Have New Englanders turned into wimps?
Donald Rosenfeld
Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
>
> I am appalled.
>
> I woke up this morning (in Medford), looked out my window and saw barely
> a half-inch of snow. I didn't think anything of it until halfway to
> Boston when I heard that most of the schools and colleges were closed for
> the day.
>
> Come on people! This is what winter is supposed to look like!
>
> Okay, if there are six inches of snow, *then* I can see the necessity of
> making people stay home. But not for this. Yes, the forecasters said
> that there might be six inches by nightfall, but that still shouldn't
> impede traffic until after the normal work/school day.
>
> At 6pm, New England Cable News showed a reporter standing beside 128.
> [Paraphrased]:
> Anchor: Hey, traffic looks like it's moving at a pretty smooth clip.
> Reporter: Yes, folks are driving at reduced speeds, but I haven't seen
> any trouble in the three hours I've been here.
>
> A reporter stood and watched highway traffic for three hours when
> NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS GOING ON!?
>
> I don't get it. Maybe it's because I lived in Wisconsin as a child, and
> we went to school in all kinds of weather. I just don't see what all
> the fuss was about today.
>
> Can somebody please explain it to me?
> --
> ---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
> "[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
> They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
> - Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
chc...@ibm.net
A. we *usually do not get 3 year snow droughts
B. Feb 6, 1978 put a paranoia in people especially here in RI whe we had
30"-45" of snow in 2days, shutting everthing down for at least 1 week. It's
the truth, people around here jam supermarkets EVERY time 2-4" of snow is
predicted....."got to get bread and milk"
Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote in message ...
Paul Anderson
Riba) wrote:
> I just don't see what all the fuss was about today.
> Can somebody please explain it to me?
I can't. Except for the Cape, there was not much reason to cancel
anything. I probably won't even shovel my driveway.
Paul
Scott Simard
Look at the public info posted, there was a widespread area of 8-16" from
just south of Boston to NW RI south and east.
Donald Rosenfeld
Charles Demas wrote:
>
> When the blizzard of 78 occurred, I left work when it just started to
> snow, and barely got home (Needhan to Norwood). Some people never
> made it home that night.
>
> With a major snowfall predicted, the chances of a repeat are higher,
> so better safe than sorry.
>
> Remember, weather forcasting has gotten much better than it was
> 20 or 40 years ago. Back then, we didn't know what was to come,
> and there was less traffic too.
>
> Nobody predicted the blizzard of 78, BTW. It would have been much
> worse, had there not been a practice blizzard the week before.
> People got stocked up after the practice blizzard, and that helped
> as the state was shut down completely for days when the real
> blizzard came.
>
> I think we're more protective of our kids today too. Many more
> lawsuits to worry about in case something happened with today's
> society.
>
> Chuck Demas
> Needham, Mass.
>
> --
> Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
> Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
> Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
> de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
Barry Margolin
>I woke up this morning (in Medford), looked out my window and saw barely
>a half-inch of snow. I didn't think anything of it until halfway to
>Boston when I heard that most of the schools and colleges were closed for
>the day.
In the morning they were predicting 12-18 inches for Boston and the near
suburbs. I don't think they were cancelling school because of the morning
drive, but because of the anticipated problems going home.
It ended up that the predictions were wrong and the cape got the brunt of
the storm, so the cancellations were for nothing.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Burlington, MA
Alan Grossberg
*****************************************************************************
FROM: ED GOLDMAN, NEWS DIRECTOR
TO: JOE SHORTSLEEVE, LIZ WALKER, ED CARROLL
CC: JACK WILLIAMS, VIRGINIA CHA, BARRY BURBANK, BRUCE SCHWOEGLER
DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1999
RE: SNOWSTORM
Greetings.....
As you're well aware, we here at WBZ are in the middle of the February sweeps. As you're equally well aware, we've been
running # 3 behind the other local stations for well over a year now. Our recent shuffling of on-air staff has produced scant
ratings improvement. The impeachment trial is over (though with any luck this Jane Doe # 5 thing might gain momentum). Most
of the CBS sweeps-related specials fizzled. So what does that leave us with? You guessed it.....WEATHER.
I don't care if the NWS says we'll get 2 inches or 2 feet, I want this thing hyped from the git-go. We''ll run promos and
cut-ins every 1/2 hour.....call it "Northeaster '99" or "Snow-Pocalypse '99" or "Last Best Storm of the Century".....whatever
sounds best.
Of course, we'll have the usual suspects reporting live from the street, with camera shots from angles which best enhance the
snow depth.
And we'll hit this hard and early on radio, too. Get a call in to Gary LaPierre. Not that he needs it, but tell him to load
up on the double espresso.....I want him sounding even more hyper than Margie Reedy over at NECN.
I have full confidence in your ability to take this story and run with it. With any luck, the weather might even co-operate;
but if it doesn't, there's still no reason to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Good luck!
Elisabeth Anne Riba
I woke up this morning (in Medford), looked out my window and saw barely
a half-inch of snow. I didn't think anything of it until halfway to
Boston when I heard that most of the schools and colleges were closed for
the day.
Come on people! This is what winter is supposed to look like!
Okay, if there are six inches of snow, *then* I can see the necessity of
making people stay home. But not for this. Yes, the forecasters said
that there might be six inches by nightfall, but that still shouldn't
impede traffic until after the normal work/school day.
At 6pm, New England Cable News showed a reporter standing beside 128.
[Paraphrased]:
Anchor: Hey, traffic looks like it's moving at a pretty smooth clip.
Reporter: Yes, folks are driving at reduced speeds, but I haven't seen
any trouble in the three hours I've been here.
A reporter stood and watched highway traffic for three hours when
NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS GOING ON!?
I don't get it. Maybe it's because I lived in Wisconsin as a child, and
we went to school in all kinds of weather. I just don't see what all
the fuss was about today.
Can somebody please explain it to me?
Charles Demas
Joseph Bartlo
>
> ratings- give the people what they want.
The more they get, the more they need; and half the time they get harder &
harder to please... :)
> Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
>>
>> I don't get it. Maybe it's because I lived in Wisconsin as a child, and
>> we went to school in all kinds of weather. I just don't see what all
>> the fuss was about today.
>>
>> Can somebody please explain it to me?
I am wondering what's happening there. Some people are saying that amount
of near 10 inches fell near Boston & Worcester; other people are saying
that an Alberta Clipper is worse. Then you wonder why some people don't
like forecasting snow amounts.
I actually did explain it, and wasn't kidding. How much does a kid really
learn one day at school ? Is it worth the risk of possible accidents, etc.
if the storm is as bad or worse than expected ?
Joseph
Elisabeth Anne Riba
school and work. But just because one suburb gets enough snow to make
conditions unsafe, it still doesn't warrant every other town within 128
to do the same.
When I looked out the window this morning, cancellations didn't even cross
my mind. I went into work today -- I left early expecting the typical
snow slowdowns on the roads, but the streets were empty. Many coworkers
worked from home or took the day out. A few people came in with their
children because the schools and daycare were cancelled.
Now, the April 1 storm last year was worthy of keeping people home.
But this one... esthetically speaking, it was beautiful outside.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: UGH!
: Look at the public info posted, there was a widespread area of 8-16" from
: just south of Boston to NW RI south and east.
