[kidyankee764]

First, I never said it wasn't an historic event. I even mentioned in this thread this storm was far from a "bust" as some were suggesting. It wasn't as disruptive as predicted, which I'm happy about.

Second, and for the second time, sure - the information was out there if you knew what to look for. 99% of laymen only view the "Blizzard Warning" text, which you know they at the NWS know. In that text, it said nothing other than "18-24 inches with impassible roadways" right up until storm's end.

So, for the third time, the official forecast wasn't altered when it should've been upon their knowledge of the track. Failure to do so only made them look bad.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

First, I never said it wasn't an historic event. I even mentioned in this thread this storm was far from a "bust" as some were suggesting. It wasn't as disruptive as predicted, which I'm happy about.

Second, and for the second time, sure - the information was out there if you knew what to look for. 99% of laymen only view the "Blizzard Warning" text, which you know they at the NWS know. In that text, it said nothing other than "18-24 inches with impassible roadways" right up until storm's end.

So, for the third time, the official forecast wasn't altered when it should've been upon their knowledge of the track. Failure to do so only made them look bad.

We're not missing your point.

As a NYC subscriber, NYC sent me several Alerts (powered by NWS). At one point during Monday, NWS even downgraded from blizzard to storm.

1- They didn't withhold their predictions, but most people want to hear what they want to hear.

2- NWS was NOT wrong in their forecast. Under the following premise ---

NWS issues warnings, watches, based on their estimates and educated guesses. If they get the event within 50-100 miles generally correct, then they have done the job.

NYC is 10 miles by 20 miles, and for a storm like this that moved over 1000 miles a 20 mile strip is a rounding error. Actually some spots in NYC got the 12 inches.

The problem is that media wants NWS's predictions to be gospel with pinpoint accuracy, and judge NWS by that standard.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Henry10

We're not missing your point.

As a NYC subscriber, NYC sent me several Alerts (powered by NWS). At one point during Monday, NWS even downgraded from blizzard to storm.

1- They didn't withhold their predictions, but most people want to hear what they want to hear.

2- NWS was NOT wrong in their forecast. Under the following premise ---

NWS issues warnings, watches, based on their estimates and educated guesses. If they get the event within 50-100 miles generally correct, then they have done the job.

NYC is 10 miles by 20 miles, and for a storm like this that moved over 1000 miles a 20 mile strip is a rounding error. Actually some spots in NYC got the 12 inches.

The problem is that media wants NWS's predictions to be gospel with pinpoint accuracy, and judge NWS by that standard.

It has nothing to do with "hearing what they want to hear". They made note themselves that after knowledge it wasn't going to be as powerful as first thought, they made the decision not to alter their official prediction so they wouldn't confuse people. This claim came straight from the horse's mouth.

Look, if you're okay with the fact they refused to alter their official forecast, that's cool with me, but don't come up with a million reasons as to why I should be. Agree to disagree and move on, shall we?

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

It has nothing to do with "hearing what they want to hear". They made note themselves that after knowledge it wasn't going to be as powerful as first thought, they made the decision not to alter their official prediction so they wouldn't confuse people. This claim came straight from the horse's mouth.

Look, if you're okay with the fact they refused to alter their official forecast, that's cool with me, but don't come up with a million reasons as to why I shouldn't be. Agree to disagree and move on, shall we?

What was your argument again? What did I disagree with? Ok, thats a joke

[ryanthegoldengod]

Seems like everyone has a case of post storm testiness. Spring weather will be here! .....maybe in May.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

First, I never said it wasn't an historic event. I even mentioned in this thread this storm was far from a "bust" as some were suggesting. It wasn't as disruptive as predicted, which I'm happy about.

Second, and for the second time, sure - the information was out there if you knew what to look for. 99% of laymen only view the "Blizzard Warning" text, which you know they at the NWS know. In that text, it said nothing other than "18-24 inches with impassible roadways" right up until storm's end.

So, for the third time, the official forecast wasn't altered when it should've been upon their knowledge of the track. Failure to do so only made them look bad.

At least along the coast, this storm was not a historic event. We have may 5 inches on the ground, at most. We had more, and would have had a lot more, but the precipitation changed over to rain around midday on Tuesday. Even one or two towns north, like Monroe, got much more snow.

[JayCT]

Since this storm has passed, I am closing this thread. Please return to posting on the Connecticut Weather thread if you wish to continue discussing this storm. JayCT, Moderator