psuhoffman

I’m excited for the possibility of urban street flooding. 

There could be some instability in meso banding. We could even see localized thunder rain!  

Look at this beautiful rainstorm 

we get destroyed by heavy CCB rain!  Stormy will be very happy 

1 hour ago, Ji said:

it really should. I have been calling for a storm in this time frame now since November haha

Drought buster 

3 hours ago, Ji said:

 

Control has a perfect track rainstorm too

37 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said:

Yeah both our winter outlooks were bad.  My temps terrible although snowfall range of 15-22 not as bad as going big 

My forecast was worse than yours because let’s be honest snow is what most care about!   No one is more critical of my mistakes than me.  The whole point of my participation in this thread is to analyze what happened so I don’t repeat the same mistakes. 
 

But you’re off base with the model worship stuff.  Go back and read my winter forecast. There is nothing about models. It’s based on analog and pattern recognition.  I messed that up just as bad as the models did, but that’s my fault.  I valued the wrong variables and miscalculated some factors. 
 

This thread has had almost nothing to do with models.  The long range thread often is. And we probably do rip and read day 15 crap too much. I think this has become a nasty habit born out of the fact nothing inside day 10 ever looks good recently. And I don’t feel like analyzing fiction range nonsense so I’ll engage in posting unicorn maps for fun. But we all know those day 15 maps are not likely to actually happen.  And there is good discussion not model based too. Pattern recognition and analogs.
 

And you should just contribute what you want to be disused. If something’s being missed add it. Participate. Add that value. I have no issue with your point of view. I don’t agree with some of it but so what. But why the attacks?  You can make your case without them. 

39 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said:

See you dismiss as “hopeful” 

You are not qualified to do that.  You were about 15 when he wrote it and are not a met  nor atmospheric scientist. You are able to provide great detailed discussions with very little forecasting . You are most certainly and ardent model hugger and defender of the failing status quo 

The abilities you assess us as “not having” are largely because they have not been sought due to defenders  of. and monetary concerns about, the preservation of the current operating methods 

And….if I recall you predicted a colder than average winter and it was one of the warmest ever!  But no one is attacking you over it because long range forecasting is difficult.  Stop being an ass. 

36 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said:

See you dismiss as “hopeful” 

You are not qualified to do that.  You were about 15 when he wrote it

How old do you think I am?  

5 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said:

Page 46 opening statement in collaboration with atmospheric scientists.  “By 2025 the data  problem for weather prediction will be solved.  Global weather prediction models with 1km horizontal resolution will have reached the limits of predictability. Numerical prediction in the 0-2 day time frame will be essentially perfect”

Bob  Ryan 2002 Almanac as to weather forecasting in 2025

Ryan may have been the best DC ever had. He was No snow crow. When he went big it meant it was gonna snow

These people who wrote this were not hopers and  dreamers. They saw where things were and what could be.  Instead we are still bogged down with what is not working and lately not working with ever increasing inaccuracy .  Model huggers have thwarted  progress.

Ill pull a couple more excerpts but essentially the opening paragraph says it all as to what was correctly and reasonably envisioned vs where we are actually at. 

 

That seemed hopeful, no matter how good the resolution gets we don't yet have the ability to measure every variable involved in the equations accurately.  We don't have accurate measurements of every inch of the earth.  Plus...incoming radiation impacts the equation and we can't always know today what that will be in 5 days, predictions of solar radiation aren't perfect either.  No one is arguing with you that the tools are lacking and need to improve...but not sure what the next step is other than continuing to push the envelope the improve where possible one step at a time.  This includes models and non model methods.  We are still improving analog based methods and now including AI in both of these.  

12 minutes ago, Ji said:

We need to get psu on board. It’s just you and me right now

If we can get 2 consecutive runs with the gfs AND euro showing a significant snow then I’ll pay attention 

2 hours ago, Terpeast said:

I’m not sure if it will be even as long as one paragraph!

