly Sunday, when the storm track shifted slightly north and it became clear the clipper would transfer its energy into a monster storm over the ocean. The shift north meant temperatures would be a little milder signifying snow during the first half of the storm would have trouble accumulating and could mix with rain (phase 1). The clipper’s energy transfer into a coastal storm meant the area would potentially be impacted by a “snow hole” or lull in precipitation during the day Monday as the clipper dissipated on its pass over us (phase 2). But then, the explosive development of the coastal storm meant we could have a period of snow as bands of precipitation wrapped around it and cycled inland Sunday night (phase 3).

The post we published Sunday afternoon laid this all out very clearly. Sure, you can find some issues with the specifics of the forecast. But we presented the big picture correctly.

We forecast each of the two waves to produce a coating to 2 inches of snow. Wave one produced on the low-end of that forecast, wave two on the high end. We correctly said the second wave would probably have a greater impact because temperatures would be colder. For the event overall, we forecast roughly 1-4 inches, and that was pretty much spot on.

Onward.

 

[JetMaxx]

That's BS.

There was no mention that this was a tough call or there could be a 75% reduction in the forecasted amounts.

The talking heads used terms like "historic," "snow-bomb" and "life-threatening" for NYC proper.

It was on pace to be historic. It did bomb out, just ask the people in New England. And it is life threatening. The track just shifted west. This is something we see a lot with storms like this. Same thing with hurricanes.

That's why I specified NYC proper. The guys in Boston are getting hammered and maybe didn't get enough attention because all eyes were on NYC.The storm wasn't on pace to be historic, there was a chance for it to be historic. The chances for it to be a 6" event were never given.

The storm was on pace to be historic. Again, up until almost 3 AM there was still a solid chance that NYC would get hammered. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

I disagree. Once the coastal storm started developing YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, you could see the convention off the SC coast clearly was moving NE and it had become clear that the trough axis was not going to turn negative in time for Philly at all and a NYC hammering.

 

[MattFancy]

A postmortem of sorts from the CWG at the WaPo on their storm forecasts for DC Metro:

How was the forecast?

This was a very complicated event and one which I feel we did a solid job forecasting.

On Saturday, it appeared it would be a straight forward forecast, with a clipper passing just to our south, putting us in a sweet spot for cold temperatures and up to a few inches of snow.

But the forecast changed markedly Sunday, when the storm track shifted slightly north and it became clear the clipper would transfer its energy into a monster storm over the ocean. The shift north meant temperatures would be a little milder signifying snow during the first half of the storm would have trouble accumulating and could mix with rain (phase 1). The clipper’s energy transfer into a coastal storm meant the area would potentially be impacted by a “snow hole” or lull in precipitation during the day Monday as the clipper dissipated on its pass over us (phase 2). But then, the explosive development of the coastal storm meant we could have a period of snow as bands of precipitation wrapped around it and cycled inland Sunday night (phase 3).

The post we published Sunday afternoon laid this all out very clearly. Sure, you can find some issues with the specifics of the forecast. But we presented the big picture correctly.

We forecast each of the two waves to produce a coating to 2 inches of snow. Wave one produced on the low-end of that forecast, wave two on the high end. We correctly said the second wave would probably have a greater impact because temperatures would be colder. For the event overall, we forecast roughly 1-4 inches, and that was pretty much spot on.

Onward.

CWG was pretty much spot on, at least for me here in Southern MD. They were saying dusting to 2" and we maybe got an inch.

 

[fantasycurse42]

That's BS.

There was no mention that this was a tough call or there could be a 75% reduction in the forecasted amounts.

The talking heads used terms like "historic," "snow-bomb" and "life-threatening" for NYC proper.

It was on pace to be historic. It did bomb out, just ask the people in New England. And it is life threatening. The track just shifted west. This is something we see a lot with storms like this. Same thing with hurricanes.

That's why I specified NYC proper. The guys in Boston are getting hammered and maybe didn't get enough attention because all eyes were on NYC.

The storm wasn't on pace to be historic, there was a chance for it to be historic. The chances for it to be a 6" event were never given.

The storm was on pace to be historic. Again, up until almost 3 AM there was still a solid chance that NYC would get hammered. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

You're not going to convince them of anything other than "they were wrong and won't admit it!"

You don't think at some point they realized their forecast in NYC was wrong until afterwards?