So those people were justified in staying home. But I commute through
Malden and Cambridge, and there wasn't even an inch when I left this
morning, and three inches at most when I got home. And those schools
were cancelled.
LilacWondr
dph...@my-dejanews.com
>
> I woke up this morning (in Medford), looked out my window and saw barely
> a half-inch of snow. I didn't think anything of it until halfway to
> Boston when I heard that most of the schools and colleges were closed for
> the day.
>
> Come on people! This is what winter is supposed to look like!
>
> Okay, if there are six inches of snow, *then* I can see the necessity of
> making people stay home. But not for this. Yes, the forecasters said
> that there might be six inches by nightfall, but that still shouldn't
> impede traffic until after the normal work/school day.
>
> At 6pm, New England Cable News showed a reporter standing beside 128.
> [Paraphrased]:
> Anchor: Hey, traffic looks like it's moving at a pretty smooth clip.
> Reporter: Yes, folks are driving at reduced speeds, but I haven't seen
> any trouble in the three hours I've been here.
>
> A reporter stood and watched highway traffic for three hours when
> NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS GOING ON!?
>
> we went to school in all kinds of weather. I just don't see what all
> the fuss was about today.
>
> Can somebody please explain it to me?
> ---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
I'm a native. Yesterday, I said to a cow-orker, "Another dud storm
hyped by the TV news that will make New Englanders look like wimps."
Sure enough, you have proved my point. The weather forecasters look
like idiots if they under-predict the severity of the storm AND by
hyping the storm they help their ratings.
Now, let me tell you about '78............... <zzzzzzzzzz>
--dph.
(preferred email: dhayes AT iname DOT com)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jackie Kuscher
LOL LOL thanks for the laugh - need it with looking out my window
at a probable 2 inches at best!
Jackie
>
>
>
(to e-mail take "x" off pywaket)
Betsy Schwartz
become heavy around noon. If it *had* happened that way it would have been
really hard to get the baby out of daycare and get back home. So, we
stayed home. As it turned out, my kid's daycare closed early anyway.
The National Weather Service was saying up to 22 inches of snow, with
power outages because of thick heavy accumulation. I haven't seen the NWS
predict power outages before!
The storm was a bust up here in Arlington - I don't think we got more than
five inches
--
bet...@shore.net http://www.shore.net/~betsys
If this looks funny the baby is trying to help me type!
peter nelson
Charles Demas wrote in message <7b4tfd$k...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>Remember, weather forcasting has gotten much better than it was
>20 or 40 years ago
It may have gotten better over the last 40 years, due
to satellite imagery but what evidence can you cite
that it's gotten better in the last 20 years?
I posed this question on this n.g. a year or two ago and
"answer came there none". I was told that because
there are no standardized definitions of the terminology
used in forecasting it was difficult or impossible to
compare forecasting prowess from one decade to the next.
No one could cite any well-designed studies showing
any improvement over that time. Are there any?
---peter
peter nelson
Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote in message ...
>: UGH!
>
>: Look at the public info posted, there was a widespread area of 8-16" from
>: just south of Boston to NW RI south and east.
>
>So those people were justified in staying home. But I commute through
>Malden and Cambridge, and there wasn't even an inch when I left this
>morning, and three inches at most when I got home. And those schools
>were cancelled.
Exactly! I had a concert at the Wang Center cancelled, and so I
thought I would just attend a class I normally go to on Thursday
nights in Nashua, only to find that, too, cancelled, just based
on the forecast! There were 3' on snow on my front yard in
Chelmsford this (Friday) morning and I didn't bother to shovel
anything; I just drove to work in Andover as usual.
In the Air Force they call the weather forecasters "The Liar's
Club". Of course bad forecasts are just mistakes, not lies.
But I would agree that the term fits when applied to the way
weather forecasters promote their abilities to the public.
Weather forecasting is a VAGUE, INEXACT art and
forecasters have an obligation to make this clear to the
public every time they open their mouths, and to eschew
precise terminoogy like "inches" when forecasting snow
depths. ALL they should have said yesterday was "We
MIGHT get a big snowstorm, especially along the coast,
but we're not sure." We're all adults; we can deal with that
and make our plans accordingly.
---peter
Donald Rosenfeld
Andrew Rogers
> I woke up this morning (in Medford), looked out my window and saw barely
> a half-inch of snow. I didn't think anything of it until halfway to
> Boston when I heard that most of the schools and colleges were closed for
> the day.
As of 8 AM or so, the NWS in Taunton was predicting 12-22 inches of snow
in the Boston area. They revised that forecast to 7-10 inches (4-7 in
the western suburbs) around noon as the storm track moved further south
than they had feared. Cape Cod and the islands indeed did get the 12-22
inches predicted earlier for Boston.
Andrew
Andrew Rogers
> Sure enough, you have proved my point. The weather forecasters look
> like idiots if they under-predict the severity of the storm AND by
> hyping the storm they help their ratings.
Umm, I got my information on the storm straight from the NOAA site:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/er/box/shtml/xm15.shtml
Could you please tell me what "ratings" NOAA is concerned about?
Andrew
peter nelson
Donald Rosenfeld wrote in message <36D6C4E0...@mediaone.net>...
I went there and did a search on "forecasting" and "accuracy" and
got only one hit ("An Investigation of Flow Regimes Affecting the
Mexico City Region.")
When I broadened the search by replacing "forecasting" with "forecast"
I got more hits but they were investigations of specific methodology,
e.g., "Data Assimilation Using an Ensemble Kalman Filter Technique"
or "Use of the Aliased Spectral Model in Numerical Weather Prediction."
So do you know for a fact that there are any such studies there or
are you saying that IF there were I could find them that way? If there
are comparative studies of overall forecasting accuracy between the
present and some points in the last decade or two or three, please
suggest some pointers. I'd be especially interested in any signs of
improvement in precipitation (rain/snow) amounts or temperature.
>peter nelson wrote:
>>
>> Charles Demas wrote in message <7b4tfd$k...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>>
>> >Remember, weather forcasting has gotten much better than it was
>> >20 or 40 years ago
>>
>> It may have gotten better over the last 40 years, due
>> to satellite imagery but what evidence can you cite
>> that it's gotten better in the last 20 years?
When I asked this question here a year or so ago I was told all
the reasons why it was hard to do such studies (which I fully
acknowledge since my background is in experimental design
and methodology) but no one even knew of any actual attempts.
FWIW, I recall seeing a study in the last year to the effect that
long-range (4 or 5 day) forecasts have gotten better, but in
terms of the issue at hand, predicting the next 24 hours is what
really counts and I'd love to see some data supporting the
view that this has gotten better recently.
---peter
dan leonard
I think it is only natural that most of us in the heart of MA (anyewhere
except se sections) should feel disappointed at the outcome of this
storm. Personally I don't really feel that way, only b/c I followed this
thing religiously yesterday, and it was pretty clear to me that we would
not get the full potential this storm had to offer. But the feelings
would have been obviously more dramatic for another young snow lover in
my area (n central MA) who woke up yesterday to a forecast of "8-18
inches and blizzard conditions," only to have 2-4" occur. Same story in
Boston, where "up to 22 inches" was forecast, and only 4-8" occured. That
is naturally disappointing, no matter how you slice it.
