OSUmetstud

3 minutes ago, Angrysummons said:

Yeah, dump the "Q" nonsense. Its a scam of a scam from the FSB to the Watkins family. Why they are even given a moniker as a "conspiracy" group is lolz. Many of their members are global cabalists with the legacy of the Rothschild banking dynasty as their financial wind, who's last vestige is the Russian Central Bank.

I don't know anybody with the vaccines, having problems with it. My mother has had 2 doses and she didn't feel a thing outside a sore arm for a night. My Aunt had Pfizer..........nothing either. They have moved on from Covid.

All those backwater areas of social media have some sort of astroturfing element to them. It's not all grassroots for sure. 

Just now, dta1984 said:

I am not questioning other vaccines, and have no issue with them.   All I said was there was plenty to counter the safety of this vaccine ( side effects) etc.   I am not going to google that for you .

One piece of scientific evidence that there is safety issue. Not a news article. Not some backwater asshole on twitter. 

Just now, dta1984 said:

Exhibit A of how the divide in this country is just getting larger. 

A doctor is asking you to provide some scientific evidence that the vaccines arent effective and you chalk it up as some sort of divided political issue? Why? 

Vaccines are not political. This is one of the greatest scientific achievements of modern medicine, much like the other vaccines that have come around over the past 100 years. Why do you do this? 

2 minutes ago, dta1984 said:

There is plenty that question the effectiveness of the vaccine. 

Yes, Q does have an unfortunately large following. 

36 minutes ago, dta1984 said:

Definitely an odd response.  I simply said there's plenty of literature that goes against your literature regarding masks and the covid vaccine (not vaccines in general).  

 

Link me up to scientific literature saying that the covid vaccine is unsafe. 

1 minute ago, schoeppeya said:

I’ve never said anything anti mask or anti vax at any point during this thread. I am very much anti government mandates for those thing because I don’t think they work and I don’t think that automatically makes it a contentious issue. I view masks a lot like you view exercise- I think they will help protect you on an individual level but I have been (I think rightly so) very skeptical that they would stop most people from catching Covid at some point. I do think it’s pretty clear at this point vaccines are going to do that, though. 

I wasn't talking about you. I will listen to arguments about reopening businesses to 100% in Texas but I have a really hard time with the removal of the mask mandate at this stage in the game. Most of the population there should be vaccinated by the summer and there's no business cost to masks. 

Masks help but they aren't a panacea...and where people mask matters. If they are just masking at the grocery store but having their neighbors over for dinner without masks than they aren't really helping those individuals very much. 

I think the general theme going forward is that we may get a secondary uptick in cases soon but hospitalizations and deaths will continue to gradually fall through the spring and summer as a larger percentage of high risk folks get vaccinated. 

I'm somewhat concerned of another wave in the winter if immunity wanes enough/variants but I think the pandemic phase of this is mostly over. 

I don't blindly accept shit. Theres all kind of literature out there to feast your eyes on with respect to vaccine safety. 

5 hours ago, schoeppeya said:

You could also say the people who were blindly accepting new science about all of those things are the same ones skeptical about the science behind exercise/diet mitigation. Everybody has a lens they view the world through.

I'm not skeptical of the efficacy of diet and exercise for individual health. I'm skeptical that's a reasonable way to fight an ongoing pandemic. None of the major players in public health from what I can see have though to go down that road. And I'm going to defer to their wisdom here.

Comparing anti mask and anti vax rhetoric to this is really something though lol. 

5 hours ago, schoeppeya said:

Counter examples to what? The countries you mention are specifically listed in examples that supports the obesity case in the study. 

 

ETA: https://www.worldobesityday.org/assets/downloads/COVID-19-and-Obesity-The-2021-Atlas.pdf

Counter to the idea that if the US had more European obesity rate there would have been a much lesser effect. Italy Spain France and southern American countries don't have particularly higher obesity...certainly nothing like North America. I'm well aware that obesity is a considerable risk factor for covid generally. 

The same folks who were against/skeptical of social distancing, masks, vaccines, and any restrictions are the same folks pushing for excercise/diet mitigation. Just would like to point that out lol. 

7 hours ago, Hoosier said:

You'd have to be living under a rock to not know that obesity is a major risk factor for serious illness from covid.  Then again, perhaps I shouldn't underestimate the general obliviousness of the population.

I'd like to see the study. But Spain, Italy, France and some South American countries are clear counter examples. 

27 minutes ago, Syrmax said:

A day or so before the storm, one of our forum regulars, @CNY-LES FREAK posted a model sounding, i forget which one, and it showed a mismatch between Omega and the DGZ...which gave me pause but even then it wasn't showing the warmth up above at all. But...it was accurate in that dendrite size/type was more "needly" and sub-optimal. Which made me think the Cucaracha's were going to bust.

Right.