 

[3C's]

That's BS.

There was no mention that this was a tough call or there could be a 75% reduction in the forecasted amounts.

The talking heads used terms like "historic," "snow-bomb" and "life-threatening" for NYC proper.

It was on pace to be historic. It did bomb out, just ask the people in New England. And it is life threatening. The track just shifted west. This is something we see a lot with storms like this. Same thing with hurricanes.

That's why I specified NYC proper. The guys in Boston are getting hammered and maybe didn't get enough attention because all eyes were on NYC.

The storm wasn't on pace to be historic, there was a chance for it to be historic. The chances for it to be a 6" event were never given.

The storm was on pace to be historic. Again, up until almost 3 AM there was still a solid chance that NYC would get hammered. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

You're not going to convince them of anything other than "they were wrong and won't admit it!"

You don't think at some point they realized their forecast in NYC was wrong until afterwards?

I didn't say that. The storm was, on the models, on pace to hammer NYC. The models and resulting forecasts were off by about 90 miles. The huge snowfall happened, just not where they expected.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I have one real complaint:

There was absolutely a point last night when every meteorologist figured out this gigantic storm was going to miss NYC. I watched the news until almost 1am, and not a single one of them backed off of their "historic blizzard" forecast. Zero integrity, and at that point strictly telling lies for ratings. This is equivalent to journalists / news stations telling blatant lies or exaggerations to promote their agendas, and every single one of them did this last night.

There was a chance that NYC could see a foot or more of snow probably up until about 3 am.

But there was a point when this started becoming less probable. Nobody shifted their forecasts or even said 6 inches was probable (or even possible!), they stuck to their guns...

Like here for example

The chance of it being a bust was there from about Sunday morning. But there were good chances it was going to be big. It wasn't until late that the chances went from HUGE to nothing. That's just the nature of the beast. It wasn't until almost midnight that the NWS started dropping totals, and when they did, they did by only a little bit.

 

[The Big Guy]

It is totally disgusting listening to these public officials pat themselves on the back over handling this nonsense. DeBlasio giving himself and everyone else the proverbial high fives after which the news then shows that 5th avenue in Manhattan unplowed. Such a joke. Good thing that the real snow missed us.

 

[TheIronSheik]

That's BS.

There was no mention that this was a tough call or there could be a 75% reduction in the forecasted amounts.

The talking heads used terms like "historic," "snow-bomb" and "life-threatening" for NYC proper.

It was on pace to be historic. It did bomb out, just ask the people in New England. And it is life threatening. The track just shifted west. This is something we see a lot with storms like this. Same thing with hurricanes.

That's why I specified NYC proper. The guys in Boston are getting hammered and maybe didn't get enough attention because all eyes were on NYC.The storm wasn't on pace to be historic, there was a chance for it to be historic. The chances for it to be a 6" event were never given.

The storm was on pace to be historic. Again, up until almost 3 AM there was still a solid chance that NYC would get hammered. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

I disagree. Once the coastal storm started developing YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, you could see the convention off the SC coast clearly was moving NE and it had become clear that the trough axis was not going to turn negative in time for Philly at all and a NYC hammering.

If that were true, I believe that the NWS would have changed their calls immediately. Once you had the H5 and H7 close off earlier than the models had it, there was a very good chance that the system would come close to stalling and start to jog NW. For whatever reason, after they closed off, the jog and stall did not happen. But, if it had, NYC would have been in the bulls eye for a foot or more and the spots west, like Philly and the suburbs would have seen their 6 to 12 inches still. The low started to close off early and when it did, they NWS needed to hold their forecast. The negative trough definitely played a huge part in no snow for us, but as I said in my first post, as certain things started to fall in place, other things started to fall apart.

 

[The Big Guy]

Here are the final numbers for NJ vs what was predicted from this link http://www.nj.com/weather/index.ssf/2015/01/snowfall_totals_whats_fallen_versus_what_they_predicted.html

The blizzard of 2015 was expected to be historic, bringing with it potentially-record snowfalls. Even places like Atlantic City were anticipating over a foot of snow, with places closer to New York City bracing for multiple feet.

