The New York Observer isn’t happy with the National Weather Service’s not-entirely-correct forecast of Snowpocalypse:

The head of the National Weather Service admitted today that his agency did not do enough to communicate uncertainty about its blizzard forecast for New York City.

In particular, the agency is trying to track down exactly how the words “potentially historic” became attached to the forecast, helping to fuel overblown media coverage and possibly unnecessary storm preparations. Mayor Bill de Blasio repeated the word “historic” during blizzard press conferences, holding up snow statistics dating back to the 19th century in order to defend his decision to close roads and subways and threaten to arrest anyone driving on the roads last night.

Dr. Louis Uccellini, the director of the National Weather Service, told a media conference call at 3pm Tuesday that the agency is now working with “social scientists” about how to communicate serious forecasts better in the future to the public and decision-makers. There is always uncertainty in any forecast, he said.

“During interviews I did yesterday,” he said, “I tried to communicate this uncertainly. Clearly this is not enough. We have many challenges ahead of us to make sure we communicate this uncertainty.”

He said the use of the word “historic,” was put in the headline of a blizzard notification released directly by a local forecast office which had jurisdiction. It was not vetted by anyone in the national communications office or by the director himself.

“We rely on the forecast individuals there and the M.I.C. to vet these forecasts,” he added, referring to the meteorologist in charge of the local office. There are 122 forecast offices in the United States.

Despite saying he was open to change, Mr. Uccellini was also quick to defend his forecasters and even the person who included the word historic in a forecast titled, “Crippling and Potentially Historic Storm Set to Hit…” He said that if the forecast had been correct, the snowfall amounts would have been historic for New York, and they might still be record-setting for Boston when the totals are in.

“If those snowfall events had occurred it would have become a historic event in the NYC area,” the director said.

“We’re working more closely with the social science community with communicating the risk, how we simplify our messages and how we communicate with people who have to make tough decisions,” he said.

Though many blame Mayor de Blasio for overhyping this week’s non-blizzard and shutting the city for no reason, a good portion of the blame does seems to belong on the shoulders of the National Weather Service.

A weather service spokesperson said that once the storm is done, it’s likely a post-mortem will be done to determine exactly which local office generated the “potentially historic” lingo. It’s possible that it came out of conversations between a few offices or out of either the Upton, NY office or the Mount Holly, NJ office, which happens to be the home office of meteorologist Gary Szatkowski, who tweeted his own apology earlier in the day.

“My deepest apologies to many key decision makers and so many members of the general public,” he tweeted after midnight Tuesday morning. He continued in the next tweet, “You made a lot of tough decisions expecting us to get it right, and we didn’t. Once again, I’m sorry.”

The problem is that, as Midwesterners know, it is not possible to completely accurately predict what Mother Nature is going to do. The storm apparently took a late eastern turn, which meant it hit Boston much harder than it did New York. Well, better them than us survivors of the craptacular winter of 2013–14.

My favorite online meteorologist, Mike Smith, adds:

While our forecasts were far from perfect, two facts stand out, at least to me:

• ·       The reports from Manhattan that I have seen indicate 8-9 inches accumulated.
• ·       Far east Queens had 15+inches (still snowing) and Islip, last I saw, had 23” with moderate snow still falling.

 

The forecast for Boston, Providence, Worcester, and other areas was nearly perfect. This is the scene at Boston U about 11:30am. A fierce blizzard is in progress.

I can tell you story after story of using the barotropic,  baroclinic, and LFM models along with “rules of thumb” (Goree and Yonkin, BJ Cooks’, etc.) in the 1970’s through the mid-80s and confidently forecasting “four to eight inches” and waking up the next day to absolutely dry streets and clear skies. We had no idea what a “dry slot” was. There were also heavy snow storms that went unforecast. What progress we have made!

Assume for a moment that Manhattan received 9” of snow that was unforecast. Absolute gridlock would have resulted. With our forecast, sand and salt trucks were loaded, plows were put on dump trucks, etc. School was called in many areas but most districts would have called it for 9” as well as 20” – beyond the threshold for calling school, it didn’t matter. The same can be said from the people who were allowed to work from home. Airlines cancelled flights (perhaps too many) appropriately. Railroads moved snow plows into position and they were needed. They just had to move them a little farther east than originally planned.

View from JFK International’s tower. Via Twitter. Think they would have been able to conduct operations normally?

In other words: Our NYC forecast, while hardly perfect, was useful.

There is a wonderful book called The Children’s Blizzard. It tells the story of an unforecast ferocious blizzard that struck as children in Minnesota and the Dakotas were walking home from school. At least 213 died (total fatalities around 500). There is no reason to believe that would not happen again today if a similar storm occurred without any warning. Don’t believe me? Think back to the Joplin tornado. When the NWS warning system failed, society went right back to triple-digit tornado fatalities.

There is little doubt in my mind that this forecast for Boston, Providence and so many other areas will, in the end, have saved lives. Yes, we want to learn from this storm. But let’s take a moment to congratulate our fellow meteorologists and be proud we get to work in a profession that saves so many lives and does so much good for our nation and the world.

I’m sure you want to know how The Onion reported this:

The New York Times, meanwhile, covered the CYA going on when the predictions didn’t pan out, even injecting presidential politics:

Across the Hudson River, Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican considering a run for president, trumpeted his experience with weather emergencies. On Sunday, while he was at his son’s hockey game in Bayonne, a resident asked if he was worried about the storm, he said. “We’ve had Hurricane Irene, we’ve had Hurricane Sandy,” Mr. Christie said, recalling the conversation on Monday. “For better or for worse, we know how to deal with these situations.”

The Times story prompted this comment:

“The National Weather Service, or NOAA, is mostly to blame here for their overarching scare tactics and plain inability to accurately forecast. … Fire the lot and start using time tested techniques such as finger in the wind and pressure headaches.”