This is not a knock on the forecasters. Lets face it- we all live and die
by the models. The ngm/eta the night before indicated 1-2" of qpf across
all of MA, and anyone who would not have predicted 1 foot plus of snow
would have been asking for trouble. So in retrospect, even though the
forecasts of 1-2' of snow were way off, they were probably the 'correct'
forecast at the time. If the storm had stalled 100 miles closer like it
could (should?) have, we'd all be shoveling out from a foot and a half of
snow.
Not one for the books, (unless you live on the snowy side of the
Sagamore) but a very interesting storm meteorologically, nevertheless.
Dan L
peter nelson
>Here is my take on the 'hype' factor debate.
>This is not a knock on the forecasters. Lets face it- we all live and die
>by the models. The ngm/eta the night before indicated 1-2" of qpf across
>all of MA, and anyone who would not have predicted 1 foot plus of snow
>would have been asking for trouble. So in retrospect, even though the
>forecasts of 1-2' of snow were way off, they were probably the 'correct'
>forecast at the time.
No, the "correct" forecast is to acknowledge the limitations
of the model in every breath spoken to the public. This sort of
thing happens routinely in New England. The correct forecast
should have been "There MIGHT be a big snowstorm, especially
along the coast but we're not sure." No inches, no snowbelts.
Sure it's vague but so is the art of forecasting, so it's TRUTHFUL.
I'm an avid outdoorsman (running, xc-skiing, hiking, camping,
canoing, etc) I also attend baseball games and my wife and
I are subscribers to many concert and performance series and
I attend classes two nights a week year-round. So I am heavily
impacted by the weather, and especially by decisions OTHERS
make based on forecasts. Since I've lived in New England for
nearly 50 years I'm prepared for anything, anytime. I've hiked
in a snowstorm in August (in the Whites) and I've sunned on
beaches in February. I will seldom change my plans based on
a forecast, only on the actual weather as it happens.
But the PUBLIC places too much faith in forecasts and often
ends up overreacting. I've had FAR more events cancelled
unneccesarily by a forecast than ruined by unexpected bad
weather. By being TRUTHFULLY VAGUE, as I described
above, the public will adopt a more flexible, less fearful
attitude toward New England weather.
---peter
Donald Rosenfeld
research the subject for you. Maybe someone else will read this & remember a specific
study that was done.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
: . . . I am heavily
: impacted by the weather, and especially by decisions OTHERS
: make based on forecasts. Since I've lived in New England for
: nearly 50 years I'm prepared for anything, anytime. I've hiked
: in a snowstorm in August (in the Whites) and I've sunned on
: beaches in February. I will seldom change my plans based on
: a forecast, only on the actual weather as it happens.
: But the PUBLIC places too much faith in forecasts and often
: ends up overreacting. I've had FAR more events cancelled
: unneccesarily by a forecast than ruined by unexpected bad
: weather. By being TRUTHFULLY VAGUE, as I described
: above, the public will adopt a more flexible, less fearful
: attitude toward New England weather.
Just out of curiousity, has there always been this much overreaction
to storms in the Boston area or is this a recent development?
And if it's the latter, when did things change?
I've lived in the Boston area a little over ten years, and even in that
time it seems like folks are much more likely today to close up on
account of snow.
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
Scott Simard
storm that was not quite expected to be so severe.
peter nelson
>: ends up overreacting. I've had FAR more events cancelled
>: unneccesarily by a forecast than ruined by unexpected bad
>: weather. By being TRUTHFULLY VAGUE, as I described
>: above, the public will adopt a more flexible, less fearful
>: attitude toward New England weather.
>
>Just out of curiousity, has there always been this much overreaction
>to storms in the Boston area or is this a recent development?
>And if it's the latter, when did things change?
I'm 46 and I've lived here all my life and I think it's
relatively recent - probably since the 70's. I think it
reflects a combination of two things:
1. The rise of the "TV Crisis Center" style of news coverage where
every event is given a title ("Blizzard of 99") along with theme music
and its own logo, and a breathless, dramatic style of reportage.
All this serves to just raise the level of drama.
2. Weather has become nerdier. I can still remember Don
Kent drawing things on a chalkboard on black and white TV
in the 60's. Now they have computer graphics and satellite imagery
and computer simulations, and doppler radar and a lot of
technical-sounding jargon and numbers which most viewers
don't understand but which create the IMPRESSION that all
this is hard science. When, in fact, a lot of it is guesswork.
Literally it's like that Thomas Dolby song from the 80's, "She
Blinded Me With Science" - the science serves to blind people
to how much guesswork is still involved. So they place undue faith
in it.
>I've lived in the Boston area a little over ten years, and even in that
>time it seems like folks are much more likely today to close up on
>account of snow.
Yes. And it's especially nutty because nowadays most
cars are front-wheel drive and the all-weather performance of
the average passenger-car tire is WAY better than a few decades
ago. I live in Massachusetts now but I started off in New
Hampshire and I think that most people when I was a kid in the
50's and early 60's would have LAUGHED at what people think
is "bad weather" today.
---peter
Betsy Schwartz
> In article <nui678p...@shell2.shore.net>,
> Betsy Schwartz <bet...@shore.net> wrote:
> >The National Weather Service was saying up to 22 inches of snow, with
> >power outages because of thick heavy accumulation. I haven't seen the NWS
> >predict power outages before!
>
> You're not talking about the crawler on the bottom of The Weather
> Channel, are you? That "Prediction" is an advertisement for a
> generator company.
Nope.
I followed the links from WCVB's web page, which let to a National
Weather Headquarters machine. The URL for Massachusetts warnings is:
http://iwin.nws.noaa.gov/iwin/ma/warnings.html
My understanding is that this is the "official" government weather
service and it doesn't have any particular bias.
(There are surely pressures on them, but I'd guess that the pressure to be
cautious, to protect public safety, would be countered by the pressure to
be conservative, to protect business profits and prevent government expenses.)
Adam M Gaffin
Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I am appalled.
>I woke up this morning (in Medford), looked out my window and saw barely
>a half-inch of snow. I didn't think anything of it until halfway to
>Boston when I heard that most of the schools and colleges were closed for
>the day.
>
>NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS GOING ON!?
Oh, how quickly we forget! :-).
Doesn't anybody remember that storm a few weeks back, the one that started
just before the afternoon rush hour? Dunno about you, but it took me
almost two hours to get home that night - and a coworker who lived further
south on Rte. 128 didn't get home for more than four hours.
I'd say the system worked well yesterday - because so many people did
leave early, or never went into work or school, we didn't have the same
road paralysis during the p.m. rush that we did last time around. And the
plow crews were able to clear the roads.
In addition to people who own pickups, however, I also think people in
BMWs should be banned from driving during snow...
--
Adam Gaffin
ad...@world.std.com / (508) 820-7433
Lookee: A new URL for Boston Online!
http://www.boston-online.com
Brian Bay
Also, Nantucket got 16 or more inches of snow, clocked winds at 67? and was
without power for the night and was under a snow emergency because of downed
power lines. The south shore got socked.
--Cheers,
Brian
Scott Simard wrote:
> UGH!
>
> Look at the public info posted, there was a widespread area of 8-16" from
> just south of Boston to NW RI south and east.