But overnight, the storm took a turn — and left a mere fraction of the accumulation expected by the National Weather Service and other meteorologists. Some places were only dusted with the white stuff

That dramatic turn of the storm is evident in the accumulation compared to the range that was expected by the National Weather Service. The totals are still preliminary:

ATLANTIC COUNTY: prediction 16-20 inches
• Atlantic City Airport — 1 inch
• Hammonton — 1.5 inch
• Pleasantville — 1 inch

BERGEN COUNTY: prediction 20-24 inches
• Ridgewood — 3.5 inches
• Midland Park — 3.2 inches

BURLINGTON COUNTY: prediction 16-20 inches
• Mount Laurel — 1.8 inches
• Mount Holly — 1.8 inches
• Florence — 3.8 inches
• Tabernacle — 3.1 inches

CAPE MAY: prediction 6-12 inches

• Beesley's Point - 1 inch

CAMDEN COUNTY: prediction 12-16 inches
• Moorestown — 2 inches
• Sicklerville — 1 inch
• Voorhees — 2 inches

ESSEX COUNTY: prediction 20-24 inches
• Newark Liberty Int'l Airport — 6 inches
• Maplewood — 4.3 inches

GLOUCESTER COUNTY: prediction 6-16 inches

•Williamstown - 2.7 inches

• Turnersville - 2.2 inches

• Glassboro - 1 inch

HUDSON: predictions 20-24 inches
• North Bergen — 8.1 inches
• Harrison — 7.2 inches

HUNTERDON COUNTY: prediction 12-16 inches
• Readington — 2.8 inches
• Washington Township — 1.8 inches
• Flemington — 1.3 inches

MERCER: prediction 16-20 inches

• Trenton - 4 inches

• Ewing — 3.3 inches
• Ewing Township — 1.1 inches
• Hamilton — 0.9 inches

MIDDLESEX: prediction 20-24 inches

• Metuchen - 5 inches
• Old Bridge — 4 inches
• Edison — 3.5 inches
• South Plainfield — 3 inches
• East Brunswick — 3 inches
• Perth Amboy — 3 inches
• Monroe — 3 inches
• Woodbridge — 2 inches

MONMOUTH: prediction 20-24 inches

• Howell - 8 inches
• Lincroft — 7 inches
• Hazlet — 7 inches
• Long Branch — 7 inches
• Manalapan — 1 inch

MORRIS: prediction 16-20 inches
• Lake Hopatcong — 3.2 inches
• Randolph — 2.3 inches
• Rockaway Township — 1 inch
• Morristown — 1 inch

OCEAN: prediction 20-24 inches
• Brick — 8.5 inches

• Berkeley Township - 8 inches

• Bayville - 6 inches
• Lakehurst — 4 inches
• Toms River — 5 inches
• Jackson — 3.5 inches
• Whiting — 1 inch

PASSAIC: prediction 16-20 inches
• Wayne — 2.8 inches
• West Milford — 2.5 inches

SOMERSET: prediction 16-20 inches
• Bridgewater — 2.8 inches
• Belle Mead — 2.7 inches
• Somerville — 1.4 inches

SUSSEX: prediction 6-16 inches

• Wantage - 3.5 inches

• Highland Lakes - 3.3 inches

• Fredon - 3 inches

• Lafayette - 3 inches

UNION: prediction 20-24 inches

• Roselle Park - 6.6 inches

• Cranford - 2.4 inches

WARREN: prediction 6-16 inches

• Blairstown - 4 inches

• Hackettstown - 3.5 inches

• Hope - 2.5 inches

 

[jamny]

Meteorologists are a joke, at least the ones on TV. There was no probable or likely here, they were positive of a massive NYC blast. They failed.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I disagree. Once the coastal storm started developing YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, you could see the convention off the SC coast clearly was moving NE and it had become clear that the trough axis was not going to turn negative in time for Philly at all and a NYC hammering.

If that were true, I believe that the NWS would have changed their calls immediately. Once you had the H5 and H7 close off earlier than the models had it, there was a very good chance that the system would come close to stalling and start to jog NW. For whatever reason, after they closed off, the jog and stall did not happen.

This is EXACTLY what I was thinking.

 

[JZilla]

I love how instead of being relieved, everyone is #####ing

Much Ado About Snothing, 2015?

 

[jamny]

I love how instead of being relieved, everyone is #####ing

Much Ado About Snothing, 2015?

For me, as a freelancer, it's a personal complaint. I probably lost around $3000 for the jobs that were cancelled this week.

