May 3, 2020 MCS Review

May 3, 2020 MCS Review (central/eastern KS)

As a general rule, convection is a tough, and humbling, phenomena to forecast. But, elevated convection? Well, that's a level above (pun intended). I don't always have time to review every event I work, but I try to when possible. The note with any review I do is it's simply a way to think back through an event and see what I can learn. If others have insights, I'm all ears. Let's learn together.

Before going any further, let me tell you what I didn't do well. I forecast quarter size hail and no wind of any significance. Our CWA ended up with 2" hail and 70-80 mph wind gusts. This is why I do reviews of events (in case you were wondering).

Early in the morning, thunderstorms developed over central Kansas and quickly became severe. Those storms eventually congealed, forming the beginning stages of a long-track MCS (as shown by Sean Ash) that produced severe weather well into the TN Valley.

Days in advance, this event carried a lot of uncertainty with it. Zonal flow with embedded shortwaves; questions about moisture depth/quality (especially following a more amplified upper level pattern that sent drier air well into the northern Gulf of Mexico); and less-than-stellar model agreement.

From a forecast standpoint, the part that gave me some pause (for initiation, coverage, and severity in KS) was questions surrounding moisture return and what impact the warm temps at the base of the EML plume would have on capping. 23 hours out, the RAP was forecasting some decent moistening around 850 mb, but even that wasn't enough to fully erode the elevated cap in place (we've had some very steep lapse rates recently, by the way).

23 hr RAP Forecast Sounding near Wichita, KS (valid 08z May 3)

23 hr RAP Forecast Environmental Parameters near Wichita, KS (valid 08z May 3)

MUCINH was around -40 j/kg, so not insurmountable, especially with an embedded wave forecast to move through and convergence along a west-east baroclinic zone, but not a guarantee of development either.

23 hr RAP 700 mb Temperature Forecast (valid 08z May 3)

Jumping ahead in time closer to initiation, the 2 hr RAP forecast sounding for Wichita showed a bit more moistening in and around 850 mb, but potentially more importantly, it also showed slightly cooler 700 mb temps, effectively removing any inhibition.

2 hr RAP Forecast Sounding near Wichita, KS (valid 08z May 3)

2 hr RAP Forecast Environmental Parameters near Wichita, KS (valid 08z May 3)

Weaker inhibition, modest large-scale forcing for ascent from the shortwave, and a mid-level convergence zone, and I'm assuming that is what gave rise to the fairly rapid development in/around the greater Wichita metro. As far as why storms formed where they did, it appears initiation held off until the shortwave/mid-level convergence zone interacted with instability axis oriented SW to NE across southern KS.

2 hr RAP Forecast Instability and 0-6 km shear (valid 08z May 3)

Sometimes it seems like elevated convection is more sensitive to subtle features (moistening, temperatures aloft, etc). Maybe that's the case with all convection, but it certainly seems important in this one. One of the forecasters at my office (WFO ICT) keyed in on one potential subtlety.  When he came on shift, he noticed a more backed flow in the low-levels on the ICT VWP compared to what models were forecasting the night before. That piqued my interest, and was something I didn't even think of looking at. It appears it was an important find.

The 23 hr RAP forecast sounding (valid near initiation time) showed westerly winds around 5 kt at 850 mb, while the 2 hr forecast sounding (valid near initiation time) showed slightly stronger 850 mb winds (15 kt) that were slightly south of due west. In fact, the 2 hr RAP forecast showed slightly better veering in the 850-700 mb layer. The end result was effective SRH of 96 m2/s2 (23 hr forecast) vs 144 m2/s2 (2 hr forecast). Both soundings had similar shear and instability, but that added SRH might have contributed to several of the updrafts being more efficient at acquiring low-mid level rotation.

It appears the increased potential for rotating updrafts aided in some larger hail sizes being realized and might have contributed to downdrafts being able to reach the ground more efficiently than would otherwise have been expected with a more stable SFC/near-SFC layer. That second possibility is pure speculation.

