[CT_Native]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

They did have information to give - they had models coming in saying most of the area was to get almost a foot less than predicted. They refused to alter the forecast because they didn't want to "confuse" the public. Even when the storm was done, they were still forecasting 18-24" for my area!

Re: "forecasting the impact", nearly every road in the state was passable so the impact was far less than anticipated, even with the ice and sleet in its place.

As I said, they have a duty to give us the information coming in - keeping information from the public, for whatever reason, isn't acceptable IMO. It's like that friend who doesn't tell someone something "for their own good".

In defense of the NWS, the regional offices did generate three snow accumulation maps. The "minimum" accumulation map basically represented an inland track, the "most likely" map represented a track a little west of the inland track, and the "maximum" map represented a track a little west of the "most likely" track or perhaps a stronger storm. The NWS is beginning to operate more on probabilities now, which is better forecasting IMO. The media tends to ignore the complexities of forecasting and just hypes up storms by broadcasting big snowfall forecasts with no analysis.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by CT_Native

In defense of the NWS, the regional offices did generate three snow accumulation maps. The "minimum" accumulation map basically represented an inland track, the "most likely" map represented a track a little west of the inland track, and the "maximum" map represented a track a little west of the "most likely" track or perhaps a stronger storm. The NWS is beginning to operate more on probabilities now, which is better forecasting IMO. The media tends to ignore the complexities of forecasting and just hypes up storms by broadcasting big snowfall forecasts with no analysis.

I'm going right off the NWS text in the warnings, not the media.

[CT_Native]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I'm going right off the NWS text in the warnings, not the media.

I remember the warnings. The NWS absolutely needs to communicate more effectively about the forecast uncertainty in said warnings - I agree. But they did publish information on how the storm could have evolved and could have impacted the area in various ways, so I wouldn't go as far as to say they withheld information. It's a balance between brevity and thoroughness, and this time they weren't thorough enough.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by CT_Native

I remember the warnings. The NWS absolutely needs to communicate more effectively about the forecast uncertainty in said warnings - I agree. But they did publish information on how the storm could have evolved and could have impacted the area in various ways, so I wouldn't go as far as to say they withheld information. It's a balance between brevity and thoroughness, and this time they weren't thorough enough.

If you go digging, sure, you'll find that. My point is, the NWS refused to adjust their official forecast. That's the problem.

Anwyay, I think they otherwise do a great job. This was just a hiccup, hopefully.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

I'm on the NH line and had no issues yesterday with timetable or overcrowded. Weird. 6:41 in and 8:01 out.

6:07 was 6:11 and seemed like 2 trains jammed into one.

[Cambium]

A loop of the actual storm track. For those not sure obviously look at the inner most circle, that's where the center is.


Hugging the coast. 25 miles more west and even Hartford would of been mixing. 25 miles East and NYC would of seen 12" plus.


Now tell me... How the heck do you forecast an EXACT track?


Models saw this storm coming 9 days ago but EXACTS are never known till day of or within 24hrs.







How about a radar loop. 8pm March 13th to 7pm March 14th

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Cambium

A loop of the actual storm track. For those not sure obviously look at the inner most circle, that's where the center is.


Hugging the coast. 25 miles more west and even Hartford would of been mixing. 25 miles East and NYC would of seen 12" plus.


Now tell me... How the heck do you forecast an EXACT track?


Models saw this storm coming 9 days ago but EXACTS are never known till day of or within 24hrs.







How about a radar loop. 8pm March 13th to 7pm March 14th

That's exactly my point. If we think that NWS will guess accurately everytime to the inch, for every neighborhood, street or even town, then the problem is our unrealistic expectations.


NWS's did get the forecast correctly for most of a small state like CT after all. Anything more is unrealistic, until their skill and technology leaps.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Henry10

That's exactly my point. If we think that NWS will guess accurately everytime to the inch, for every neighborhood, street or even town, then the problem is our unrealistic expectations.


NWS's did get the forecast correctly for most of a small state like CT after all. Anything more is unrealistic, until their skill and technology leaps.

You're both continuing to miss my point. It's not that they were having difficulty forecasting. At the point the questionable decision was made, they KNEW what was likely to happen, however made a conscious decision not to address it for fear of "confusion". How many more times do I have to explain this?

[Cambium]

Problem is, general public doesn't know how to read the discussions and never think to check every few hours.


THEY DID mention it!! I just got around to this myself. I mentioned the NAM which was first to show it but then focused on current stuff not future.


Take a look... Proof they did mention it but notice they didn't change their forecast at first but they did mention the mixing though...




11:15pm night before. text and Screen shot.

National Weather Service New York NY
1115 PM EDT Mon Mar 13 2017


The 00Z NAM continues to trend west. The track now takes it
over Riverhead and Peconic Bay. No changes to the official
forecast yet, as the GFS is usually the preferred solution at
this time period and the model is still running.

The main changes to note were an increase in the gradient of
snowfall. Basically looking at more intense snow N/W of NYC and
more mixing with sleet/freezing rain and even plain rain
farther east along the eastern coast occurring earlier Tuesday
morning.

5:30am that morning. text and screen shot. Poorly distributed message to public officials I agree; but they did acknowledge the trends which is nice to see..

National Weather Service New York NY
531 AM EDT Tue Mar 14 2017

Storm track continues to slide westward. As a result expect SE
portions of the area to mix with sleet and rain this morning and
possibly to all rain this afternoon. Sleet now expected to mix
in with snow over NYC/NW Long Island/SW CT and possibly lower
Westchester County reducing snow totals there.

Concerns with forecast - with westward shift in track -
increasing potential for dry air to work in aloft - so
precipitation could end sooner than expected with a period of
freezing drizzle possible late this afternoon/evening. If this
occurs, then snow fall totals, especially over the NW 1/2 of the
CWA could need to be reduced by 6" or so. If NAM ends up being
correct, then even larger reductions would be needed over most
of the CWA

Lastly... Again........ It was a historic event overall, 12"+ DID FALL. Hartford got most snow ever for a day in March. 2-3 feet fell in central NY

[Cambium]

Another look at the actual snow totals from this storm. I wonder how NESIS will rank it.

Just think.... All those 18-30" totals would of shifted SouthEast into us had the track been east more.


Lots of precip with this one and cold enough air.