brooklynwx99

there’s just no way that’s right lmao i would like to see some more support 

what the fuck is this 

8 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

I’m leaning more into the 18th-20th timeframe for any substantial stuff.  I think that 16th one is the computer chasing phantoms right now.  

agreed, 16th isn't impossible, but would take some doing in its current presentation

1 hour ago, EasternLI said:

MJO is interesting again after being inactive for a while. It's firing off starting in the west pacific and might make another attempt at a phase 8 run. If it lines up with these arrows, you are there. Especially if you can push that suppressed phase fully onto 120E. That did not happen last time. It attenuated and fell short. Therefore I do not believe we ever truly achieved phase 8 the first time. It'll be interesting to see what happens now, with the warm pool leaning slightly east. Thinking maybe we can get a better attempt this time but we'll see.

yeah, nice to see that forcing move east into the CPAC and WHEM coinciding with the WWB taking place. should keep canonical Nina impacts at bay

13 minutes ago, eduggs said:

I am responding to your post because I respect you as a poster. I want to limit commentary of a personal nature. I was very clear what I was critiquing with Brooklyn. It only gets murky when multiple people pile on with comments on other comments, and the original context gets lost.

Brooklyn made a sarcastic response to someone else's post asking rhetorically if he should "not analyze models." I responded based on his well known propensity to post positive-trend animations that it would be helpful if his "analysis" included both positive and negative trends for a "more balanced" assessment. His response was again sarcastic and insulting.

My critique of Brooklyn's style is that his always positive "analysis" regarding long-range charts is not well correlated to sensible weather outcomes. It is not difficult to recognize a favorable "look" on an long-range ensemble chart. ChatGPT does that quite well. There is little value in pointing out these features on 240hr charts. I think he should still be in LEARNING mode more than TEACHING mode. And eventually I think he could offer a lot more than one-sided cheerleading. I am entitled to this opinion, and people can agree or disagree with me if they like. Considering the prolific nature of his posts, Brooklyn should be able to handle legitimate critique. Maybe I'm misjudging him. If he proves me wrong and demonstrates a deeper repertoire, I will happily acknowledge it.

this is literally full of condescension and yet, you are going to say that i was being insulting after you said that my degree was undeserved and unearned. I am going to stop responding to you, as I do not want to clutter this thread, but you should look at what you're doing here. it's really not cool

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

He likes to point out the avenues to a successful solution...it's not wrong, per se...it's easy for people to project frustration onto that type of poster after 8 consecutive dud seasons. I think he knows his stuff....but I did roll my eyes when he mentioned his college accolades....no one cares about your GPA in any field...it's all about how practically skilled you are, and can other human begins stand you. There are plenty of degreed mets that I would forecast the pants off of with respect to winter weather in this region....synoptically, or seasonally. At the end of the day, how passionate are you and how obsessively to you seek to hone your craft. Those are the two most important boxes to check emphatically. 

it was mentioned because my qualifications were questioned, as if the degree or title I earned was not deserved. it absolutely was

3 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Worry the 18th is congrats NNE. 

true. at least the antecedent airmass is better... hopefully we can get some height suppression beforehand, should be a beefy vort

GFS is explosive but I think it'll be tough to pull off... I think the 18th holds better potential with the 16th trying to act as some confluence

9 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah, it is unfair to grade someone's forecasting ability if they aren't actually issuing forecasts on here. Talking about the pattern isn't issuing a forecast. You can disagree with their pattern analysis, but it's not fair to call it a forecast if they were just analyzing an ensemble run or a model run.

Some mets and plenty of amateurs do issue forecasts from time to time, and those are fair game to critique as well. But I think people should be clear about what they are critiquing. Model analysis is not the same as an actual forecast. 

And I also don't think it is an indictment on anyone's skill if they post more or less depending on what type of sensible wx the models are showing. I'm sure most mets on here have a lower post rate when we have a vortex over AK and a zonal mild flow in mid-winter. I know I do. I could keep posting about whether the zonal flow might change enough to give us high temps of 54F instead of 47F, but that is about as interesting to me as watching paint dry, so I normally refrain. There are others on here to pick up the slack on that type of discussion if I don't want to do it. 