On the topic, though, I was very surprised to get a 76 mph wind gust so early in the event. It pays to look at more than just one forecast sounding prior to an event. Lesson learned! Take a look at the RAP forecast sounding for southeast Kansas (where the strongest wind gusts in our CWA occurred).

4 hr RAP Forecast Sounding over SE KS (valid 10z May 3)

4 hr RAP Forecast Environmental Parameters over SE KS (valid 10z May 3)

Despite southeast KS being post-frontal, it appears the drier low-level air, that was observed further west near Wichita, was not fully realized to the east. So, perhaps the better low-level moisture further east of I-35 allowed storms to be rooted a bit closer to the SFC compared to further west? If so, this might also explain the noticeable increase in SFC wind gust speeds as storms progressed further east.

Thoughts? Observations? Let me know!

Credits

Forecast soundings and analysis maps courtesy College of DuPage.
Storm reports courtesy SPC.

Hurricane COVID

August 23rd, 2005. Yet another tropical system, in an active 2004-2005 period, begins getting better organized over the Bahamas. At 5 pm, the first advisory comes out from the National Hurricane Center (NHC) for Tropical Depression 12.

 
That depression would eventually go on to become the devastating, Hurricane Katrina. What some may not know, or remember, is that Katrina wasn't always expected to have as big of an impact along the north-central Gulf Coast. Two days after becoming better organized, model guidance seemed to be honing in on a possible Gulf Coast landfall near, or just west, of the Florida Big Bend area. This would have been well east of the New Orleans/Biloxi/Mobile areas.

I remember one of my Meteorology professors saying at the end of class that week that they would see us all on Monday (I was going to college at the University of South Alabama in Mobile at the time). I never sensed much doubt in the room as it appeared it would make the northward turn shortly after emerging off the west coast of Florida. After class, I went to work at the grocery story I'd been working at since starting college. With the storm forecast to pass well east of Mobile, I expected a mostly normal day, with perhaps some increase in customers with the storm in the vicinity.

Around 4 or 5 that afternoon, something happened. There was a noticeable increase in customers coming into the store. We always had an evening rush as people got off work, but this was different. There were literal streams of people pouring in from the parking lot. It's one of many images etched in my mental photo library from that  hurricane. All of us at the store soon found out why...

Katrina wasn't making that northward turn yet. The delayed turn caused the track to shift further west. The 4 pm CT advisory from the NHC now forecast Katrina to run right into Mobile. That change in the forecast sent residents of Mobile into a whole other level of preparedness. By Sunday morning, August 28, the first visible satellite images of Katrina were absolutely stunning...and worrisome.

Katrina was now a Category 5 hurricane with max sustained winds of 175 mph! The level of preparedness on Friday, August 26th was noticeable, but that level increased even more once people saw the whites of her eye that Sunday morning.

As it relates to COVID-19 (I'll call it COVID for short), I feel like the United States is currently somewhere between the Sunday morning Category 5 image of Katrina and the Monday morning landfall.

There have been preparations and actions taken across the U.S. in recent weeks, but the past few days feel like a whole other level of action. The medical field is outside my expertise, but like Katrina, it seems like something has triggered this recent uptick in response...something equivalent to seeing a category 5 hurricane approaching the coastline.

Human response to weather is something we, as Meteorologists, deal with on a regular basis and it's interesting how similar the response seems to be during non-weather disasters. When COVID started getting more attention, some probably took action right away, while others have waited until seeing the worsening forecast (like Mobile residents seeing Katrina's forecast track shift right over them). And then you still have those that wait to respond until those worrisome "category 5" images appear. For COVID, that might be like seeing a friend or family member get sick (or worse), or watching how bad things have gotten in other countries (like Italy).

In every hurricane I went through while living in Mobile, there was always this anticipatory waiting period. Whatever level of preparation you took, there came a time when preparation mostly ceased, and everyone was left to ride it out and watch it all unfold. I feel like the U.S. is getting into that wait-and-see period. Last-minute preparations are still ongoing, but many seem to be hunkering down for the longer haul.

