Don Sutherland...
This opinion may not be popular, but after having watched some of the scenes and read some of the first-hand accounts here and on social media about the terrible situation that confronted people in Atlanta, I'm not going to ignore this report. In fact, I very much dislike writing these kinds of messages.
My focus is strictly on the station and personnel who used the 0.1" graphic. It does not concern the many private and public sector meteorologists who did not use the graphic cited in the message to which I'm responding. Indeed, a number of the meteorologists here at AmWx did a vastly superior job in discussing things leading up to the storm.
My points concerning the 0.1" forecast(s):
1. There was no rational, repeat no rational, basis for that 0.1" graphic. None. The computer guidance 60 hours ahead of the event was showing the potential for several inches of snow in and around Atlanta. Moreover, agreement and run-to-run continuity on the models was good.
2. The Skew-T soundings were consistently showing a snow event for the greater Atlanta area (NAM and GFS soundings).
3. The snowfall was not a "rare" event for Atlanta (headlines to that effect are incorrect). Over the past 30 years, such events have occurred on average of once every 2.3 years. Even if those using the graphic might not have been aware of this reality, it truly can snow in Atlanta and snow can accumulate there.
4. When there are uncommon events, it also can be helpful to dig into past events for additional insight into possibilities. The 500 mb pattern was similar to a composite from the 2/6-7/1980 and 3/1-2/1980 events, which brought 1.4" and 2.7" respectively to Atlanta. Some time spent understanding the past can help one in dealing with present challenges from a risk assessment perspective.
The work day is sufficiently long to accommodate a thorough review of the models, ensembles, and to look into past relevant events. The combination of reasonable time management and reasonable workplace productivity would allow for all of this. In turn, this focused effort would translate into better forecasts on account of better information and better insight into climatological risks. In this case, it certainly would have avoided the debacle of the use of a 0.1" snowfall graphic, as the models and climatology all indicated that there was no rational basis for using such a graphic.
Use of this graphic suggests:
1. Unfamiliarity with the models (globals and high-resolution ones) and their performance -- existence, understanding/reading them, or both.
2. Possible inability to read/understand Skew-T soundings.
3. Substantial bias concerning Atlanta's snowfall climatology (basically an "it can't snow here" mentality).
4. Possible over-reliance on "in-house" models that imply a great deal of precision but perform well below the globals or commonly-used high-resolution models (NAM, RGEM, etc.).
IMO, the person or people who repeatedly showed the graphic should be sent to a professional continuing education course dealing with snowfall forecasting to develop the requisite skills/knowledge. AMS and Met schools almost certainly offer a wide variety of such courses. He/They should also be requiered to study the local area's climatology (know the big storms, know the frequency of events, etc.).. Passively living in an area, even for a long time, simply does not guarantee understanding of an area's climatology.
In addition, it might be wise for the station to have an experienced meteorologist (or retired meteorologist) who has extensive experience with snowfall forecasting on retainer during the winter to lead in the development of snowfall forecasts when a snowstorm threatens. The knowledge and ability of the person/people who used the 0.1" graphic unambiguously fell short of what was needed and the station's viewers were not well-served. The station should also reduce reliance on inferior in-house models that produce such graphics. Their precision is a mirage when one is dealing with a real performance gap relative to the global and widely-used high-resolution models (all of which handled this storm quite well). The in-house models can complement the global and high-resolution models. They are not a substitute for them. When disagreement exists, one should rely on the latter set of guidance.
Had the storm behaved dramatically differently from what the guidance suggested or had the guidance shown poor agreement and little run-to-run continuity, that would be an entirely different matter. In this case, the storm was both well-modeled and well-behaved in the Atlanta area. It also fell into the parameters of two events that occurred during similar upper air patterns.
On the larger issues beyond the forecast, I do believe Atlanta needs to develop a comprehensive snow management plan. If such a plan exists, it failed so badly that it is all but unworkable. Aspects would include identifying known "trouble" spots, developing a protocol involving pre-treatment of surfaces giving priority to the trouble spots and critical areas, salting/sanding, and plowing. The plan would also entail public service recommendations that people who work in areas most prone to difficulty take the day off, a communications strategy to assure that the maximum number of people are reached in a timely basis (easier today with smartphones, tablets, the Internet, etc., than in the past). The plan's performance should be examined on a regular basis with needed adjustments being made.
In the longer-run, the gap between the area's rapid population growth (a good thing economically and socially) and infrastructure needs to be addressed through meaningful infrastructure investment. Whether that investment is funded by reallocating expenditures or increasing taxes or some combination is a policy choice. The infrastructure gap needs to be addressed.
In the end, my empathy goes out to the people in the Atlanta area who suffered greatly. The great tragedy of this is that this was, in part, an avoidable crisis. Forecasting aspects e.g., the forecast of 0.1" that was never in the proverbial ballpark, and urgent need for a comprehensive snow management plan should be addressed. Failure to do so will lead to a much higher risk of a repeat situation than would otherwise be the case.