 

Additionally, I think "pattern talk" is much more likely to occur during periods where there are no imminent threats. We're searching for the next "interesting period". We all know that in rapid-fire stretches of winter storms, we are not constantly posting much about longwave patterns or what some vague D11-15 signal might produce....we're dissecting smaller scale features over a short term storm threat, and maybe tracking another one in the medium range. All of the oxygen gets sucked up during those times with the threats themselves and not pattern talk. 

you can't even really forecast events that far in the future... you just kinda have to look at trends and the general longwave pattern and see how that goes. i don't think any respectable met would make a deterministic forecast more than 72 hours out

Just now, CoastalWx said:

You don’t have to engage. We all seen your posts and your reasoning and the quality of your posts. It should just roll off your back.

you're right. just kinda hard to take sometimes when someone's insulting your intelligence in that way. i worked my ass off for this lmao

i literally won most forecasting competitions in my classes at school and had a negative Z-score in WxChallenge. just stop it

3 minutes ago, eduggs said:

I've followed him for multiple years and he has a poor track record with medium and long range forecasting. I respect his enthusiasm a lot, but he is not yet a good forecaster. Brooklyn does not know what he does not know. He is young and inexperienced and has an unrelenting positive bias. It's relatively straight-forward to describe long-range ensemble anomaly charts in numerical terms and translate that to known pattern configurations. But that doesn't make you a good forecaster at all. Of the hundreds of times he has created an animation to illustrate a positive trend, exceedingly few have preceded a snowy outcome.

If you knew me personally or bothered to read my posts, you would know that I am not a troll. I believe in facts and science, not BS and voodoo. 

lol the people at my job that I actually forecast for would beg to disagree. you're just an ass

4 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I wish I could measure your movies with a yardstick...it would be a much more wintry decade.

what else is there to do? not analyze models? that's what we're here for

1 minute ago, eduggs said:

The 0z ECM at 168hr looks remarkable similar to 246hr. It easy to say now that we prefer the later threat, but when that threat gets nearer it might not look any better.

this is why we look at ensembles and not OP runs

6 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

well...it's gotta pick one or the other...

these two have been tussling in the modeled flow for day's at this point.   The latter of the two is obtrusive - it's there because of ( probably ) the "error proneness" of the western ridge being as far west as the GFS keeps placing it.  The standard dimensions for L/W spacing doesn't allow the trough aspect to be coherent.. The models "don't know" what is dominant yet nor it's form - not very well. 

Anyway, if the ridge doesn't improve, the 2nd wave may end up going down the same disruptive route given time.   I'm warning y'all - I'm not wrong about this. The determinism is shaky because of it.   It would be a lot easier if the PNA ridge part of the total wave space would just be a little more east.

By the way, the 2nd of the two is not as well supported by index timing but ... that is actually more negotiable than trying to stretch the trough down stream of that PNA ridge 

well hey, it's trending that way right now

Just now, Sey-Mour Snow said:

The 18th had more room btw, would have been a 950s nuke if the northern stream caught up earlier 

yeah i think that's the one to watch. very tough to get two waves in two days and the 18th has a more favorable config to work with

I like the second wave more, as is often the case... it doesn't have anything clawing at its back and the antecedent airmass is more favorable. that doesn't preclude the 16th, but if I were a betting man, I would put my money on the 18th

like one of these is way more typically productive than the other

we trend

5 minutes ago, NoCORH4L said:

Grandpapi says it snowed so much this one time, that them crawfish froze solid in the mud, so CC can't be real!

if you think what i said implies that i don’t think climate change is real and has an impact, you must be mistaken. the over attribution is just a lazy cop out most of the time 

15 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

It's not just bad luck. CC is affecting the weather patterns. This is why the Great lakes storm track has been so dominant and we've had a pacific jet on steroids over the last decade (record warm ssts western Pacific). 

The classic coastal track and even miller Bs have been practically non-existent for several years now. 

i’m sure New Orleans and Virginia snow weenies are loving climate change right now 

seems like we’ve trended the TPV more east, allowing for some mid level ridging to sneak into the Lakes and allow HP to fill the cracks. helps the airmass out a lot

seems like we’ve trended the TPV more east, allowing for some mid level ridging to sneak into the Lakes and allow HP to fill the cracks. helps the airmass out a lot

god that is so close

lol you know you can get rain when a benchmark track now, right? and like 10 years ago? where do these people come from 

7 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Ahh see the euro is another solution that might work and kind of deliver something high-end advisory, low and warning. It actually meanders the cut off down south so that the confluence weekends north of New England after day seven and allows a weak low to come up the coast and bring some snow. Then the trough sharpens in the plains and perhaps tries to deliver something after that timeframe.

yeah, this is the change you want to see. the NS needs to provide confluence, not try to phase in