The "outer bands" of COVID have already reached our shores...now we wait for "landfall". The tough part of waiting is you don't know how it will all turn out. Katrina changed the landscape of the Gulf Coast. What will COVID do? I don't mean that to sound dire or dramatic. It's simply the reality of waiting. It could be as bad as some forecast, or the forecasts could be wrong.

What my family and I have learned from all of the big weather events we've experienced is to take each one seriously, while finding that balance between fear and wisdom. I didn't plan well before Katrina and I paid a price. There probably is a healthy line between preparing and over-preparing, but I'd rather find myself on the over prepared side than the under prepared.

One of the great things I've seen in so many weather events is how people, businesses, and communities put their differences and financial needs aside and come together to help each other. I've already seen that with COVID and it's very encouraging. Once this storm passes, I believe we will look back and see numerous stories of people helping people...that there is still good sprinkled throughout humanity. Weather the storm, then watch for those opportunities as they arise.

There will be hard times in the coming weeks and months, but as a community, we have the choice to come together in preparedness, then come together in recovery. I've seen it work before and after hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods...and I hope to see it after COVID.

Sliced Bread and ZDR Arcs

New technology has always been exciting to me. As a teenager, I enjoyed reading through "Crutchfield" magazines to keep up with the latest and greatest in home entertainment systems. As a Meteorologist, I enjoy reading through journal articles to keep up with the latest and greatest in weather research. Some research catches on quick...others not so much. At the height of my home entertainment days, anything with "DTS" slapped on it got my attention. Dolby Digital...cool. DTS? Watch out! For surround sound, it was the best thing since sliced bread (in my mind). You could put DTS on an entertainment center and suddenly I'd be hooked.

The thing about a DTS label on an entertainment center is that it probably doesn't enhance the sound experience in any way. That's not to diminish the quality of DTS, or the quality of the entertainment center, it's just not the most appropriate application. On a similar note, only having Dolby Digital doesn't make a receiver bad, nor does having DTS make a receiver great. Is DTS the only way to go for sound? Nope. Had you talked to me about 20 years ago, though, I probably would have said yes.

The "DTS" of weather for me encompasses many new tools and technology, including GR, GOES 16/17, Dual Pol, and BUFKIT (yes, I realize all of those aren't brand, spanking new). High up on my list is Dual Pol. One of the forecaster's at my office often talks about the "story" weather data tells us. Dual Pol tells many...and I'm not convinced we've heard them all. What I find most fascinating about Dual Pol is the ability to help diagnose what storms are producing and how they are evolving, and the additional information this provides compared to legacy data, alone. Does it make legacy data bad or out-dated? Nope. But, I do believe it provides some additional clues that can improve our warning service at times.

A key to finding the best application of new research and tools seems to be rooted in how we view them. New tools are exciting and different, some of which truly are the best thing since sliced bread. An important differentiation is knowing which ones are proven and which ones have potential, but are not yet highly correlated, verified, etc. Personally, I'm guilty of 100% latching onto a new theory or tool at times, quickly trying to sell others on it. It's the next best thing...what are we waiting for?!

In reality, it may very well be the next best thing. But, until something is more solidly proven, we run the risk of an unhealthy view of the proven, yet not-as-new, methods. Ultimately, this could have unintended consequences. Successful warnings, for example, have come from legacy radar data, alone, but have also come from using a legacy and Dual Pol combination.

Having Dual Pol data is great, but it doesn't work perfectly in every situation. Like DTS, know when it can, and can't, be used. For me, I've found that figuring out when starts with admitting that it MIGHT not be the best thing since sliced bread. For those out there who are all-things-Dual-Pol like myself, don't let me lose you here. The point I'm hoping to drive home is to watch out for another case of Meteorological tunnel vision (something I am prone to).

I'm scheduled to present at my office's spring workshop this year, and I was ready to bust down the doors with ZDR Arcs and KDP foots. While research may yet reveal this to be true, I have had to slow my roll and realize that the data isn't 100% there yet to bust down any doors. When you bust down doors, you sometimes end up knocking people over in the process.

