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

[gymengineer]

I really don't mean to suggest the NWS mets are not making their best informed decisions based on data... I just wanted to get a discussion going.

So, rewind back to 1993. The March blizzard had a huge expanse of blizzard warning issued the morning or afternoon before, and the warnings made *everyone* who was watching TV or listening to the radio take notice. The message from the warning was that this was going to crippling and something unlike what we had seen for a decade.

Then, 3 years later, blizzard warnings get issued again for 1/96. Again, it was a 'take notice' type of warning, altering the tone of the news coverage with somber-sounding weather-folk.

Fast-forward this past decade--- In DC, *three* blizzard warnings were issued last winter. Two of them seemed a long shot to begin with for verifying a true blizzard, and neither of those storms came close.

Upton has issued blizzard warnings for just about every major snowfall that could produce gusty winds-- how many warnings have there been since 2000? Mt. Holly and Taunton also have had plenty of warnings out. Did the confidence criteria for the warnings change recently?

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?

[Amped]

Yes. Models don't handle CAD very well. The temperature inversion means less winds than advertised in most areas, unless or until the wind ****s to West of North.

[friendwh]

I really don't mean to suggest the NWS mets are not making their best informed decisions based on data... I just wanted to get a discussion going.

So, rewind back to 1993. The March blizzard had a huge expanse of blizzard warning issued the morning or afternoon before, and the warnings made *everyone* who was watching TV or listening to the radio take notice. The message from the warning was that this was going to crippling and something unlike what we had seen for a decade.

Then, 3 years later, blizzard warnings get issued again for 1/96. Again, it was a 'take notice' type of warning, altering the tone of the news coverage with somber-sounding weather-folk.

Fast-forward this past decade--- In DC, *three* blizzard warnings were issued last winter. Two of them seemed a long shot to begin with for verifying a true blizzard, and neither of those storms came close.

Upton has issued blizzard warnings for just about every major snowfall that could produce gusty winds-- how many warnings have there been since 2000? Mt. Holly and Taunton also have had plenty of warnings out. Did the confidence criteria for the warnings change recently?

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 could be wrong, but the last time I remember blizzard warnings being issued by Upton was during the 2/06 storm

[gymengineer]

I could be wrong, but the last time I remember blizzard warnings being issued by Upton was during the 2/06 storm

They hoisted blizzard warnings for at least 12/19/09 and 2/10/10.

[Ger]

I think the definition of "Blizzard" ought to be changed to broaden its meaning; no one will convince me that what I experienced during the February 5/6 blizzard did not qualify as a blizzard, though indeed in a very technical, very limited sense it did not. I think the time should be lowered from 3 (?) consecutive hours to either 2 consecutive hours, or 3 or more hours over the duration of the storm not just in consecutive hours, or whatever.

I also get the distinct feeling the Midwesterners are Blizzard-snobs. Maybe they're envious of the east coast's bigger, more dynamic snowstorms. I don't know. But I'm tired of having this same old "was it a blizzard?" conversation after every big storm.

[isohume]

I thought the Blizzard Warnings for the event were well placed and certainly justified.

=============================================================

Blizzard Warning:

A blizzard means that the following conditions are expected to prevail for a period of 3 hours or longer:

a. Sustained wind or frequent gusts to 35 miles an hour or greater; and

b. Considerable falling and/or blowing snow (i.e., frequently reducing visibility below 1/4 mile).