2 hours ago, stormtracker said:

PSU, tell him

"that just won't get it done"

I'm sure he will listen 

1 hour ago, cbmclean said:

I wanted to say something meaningful about this but realized i could not because I have very little understanding of what actually causes ridges or troughs.  If someone asked you to explain the mechanism(s) by which synoptic-scale variations in geopotential height arise and move around, how would you do it in a paragraph?  I know that thicknesses are highly correlated to average temperature in a column of air, but is it just that simple for heights: cold air = low heights and warm air = high heights?

Assume your listener has a strong background in basic physics but very little detailed knowledge of fluid dynamics.  

Holy crap... if it was possible to explain wave physics in a paragraph I would put a lot of professors and text book writers out of business!  But... I think I can try to explain the basics of what you are getting at fairly briefly, at least I will try. 

Ultimately what puts the whole atmosphere into motion is the Coriolis effect.  But what causes waves to form within this are inequities in how heat is added to the equation which disrupts the stable flow or air and then the attempts to balance those inequities.  More sunlight in one location.  Fluxes in radiation.  Water temps.  etcetera...  now pull back and imagine a flow of water like a river, and imagine an object being thrown into the flow of water and how this will cause a reaction in the flow.  At first this is predictable as the waves reaction to the object...but as these ripples interact with other variables and bounce off each other it becomes less predictable over time.   It's the same concept in the atmosphere, only infinitely more variables to try to predict for on a global scale.  

Now to really get into this on the physics level we would have to discuss things like Bernoulli's principle and how speed and pressure factor into these equations but I'm not interested or qualified to teach that physics course on here lol.  If it could be explained in a forum post there wouldn't be whole courses on this.  

10 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said:

i think a lot of the drop offs here are those like me who have been active in internet weather for over20 years and originally found great excitement in the details provided and potential for great “coming true” of especially winter time model output.  It all over Ryan’s writings as to what appeared to be in place. But it hasn’t happened . Every 5 years or so this board gets  a new model enthusiast who tries to take over and run away those who don’t engage in model worship and who don’t contend that they are accurate and effective. Then they go away. Kinda cycling thru that right now .

So let me  get some excerpts from Ryan’s thoughts and  hopes and post them here .  If you were 10 -15 when he wrote it might want to zip it and learn 

 

I prefer to focus on improving my own methods rather than worrying about the failings of others.  My own analog based methodologies failed me horribly 2 of the last 4 winters so I don't feel like throwing stones at anyone.  

In my own reflection I think I failed to weight the importance of smaller scale cycles on analog selection.  Had I done so I would have weighted 1973 and 1952 higher even though they did not match as many criteria that I weighted too highly like QBO.  I also need to correctly adjust analogs for the current temperature regime.   The last time I predicted too much snow was 2020 and when I reflect on what went wrong there...I predicted slightly below avg and it ended up nearly nothing...looking back at the analogs I selected had I adjusted them for warming I would have seen how bad it might be.  Almost all the snows in the analogs came in marginal setups that when adjusted for a warmer climate I would have seen most wouldn't be snow anymore and I was over predicting based on what happened 30 years ago v what would happen in the same pattern in a warmer period now.  So not saying using analogs are bad...but selecting the right ones is a trick and its easier in hindsight to see than ahead of time.  

1 hour ago, WEATHER53 said:

I’m reading Bob Ryan’s 2002 Almanac which has on front cover”Weather Forecasting  in 2025”. I will enter some excerpts later

it is disheartening to read the great hope for accuracy that he foresaw and hoped  for.  90% accuracy day 5 and in.  Not even close to reality.  I would estimate if the dozen or so things specifically identified as likely occurring by now, about one third have come to fruition. The idea that high tech satellites could get start snd stop times down to one hour and accumulations within 5-10% error margins just hadn’t happened. I sense he felt wholesale technological advancements and revolutions would occur. That failed also  

He was being optimistic. Nothing wrong with that. I think back then with the advancements happening at that time in models and supercomputing it was fair to think it was possible but truth is after a significant leap in the 2000s we did hit a sort of leveling point where our scientific advancements bumped up against the chaos we can’t account for.  Maybe he underestimated that chaos  

this shot here is why I wonder how much split flow blocking works in this regime. I know with the time of year it doesn’t matter but the same concept applies mid winter. If that energy in the west was less amplified and the ridge in front was slightly less that system would slide east under the block and 50/50 and be a threat. But there is a tipping point where the ridging in front of every pacific wave is too much and they amplify out west and then try to cut regardless of blocking. 