 

[Franknbeans]

measured 26" on my back deck about an hour ago before I started snow blowing. Probably will get another few inches before it's all said and done. Easily the most snow I have seen in 15 years living here.

 

[JetMaxx]

That's BS.

There was no mention that this was a tough call or there could be a 75% reduction in the forecasted amounts.

The talking heads used terms like "historic," "snow-bomb" and "life-threatening" for NYC proper.

It was on pace to be historic. It did bomb out, just ask the people in New England. And it is life threatening. The track just shifted west. This is something we see a lot with storms like this. Same thing with hurricanes.

That's why I specified NYC proper. The guys in Boston are getting hammered and maybe didn't get enough attention because all eyes were on NYC.The storm wasn't on pace to be historic, there was a chance for it to be historic. The chances for it to be a 6" event were never given.

The storm was on pace to be historic. Again, up until almost 3 AM there was still a solid chance that NYC would get hammered. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

I disagree. Once the coastal storm started developing YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, you could see the convention off the SC coast clearly was moving NE and it had become clear that the trough axis was not going to turn negative in time for Philly at all and a NYC hammering.

If that were true, I believe that the NWS would have changed their calls immediately. Once you had the H5 and H7 close off earlier than the models had it, there was a very good chance that the system would come close to stalling and start to jog NW. For whatever reason, after they closed off, the jog and stall did not happen. But, if it had, NYC would have been in the bulls eye for a foot or more and the spots west, like Philly and the suburbs would have seen their 6 to 12 inches still. The low started to close off early and when it did, they NWS needed to hold their forecast. The negative trough definitely played a huge part in no snow for us, but as I said in my first post, as certain things started to fall in place, other things started to fall apart.

Perhaps. The NWS mets that I talked with yesterday however clearly saw what was happening, paired it with model guidance and began to scale back amounts when their forecasting packages were required, i.e. 4pm, etc. Why they didn't go down to zero is somewhat of a mystery, perhaps they didn't want to completely jump ship prior to the storm verifying under the risk premise I outlined in my post earlier.

 

[JZilla]

I love how instead of being relieved, everyone is #####ing

Much Ado About Snothing, 2015?

For me, as a freelancer, it's a personal complaint. I probably lost around $3000 for the jobs that were cancelled this week.

You should get into meteorology since it's so easy

 

[TheIronSheik]

Meteorologists are a joke, at least the ones on TV. There was no probable or likely here, they were positive of a massive NYC blast. They failed.

Weather is ever changing. If you ever hear anyone tell you that something is positively going to happen, weatherwise, they are either idiots or you are misunderstanding them.

 

[jamny]

I love how instead of being relieved, everyone is #####ing

Much Ado About Snothing, 2015?

For me, as a freelancer, it's a personal complaint. I probably lost around $3000 for the jobs that were cancelled this week.

You should get into meteorology since it's so easy

Obviously, it's not that easy or they would have gotten it right.

 

[JZilla]

I love how instead of being relieved, everyone is #####ing

Much Ado About Snothing, 2015?

For me, as a freelancer, it's a personal complaint. I probably lost around $3000 for the jobs that were cancelled this week.

You should get into meteorology since it's so easy

Obviously, it's not that easy or they would have gotten it right.

You may be onto something

Why not direct your frustration at who's really responsible?

 

[General Malaise]

I love how instead of being relieved, everyone is #####ing

Much Ado About Snothing, 2015?

For me, as a freelancer, it's a personal complaint. I probably lost around $3000 for the jobs that were cancelled this week.

You should get into meteorology since it's so easy

Obviously, it's not that easy or they would have gotten it right.

You may be onto something

Why not direct your frustration at who's really responsible?

Pretty sure he's busy accepting Oscars right now.

 

[flapgreen]

Bad weather means ratings. The stations know this. There's always an agenda.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I find it so funny that people think the NWS is a big conspiracy to boost TV ratings and gain political clout.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Some of you guys are unreal.

 

[Cyclones]

It's par for the course when it comes to bad weather - overestimate so that people take it seriously just in case they really need to.

It happens all the time in Lexington during tornado season. A couple of years ago the local weathermen were basically saying the TorCon number number was at 9 for Lexington, indicating a near 100% chance of tornadoes. We sat huddled in the basement watching the weather while outside we were hit with some light winds and hail the size of small pebbles sporadically, mixed with sunshine.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

I love how instead of being relieved, everyone is #####ing

Much Ado About Snothing, 2015?