=============================================================

KISP 270846Z 02035KT 1/4SM R06/2000V3000FT SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M06/M07 A2898 RMK AO2 PNO $
KISP 270837Z 02035KT 1/4SM R06/1800V2000FT SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M06/M07 A2898 RMK AO2 PNO $
KISP 270756Z 02035KT 1/4SM R06/2000V2600FT SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M06/M07 A2896 RMK AO2 SLP809 T10611072 PNO $
KISP 270656Z 02035KT 1/4SM R06/2000V2800FT SN FZFG BLSN VV002 M06/M07 A2896 RMK AO2 SLP809 T10601070 PNO $
KISP 270628Z 02030KT 1/8SM R06/1800V2400FT SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M05/M06 A2895 RMK AO2 PNO $
KISP 270556Z 02030KT 1/8SM R06/1400V2000FT SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M05/M05 A2894 RMK AO2 SLP802 4/012 6//// T10501050 11022 21050 56021 PNO $
KISP 270546Z 02035KT 1/8SM R06/1400V2400FT SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M03/M05 A2894 RMK AO2 PNO $
KISP 270527Z 02035KT 1/8SM R06/1600V2200FT SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M03/M05 A2895 RMK AO2 PNO $
KISP 270456Z 02035KT 1/4SM R06/2200V2600FT SN FZFG BLSN BKN001 BKN004 OVC010 M03/M05 A2896 RMK AO2 SLP807 T10281050 401001039 PNO $
KISP 270356Z 01035KT 1/8SM R06/2600V5000FT SN FZFG BLSN BKN001 BKN004 OVC010 M03/M05 A2896 RMK AO2 SLP809 SNINCR 1/11 P0000 T10281050 $
KISP 270256Z 01033G44KT 1/4SM R06/2800V4500FT SN FZFG BLSN BKN001 BKN004 OVC014 M03/M05 A2900 RMK AO2 PK WND 36056/0210 SLP823 SNINCR 1/10 P0002 60007 T10281050 56077 $
KISP 270156Z 01035G49KT 1/4SM R06/1800V3000FT +SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M02/M05 A2906 RMK AO2 PK WND 01052/0138 SLP843 SNINCR 2/9 P0002 T10221050 $
KISP 270140Z 36037G52KT 1/8SM R06/1800V2600FT +SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M03/M05 A2907 RMK AO2 PK WND 01052/0138 PRESFR P0002 $
KISP 270120Z 36034G47KT 1/8SM R06/1200V2000FT +SN FZFG BLSN BKN001 OVC011 M03/M05 A2911 RMK AO2 PK WND 01047/0120 PRESFR P0002 $
KISP 270056Z 02032G50KT 1/8SM R06/2400V4000FT +SN FZFG BLSN BKN001 OVC013 M03/M05 A2916 RMK AO2 PK WND 03050/0055 PLB11E31 SLP876 SNINCR 1/7 P0003 T10281050 $
KISP 270031Z 36021G43KT 1/4SM R06/2800V4500FT +SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M03/M06 A2919 RMK AO2 PK WND 36047/0011 PLB11E31 P0002 $
KISP 270011Z COR 36038G47KT 1/8SM R06/2800V4500FT +SNPL FZFG BLSN BKN001 OVC013 M03/M06 A2919 RMK AO2 PK WND 36047/0011 PLB11 PRESFR P0000 $

KHPN 270856Z 33030G40KT 0SM +SN BLSN VV000 M06/M08 A2907 RMK AO2 PK WND 33045/0836 SLP855 P0005 60005 T10611083 53004 $
KHPN 270756Z 32027G44KT 1/4SM +SN BLSN VV002 M07/M09 A2906 RMK AO2 PK WND 32049/0718 SLP853 P0000 T10671089 $
KHPN 270656Z 33030G43KT 3/4SM +SN BLSN VV002 M07/M09 A2906 RMK AO2 PK WND 35058/0621 SLP852 P0000 T10671094 $
KHPN 270556Z 33028G42KT 0SM +SN BLSN VV001 M08/M10 A2906 RMK AO2 PK WND 33045/0546 SLP851 P0004 60027 T10781100 11067 21083 56040 $
KHPN 270456Z 33034G48KT 0SM +SN BLSN VV001 M08/M10 A2908 RMK AO2 PK WND 32048/0454 SLP858 P0007 T10781100 410281083 $
KHPN 270356Z 33032G44KT 0SM +SN BLSN VV001 M08/M11 A2914 RMK AO2 PK WND 33045/0331 SLP878 P0003 T10831106 $
KHPN 270256Z 33028G45KT 0SM +SN BLSN VV001 M08/M11 A2918 RMK AO2 PK WND 34045/0250 SLP891 P0005 60013 T10831106 56058 $
KHPN 270156Z 34030G41KT 0SM SN BLSN VV002 M08/M10 A2923 RMK AO2 PK WND 34041/0155 PRESFR SLP909 P0004 T10781100 $