--
Brian Bay <owner-m...@blu.org> http://www.blu.org/macwoburn
MacWoburn mirror site: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/babay/macwoburn
<ba...@mediaone.net> <bria...@bostonbbs.org> AIM BrianABay
Scott Simard
Blizzard of 1978 when 100's were stranded for days on the major highways.
How about last month? dozens of cars abandoned on I93. If it not for the
snow letting up briefly, it would have become a dangerous situation.
Charles Demas
peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>Charles Demas wrote in message <7b4tfd$k...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>
>>Remember, weather forcasting has gotten much better than it was
>>20 or 40 years ago
>
>It may have gotten better over the last 40 years, due
>to satellite imagery but what evidence can you cite
>that it's gotten better in the last 20 years?
Well, with the improvement in computer speeds and processing, the
use of computer models and modeling has become better. Also, the
collection of data from weather radar and the like is a development
that has improved, or been developed subtantially in the past 20
years.
I think that now there are several weather modeling programs that are
used. They don't all agree, but this is a difference that I've
noticed in the past 20 years. There may have been weather forcasting
programs in existance before then, but the computing power that we
have today makes these programs more accurate and allows them to
utilize more input data too.
The use of embedded processors in instrumentation has made the
collection of data and it's transmission better too. Not only that,
but the transmission of data over phone lines has improved. Consider
the data rates available now as opposed to 20 years ago. The modems
of 20 years ago that could do 4800 baud transmission over phone lines
were very expensive (thousands of dollars), now a 56,000 baud modem
is commonplace and cheap (about a hundred dollars). This has made
the collection of data much cheaper, allowing more places to be
sampled quickly.
So, I cite the improvements in computer technology as a major
factor in improving weather forcasting accuracy. :-)
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
>I posed this question on this n.g. a year or two ago and
>"answer came there none". I was told that because
>there are no standardized definitions of the terminology
>used in forecasting it was difficult or impossible to
>compare forecasting prowess from one decade to the next.
>
>No one could cite any well-designed studies showing
>any improvement over that time. Are there any?
>
>---peter
>
>
>
peter nelson
Charles Demas wrote in message <7b7742$b...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>In article <7b6c36$kgl$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>,
>peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>>
>>Charles Demas wrote in message <7b4tfd$k...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>>
>>>Remember, weather forcasting has gotten much better than it was
>>>20 or 40 years ago
>>
>>It may have gotten better over the last 40 years, due
>>to satellite imagery but what evidence can you cite
>>that it's gotten better in the last 20 years?
>
>Well, with the improvement in computer speeds and processing, the
>use of computer models and modeling has become better. Also, the
>collection of data from weather radar and the like is a development
>that has improved, or been developed subtantially in the past 20
>years.
That's theoretical. I'm asking for actual evidence of
improvement, ie.e, some hard data. I asked this same
question on this ng a year or so ago and no one at that time
could cite any evidence.
One major problem is that forecasters cannot seem to
agree on rigorous definitions of their terms, which makes
it hard to compare results between forecasters using
different methodologies or between different times.
Personally, I'd LOVE to see a probability distribution
for every precipitation and temperature forecast. It
would have to be based on empirical data, i.e., using
the same model every time, how often was the actual
precipitation over the specified period within 10% of the
predicted amount, 11-20% over, 21-30% over, etc,
and the same on the other end?
---peter
peter nelson
<__EB2.2235$HF4.5...@brnws01.ne.mediaone.net>...
>One specific event:
>
>Blizzard of 1978 when 100's were stranded for days on the major highways.
In 1978 most cars were rear-wheel drive and the quality of
all-weather tires in those days was much inferior.
>How about last month? dozens of cars abandoned on I93. If it not for the
>snow letting up briefly, it would have become a dangerous situation.
I have no idea what this refers to. I work in Andover and my wife works
in Cambridge and we have many activities on weekends as well,
either south toward Boston or North into the Whites for which we
drive on 93 daily, often several times a day.. There has been no
snowstorm this winter enough to cause a major driving problem
that was more than just transient anywhere in this area. (An
example of the latter was on December 22 at 9:55PM Rt 128N was
closed temporarily when a sudden drop in temperature caused icing
and a white-out snow-squall resulting in dozens of minor accidents
and a jack-knifed tractor trailer which blocked the highway just north
of Rt 2A. I was in the middle of this and witnessed several of the
accidents and rendered assistance to two of them. But police and
road crews had the highway cleared in an hour or so.
Anyway what does this have to do with forecasting? Major
snowstorms are common in the winter in New England (at
least they used to be) and drivers should not venture out
unless they have the skills, and their cars are equipped
properly, for those conditions. When the roads are snowy
we should expect to drive more slowly for safety. So I
can see using forecasts to allow more time. But there are
many places in the US and the world where there is snow
on the ground ALL THE TIME in the winter and life doesn't
come to a halt.
So I don't understand your point. My point is that the forecasts
are unneccesarily scaring people into cancelling their plans
and disrupting everyone's lives.
---peter
Scott Simard
would have prevented the tractor trailers from blocking the roads? How
about the traffic, has front wheel drive helped traffic in someway that I am
missing? TRAFFIC is what led to the disaster on 128 during 78, not rear
wheel drive.
Does anyone here have the news clippings from the January 14th? snow that
shut down I93-RT3 through Boston?
For someone that seems so concerned about what the TV stations report I find
it convenient that you forget this most recent event.
Scott Simard
accuracy.
peter nelson
Scott Simard wrote in message ...
>I cannot believe you think front wheel drive would have helped in 78. That
>would have prevented the tractor trailers from blocking the roads? How
>about the traffic, has front wheel drive helped traffic in someway that I
am
>missing? TRAFFIC is what led to the disaster on 128 during 78, not rear
>wheel drive.
I didn't get stuck.
>Does anyone here have the news clippings from the January 14th? snow that
>shut down I93-RT3 through Boston?
How long was it shut down? As I noted, temporary shutdowns are
common.
>For someone that seems so concerned about what the TV stations report I
find
>it convenient that you forget this most recent event.
I don't watch TV. But if it was reported on WCRB or WBUR it
must have been only fleetingly. As I said, I drive on I-93 every
day, often several times, and I saw no problems.
Anyway, what's your point? Are people suposed to stop driving
any time there's a forecast of snow? A better solution, IMO,
would be to fine anyone who goes off the road in a snowstorm if
they are not driving with snowtires or M+S rated tires or similar.
All it takes is one doofus on the highway to jam it up for everyone.
---peter
peter nelson
Scott Simard wrote in message ...
measuring
>accuracy.
Where did I say ANYTHING about a "best way of measuring
accuracy". If you want to take part in this discussion you
should brush up on your reading skills.
All I said was that comparative studies can't be done unless
they are comparing the same thing, i.e., terms are defined in a
consistent way and measurements are done consistently. This
is true in ANY science. So terms like "partly cloudy" have
to CLEARLY specify the percentage of cloud cover over
specified observation points for specified periods of time,
etc, etc, if you are going to compare predictions of "partly
cloudy" from 20 years ago to ones last year. Is a prediction of
"10-14 inches of snow" the same as a prediction of "12 inches
of snow"? Etc.
To tell whether forecasts are any better now in the past we
have to really nail down a lot of metrics and terms. NWS
forecasts may adhere to this, I don't know. News media
ones definitely don't so they're unusable to establish trends.