For me, as a freelancer, it's a personal complaint. I probably lost around $3000 for the jobs that were cancelled this week.

You should get into meteorology since it's so easy

Obviously, it's not that easy or they would have gotten it right.

Storm just moved further east which was good. They got it right for New England, which is getting killed.

Not understanding the angry in here.

 

[Johnny Rock]

So is Otis out trying to buy a snowblower or what?

 

[Mr. Ected]

That's BS.

There was no mention that this was a tough call or there could be a 75% reduction in the forecasted amounts.

The talking heads used terms like "historic," "snow-bomb" and "life-threatening" for NYC proper.

It was on pace to be historic. It did bomb out, just ask the people in New England. And it is life threatening. The track just shifted west. This is something we see a lot with storms like this. Same thing with hurricanes.

Didn't the track shift east? It drifted away from the Mid-Atlantic coast, resulting in the lower numbers for Philly, NJ, and NYC proper, but stayed on for eastern LI, and MA.

 

[jhib]

I have one real complaint:

There was absolutely a point last night when every meteorologist figured out this gigantic storm was going to miss NYC. I watched the news until almost 1am, and not a single one of them backed off of their "historic blizzard" forecast. Zero integrity, and at that point strictly telling lies for ratings. This is equivalent to journalists / news stations telling blatant lies or exaggerations to promote their agendas, and every single one of them did this last night.

There was a chance that NYC could see a foot or more of snow probably up until about 3 am.

But there was a point when this started becoming less probable. Nobody shifted their forecasts or even said 6 inches was probable (or even possible!), they stuck to their guns...

Like here for example

Are there any websites where they break precipitation forecasts down into % likely for different amounts?

When I see a forecast for 4-6" and then notice that there's a 90% chance of precipitation, it makes me wonder how it all breaks down. They obviously consider it a 10% chance of 0", so there must be a significant % for 0-4" as well, so really how likely is the 4-6"? But most people seeing 4-6" think they are guaranteed to get 4" minimum.

I can realize for TV news and radio, the quick "most likely" forecast is what people want, but it would be nice to have a website that gives you more info that is still easily accessible.

Then, when something like this happens in NY/NJ, it won't be all that surprising to as many people. When you realize going in that they give it a 10% chance (for example) of getting 4" instead of the more likely 24" forecasted, the focus could be less on the meteorologist being wrong and more on that just being how the hand was dealt.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Being in Baaawstun id trade places with you new Yaaaawkers today

 

[Swing 51]

I have one real complaint:

There was absolutely a point last night when every meteorologist figured out this gigantic storm was going to miss NYC. I watched the news until almost 1am, and not a single one of them backed off of their "historic blizzard" forecast. Zero integrity, and at that point strictly telling lies for ratings. This is equivalent to journalists / news stations telling blatant lies or exaggerations to promote their agendas, and every single one of them did this last night.

There was a chance that NYC could see a foot or more of snow probably up until about 3 am.

But there was a point when this started becoming less probable. Nobody shifted their forecasts or even said 6 inches was probable (or even possible!), they stuck to their guns...

Like here for example

Are there any websites where they break precipitation forecasts down into % likely for different amounts?

Not sure about dedicated sites but the blog I follow on the Wash Post (Capital Weather Gang) will usually give a Boom and/or Bust scenario when forecasting storms. Then they give a confidence level to the boom/bust. Not foolproof of course and not sure if that is exactly the type of thing you are asking about but I like it.

 

[Witz]

At least in the movie, Juno delivered.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I love how instead of being relieved, everyone is #####ing

Much Ado About Snothing, 2015?

For me, as a freelancer, it's a personal complaint. I probably lost around $3000 for the jobs that were cancelled this week.

You should get into meteorology since it's so easy

Obviously, it's not that easy or they would have gotten it right.

Storm just moved further east which was good. They got it right for New England, which is getting killed.

Not understanding the angry in here.

Yup. The difference between a dusting and almost 3 feet was under 100 miles in some spots.

 

[((Morpheus))]

Over 30" now. Awesome

 

[jhib]

I have one real complaint:

There was absolutely a point last night when every meteorologist figured out this gigantic storm was going to miss NYC. I watched the news until almost 1am, and not a single one of them backed off of their "historic blizzard" forecast. Zero integrity, and at that point strictly telling lies for ratings. This is equivalent to journalists / news stations telling blatant lies or exaggerations to promote their agendas, and every single one of them did this last night.