KEWR 270451Z 34024G35KT 1/8SM R04R/1400V1600FT +SN BLSN VV002 M04/M06 A2921 RMK AO2 PK WND 34035/0446 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP891 SNINCR 2/18 P0011 T10391056 410061044 $
KEWR 270351Z COR 34025G42KT 1/4SM R04R/2000V3000FT +SN BLSN OVC002 M04/M06 A2924 RMK AO2 PK WND 34042/0342 SLP901 SNINCR 2/16 P0013 T10391056 $
KEWR 270337Z 34023G34KT 1/4SM R04R/2000V2800FT +SN BLSN VV001 M04/M06 A2925 RMK AO2 PK WND 33038/0320 SNINCR 3/14 P0010 $
KEWR 270325Z 35028G38KT 1/8SM R04R/2000V2400FT +SN BLSN VV001 M04/M06 A2926 RMK AO2 PK WND 33038/0320 TWR VIS 1/4 SNINCR 3/14 P0006 $
KEWR 270302Z 34025G34KT 1/8SM R04R/1600V2200FT +SN BLSN VV001 M04/M06 A2926 RMK AO2 PK WND 34034/0258 TWR VIS 1/4 SNINCR 3/14 P0002 $
KEWR 270251Z 34025G35KT 1/8SM +SN BLSN VV001 M04/M06 A2926 RMK AO2 PK WND 35039/0221 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP909 SNINCR 3/14 P0018 60046 T10441056 58047 RVRNO $
KEWR 270228Z 35026G39KT 1/8SM +SN BLSN VV001 M04/M06 A2929 RMK AO2 PK WND 35039/0221 TWR VIS 1/4 P0007 RVRNO $
KEWR 270151Z COR 35022G35KT 1/4SM +SN BLSN VV002 M04/M06 A2933 RMK AO2 PK WND 34036/0139 SLP930 SNINCR 2/11 P0016 T10441061 RVRNO $
KEWR 270120Z 35021G29KT 1/4SM +SN BLSN VV001 M04/M06 A2934 RMK AO2 PK WND 35036/0052 P0008 RVRNO $
KEWR 270110Z 34023G33KT 1/4SM R04R/1400V1800FT +SN BLSN VV001 M04/M06 A2935 RMK AO2 PK WND 35036/0052 P0004 $
KEWR 270051Z 35028G37KT 1/8SM +SN BLSN VV001 M04/M06 A2936 RMK AO2 PK WND 35044/0009 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP942 P0012 T10441061 RVRNO $
KEWR 270020Z COR 36026G38KT 1/4SM +SN BLSN VV001 M04/M06 A2938 RMK AO2 PK WND 35044/0009 TWR VIS 1/4 P0005 $
KEWR 270002Z 35029G38KT 1/4SM SN BLSN BKN002 OVC012 M04/M06 A2940 RMK AO2 PK WND 36038/2356 SFC VIS 1/2 CIG 001V003 P0002 RVRNO $
KEWR 262351Z COR 36030G39KT 1/4SM SN BLSN BKN001 OVC012 M04/M06 A2940 RMK AO2 PK WND 35039/2349 SLP956 SNINCR 2/7 60032 P0007 931015 4/007 T10441061 11028 21044 58043 $
KEWR 262251Z COR 36026G31KT 1/4SM +SN BLSN VV001 M04/M06 A2945 RMK AO2 PK WND 01035/2237 PRESFR SLP973 SNINCR 3/6 P0012 T10391056 $
KEWR 262241Z COR 36022G35KT 1/4SM +SN BLSN VV001 M04/M06 A2947 RMK AO2 PK WND 01035/2237 P0009 $