With new, or still-being-researched, tools, awareness (as opposed to selling) seems to be a better first step. And think about it...increased awareness can spark additional interest and research that may help in determining the needed viability of a tool. Sometimes we all just need to know a tool exists and how to test it. My hope at the workshop is simply to enhance awareness and let the research sell itself if, indeed, it is a better option. My hope is that I will be more intentional about checking, but not diminishing, my excitement for new research, and knowing when to sell something vs simply raising awareness.

The Role of Winter Weather Headlines

One of the topics of discussion at my office's winter workshop today was winter storm watches, warnings, and advisories (winter WWA, I'll call it). This isn't the first time we've talked about this as a group. I've always been big on products like that, but in the changing landscape of communication and messaging, I'm not so sure where I land now.

It's no secret that not all NWS products are understood correctly. I remember talking to my sister one time about a winter storm that was headed her way. I mentioned that she was under a Winter Storm Warning. She said something to the effect of, "Oh, but it's just a warning, so that's not too bad, right?" (she had always thought an advisory was worse than a warning). Who does she think she is not knowing that! I mean, how hard can it be to remember that??? The better question might be who am I to think that everyone fully comprehends that? In my mind, it seems like a simple concept. But, then again, I'M the one with the Meteorology degree...I'M the one regularly contemplating impacts and criteria. She has no idea what her local office's criteria are. Should she?

I don't think I've ever thought people should know our (the NWS') criteria. Heck, I don't even remember all of our criteria. I have an ops notebook dedicated to that very thing. If I'm being honest, though, there is probably a part of me that has expected people to at least understand the winter WWA difference. It seems like such a simple concept (says the Meteorologist). I don't know where the disconnect is, but something leads many people to repeatedly ask for clarification on the issue. Perhaps there's something important there.

With social media and SOOO many different ways to get information nowadays, there continues to be a push for improved and effective communication. One way to improve communication is to avoid confusion where possible. If the winter watch/warning/advisory distinction is causing confusion, maybe one solution is to avoid the mention of those products where possible. Think about the earlier conversation with my sister. What if I had just started the conversation with, "Hey, looks like ya'll are going to get 6-12" of snow tomorrow." Our conversation would have been shorter and less confusing.

My sister has three kids...all of which are in school. For her, 6-12" likely means no school and that someone needs to be home to watch the little rascals. THAT'S what matters to her. At the core, she probably could care less about whether she is under an advisory or warning...she just wants to know if the kids are staying home.

This is not an argument for, or against, the removal of winter WWA. As I understand the current state of the weather enterprise and how we communicate, there is still a place for those products. It just seems that our forward-facing message for the public, and likely even our partners, should be the potential or expected amounts, impacts, timing, etc. In time, maybe major changes to winter WWA will be more effective and is something the NWS Hazard simplification project is working hard to address going forward.

The challenge will still be how to best manage time spent on winter WWA decisions vs other aspects of messaging in order to best set people up for success as they contemplate important decisions with each winter event. I'm still working through finding that balance. For now, I suppose I have landed on focusing most of my attention/effort on the science of the forecast and how that drives the forward-facing message (social media graphics, SitReps, briefings, etc) while at the same time not completely ignoring the role winter WWA have in the process. What about you? Where do you see winter WWA fitting in with messaging and how it is best utilized going forward?

P.S. My blog was never meant to be a let-me-tell-you-how-it-is kind of deal. I'm hoping any post I make starts conversations, whether I am ever involved in them or not. Writing these posts has helped me think through the challenges we face and I hope it does the same for others.

The Best Service Starts with Weakness

One of my favorite tasks in the NWS is working radar. I enjoy the challenge of figuring out what storms are, or will be, doing and how to best communicate those threats to people (through warning vs. not warning decisions, what tags to use, and so on). Ironically, though, working radar also happens to be the task that I most often deal with some anxiety about. Typing that last sentence is difficult for me and I keep thinking through ways to word it in a way that sounds the least negative. That wouldn't be very honest of me, so I'll just leave it as is. Oh, the joy of weaknesses and struggles. Can I get an 'amen!'?! No takers? Didn't think so.