There was a chance that NYC could see a foot or more of snow probably up until about 3 am.

But there was a point when this started becoming less probable. Nobody shifted their forecasts or even said 6 inches was probable (or even possible!), they stuck to their guns...

Like here for example

Are there any websites where they break precipitation forecasts down into % likely for different amounts?

Not sure about dedicated sites but the blog I follow on the Wash Post (Capital Weather Gang) will usually give a Boom and/or Bust scenario when forecasting storms. Then they give a confidence level to the boom/bust. Not foolproof of course and not sure if that is exactly the type of thing you are asking about but I like it.

I just checked it out and read this entry, and yeah, the map* they show is pretty nice. Not as detailed as I was thinking, but much more realistic for quick communication.

The percentages are key, IMO.

*ETA: I mean the map of the DC area towards the end of the entry

 

[James Bond]

When your expecting over a foot and you end up with less than 6 inches, I can see where you would be disappointed.

 

[The Big Guy]

When your expecting over a foot and you end up with less than 6 inches, I can see where you would be disappointed.

There are two parts to this. When they say up to 36" and you get 6 that is ridiculous. When they see that the path has shifted and refuse to update their forecasts for no apparent reason, then they deserve to be mocked. By all means predict towards the dire side so people take you seriously, but as it gets closer to the storm and you have updated info, you need to revise predictions.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I have one real complaint:

There was absolutely a point last night when every meteorologist figured out this gigantic storm was going to miss NYC. I watched the news until almost 1am, and not a single one of them backed off of their "historic blizzard" forecast. Zero integrity, and at that point strictly telling lies for ratings. This is equivalent to journalists / news stations telling blatant lies or exaggerations to promote their agendas, and every single one of them did this last night.

There was a chance that NYC could see a foot or more of snow probably up until about 3 am.

But there was a point when this started becoming less probable. Nobody shifted their forecasts or even said 6 inches was probable (or even possible!), they stuck to their guns...

Like here for example

Are there any websites where they break precipitation forecasts down into % likely for different amounts?

Not sure about dedicated sites but the blog I follow on the Wash Post (Capital Weather Gang) will usually give a Boom and/or Bust scenario when forecasting storms. Then they give a confidence level to the boom/bust. Not foolproof of course and not sure if that is exactly the type of thing you are asking about but I like it.

I just checked it out and read this entry, and yeah, the map* they show is pretty nice. Not as detailed as I was thinking, but much more realistic for quick communication.

The percentages are key, IMO.

*ETA: I mean the map of the DC area towards the end of the entry

That's a great article. Although I would argue one thing:

Every meteorologist I heard talked about how it was going to be a very difficult storm to forecast. And that the precipitation shield was going to have a very sharp cutoff. The problem arises when news outlets hear the mets forecast, then turn it into a lead story. They tend to leave out the important parts and only focus on the hype. If you are getting your weather from a news source, you're going to get a lot of hype and not a lot of details. If you get it from the weatherman on the news, you need to make sure they are respected. There are a lot of bad TV mets, the same way there are a lot of bad doctors. Most TV weathermen take their data directly from one model and just copy and paste it into a forecast. No human interaction. It's the same with TWC and Accuweather. There is zero human analysis of data.

If you really want good weather reports, find a local group that covers your area. They are everywhere. They are made up of professional mets who read the data, and make actual forecasts. They spend a lot of time going over the data and they are focused solely on your area's weather.

 

[Tom Servo]

When your expecting over a foot and you end up with less than 6 inches, I can see where you would be disappointed.

TWSS?

 

[General Malaise]

When your expecting over a foot and you end up with less than 6 inches, I can see where you would be disappointed.

There are two parts to this. When they say up to 36" and you get 6 that is ridiculous. When they see that the path has shifted and refuse to update their forecasts for no apparent reason, then they deserve to be mocked. By all means predict towards the dire side so people take you seriously, but as it gets closer to the storm and you have updated info, you need to revise predictions.

I'm thinking you either missed his joke or just need to step away from the TV/Computer for a while.

 

[General Malaise]

Best weather forecaster ever.