KJFK 270459Z 34029G42KT 1/8SM R04R/2000V3000FT SN FZFG BLSN VV005 M06/M08 A2911 RMK AO2 PK WND 34042/0457 SFC VIS 1/4 P0000 $
KJFK 270451Z 33031G44KT 1/8SM R04R/1800V3000FT SN FZFG BLSN VV004 M06/M07 A2913 RMK AO2 PK WND 34047/0418 SFC VIS 1/4 SLP863 P0001 T10561072 410061056 $
KJFK 270351Z COR 34035G49KT 0SM R04R/2000V2800FT SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M06/M07 A2917 RMK AO2 PK WND 34049/0350 SFC VIS 1/8 SLP876 SNINCR 1/10 P0003 T10561072 $
KJFK 270251Z 34037G49KT 0SM SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M05/M07 A2917 RMK SFC VSBY 1/8 SNINCR1/8 T10561072 SLP878
KJFK 270151Z 34034G42KT 0SM R04R/1600V2200FT SN FZFG BLSN VV001 M06/M07 A2921
KJFK 270051Z 36029G38KT 1/4SM R04R/1400V1800FT SN FZFG BLSN VV002 M05/M07 A2928 RMK AO2 PK WND 35043/0029 SLP913 P0002 T10501067 $

KOXC 270145Z 02030G42KT 1/8SM +SN BLSN OVC005 M04/M07 A2928
KOXC 270045Z 03024G48KT 1/8SM +SN BLSN OVC003 M05/M07 A2933 RMK PRESFR
KOXC 262345Z 02025G38KT 1/8SM +SN BLSN OVC005 M06/M08 A2940 RMKS PRESFR

KTEB 270251Z 35020G34KT 1/16SM R06/1000V1400FT +SN BLSN FZFG OVC003 M06/M08 A2926 RMK AO2 PK WND 34067/0238 PRESFR SLP907 P0004 60008 T10561078 58051 $
KTEB 270151Z 35016G25KT 1/4SM R06/1800V2800FT +SN BLSN FZFG VV003 M06/M08 A2933 RMK AO2 PK WND 34032/0111 SLP930 P0002 T10561078 $
KTEB 270051Z 35018G29KT 1/16SM R06/1600V2000FT +SN BLSN FZFG OVC003 M05/M07 A2936 RMK AO2 PK WND 36034/0023 SLP942 4/006 P0002 T10501072 $
KTEB 262358Z 35018G32KT 1/4SM R06/1600V3000FT +SN BLSN FZFG VV003 M05/M07 A2940 RMK AO2 PK WND 36032/2353 4/006 P0000 $
KTEB 262351Z COR 35021G32KT 1/4SM R06/1800V2800FT +SN BLSN FZFG VV003 M05/M07 A2941 RMK AO2 PK WND 36032/2350 TSB20E37 SLP958 P0002 60009 T10501072 11039 21050 58045 $
KTEB 262340Z 35018G31KT 1/16SM R06/1400V2000FT +SN BLSN FZFG OVC003 M05/M07 A2941 RMK AO2 PK WND 35031/2332 TSB20E37 P0002 $
KTEB 262326Z 36020G30KT 1/16SM R06/1200V1800FT +TSSN BLSN FZFG OVC001 M05/M07 A2943 RMK AO2 PK WND 35031/2258 TSB20 OCNL LTGICCC P0001 $

[weathafella]

I think that we should go back to the old classification and include very cold temperatures. That would make blizzard rarer and more deserving of the moniker.

[ayuud]

I think that we should go back to the old classification and include very cold temperatures. That would make blizzard rarer and more deserving of the moniker.

NWS Buf goes by with that definition i think,last time they issued one was back in 1985

[Herb@MAWS]

Based on the current NWS definition for a blizzard (subject to debate), they were fairly accurate. Don't forget it's as much about the wind as it is the snow. And it's all about the public safety and grabbing the public's attention, especially on some of the busiest travel days of the year.

[isohume]

Based on the current NWS definition for a blizzard (subject to debate), they were fairly accurate. Don't forget it's as much about the wind as it is the snow. And it's all about the public safety and grabbing the public's attention, especially on some of the busiest travel days of the year.

There is no debate. That (post #6) is the definition of a blizzard outlined in the NWS directive 10-513.

[Rainshadow]

There is no debate. That (post #6) is the definition of a blizzard outlined in the NWS directive 10-513.