As a general rule, I struggle with being open and honest with co-workers regarding my weak areas. I subscribe to the 'honesty is the best policy' idea, but really struggle to put that into practice sometimes. The past year here at the NWS Wichita office (hard to believe it has been a year already!) has challenged me a lot in this area of honesty. What I've come to realize is that my struggle with being honest with others actually starts with the struggle to be honest with myself.

At my first NWS office (Great Falls, MT), I had very little anxiety when working radar. A lot of people in the office didn't want to work radar, which gave me lots of opportunities to gain experience and confidence. You'd think that confidence would follow me here to Kansas, but it didn't quite work out that way. In Montana, I was warning for small towns and cows. But now I am warning for a much larger population. The city of Wichita, alone, has more people than the entire NWS Great Falls' CWA. The magnitude of severe weather is different here as well, especially regarding the higher frequency of tornadoes and the significant threat to life and property that that threat, alone, carries. There are simply more people in my current CWA to be "hit". Radar is radar, though. It's not like dBZ values have a different meaning here. CC still drops with debris, Dual-Pol data still reveals large hail, tornadoes, and heavy rain processes. The only thing that changed was my mindset (stressful vs not stressful) towards working radar.

I didn't want to admit this and for months I kept trying to hide it...from myself. Which, if you think about it, is kind of a silly goal, and yet it is a very real problem. The truth is, I got some great radar experience while in Montana, but still needed more. I didn't want to need more. I wanted to walk into ICT a confident radar operator, being the go-to guy in severe events. I wanted to be trusted at any point in any event. It simply did not work out that way.

A year in, I have gained additional experience and my confidence is coming back. But, it's still not to the level I want to be at in order to provide the best possible service I can. Part of what has helped me is finally coming to terms with my struggle. I admitted it to myself...I still need improvement on radar. It took me long enough to admit that, but now it is time to be honest with others - this blog post is a part of that and has been a year in the making! In a strange way, working on this post has actually helped me feel more confident. Not that I magically have things all figured out, but now when tasked with working radar, I have one less weight on my shoulder - the weight of acting like I have it all together. Whether anyone in my office ever sees this post, the simple act of typing it out, and making it public, is a huge step even in just being honest with myself.

On a side note, I somewhat comically think back to the first time I was tasked with radar here at ICT. Man, I was so nervous that I was struggling even with the less-visible SPS (a far cry from the confident radar guy I was back in Montana). At one point, the Lead Forecaster I was working with nicely remarked, "You know, it's ok to issue an SPS". I appreciate the grace is in his patience. I have come a long way since that day, but it sure was a low point for me.

So, what about you? Are there any weaknesses or struggles that deep down you know are there, but don't want to admit it? Maybe it isn't even a weakness, per-say...maybe you don't like forecasting or public briefings, but are afraid to admit it. Maybe you don't mind being open with others, but fear their response. I totally understand the concern. I'm not saying you go into work today and draft up an all-hands email about every struggle. Maybe for now you simply need to be honest with yourself.

The beauty here is that the admission of weakness is the beginning of wisdom.

Convincing ourselves that a weakness or struggle doesn't exist, or isn't that big of a deal, can cause us to miss important learning opportunities. Consider this as well...what you learn through your weakness now, could play a vital role in you helping someone else through a similar weakness down the road. Just the simple fact that you are not the only one with a certain struggle can be encouraging!

Now, I will say, being honest with others may open the door to less-than-receptive  responses and I don't want to ignore that possibility. Even in great working environments, there are often one or two that may give people a hard time for showing, or sharing, struggles. If one imperfect individual cannot accept someone else's imperfection...well, that is on them. I know this doesn't ease the fear of a negative response, but I do still believe in the importance of being open with others at times. Start with yourself, then consider opening up to at least a few others.

We ALL have weaknesses and struggles. There are no perfect Meteorologists. If we're honest about our weakness and patient with others', we can all work together to provide the best service possible. If you want to set yourself, and others, up for success, then start with honesty.

Value of the Mesoanalyst Position

Modern-day forecasting within the National Weather Service (NWS) continues to change as modeling, technology, and communications evolve. For some this is exciting...for others perhaps not as much. In reality, I would venture to say that for many, the evolution is a mix of both.

