BTRWx

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    5,344

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BTRWx

  1. Posted

    On 10/11/2017 at 10:03 PM, mitchnick said:

    I'll say this much, the top 4 years on todays super ensembles map were awfully blocky that winter: 68/69, 95/96 n 63/64 & 77/78. We can hope.

    500hgt_comp_sup814.gif

    It's amazing how the years you mentioned are still showing up in a big way! We need to take frequent screen shots of this post as it auto-updates! :snowman:

  2. Posted

    41 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

    It may look nice seeing a -nao on the panels but it's meaningless as a long lead signal in Oct. We had this same conversation in 2012,13, & 14. All three of those Octobers had a fairly persistent -NAO. Late Nov-early Dec is a different story. 

    I really like CPC analogs for specific windows and potential events in the 2 week range. It has proven to be a pretty valuable tool in the winter. However, I don't think there is much value in rolling the analogs forward for months. Don't get me wrong though. I love the composites Mitch posted but we still a ways away from getting a bead on potential blocking (or lack there of). 

    Thank you.

  3. Posted

    4 hours ago, jacindc said:

    I have a friend who has to make the call as to whether to cancel a huge outdoor event on Sunday afternoon. She's leaning to yes, but desperate for additional input, so she's asking me, and now I'm asking y'all. :)

    What are the times of the event and when does the call have to be made by?

    eta: GFS trend for tomorrow evening

    59d90133cffac828794792.gif

  5. Posted

    On 10/1/2017 at 11:43 PM, WxWatcher007 said:

    Thanks for the kind words.

    Sorry to hear the sad news.  I've had similar circumstances over the last couple years and can imagine what you're going through.  We all must stay strong. <3

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

     

    4 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

    Those models jump all over and follow climo usually so they mostly don't add much except conversation imo. But this is the long range thread so it's worth a mention when a data point comes out. Even a less significant one. 

    Now before things devolve into our annual fight over what's worth talking about and what's not... this is a weather forum. And this is the long range seasonal winter thread. Imho anything related to that is fair game. You wanna discuss the cfs or cansips go. Talk about the old school stuff like caterpillars and squirrels have at it. Bring up the farmers almanac sure. I'm not going to weigh it all but what's the harm?  There are serious awful problems in the world today and this isn't one of them. Most of us come in here for fun and to get away from that stuff and because we love weather. Discussing those things isn't going to harm anyone. If you don't like it ignore it. 

    In the winter of course I would rather be discussing things in the short range.  Often I step back in the close range not because I don't like it but because we have a multitude of skilled posters who cover it quite well and things happen at such speed in the nowcast period that between work and coaching and a toddler I just can't keep up.  But I would rather be tracking something close and those storms that just pop up 72 hours out are the best. Less angst waiting for it to fail. Omg the blizzard 2 years ago was torture in that regard.  But when there is nothing going on inside 5 days I will look to the long range for hints at when things could get more favorable.  And yes I do that with a lean towards optimism because I simply don't feel like being depressed all the time over frozen water that I have no control over.  Life's too short.  We all know long range stuff is low probability.  So if you think it's useless and a total waste of time good for you.  Perhaps say it once and then let the rest of us have our vice and enjoy ourselves.  Thank you....

    PS...this wasn't directed at any one person.   No one take this personally. Just felt what was coming and thought maybe we could not go there again this year.  

     

    Anyone know of a weather forum that advocates for more realism?  (Serious question, because that's what I'm here for.)

  7. Posted

    Despite his company's issues, what I've always admired about WB's JB is his ability to asses current weather, compare it to similar analog patterns, and provide detailed analyses before looking at a single nwp map.  His competitors are still playing catchup imo.

    Banter can be positive right? ;)

  8. Posted

    3 hours ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

    LOL, just looked at the cansips model runs from July 31 and compared to those init on August 31.  Absolutely no continuity.  

    You guys can post them, take them seriously, worry over them, but, for me, they are now squarely in the same category with the CFSv2.......trash.

     

    I can save both the US and Canadian governments plenty of money.  I'll make 15 different guesses for the long range forecast and call it a day.  I'll make sure to get Bob and some of the others to give me examples of a great look, terrible look, great winter, awful winter and everything in between.  One of my forecasts will be correct and we can all celebrate my long range climate model.

    True long-rangers don't use climate models imo.

    • Like 1

  11. Posted

    25 minutes ago, Bob Chill said:

    Same with the unusual cool spell in aug/early sept. We're in the rebound/balance stage with warm stuff right now. I hope it holds all the way through Oct into Nov. I'm not kidding either. Let's have a rubber band snap back right before thanksgiving that lasts thru mid Dec. 

    That may have so much meaning beyond these forums. ;)

  15. Posted

    44 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

    Unlike some trolls lot of what he says is true. I have to begrudgingly agree with him much of the time. But he only shows up when it's bad news. Being pessimistic is ok but if you only come around to get a kick out of delivering bad news and disappear when it's good, that not providing any value. I don't remember him around much the week of the blizzard in 2016 but a few weeks later when a feb threat was falling apart suddenly he felt we needed his constant analysis of how bad the setup was.  Probability argues the 1963 level is unlikely but I would ratter a less biased messenger. 

    Even if a tropical volcano erupts tomorrow, this winter wouldn't be impacted much in the States. Because of that, I vote to move the discussion to banter!

  17. Posted

    39 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

    If it is as strong (or stronger) as the 1963 eruption, that would be a huge deal. It would affect the climate for at least a year or two.

    Know of any open access journal reports from the 1963 eruption?

  18. Posted

    14 minutes ago, Mdecoy said:

    Since this is the IMBY thread, what does the current track deliver for the VA, DC, Baltimore area? I assume its nothing more than clouds, a breeze or two, and a conversation shower.

    Maybe some Chesapeake Bay flooding?

    Its a shame it wants to hook so hard east, if it could stay closer to the coast on its way up, I think it would be more significant.

    I'd love a day off from work, or at least a bit of media hype here or there.

    But for now, my goal is to see this have an official USA landfall, such would buck the "10% odds" it was given at one point.

     

    My bad. I hope it was worth it to you all? lol

    eta: 11 pages might be a record for me

  24. Posted

    10 minutes ago, gymengineer said:

    For me, it's the dive bomb quality that makes no sense. Not contributing to the active thread except to boast. But even when doing that, quoting from a poster with no credibility.

    I thought you said they were a regular contributor?  I didn't see it, so I'm not one to judge.  I'm sure you've seen how I don't like seeing people getting called out so much.  Your comment made me feel like it wasn't so extreme.  I don't have a say.

  25. Posted

    8 minutes ago, gymengineer said:

    Why would anyone, let alone a long time contributor, quote a post from more than a day ago (by harveyleonardfan, of all people) in order to self congratulate himself?

    Edited to add: It just got removed, along with the negative reaction to the post. But it was a doozie. Basically a praise of his own estimate of 130 mph landfall on PR because HarveyLeonardfan supported his view by concluding it must have been a Cat 3 landfall.

    I see nothing wrong with that honestly.