---peter
Conan
peter nelson wrote:
> That's theoretical. I'm asking for actual evidence of
> improvement, ie.e, some hard data. I asked this same
> question on this ng a year or so ago and no one at that time
> could cite any evidence.
>
I should think that military forecasts would provide the most
'hard' evidence, at least in terms of allocation of resources
based upon weather prediction, because belief in the forecaster
is something not quite enumerated. Improvements in long range
forecasts may also be reflected in public works projects which
build to contain 100 year flood capacities, etc. probably in
terms of local weather rather than regional.
I must say that as a consumer of weather forecasts, the price of
it has gone done. It used to be, 30 years ago, that a picture of
the earth from space was very expensive. 20 years ago, such pictures
could be bought for the price of a newspaper. Nowadays, I can
link to a weather radar map and see the local picture for myself,
a great improvement. In fact, public availability of weather radar
in the USA is one outstanding feature of our country. I have not
been able to find one other country in the world that has web linked
weather radar.
Con
Scott Simard
No, the point is, if the travel is not neccessary then one should not travel
those 24 hrs out of the year. As a business owner, I find it to be for the
greater good of the business to cancel work or appointments during snows.
The chance alone of losing any valuable employee or contractor due to poor
weather conditions, the time lost in excess weather related traffic, and any
and all other incidental conditions related to the weather, is not worth the
relatively minor immediate financial cost of delaying business.
As you said, all it takes is one dufus. Personally, I would rather have
that dufus stay home on that day.
Scott Simard
I am apparently not the only one that is confused by your statements.
Donald Rosenfeld
In the back of this article there is a reference section that may lead you to some
answers:
http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/~brooks/ntv/notable.html
peter nelson wrote:
>
>
> So do you know for a fact that there are any such studies there or
> are you saying that IF there were I could find them that way? If there
> are comparative studies of overall forecasting accuracy between the
> present and some points in the last decade or two or three, please
> suggest some pointers. I'd be especially interested in any signs of
> improvement in precipitation (rain/snow) amounts or temperature.
>
> >peter nelson wrote:
> >>
> >> Charles Demas wrote in message <7b4tfd$k...@news-central.tiac.net>...
> >>
> >> >Remember, weather forcasting has gotten much better than it was
> >> >20 or 40 years ago
> >>
> >> It may have gotten better over the last 40 years, due
> >> to satellite imagery but what evidence can you cite
> >> that it's gotten better in the last 20 years?
>
Donald Rosenfeld
Donald Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> I may be mistaken, but I think the 78 storm was well predicted by most.
>
> Charles Demas wrote:
> >
> > When the blizzard of 78 occurred, I left work when it just started to
> > snow, and barely got home (Needhan to Norwood). Some people never
> > made it home that night.
> >
> > With a major snowfall predicted, the chances of a repeat are higher,
> > so better safe than sorry.
> >
> > Remember, weather forcasting has gotten much better than it was
> > and there was less traffic too.
> >
> > Nobody predicted the blizzard of 78, BTW. It would have been much
> > worse, had there not been a practice blizzard the week before.
> > People got stocked up after the practice blizzard, and that helped
> > as the state was shut down completely for days when the real
> > blizzard came.
> >
> > I think we're more protective of our kids today too. Many more
> > lawsuits to worry about in case something happened with today's
> > society.
> >
> > Chuck Demas
> > Needham, Mass.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
LilacWondr
Please thank Bob Copeland for the wonderul recollections of the Blizzard of
'78.
Even more captivating from the on-air meteorlogist's point of view. The
Blizzard is one of those events that anyone who lived through it will always
remember exactly where they were, and with who. No one suspected for one
minute (except maybe the forecasters reading the models) that Boston would be
like going back in time to over a century earlier with all traffic banned from
the roads (except emergency vehicles). The wind gusts were so fierce, I can
remember waking up a little after noon with a pile of snow beside my bed- it
was coming through any non-caulked place in the windows. I lived towards the
top of Beacon Hill at the time, and what a sight looking out over Boston
towards the Old North Church. I can believe Bob is right that we probably did
experience a once-in-a-lifetime storm.
Lilac
peter nelson
Conan wrote in message <36D74620...@the.edge.of.the.world>...
>
>
>peter nelson wrote:
>
>> That's theoretical. I'm asking for actual evidence of
>> improvement, ie.e, some hard data. I asked this same
>> question on this ng a year or so ago and no one at that time
>> could cite any evidence.
>>
>
>I should think that military forecasts would provide the most
>'hard' evidence, at least in terms of allocation of resources
>based upon weather prediction, because belief in the forecaster
>is something not quite enumerated.
What does any of this have to do with "belief"?
What I'd like to know is whether predictions of precipitation,
say, or temperature, have become any more accurate over recent
decades. As the prior poster noted, we have better data
gathering technology, better computer models, better computers
to run them on, etc. So it is certainly conceivable that they
have gotten better. But I work in medical technology so
I'm well aware that this doesn't necessarily happen in practice.
(i.e., outcomes do not neccesarily improve by applying better
technology).
>I must say that as a consumer of weather forecasts, the price of
>it has gone done.
[...down]. I wish I could the same for medical technology!
---peter
John Carr
Charles Demas <de...@sunspot.tiac.net> wrote:
>When the blizzard of 78 occurred, I left work when it just started to
>snow, and barely got home (Needhan to Norwood). Some people never
>made it home that night.
>
>With a major snowfall predicted, the chances of a repeat are higher,
>so better safe than sorry.
With two big mistakes in recent years, one in each direction, and many
lesser mistakes, I've now given up caring about snow forecasts. If I
want to drive, I'll drive. Unless they tell me it's bad RIGHT NOW, I
don't care. If they say they can't send there reporters to the scene
because it's too dangerous, then I'll listen.
I believed the forecast at the end of March 1997: scattered snow across
upstate New York and rain in New England. So I drove from Ithaca to
Boston. The scattered snow turned out to be moderate to heavy snow.
The rain turned out to be a blizzard, but they didn't tell me until it
was too late to turn back.
I live in Newton and work in Nashua. Thursday morning the 5:00 forecast
said it's just starting to snow but it's about to get really bad so
don't even think about driving to work. I went back to bed. At 9:00
they said the morning commute had been fine but it's about to get really
bad so don't even think about driving to work, you'll never make it home
alive. The forecast resumption of snow around 10:00 was delayed, but a
little began to fall by noon. Around 4:00, when I would have already
have been home from work, the light snow turned to moderate snow and the
accumulation was soon sufficient to cover most of the grass. When I got
up the next morning I walked to my car through three or four inches of
snow, brushed it off, and decided never again. I took a day off work
without pay when the weather would have done nothing more than delay me
10-15 minutes.
--
John Carr j...@tiac.net cr...@shore.net
[ISP switch in progress; new address will be cr...@shore.net]
Donald Rosenfeld
Donald Rosenfeld
Conan
> What does any of this have to do with "belief"?
>
Because they have to make a decision based upon a forecast, this
is where "belief" comes in. The outcome of the forecast is not
known until after the decision is cast in stone. You evaluate
the forecast by rating how screwed up the allocation was. Actually
I think I'm talking 'Farmer's Almanac' and you're talking 'USA Today'.
