"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsPaEd.30782$wu4.8068@attbi_s52...
But, sheesh, it's January. That's what is *supposed* to happen at this
time of year.

Does this mean that you don't want to have any prior warning of the next
one coming? (The NWS budget of about a Billion could be saved???....)

Warnings are appropriate. But false warnings are worse than no warnings
at all.

We're talking about local TV stations placing cold, miserable-looking
reporters on street corners with rulers, measuring snowflakes as they
fall, followed by dire warnings to "stay inside or die!" It's absurd,
and leads to people actually ignoring the warnings, so that when we *do*
eventually get a major winter storm, no one will be paying attention.
--


You will not get any argument from me there... I *DO* agree that reporters
over-hype the weather, as they do many other things. Or add nothing to the
information.... for what informational purpose, exactly, were those
endlessly-repeated night shots of Anderson Cooper getting rain-soaked and
windblown in a Florida Hurricane???

Let's face it. In today's world 9 inches of snow is going to tie up
populated centres. Even 2 inches at rush hour will be disruptive. Does
that warrant some sort of *warning*? Probably. Does it warrant hyped-up
"terrible conditions being braved endlessly by our fearless reporters". I
agree with you: certainly useless!


The Midwest weather-system in question *WAS* significant (although not
exceptional) for a portion of the population to the south and east of Iowa,
(including O'Hare). It is always a little scary for forecasters where there
is a rain-snow boundary involved... because of the freezing rain factor, but
also because if they judge the location of the boundary incorrectly.... then
somebody's 2.0 inches of rain (forecast), can become 2 feet of snow
(reality), a much different disruptive effect. If unsure, they may hedge
their bets toward calling for snow.

This particular system also moved fairly rapidly. I expect that they
under-estimated the speed, anticipating a slower system which would also
have produced greater amounts locally. So only southwest Missouri got the
brunt of the water:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/product...105.precip.gif

Apparently most of it in the form of flooding rains, up to 6 inches.
http://joplinglobe.joplinglobe.com/s...id=153868&c=87

That could have been really interesting, had it been snow.

Even so, *they* may believe that hype was justified....