I usually like to use the Cobb 11 technique on bufkit. It takes into account rh t and omega. It generally had like 12 or 13:1 for BUF which was wrong too. I imagine what happened is that the models misplaced the omega a little too high above the warm nose. If the omega verified closer to the warm nose that 12:1 turns into 8:1 quite easily. 

1 minute ago, BuffaloWeather said:

with temps in the high teens/ low 20s for this storm you think they would work out ok, but the atmosphere temps were a different story. They were well above freezing way up into the snow growth zone. 

Kuchera algorithm does not know where the rh or the omega or the snow production is in the sounding. That's why they often fail. In mixing scenarios, even the 10:1 maps that people post often include sleet. 

Just now, wolfie09 said:

Yeah but how many of those models had you mixing? 

Kuchera maps will work in Lake effect and maybe in pure mid level def/fronto well nw of a surface low. Elsewhere theyre just shit. Regardless, some weenie will post them again for the next one only to have their soul crushed come verification. 

6 minutes ago, Syrmax said:

I'll bet many would have.  And I-m talking Mets that practiced in the 60s-90s mainly.  It was interesting reading back before your time but you might have enjoyed it.

Well objectively, forecasts are better today than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. Having an impressive repertoire of pattern recognition is fantastic but it can only get you so far. I think the public demands more every year. 

1 minute ago, Syrmax said:

I read a few papers on this years ago (early 00s) on this very subject.  Experienced meteorologists were just starting to see the profession start over-relying in shiny model output and their graphics as opposed to developing knowledge of synoptics... a lot of which can be experience based.  And it's easier to CYA by blaming a model versus your professional judgment.  Us weenies of course, minimally trained in the fundamentals, would be expected to fall into these traps.  We might be learning a bit this year though.  Its via the errors and suprises that we learn oftentimes. The school of hard knocks so to speak. Any moron can rip n read a model output graphic...

See my professional judgement a few days ago suggested that this low would be put through the shredder and squeeze east west between the pv to the north and the ridge to the se resulting in a nam/emcwf like look. This was wrong but I don't believe I was model hugging. I sided with that idea instead of the idea of convection pumping up heights (which is a common model error, too). 

5 minutes ago, Syrmax said:

If this pans out...How T F are these models so wrong, even a day out? I hesitate to even look at model soundings as they're so grossly wrong even a day out.  It's just another layer of sh!t.  The old timer meteorologists hated this over reliance on models (modelology) versus understating the synoptic setup.  And they were right.

The old timers didn't know what was going to happen the next day. I'm sure they would have know the storm was going to come 200 miles north in the last 36 hours too....

We still doing the kuchera thing? Cool cool cool. 

Just now, Thinksnow18 said:

Was it you last year or the previous that posted pics in the blizzard up there?

Last year.

9 minutes ago, CNY-LES FREAK said:

How's it going Nick? Still up in Labrador? Or was it Nova Scotia?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 

Heh. St. John's Newfoundland. Going alright. You? Were kinda on the wrong end of this one. Only going to get like 2" followed by freezing rain then rain. 

Just now, 96blizz said:

(Note to self:  Don’t report sleet during Jeb Walk)

lol. I just notice people do that sometimes. If it's windy and there's riming you'll hear the snow hit the window, but to get proper sleet, you really need more melting aloft (like 1C or greater). This just doesn't in the right setup for sleet for WNY. Even though the GFS say sleet on the ptype maps, if you look the sounding, there's no where in the sounding above zero. The larger concern is that the models are overdoing qpf a bit given that the system is all front end warm advection and the dryslot is always closer than you think. 

3 minutes ago, rochesterdave said:

Overall take on this one? Sleet to thruway or north? 

I dont think you'll have to worry about sleet where you are.. Some idiots will no doubt report it after midnight tonight when the lift is lower down in the column and there's significant riming and poor snow growth. 

5 minutes ago, Thinksnow18 said:

My belief is once the actual system arrives the moisture will get to the snow growth zone.

Needles are common around -5C. That's where the warm nose is at and it's pretty dry with weak omega. The lift will increase tonight and increase in depth with the incoming low, so they'll be clumps of different kinds of flakes then. 

10 minutes ago, DeltaT13 said:

Ok, so does that make another 15 more or less impressive?  I'm also highly skeptical anyone got 2 feet.  12 inches sure, 18 maybe.... 2 feet.. nope.  Not believing that for a second. 

Anyway, good for them though.  That's one of the worst places in the whole Great Lakes in regards to getting appreciative snow.  I'm sure their local snow nerds are in their glory.  

The Burlington area got 12-15", on the 12th, then a similar area got 4-6" on the 13th. You won't find it in the Hamilton airport totals because they're much further inland. Those easterly lake effect bands usually form in very light low-level synoptic flow in arctic airmass, so they don't extend very far.