Ken Pogran
>
> I have no idea what this refers to. I work in Andover and my wife works
> in Cambridge and we have many activities on weekends as well,
> either south toward Boston or North into the Whites for which we
> drive on 93 daily, often several times a day.. There has been no
> snowstorm this winter enough to cause a major driving problem
> that was more than just transient anywhere in this area.
It was I-93 SOUTH of Boston; i.e., the Southeast Expressway, that had
the problem.
Joseph Teller
wrote:
>Scott Simard (scott...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>: UGH!
>
>: Look at the public info posted, there was a widespread area of 8-16" from
>: just south of Boston to NW RI south and east.
>
>So those people were justified in staying home. But I commute through
>Malden and Cambridge, and there wasn't even an inch when I left this
>morning, and three inches at most when I got home. And those schools
>were cancelled.
Funny, I'm in Cambridge and there was lot more than an inch to shovel
this morning at 7 AM. Now granted there is some melting going on this
afternoon, but I fear you didn't actually measure the depths. (And in
the Athletic Field behind our house we did indeed manage to reach a
full 6 inches depth). The roads were kept reasonably clear by the
public works department (who plowed all thru the night) on the major
throughfares, but I don't know the conditions of the sidestreets (I
live on a Major route between Mass Ave and Watertown, so our traffic
level stays heavy).
I also remember the blizzard of 78 - I was working the day it hit. It
was originally not predicted to be much of a storm. I was working for
a retail store then (in High School) and the last store on Waltham's
Moody Street to close up for the storm. I hiked home thru the wind
swept snow (which had gotten fairly heavy and deep) to find out that
it was a blizzard.
{Of course it was actually a Hurricane in disguise, as we found out
many years later.... }
Joe
Joe Teller fantas...@mindspring.com
The Fantasy Realms Journal Online
http://www.fantasyrealms.simplenet.com
Shadow Bindings RPG v4.0 (FREE TO DOWNLOAD & USE) is on This Same Site
John Carr
Unless there is more than 6 inches of dense snow on the road -- very
rare on the major roads I use -- my car is adequate. A snow storm like
they threatened would have increased my trip to an hour, every moment
of which I would have to worry about the other drivers who think their
four wheel trucks can't slide (and don't care if they hit me -- they
bought the truck to win a fight with a smaller car). And maybe I would
hit a slippery spot that even four snow tires couldn't grip. It's not
worth the frustration and risk, and an extra two drive wheels don't
change that.
Donald Rosenfeld
the Superstorm of 96 when I was stuck in a parking space & the other time when I stopped
on a slippery incline and was to stubborn to back up a few feet. With that said, let me
tell you what 4 wheel drive is especially good for: PEACE OF MIND!!! It used to be, with
an impending storm, I would worry about the thought of driving in it- now, peace of mind;
a storm forecast no longer means a Dukakis "sweater" day for me. Start up & go.
Scott Simard
One point on 4x4's. Yes they are helpful when you are stuck, but they
provide almost no added benefit on slippery roads at normal speeds. In fact
many of these SUV's stop at far greater distances than their more nimble 2x2
counterparts.
Automobile manufacturers have done a great job at convincing the public of
4x4's safety in snow without doing much to inform them that on a snowy road
at regular speeds they provide little added benefit
Donald Rosenfeld
in inclement weather in a four wheel drive vehicle; we know that that is a false
assumption.
We also realize that breaking is not enhanced by four wheel drive.
However:
In my case, I've noticed two things that are not mentioned which I feel ad to my safety
when driving in four wheel drive (which I did once for 5 miles in a moderate snow storm):
I tend to drive slower than in regular wheel drive and (you heard it here first) when you
do break (non lock up) there is greater "drag" on the wheels causing (imo) the breaking to
be MORE EFFECTIVE. JMO
ToweringQs
hour RMS error for MSLP forecasts after 20 years of NWP modeling efforts
begining with the LFM. Of greater significance would be the position errors of
sea level pressure systems, areal QPF, thickness, and 850 temperature
verification statistics.
TTFN TQ Person
David A Karr
Adam M Gaffin <ad...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In addition to people who own pickups, however, I also think people in
>BMWs should be banned from driving during snow...
This might have been good advice for me one time I when I left work
just a bit too late to beat the snow storm that was coming in: *my*
BMW has *one*-wheel drive and no crash cage, so it was white-knuckle
driving at 40 mph up Route 128 even though there wasn't all that much
snow (yet) on the ground.
At any rate, I do try to follow your advice when I can, thanks.
--
David A. Karr "Groups of guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein."
ka...@shore.net --Decca executive Dick Rowe, 1962
David A Karr
>Charles Demas wrote in message <7b4tfd$k...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>
>It may have gotten better over the last 40 years, due
>to satellite imagery but what evidence can you cite
>that it's gotten better in the last 20 years?
Twenty years ago (OK, probably closer to 21 years now), I heard a
lecture by a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who claimed that the
ability to predict tomorrow's weather using the best methods at that
time was still no more accurate than "same as tomorrow." (This was in
the sense that both techniques predicted some key outcomes, e.g. some
precipitation vs. no precipitation, correctly about 2/3 of the time,
or maybe it was 3/4--I forget.)
I conclude from this that if we now see any gains in accuracy over the
last 40 years, they must all have come in the last 20 (i.e., since
*after* that lecture). :-)
FWIW, it seems to me the uncertainty last Thursday was not whether it
would snow (it did), but how heavily it would snow. One can certainly
conceive that we've gotten improvement on the first count (which is at
least somewhat useful) without making much progress on the second, so
you might want to refine the question about "how accurate" the
predictions are.
Andrew Rogers
> >In addition to people who own pickups, however, I also think people in
> >BMWs should be banned from driving during snow...
>
> This might have been good advice for me one time I when I left work
> just a bit too late to beat the snow storm that was coming in: *my*
You have an Isetta?
Andrew
RobBoston
when the big snow would arrive, to the point that I ended up asking four people
to spend the night in a local hotel on Thursday, just to be sure we could open
on Friday. (I am a manager in a service organization that supports customers
worldwide.)
The following morning, the commute was a piece of cake. The roads were merely
wet, not snow-covered. The 14"+ never even came close to arriving. It was a
joke.
I know TV ratings are one thing, but when it starts to cost a business money
then that is another thing altogether. When you consider the number of people
who stayed home from work, the schools that closed, etc., this was a very
costly false alarm for the suburbs north of Boston. And every winter is filled
with them. What the heck is going on here?
Either those much lauded meteorologists didn't really know what would happen
(which is interesting, given all the technology they supposedly have) or they
did know and hyped it anyway. Either way it is a disgrace. And when it affects
my bottom line, I get frustrated.
If I had people working for me who were as inaccurate and downright wrong on
the job as often as the so-called weather forecasters are, you can bet they'd
be on a performance plan.
What can anyone do, though? That's just it. The next storm will come and I'll
say, well, maybe this time they're right -- better safe than sorry, etc. But it
gets to be like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown every time.
Rob
>Oh, I can understand that there are conditions worthy of cancelling
>school and work. But just because one suburb gets enough snow to make
>conditions unsafe, it still doesn't warrant every other town within 128
>to do the same.
