Changes to Winter Weather warnings coming?

[CrazyC83]

I got this out of a tweet by the NWS.

http://nws.weather.gov/haz_simp/

Basically, it would try to clarify and change wording on winter weather headlines. A few thoughts I have:

* Perhaps time to eliminate the watches altogether and use risk-level outlooks? They work well with severe weather, maybe have them for major winter weather? A possible setup would be as follows:

** Look at the 4, 8, 12 inch snow and 1/4 inch ice maps from the HPC (and add 1/2 inch ice). On the highest maps, introduce hatching for 10% or greater for 24 inches of snow or 1 inch of ice. A risk level could be as follows:

**SLGT: 70% of 4 inches, 40% of 8 inches or 1/4 inch ice, or 10% of 12 inches or 1/2 inch ice
**MDT: 70% of 8 inches or 1/4 inch ice, 40% of 12 inches or 1/2 inch ice, or hatched areas on highest maps
**HIGH: 70% of 12 inches or 1/2 inch ice, or 40% with hatched area


*stickied by vbhoutex*

[PTPatrick]

Seems difficult. The general public really doesnt use those sorts of outlooks. We weather nerds do. Preparring for potential severe weather a day or 2 ahead is a completely altogether different thing from prepping for severe winter weather. I mean who really "preps" for severe weather other than outdoor planning? Winter storms actually can require some planning a day or so ahead, like getting groceries, taking care of errands you dont want to deal with during or after a storm, perhaps prepping the car, etc. Its just different. Severe weather watches work fine because severe weather only requires some modest watch time and and immediate warnings. A winter storm warning can last for 2 days. I DO think that winter weather highlights can be midleading, but I dont think winter storm watches and warnings are the problem. Its more the "snow advisory vs winter weather advisory vs ice storm warning vs blizzard warning vs heavy snow advisory vs blowing snow advisory" issues that the general public gets confused about. I think some of this has been cleared up in the past couple of years, but I still think it can all be confusing to the lay person.

[Ntxw]

^ That's a very good analysis, couldn't put it better.

I say keep the watches/warnings, percentages just confuse people. Let them prepare with a watch if they have one, there is less risk to being wrong with winter storms than severe weather overall.

[vbhoutex]

^ That's a very good analysis, couldn't put it better.

I say keep the watches/warnings, percentages just confuse people. Let them prepare with a watch if they have one, there is less risk to being wrong with winter storms than severe weather overall.

I pretty much agree with keeping it as it is. As stated a different and arguably more scientific way of stating the fact that a certain type of weather(not necessarily just Winter weather)is expected or possible would probably just confuse the issue for the lay person, non-weather nerd types. Unfortunately,as us weather nerds know, experience is the best teacher for the public when it comes to any type of "severe" weather. As much as we try to make the public understand that they need to be prepared for any type of weather that can affect them we will ALWAYS run into the "it won't happen here", or "it didn't happen last time they warned us", etc. mentality. This is not to say we should not continue to educate and help the public to prepare for different types of weather, I just don't think that changing the way they say it is going to help change the mindset we constantly run up against. We should continue to educate every chance we get.

[PTPatrick]

Unfortunately just that happens all the time here in Denver, and I am sure in other places. Common situation here is the upslope just doesnt play out, or the column temps arent just right. So you will have a wide range of weather across the city leading to that... "I had a winter storm warning mentality, but it wasnt that bad". But I have trouble seeing where any other system would be better. Winter weather is just SO hard to pin down because column temps, moisture, dynamics, wind, snow to liquid ratios, and amount of sticking really plays a big role in the effects on the ground. A 4 hour freak CSI induced snow band is not the same a large winter storm that lasts all day. They might drop the same amount of snow, but the effects are vary different. Its kind of variability that necessitates a large variety of winter weather warnings than severe weather.

I have come to understand what means what in the Denver area and I think that most folks learn the warning specifics for their area too. Its not too difficult:

Snow advisory= Pain in the but commute, the gym is gonna be crowded
Winter storm watch = think about getting bread and milk at Safeway
Winter storm warning = dang I should have bought bread and milk, guess I will survive
Heavy Snow Warning = what the? the weather guys didnt predict this crap
Blizzard anything = oh crap, will definately get bread and milk
ice storm warning or freezing rain advisory = southerners are in the ditches and they should have stayed home
Lake effect snow warning = really? more lake effect? I need gas for the snow blower

[wx247]

Am I wrong to employ the adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." ? I think the watch, warning, advisory product suite is consistent with what they already do with severe weather, wind, etc. The sample revised products only muddy the water IMHO.

[bob rulz]

I think winter storm warnings as they are now are perfectly fine. The general "X number of inches with X amount of wind" is clear enough for most people and the general format shouldn't be messed with.

Although I think they could be a little bit more specific sometimes when it comes to the details of the warning. Not to be critical at all because they do an excellent job, but sometimes I find them to be very vague when I know they could go into some more detail. At least with the Salt Lake City NWS, I don't know about other areas.