Blizzard conditions as defined by the directive were reached at KACY and KBLM within our CWA also.

[OSUmetstud]

I think that we should go back to the old classification and include very cold temperatures. That would make blizzard rarer and more deserving of the moniker.

I think the old 20 degree criterion is way too limiting...especially for east coast blizzards.

[OSUmetstud]

NWS Buf goes by with that definition i think,last time they issued one was back in 1985

Buffalo is not really a place that is prone to blizzards. The last time they issued one for Buffalo was 1985...but the eastern CWA got Blizzard Warnings in March 1993. Blizzard criteria was reached at the Buffalo Airport during the January 2008 wind storm/seiche/lake-effect event, but they decided it was mainly localized and did not issue a Blizzard Warning.

[isohume]

I think the old 20 degree criterion is way too limiting...especially for east coast blizzards.

"Cold" temps are pretty much a given and inherent in blizzards. This last event, many locales were at M6-M5 (around 20 F - 23 F). Wind chills were right around 0 F.

[OSUmetstud]

"Cold" temps are pretty much a given and inherent in blizzards. This last event, many locales were at M6-M5 (around 20 F - 23 F). Wind chills were right around 0 F.

In the old days, there was criteria of 20 degrees for a blizzard and 10 degrees for a severe blizzard. The 20 degree thing is kinda limiting..a lot of east coast blizzards aren't going to have to have temperatures below 20 degrees for much of the storm...especially in places near the coast that get the most wind.

[isohume]

In the old days, there was criteria of 20 degrees for a blizzard and 10 degrees for a severe blizzard. The 20 degree thing is kinda limiting..a lot of east coast blizzards aren't going to have to have temperatures below 20 degrees for much of the storm...especially in places near the coast that get the most wind.

Oh I agree.

[snowman21]

They are overused. The visibility criteria is very hard to meet. The public doesn't know the technical definition of a blizzard and they could care less about the extra 10 or 20 mph added on to the wind gusts compared to a regular storm. Most nor'easters blow through here with heavy snow and wind gusts to 35 or 40 mph. So I'm not sure what the public thinks of the difference between a blizzard warning and a winter storm warning. I think most would just think it means more snow than a normal storm. Thanks to ASOS and its monitoring visibility every minute of every day means it's much easier to blow the three hour streak as soon as the wind or snow let up just a little where in the past you might not know it until the next hourly observation. I imagine verification for blizzard warnings is pretty low.

[isohume]

They are overused. The visibility criteria is very hard to meet. The public doesn't know the technical definition of a blizzard and they could care less about the extra 10 or 20 mph added on to the wind gusts compared to a regular storm. Most nor'easters blow through here with heavy snow and wind gusts to 35 or 40 mph. Thanks to ASOS and its monitoring visibility every minute of every day means it's much easier to blow the three hour streak as soon as the wind or snow let up just a little where in the past you might not know it until the next hourly observation. I imagine verification for blizzard warnings is pretty low.

The latest ER POD is pretty good around 0.95, but the FAR is rather high, around 0.69. However, if a blizzard warning prevents you or someone you know from being caught out in near zero visibility driving or walking, then it's not overused. The utility of a BZ.W is subjective, like any other product.

[JamieOber]

Part of the problem is the stubborn belief that 4WD vehicles make you invincible. Therefore people can get around no matter what.

[Herb@MAWS]

Herb@MAWS, on 28 December 2010 - 06:51 AM, said:

Based on the current NWS definition for a blizzard (subject to debate), they were fairly accurate. Don't forget it's as much about the wind as it is the snow. And it's all about the public safety and grabbing the public's attention, especially on some of the busiest travel days of the year.

There is no debate. That (post #6) is the definition of a blizzard outlined in the NWS directive 10-513.

Wasn't implying there is any question about the definition but other posters earlier in the thread indicated they don't like the definition, implying maybe there should be a debate. My emphasis was on public safety aspects.

[Caveman]

As the obs posted by isohume showed the blizzard warnings were no brainers especially in light of the fact that many travelers were unaware of the harshness/danger of the impending storm!