Donald Rosenfeld
high enough, they're no longer on the air.
w...@world.std.com
> I'm more concerned that my spiffy new NWS SAME radio didn't
> get (apparently because they weren't sent over the air) all
> of the Watches and Warnings that were sent over the web and
> over the wire ... > I thought the whole benefit
> of SAME was that now they could cry "Little dog, over there"
> without crying "Wolf".
You wouldn't have gotten the 1050Hz tone on a non-spiffy non-new
non-SAME NWSNWRadio either.
Word I heard is that the broadcasters in CT who take the EAS wire
that feeds off the same source as SAME do not want Winter Weather
Watches or Advisories toned out, as with three forecast offices
covering CT it makes for a very busy crawl if they get toned on all
of 'em. When the next generation of SAME radios hits the stores in a
few months, they'll have choice-of-message, at which point maybe NWS
can push-back on the CT TV stations and cable operators to upgrade
their equipment to select what they want and let NWS encode
everything.
--
Bill Ricker N1VUX w...@world.std.com "The freedom of the press belongs
http://world.std.com/~wdr to those who own one."--A.J.Liebling
Mary Malmros
RobBoston <robb...@aol.comDELETEME> wrote:
>I know TV ratings are one thing, but when it starts to cost a business money
>then that is another thing altogether. When you consider the number of people
>who stayed home from work, the schools that closed, etc., this was a very
>costly false alarm for the suburbs north of Boston. And every winter is filled
>with them. What the heck is going on here?
It's a conspiracy. Clearly.
C'mon, people. While you're busy asking "Have New Englanders turned into
wimps?" ask yourself as well, "Have New Englanders lost all of their common
sense?" The Tee Vee Meteorologists aren't the ones making the decisions about
whether or how you keep your business open, YOU are. They don't schedule
the storms, they just track 'em, to the best of their ability. They just
give you the data that they've got. You're the one who decides what to
do with it. If you're still feeling all cranky at them, then try this:
stop watching the weather reports! Figure it out on your own, and see if
you like the results better.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
"They write books that contradict the rocks..."
Andrew Rogers
> they are on a "performance plan". The plan is called "ratings": when the ratings aren't
> high enough, they're no longer on the air.
NOAA is on a "performance plan"?
Andrew
Donald Rosenfeld
wrong/notorious/not helpful, the voters (users) would indicate same to their congressmen
(& women) and senators who would then vote for less money for NOAA. I may be a little
simplistic here- more money might be expended to try to improve things but.. the bottom
line is.. ratings would bring about change- even in NOAA. The only thing that is not
subject to ratings is the atmosphere.
Donald Rosenfeld
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> :-----Original Message-----
> :From: Robert Copeland <wea...@capecod.net>
> :To: DR <rose...@mediaone.net>
> :Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 4:36 PM
> :Subject: Re: Fw: Have New Englanders turned into wimps?
> :
> :
> Hi Donald...
>
> Mr. Demas seems to suffer from selective memory like most of us,
> especially when we go back 20 years. For example, the prior "blizzard"
> of which he speaks was actually closer to 2 weeks prior to the blizzard,
> around January 22.
>
> It started as heavy snow, but changed to rain through all of the Boston
> area, creating huge canals everywhere with water flooding many roadways.
> There had been a substantial snowstorm a week or so prior to the 1/22
> storm, and the resulting mess which eventually froze up formed the base
> for the Blizzard" of Feb. 6-7. Had Mr. Demas' "practice blizzard" been
> ALL snow, the effects of the February blizzard would have been even MORE
> incredible!
>
> It would be instrumental to see whether Mr. Dumas watched primarily one
> channel, or listened to one forecaster in those days, because there WAS
> a variety of opinion available. And while I do not recollect exactly
> what everyone else was saying, I DO remember that my dear friend Don
> Kent was NOT as enthusiastic about the blizzard on that Monday morning
> as I was. I believe Don was saying something like "there is STILL no
> indication that" we are going to have a blockbuster storm, though he
> DID change his mind by midday, as a WALL of heavy snow began moving
> northward from the NYC area. My recollection is thatthe storm was VERY
> WELL forecast. And while NO ONE could have sanely predicted the ultimate
> magnitude of the snowfall, the snowfall estimates were at the EXTREME end
> of the range that had EVER been predicted for ANY storm.
>
> The first inklings of the impending MAJOR storm development came as early
> as Thursday of the week prior to the blizzard. The long range progs (in
> those days the max. was 48 to 72 hours) were suggesting a a strong short
> wave would be digging southeastward through the Great Lakes toward the
> east coast into a very favorable temperature environment, and we began
> to hint at a MAJOR snowstorm for early the following week. As each run
> of the progs over the weekend confirmed our earlier thinking, Mark
> Rosenthal, who was working my radio stations for me called me at home to
> say he was going to go for ONE TO 2 FEET OF SNOW! I told him that was
> outrageous, but I agreed to come in to the office to look at the progs
> myself. When I saw the progs, I had to agree there was little reason
> NOT to make such an "outrageous" forecast, except for the fact that to
> the best of my knowledge, it had NEVER been done before, certainly not
> BEFORE a snowstorm had actually commenced.
>
> I came in that Monday morning, about 10 hours before the storm began in
> the Boston area, and this is what I forecast on the "Eyeopener": a
> storm of "historic" proportions; I pointed out that the benign cloudy
> sky of the early morning would give way to HEAVY snow in the afternoon,
> and suggested that if folks felt COMPELLED to go to work as usual, that
> they could expect to deal with serious driving problems on the way home;
> I stuck with the 1 to 2 feet of snow forecast that Mark had issued Sunday,
> and forecast winds of near hurricane force would cause massive drifts;
> along the coast, taking note of the new moon" tides which were going to
> be about 12' under the best of circumstances, I forecast RECORD high
> tides along the coast, and predicted that this would turn out to be the
> most serious threat to life and property. John Coleman, who was the
> forecaster on "Good Morning America" (or whatever the ABC Network morning
> program was called in those days) called me in the office about 7 am, and
> asked me what I was forecasting for Boston. I gave him all the above
> information, and suggested he emphasize the special flooding dangers
> along the coast.
>
> Not only did he upgrade his forecast almost completely along the lines I
> suggested, but he credited me personally on nationwide TV (which I found
> very flattering). Well, we all know the results, folks who did NOT heed
> the early warnings had a horrendous time getting back home. By the time
> I was able to leave Ch. 5 about 2 PM, the "wall" of snow had arrived, and
> because I chose to take a short detour for some food on the way home, I
> wound up taking almost an hour to drive to my home only a mile away!
> During the evening commute, a truck skidding accident on the southbound
> side of Rte. 128 near route 138 in Milton started the progressive backup
> in traffic which eventually resulted in the most monumental marooning of
> people in automobiles in the history of Massachusetts. And you probably
> remember the TV images of the heroic rescues of people wading up to their
> armpits in freezing slush-filled salt water along the shore fromRevere to
> Hull. A record high tide indeed. Hurricane force winds indeed. One to
> 2 feet of snow forecast...on the average, an amazing forecast in my
> opinion. To be sure, many places had MORE than 2 feet; we had about 34"
> in Needham, to the best of my measuring ability. The max amounts were
> just to the south and southwest uf us in a band down through Dedham,
> Sharon, Norwood on to a little area of perhaps 50 to 55 inches in
> northernmost Rhode Island. I was one of only 2 Ch.5 employees (other
> than those who were put up in the hotel across Rte. 128) who made it
> into work on Tuesday morning; I came in on SNOWSHOES! What a storm!