15 minutes ago, Ji said:

What kind of Nina do we want next year. Euro seemed to lean neutral to weak in the seasonal

Snow means say weak but that’s skewed by 1996. If you remove 1996 data says they’re all pretty similar wrt snowfall. Weaker ones do have a colder mean though. 

8 minutes ago, Ji said:

I’d rather live where you live vs nyc for snow anytime

This is true every time except after March 20.  Once you get really late in the year there is a limit to how far south the true arctic boundary typically sets up. And the elevation dependent marginal events south of that boundary tend to become above 2k to 3k once you get that late.  It’s too late for a pure stj wave to work anymore.  And there is a history of some NS waves bombing and clipping NYC north late in the season but I’m too far southwest for those. 

@brooklynwx99 I’d be a lot more excited if I was around NYC. They get way more post March 20 snow events that we do. 

1 hour ago, Ji said:

March 58 bro

Here is the problem….even if todays great looks are correct the pattern is setting it a week too late.  That wave around the 19-20 has no cold in front to work with. So it’s very unlikely to be a big snow at lower elevations. The boundary is a mess.  It would take an incredibly anomalous event. Possible not likely. After that it gets colder but history suggests that’s too late. March 20 is really the limit.  There have been a handful of significant snows as late as around March 20. But after only one in the last 100 years and it was a crazy weird inverted trough event.  Pure statistical probabilities says after March 20 the odds of a significant snowstorm near DC is too low to worry about until it’s right on top of us. 

57 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

IF there were to be a weird late season event, this would be the pattern needed to get it done

There is nothing wrong with the pattern...its the date and the fact there isn't really any cold air to start with anywhere that makes me skeptical.  

There are hints that perhaps there could be more arctic air involved in the pattern after March 20 or so...but so much would have to go perfectly at that point for it to matter.  There is a reason there are VERY few examples of significant snow that late in the DC Baltimore area.  For places with higher elevations, you know who you are, there are somewhat better chances late March and early April.  

1 hour ago, stormy said:

Absolutely not!  I have confidence that the screening is adequate to eliminate counterfeit red taggers.  Supposed was a poor choice of words.

I am very surprised that someone with his obvious knowledge would seriously suggest on March 4 that "its over"  except 3000' +.   We are at least a month away from making that statement, even at 2000'.

Maybe we could get into the weeds on the exact details, but you know 99% of the people in this forum don't live at 2000 feet either.  The gist of his point, that for almost everyone in here it's over...is probably accurate.  Weather is crazy, and ridiculous things can sometimes happen...the Palm Sunday storm wasn't even in a cold pattern it was just some crazy Norlun trough setup but its the only example of that in 150 years of records.   Could something like that happen again, sure, but I don't see his statement the same way. There is always the chance of something like that, its never 0 chance, but for the lowlands in here the chances are now too low to be worth tracking everyday and getting excited.  

2 hours ago, Terpeast said:

The upside was much higher, yes… but in the back of my mind, my greatest fear was a warmer version of a 1972-73, which was the only match if you looked at the PDO and ENSO. There was always a non-zero chance for a ratter, and to be fair, most of our subforum did avoid a rat. We just fell short of climo and way short of the upside, where our expectations were. 

If we compare this -PDO period to the two previous DEEPLY -PDO cycles most similar, the early to mid 50's and early to mid 70s this isn't that much different.  The results are about 10-20% worse which is in line with what we would expect from warming.  What makes this period a LOT worse so far is that we had 2 bad winters before the -PDO even really got going where as those two previous periods were bookended by snowy periods on both sides.  But even that is likely an artifact of warming...2018 and 2019 might have both been 20" winters back then and we would be thinking this current dreg period was only a few years v 8.  Big difference from a small nudge in the wrong direction from climo.  

7 minutes ago, stormy said:

I am very surprised that a supposed professional would say its over on March 4.

Are you questioning his legitimacy as a meteorologist?