[snowman21]

As the obs posted by isohume showed the blizzard warnings were no brainers especially in light of the fact that many travelers were unaware of the harshness/danger of the impending storm!

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.

[Caveman]

In terms of a performance review, I'd be concerned for not issuing a Blizzard Warning for the specific counties in my CWA since most of the region did meet blizzard criteria. With an extremely deep low moving up the coast and snow/blowing snow and sub-freezing temps, this was not a storm to take lightly! Again, over the holiday weekend where many were not privy to the changed forecast, I strongly feel that the NWS needed to alert as many in the public as possible that a severe winter weather event was imminent. This was certainly not the case of "a boy who cried wolf"!

[Rainshadow]

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.

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.

[NJHurricane]

I really don't mean to suggest the NWS mets are not making their best informed decisions based on data... I just wanted to get a discussion going.

So, rewind back to 1993. The March blizzard had a huge expanse of blizzard warning issued the morning or afternoon before, and the warnings made *everyone* who was watching TV or listening to the radio take notice. The message from the warning was that this was going to crippling and something unlike what we had seen for a decade.

Then, 3 years later, blizzard warnings get issued again for 1/96. Again, it was a 'take notice' type of warning, altering the tone of the news coverage with somber-sounding weather-folk.

Fast-forward this past decade--- In DC, *three* blizzard warnings were issued last winter. Two of them seemed a long shot to begin with for verifying a true blizzard, and neither of those storms came close.

Upton has issued blizzard warnings for just about every major snowfall that could produce gusty winds-- how many warnings have there been since 2000? Mt. Holly and Taunton also have had plenty of warnings out. Did the confidence criteria for the warnings change recently?

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?

Disagree...in all of the scenarios outlined, the storms experienced were more extreme than storms of the past....the reason blizzard warning were not issued more often in the 80's/90's for these areas is simple...there were few to no storms that even came close to meeting the criteria.

[CAPE]

I thought the Blizzard Warnings for the event were well placed and certainly justified.

=============================================================

Blizzard Warning:

A blizzard means that the following conditions are expected to prevail for a period of 3 hours or longer:

a. Sustained wind or frequent gusts to 35 miles an hour or greater; and

b. Considerable falling and/or blowing snow (i.e., frequently reducing visibility below 1/4 mile).

yeah there are specific criteria and the NWS follows that from my experience.. as i recall 2 of the 3 big storms last winter were not blizzards(for my area). The December storm had 18 inches but not enough wind...20 inches in the first Feb storm but again the wind wasn't there. The the storm that occurred a few days later was a blizzard and warnings were issued...heavy snow and strong winds and very bad visibility, even though we got only a foot out of that one.

[snowstormcanuck]

NWS Buf goes by with that definition i think,last time they issued one was back in 1985

I don't think I've ever been under a blizzard warning here in Toronto, mostly because Environment Canada uses a temperature/windchill criterion that's almost impossible to achieve at my latitude.

[A-L-E-X]

They are overused. The visibility criteria is very hard to meet. The public doesn't know the technical definition of a blizzard and they could care less about the extra 10 or 20 mph added on to the wind gusts compared to a regular storm. Most nor'easters blow through here with heavy snow and wind gusts to 35 or 40 mph. So I'm not sure what the public thinks of the difference between a blizzard warning and a winter storm warning. I think most would just think it means more snow than a normal storm. Thanks to ASOS and its monitoring visibility every minute of every day means it's much easier to blow the three hour streak as soon as the wind or snow let up just a little where in the past you might not know it until the next hourly observation. I imagine verification for blizzard warnings is pretty low.

Someone who works at Upton came into our subforum and told us it doesnt have to be gusting at 35 mph + for three hours straight, there just need to be "frequent gusts" 35 mph + in that time period. So a momentary lull would not matter.

[tmagan]

This storm probably had more stations meeting blizzard criteria than any other blizzard in recent memory.

[A-L-E-X]

Part of the problem is the stubborn belief that 4WD vehicles make you invincible. Therefore people can get around no matter what.

I loved watching those 4WD snobs getting stuck in snow banks