Last year, I read a #WxTwitter thread that discussed the Mesoanalyst role (Meso-A, I'll call it). The discussion drifted from the original topic to a discussion about hand analysis. The way the chat became so focused around hand analysis got me to thinking that perhaps there needs to be a change in how the position is viewed (I include myself in this).

Filling the Meso-A role doesn't always have to involve hourly hand analyses or manually calculating CAPE. The thought of either of those probably scares some people away. Perhaps at one time the position was centered around manually analyzing surface and upper air charts...for some it probably still is. Technology continues to advance and while I hope manual analysis is never completely abandoned, the days of whipping out the colored pencils may not be as widespread as it once was. So, let's step away from how tasks are accomplished and instead evaluate the role in consideration of current technology and model capabilities and whether it can still play an important role in the current NWS service model.

A key concept within the NWS right now is IDSS - Impact-Based Decision Support Services. Achieving goals within this framework requires some evolutions of past service models/concepts/methodologies. I believe one such evolution involves the Meso-A concept. To determine if a concept needs to evolve, we should start with why it was put there in the first place. I see the forecaster in the Meso-A position as being tasked with monitoring and effectively communicating the current state of the environment as well as expected near-term changes / trends.

Note that there is no explicit clarification on how this task is accomplished. Instead of focusing on a specific task, or means to accomplish a task, we should focus on the goal of the position to help determine if it fits into the current framework of NWS operations. Just purely based on how I defined it above, I would argue that it does still play an important role. But, let's dig a little deeper.

With advances in modeling and analysis, have we reached a point where the Meso-A tasks can be combined with other roles (communications, warnings, forecasting) as opposed to it being the primary task of one forecaster? This question may actually be more important than the definition of the position.

The Meso-A position isn't the only one to evolve. Think about how the communications role has evolved with the advent of social media. Comms isn't just answering the phones anymore. In fact, comms has evolved so much, it will sometimes be a 2-forecaster job. Does DSS get its own forecaster or is that lumped in with comms? In addition, radar operators now have Dual Pol, SAILS, TWIP research, etc to consider. Offices handle tasks differently, but the reality is that the workload has evolved with evolutions in messaging and technology.

With that in mind, is it possible that the Meso-A position is actually even more important now than ever before? Maybe in the past the forecaster answering the phones could also handle monitoring and communicating environmental changes. Now that person may be tasked with phones, social media, and DSS briefings. Consider, too, how the position can support ALL of the other positions.

A stronger-than-forecast low-level jet quickly developing with a subsequent increased tornado threat, for example, might be missed by other forecasters knee-deep in warnings, social media graphics, or in-situ oral briefings to emergency managers. The Meso-A forecaster noting this change, especially if it was not modeled well, could provide very important information to aid in warning decisions, staffing and/or forecaster responsibilities, and messaging to the public and partners.

Even with advances in modeling, there remains an important human element at times...it's the Target of Opportunity concept within the NWS. Whether the models are handling an event well or not, at minimum it can help to have someone monitor and communicate the current state of the atmosphere as well as important trends. Then, when you do have those events that are not being handled well by the  models, you have someone who can manually adjust on the fly as an important part of the office's life-saving mission.

The NWS strives to protect lives and property and I firmly believe the Meso-A position, if seen and utilized effectively, can be a vital Target of Opportunity within this mission. I have always believed in the role of the Mesoanalyst, but in thinking about it further, I have become even more convinced of its relevance. But, don't take my word for it. For some additional thoughts on the position, check out the findings in these RAMMB and OPG documents.

One final comment...the heart behind this post was not to argue for or against how the role is performed. My hope is to encourage folks to see the value of the role without the distraction of how one goes about accomplishing associated tasks. Effectively monitor and communicate...that's the idea. How that is done will differ from forecaster to forecaster, but I believe it is a vital support function during many severe weather events.

Winter Storms and Flurries

High-impact weather events can either be annoyingly difficult to forecast...or a joy, depending on how you view it. While there is no right or wrong view on that, it can be an absolute nightmare when it is forecast and doesn't occur, or vice-versa. Several years ago, I wrote a post about the "Winter Storm that Never Was". The focus with that post was more about sharing (or not sharing) snowfall total maps from one model output. For this post, I wanted to look a bit more at the forecasting aspect.