>
> So, while I was surely very personally involved, (and perhaps it could
> be said that I "have an axe to grind") and even given the technological
> improvements of the 21 years since, I doubt whether there will EVER be
> a major natural event as well forecast as the "Blizzard of '78". JMHO.
>
> Bob
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::DR wrote:
> ::
> ::> Robert- how bout fielding this?
> ::> -----Original Message-----
> ::
tonyp
Mary Malmros <mal...@shore.net> wrote
> C'mon, people. While you're busy asking "Have New Englanders turned into
> wimps?" ask yourself as well, "Have New Englanders lost all of their
common
> sense?" The Tee Vee Meteorologists aren't the ones making the decisions
about
> whether or how you keep your business open, YOU are. They don't schedule
> the storms, they just track 'em, to the best of their ability. They just
> give you the data that they've got. You're the one who decides what to
> do with it. If you're still feeling all cranky at them, then try this:
> stop watching the weather reports! Figure it out on your own, and see if
> you like the results better.
>
Well said! Same goes for tee-vee stock market forecasters.
--
Tony Prentakis
Consumer of time, occupier of space, producer of Z-stages
"How can I know what I think until I hear what I have to say?"
Bill Babcock
> Either those much lauded meteorologists didn't really know what would happen
> (which is interesting, given all the technology they supposedly have) or they
> did know and hyped it anyway. Either way it is a disgrace. And when it affects
> my bottom line, I get frustrated.
I can understand your frustration. We, too, like the atmosphere to be
steady, unchanging, universally predictable; that makes our job easier.
Much effort has been made over the the past 80 or 90 years to make
weather forecasting as exact as solving a mathematical equation. Such
an attempt was made in the 1920s using mechanical calculators; it was
off a little, and took too long to be of use, but it was a start. With
development of computers, we had a better tool to use in this goal.
Since the 1950s we have seen improving hardware (the machines) and
improving software (the "models"). The software improved because the
machines could do more, and because further research into the basic
science led to better mathematical simulations of the basic weather
processes. The work on this improvement continues to this day and
hopefully will continue into the future.
But the atmosphere is not the cut-and-dried affair we'd like it to be.
It has swirls and nuances that cause it to change. Our understanding of
the processes causing these changes has come a long way in the last 100
years; but there still much to be learned. We will go a lot farther in
the next 100 years, but I suspect people will still be upset with the
forecast even then (ah, but maybe the forecasts and broadcasts will be
automated by that time...leading to the image of a dissatisfied person
complaining to a computer screen, which responds with the voice of
NWR2000, or maybe HAL9000!!)
We have an impressive array of technology, to be sure. That has
improved the forecast on most days. It has also given us a better idea,
before the fact, about which forecasts we should be less than confident
(such as the Feb 25 storm).
But better technology is not everything. Just look at how victorious
the superior technology was in Indochina in the 60s and 70s.
On Wednesday night, the information that came in at 10:30 p.m. showed a
potentially dangerous snow and wind situation over southern New
England. Local meteorologists reacted, giving their best estimates
given the available information. While one or two might have gone
overboard with amounts, most went with the data.
> If I had people working for me who were as inaccurate and downright wrong on
> the job as often as the so-called weather forecasters are, you can bet they'd
> be on a performance plan.
I'm sorry this affected you so poorly. We will all learn from this, as
we have from every storm, and try to do better with the next storm. If
this is still not sufficient for you, then I offer you the challange
that I make to all dissatisfied people: sit in our shoes, look at the
observational data, look at the forecast guidance, and then try to do
better. And not just in your our back yard, but in all the back yards
of southern New England...for every hill, valley, and coastline.
By the way, I AM on a performance plan. Not because of any supposed
incompentance, but rather because such plans are S.O.P. with your
National Weather Service.
Bill Babcock
NWS Taunton MA
w...@world.std.com
> >You wouldn't have gotten the 1050Hz tone on a non-spiffy non-new
> >non-SAME NWSNWRadio either.
> My old, non-SAME Weather Radio is no longer spiffy, on account
> of all the Wednesday mornings (test day) that I forgot to turn
> it off before going to work, and my wife ripped it from the
> wall and threw it into a back room :-(. That's why I got SAME.
I know the problem. However, for some reason my old non-spiffy one
is just blinking, not hooting, on the Wednesday tests now, so I can
leave one on upstairs and the other spiffy SAME downstairs and no
more wifely problems. But neither hoots for WSWs from KBOX, per
previous msg.
> Next generation? So this thing is obsolete within a month of
> buying it?
If you bought the one RadShack released last week, it's the first,
low-end of a new high all-SAME line from Oregon Sci.
> And it doesn't do what I thought it would do, which
> was let me be aware of all the Alerts and Watches without upsetting
> the other residents who are upset by loud horns and sirens? Sigh :-(.
It alerts you with lights and beeps for everything the other alerted
you with horns and sirens. And big-brother model that I'm waiting
for will let you deselect Winter Storm Warnings if you don't want
them. Unfortunately for me and thee, _we_ want them and the CT BC's
don't, oh well, maybe next winter.
> I've got three lights (green, yellow and red) -- are they never
> going to send the signals for the green and yellow lights?
I don't remember.
heck out the NWR SAME homepage, http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/nwrsame.htm
> The TV stations should do the discriminating. (Or is that
> what you said?)
Yes. They should upgrade to a better level of Eagle EAS receiver
that will filter.
One thing to remember (from a separate thread) is that they do try
on the NWR not to send warnings for areas outside the transmitters
range. I'm thinking of getting one of the non-SAME BCT12 "Highway
Information System" units that scans all 7 freqs for toneout (1050),
and also scans for police Radar, Lidar, DPW/Police & construction
or accident hazard beacons.
David A Karr
>Mary Malmros <mal...@shore.net> wrote
>> you like the results better.
>
>Well said! Same goes for tee-vee stock market forecasters.
Or for that matter could be said about the experts in just about any
complex, chaotic field.
Look how many people receive medical treatment for cancer yet die
shortly afterward anyway. So if you cough up a bit of blood one morning,
should you take a day off work to see a doctor, or just forget it?
Peter Lemmond
A few years back, NOAA was successfully sued for providing a bad forecast,
predicting good weather that turned out bad, that resulted in loss of life.
No big surprise if nowadays they take a more Worst Case Scenario approach to
weather forecasting.
-Peter
Donald Rosenfeld
time of the radar scan. I don't know what the policy is now because several years ago I
got rid of my NOAA radio because of the "weekly" tone test: after a hundred or so "tests"
the reset button broke and I never replaced the radio- I always wondered how many other
people no longer listen to the wx radio because of those "tests".
Michael Zarlenga
: This might have been good advice for me one time I when I left work
: just a bit too late to beat the snow storm that was coming in: *my*
: driving at 40 mph up Route 128 even though there wasn't all that much
: snow (yet) on the ground.
That brings back memories of driving my one-wheel drive
Honda 200 miles in a rain/snow/sleet storm one Friday
afternoon from NY to RI when I was young and foolish.
White-knuckled driving indeed!
Thanks for the memories.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key