 

[jamny]

I have one real complaint:

There was absolutely a point last night when every meteorologist figured out this gigantic storm was going to miss NYC. I watched the news until almost 1am, and not a single one of them backed off of their "historic blizzard" forecast. Zero integrity, and at that point strictly telling lies for ratings. This is equivalent to journalists / news stations telling blatant lies or exaggerations to promote their agendas, and every single one of them did this last night.

There was a chance that NYC could see a foot or more of snow probably up until about 3 am.

But there was a point when this started becoming less probable. Nobody shifted their forecasts or even said 6 inches was probable (or even possible!), they stuck to their guns...

Like here for example

Are there any websites where they break precipitation forecasts down into % likely for different amounts?

Not sure about dedicated sites but the blog I follow on the Wash Post (Capital Weather Gang) will usually give a Boom and/or Bust scenario when forecasting storms. Then they give a confidence level to the boom/bust. Not foolproof of course and not sure if that is exactly the type of thing you are asking about but I like it.

I just checked it out and read this entry, and yeah, the map* they show is pretty nice. Not as detailed as I was thinking, but much more realistic for quick communication.

The percentages are key, IMO.

*ETA: I mean the map of the DC area towards the end of the entry

That's a great article. Although I would argue one thing:

Every meteorologist I heard talked about how it was going to be a very difficult storm to forecast. And that the precipitation shield was going to have a very sharp cutoff. The problem arises when news outlets hear the mets forecast, then turn it into a lead story. They tend to leave out the important parts and only focus on the hype. If you are getting your weather from a news source, you're going to get a lot of hype and not a lot of details. If you get it from the weatherman on the news, you need to make sure they are respected. There are a lot of bad TV mets, the same way there are a lot of bad doctors. Most TV weathermen take their data directly from one model and just copy and paste it into a forecast. No human interaction. It's the same with TWC and Accuweather. There is zero human analysis of data.

If you really want good weather reports, find a local group that covers your area. They are everywhere. They are made up of professional mets who read the data, and make actual forecasts. They spend a lot of time going over the data and they are focused solely on your area's weather.

Well that's why we needed you here!!

 

[TheIronSheik]

I have one real complaint:

There was absolutely a point last night when every meteorologist figured out this gigantic storm was going to miss NYC. I watched the news until almost 1am, and not a single one of them backed off of their "historic blizzard" forecast. Zero integrity, and at that point strictly telling lies for ratings. This is equivalent to journalists / news stations telling blatant lies or exaggerations to promote their agendas, and every single one of them did this last night.

There was a chance that NYC could see a foot or more of snow probably up until about 3 am.

But there was a point when this started becoming less probable. Nobody shifted their forecasts or even said 6 inches was probable (or even possible!), they stuck to their guns...

Like here for example

Are there any websites where they break precipitation forecasts down into % likely for different amounts?

Not sure about dedicated sites but the blog I follow on the Wash Post (Capital Weather Gang) will usually give a Boom and/or Bust scenario when forecasting storms. Then they give a confidence level to the boom/bust. Not foolproof of course and not sure if that is exactly the type of thing you are asking about but I like it.

I just checked it out and read this entry, and yeah, the map* they show is pretty nice. Not as detailed as I was thinking, but much more realistic for quick communication.

The percentages are key, IMO.

*ETA: I mean the map of the DC area towards the end of the entry

That's a great article. Although I would argue one thing:

Every meteorologist I heard talked about how it was going to be a very difficult storm to forecast. And that the precipitation shield was going to have a very sharp cutoff. The problem arises when news outlets hear the mets forecast, then turn it into a lead story. They tend to leave out the important parts and only focus on the hype. If you are getting your weather from a news source, you're going to get a lot of hype and not a lot of details. If you get it from the weatherman on the news, you need to make sure they are respected. There are a lot of bad TV mets, the same way there are a lot of bad doctors. Most TV weathermen take their data directly from one model and just copy and paste it into a forecast. No human interaction. It's the same with TWC and Accuweather. There is zero human analysis of data.

If you really want good weather reports, find a local group that covers your area. They are everywhere. They are made up of professional mets who read the data, and make actual forecasts. They spend a lot of time going over the data and they are focused solely on your area's weather.

Well that's why we needed you here!!

Sadly, I was on the side that believed the storm would come to fruition up until about 11 PM. I always knew there was a good potential for a bust (storms like this are considered high bust potential storms), but I really thought conditions were setting up nicely, even late. I wasn't alone.