7 to 10 days ago, model guidance was hinting at the potential of a significant snowfall for portions of the Central/Southern Plains. Snow lovers rejoice! And, haters...well, it's winter.

One example of what some model guidance was suggesting (this was the GFS forecast from last Sunday)

Fast-forward to present day and what was supposed to be a big snow ended up being scattered flurries, at least for parts of the Plains. Across parts of the Southern Plains, winter impacts were still felt, though (just ask the fine folks in Lubbock).

NOHRSC Modeled Snow Depth for Dec 9, 2018

This wasn't a case of no snow occurring at all, but the actual swath of snow was quite a bit different compared to what many models were showing days in advance. The tough part with this forecast was that the models continued to suggest a higher-impact snow even up to 2-3 days or so in advance for areas that ended up seeing no flakes at all, or more of a wintry mix as opposed to all snow.

NAM Snowfall Forecast 2-3 Days Out

I worked leading up to, and during, this event. Several things stuck out to me and/or came up in conversation within our office and with neighboring offices.

1) Trends are your friend, but know when to lock in. While not completely consistent, there was a noticeable trend further south with successive model runs. The trick here is knowing when to bite on a solution in the middle of a trend. This can be especially difficult when a certain trend continues well into the Watch/Warning/Advisory decision window. This is kind of like figuring out when to fill up on gas while prices are falling. You want to get the best price (forecast), but don't want to run out of gas (miss the forecast). From a messaging standpoint, you want to give people as much lead time as possible while still balancing out the potential crying wolf syndrome. The suggestion here is to be cautious with specific impacts if the models are in the middle of a consistent trend. If you can, try to wait until the guidance "levels off". This may be especially important when models show a drier, less snowy, less severe, etc type of trend for your particular area.

2) Consistency doesn't always equal higher confidence. There were several model runs in which the guidance were well-clustered on QPF / snowfall amounts. Typically, this would equate to higher confidence for the forecaster. The catch is that run-to-run consistency on where the heaviest snow would fall wasn't always there. Consistency in one model cycle is great, but make sure to look at it in context from previous runs.

3) I cannot stress this enough...don't let social media get to you. We can continue to educate folks and message events as best we can, but some things are simply misunderstood. Keep in mind, too, that the dreaded phrase, "They said...", while directed at us, likely includes non-Meteorologists as well. John Q posting a 400-hr snowfall map from some model is probably getting lumped into people's view of the error in the forecast. We didn't post those maps and yet we still get blamed. One suggestion is to take each event and, if you can, try to explain things to folks. I realize it won't always be received well, but don't give up trying. If this doesn't work, know when to just let it go.

4) Be honest with yourself. No matter how hard we try, we are going to bust at times. The models aren't perfect and neither are we. We all know this, but do we truly account for it in an honest post-event reflection? If you, personally, can do something better next time, then work at it. But, realize that even after considering all of the above suggestions on trends, messaging, science, and consistency...you will miss a forecast from time to time. Period. You are not alone...we all will miss forecasts. Richelle Goodrich said it well - “Many times what we perceive as an error or failure is actually a gift. And eventually we find that lessons learned from that discouraging experience prove to be of great worth.”

5) Postmortems! If you and/or your office do this already, great! If not, now is as good a time as any to start. It doesn't have to be a lengthy, detailed process. It could simply be an email pointing out which models did well or what stuck out to you during the event. Start a discussion. Figure out what went well and what didn't. Remember...be honest with yourself and as an office and learn from it. With each event, successful or not, we have an opportunity as individuals and as a team to improve. Make the most of each opportunity.

Forecasting the weather has its challenges, especially when high-impact events are at stake. What I'm learning is to implement change through lessons learned, figure out how to best interpret model guidance in various scenarios, and to be honest with myself. But, don't take my word for it...give it a try for yourself!

Note: if there are things you have learned from forecasting high-impact events, then let me know and add to the discussion!