usedtobe Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'd probably reverse the probabilities for the 1st two categories if I had seen the 18Z NAM http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/a-possible-tricky-snow-situation-for-thursdays-evening-rush-hour-around-washington-dc/2013/01/16/15c041c6-6001-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html#pagebreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw baltimore wx Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'd probably reverse the probabilities for the 1st two categories if I had seen the 18Z NAM http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/a-possible-tricky-snow-situation-for-thursdays-evening-rush-hour-around-washington-dc/2013/01/16/15c041c6-6001-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html#pagebreak As always, amidst the debacle, Wes walks to the plate and calmly hits a home run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 As always, amidst the debacle, Wes walks to the plate and calmly hits a home run. I don't know about that, I'd probably raise probability of the second scenario a little at the expense of the 1st or raise the third a tad at the expense of the 1st if I were doing it over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw baltimore wx Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I don't know about that, I'd probably raise probability of the second scenario a little at the expense of the 1st or raise the third a tad at the expense of the 1st if I were doing it over. Yeah, I read that in another post that you made, but the point is that you maintain a calm atmosphere about you, and you're almost always (if not always always) spot on. Each case in your newest article is presented so succintly and so plainly that no one should fault you if your 35% scenario is more right than your 45% scenario. Notice I said "no one should fault you." I'm a little behind the times I think because last night I had to Google "truthers." Sometimes I think we need a stupid plague. Not sure that I'd make the cut, but I'd be willing to risk it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCAlexandria Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'm LMFAO that the CWG has arrogantly determined they know better than the NWS about emergency planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCAlexandria Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 DC has 5 million people, if some models 24 hours out show 5" plus they really have to issue the WSW regardless of what the CWG thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WNash Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'm LMFAO that the CWG has arrogantly determined they know better than the NWS about emergency planning. ? Don't they have a professional obligation to provide their readers with the most accurate forecast they can provide? I'm a public employee as well and I never undervalue the contribution of the NWS, but we're talking about different categories, with different standards, and different audiences and obligations. I figure anyone who understands probability could reconcile the NWS and CWG forecasts, but hey, I guess people who want certainty want it all the time with no gradations, context, or background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 As a met, I think I have an obligation to post what I think is the most likely scenarios regardless of what the NWS is forecasting. By and large I think the NWS does a great job and worked for the NWS for 30 years. If disagreeing on a forecast is considered arrogant, then I guess I should quit posting articles on my own opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCAlexandria Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Posting your opinion on the weather is different than saying NWS was premature in issuing WSW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 Posting your opinion on the weather is different than saying NWS was premature in issuing WSW Did I say that or are you just plain trolling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Chill Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Did I say that or are you just plain trolling? Save your energy for posting awesome articles and sharing your thoughts. They are well received and appreciated by 1000's around here. DC's mo is crystal clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Did I say that or are you just plain trolling? It was posted earlier basically saying that. IMO maybe a little over the top given what a watch means. Think the watch was sort of unexpected and everyone freaked a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCAlexandria Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Maybe people are misunderstanding me. CWG says NWS was premature in WSW issuing. I'm saying they had to issue a WSW for prep sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw baltimore wx Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Did I say that or are you just plain trolling? To add to Ian's post, here's the link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/winter-storm-watch-for-dc-area-thursday-and-thursday-night/2013/01/16/dec13f28-5ffa-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html?tid=pm_local_pop I don't have an opinion either way other to say that Jason did say, "Our opinion..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 To me it would have been better just to say we think their forecast is too high. There has been a lot of 'fighting' about underuse/overuse of warning between the media and NWS lately. A watch means something is possible.. As far as I can tell their issuance met that guidance. Overall LWX is a great resource and has been kind to local media so getting confrontational with them over a watch seems a bit tricky. I don't think it's an issue long term but the insta publish nature of the world amplifies things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw baltimore wx Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 To me it would have been better just to say we think their forecast is too high. There has been a lot of 'fighting' about underuse/overuse of warning between the media and NWS lately. A watch means something is possible.. As far as I can tell their issuance met that guidance. Overall LWX is a great resource and has been kind to local media so getting confrontational with them over a watch seems a bit tricky. I don't think it's an issue long term but the insta publish nature of the world amplifies things. I don't disagree with you, especially when you say LWX is a great resource. They do an almost thank-less job and catch a lot of unwarranted grief. Like you, Matt, and others have discussed, their audience has huge gaps with regards to basic weather knowledge. I haven't given it a lot of thought, but maybe they try to do too much to try to accomodate everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted January 17, 2013 Author Share Posted January 17, 2013 I also think the NWS does a great job. We did discuss the watch and I did mention to Jason that I thought it unlikely that we'd see more than 5 inches as even .50 probably would not get us there and I thought the with the Euro so much lower that the QPF might be overdone. Plus, the NAM tends to have a high bias. I probably would have worded things differently but I Jason was probably reacting to all the questions from Twitter and Facebook. Both are good resources and help viewership but can box you in too much for my liking. That's why part of the reason I've never participated in either. I certainly don't think Jason was trying to be disrespectful to the LWX as he has a lot of respect for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Agree Wes. Not a big issue in the grand scheme tho a LWX guy sent a msg to us on Twitter that we were NWS bashing. I actually was fine with the watch even if it doesn't 'verify' so I was confused with that.. he also used to follow me so I probably lwx bashed in the past without realizing it. Overall I'm sort of a NWS apologist. They have the best mets on avg by far IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted January 17, 2013 Author Share Posted January 17, 2013 I think one of the difficulties about when to issuing watches is what constitutes a threat high enough to justify one. Personally, I think a watch should be issued whenever the probability of 5 inches or greater reaches some set probability. However, I'm not sure what that probability is in the NWS or even what it should be. I do think whatever probability is used should be conveyed to the public. Also, should a watch be issued If there is a 10% chance 5 inches or more? 30? 50? Is there a set probability or is it left up to a subjective judgement of the forecaster. If the latter, that leaves him in a very bad place. Also, I never have liked having 5 inches as the criteria for putting out a winter storm watch. Around here even 2-4 inches can be a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Also, I never have liked having 5 inches as the criteria for putting out a winter storm watch. Around here even 2-4 inches can be a big deal. I think this is the key point. Given how quickly this threat emerged out of left field, the NWS would have been pilloried if we ended up with 2-4 inches without any warning until late the night before or early the morning of. With the timing of this storm potentially coinciding with the evening rush, employers and the government needed to have sufficient lead time to implement contingency plans--many of which recently were revised to avoid a repeat of Commuteagedon or whatever else we're supposed to call that storm in January 2011. In an ideal world, the NWS would have issued a Winter Weather Advisory Watch (or something similar) that provides a heads-up about a potential high-impact storm (based on timing) without providing a suggestion that 5 inches was likely. I think the folks at LWX made the right call given the tools available to them, but I wish the NWS would continue to examine ways to refine the products to ensure they are communicating the best information to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.