December 2023

[eduggs]

4 hours ago, brooklynwx99 said:

anecdotal. every single meteorology class in the country that teaches medium and long range forecasting stresses the importance of ensembles

 

They also teach that there is near zero skill at the regional-scale beyond 10 days. Yet all I read on these forums is how good the 15 day ensembles look. I really thought after last year there would be some serious rethinking about super long range forecasting and lessons learned. But instead people keep doubling and tripling down on failed approaches. Does anybody bother to go back a few weeks or months to see what they wrote about the 15 day ensemble means back then? How did that turn out? There's so much wishing and hoping that it's hard to believe.  

Go back and look at what you posted almost every day all of last year. Seriously. Go check. Always a great pattern out just beyond the rainbow.

[40/70 Benchmark]

30 minutes ago, eduggs said:

They also teach that there is near zero skill at the regional-scale beyond 10 days. Yet all I read on these forums is how good the 15 day ensembles look. I really thought after last year there would be some serious rethinking about super long range forecasting and lessons learned. But instead people keep doubling and tripling down on failed approaches. Does anybody bother to go back a few weeks or months to see what they wrote about the 15 day ensemble means back then? How did that turn out? There's so much wishing and hoping that it's hard to believe.  

Go back and look at what you posted almost every day all of last year. Seriously. Go check. Always a great pattern out just beyond the rainbow.

Another hapless effort at persistence forecasting born of some infantile defense mechanism. Log off and seek out a skilled therapist.

[brooklynwx99]

35 minutes ago, eduggs said:

They also teach that there is near zero skill at the regional-scale beyond 10 days. Yet all I read on these forums is how good the 15 day ensembles look. I really thought after last year there would be some serious rethinking about super long range forecasting and lessons learned. But instead people keep doubling and tripling down on failed approaches. Does anybody bother to go back a few weeks or months to see what they wrote about the 15 day ensemble means back then? How did that turn out? There's so much wishing and hoping that it's hard to believe.  

Go back and look at what you posted almost every day all of last year. Seriously. Go check. Always a great pattern out just beyond the rainbow.

i love how it’s always what I post as if:

1) others don’t post the same stuff. other well respected mets, too!

and 2) as if any of us have control over the weather anyway

[weathafella]

32 minutes ago, brooklynwx99 said:

i love how it’s always what I post as if:

1) others don’t post the same stuff. other well respected mets, too!

and 2) as if any of us have control over the weather anyway

I told you the animations would suck them in but the pitchforks often come soon after.  Kidding of course.  People take this stuff way too seriously.

[dryslot]

1 hour ago, eduggs said:

They also teach that there is near zero skill at the regional-scale beyond 10 days. Yet all I read on these forums is how good the 15 day ensembles look. I really thought after last year there would be some serious rethinking about super long range forecasting and lessons learned. But instead people keep doubling and tripling down on failed approaches. Does anybody bother to go back a few weeks or months to see what they wrote about the 15 day ensemble means back then? How did that turn out? There's so much wishing and hoping that it's hard to believe.  

Go back and look at what you posted almost every day all of last year. Seriously. Go check. Always a great pattern out just beyond the rainbow.

I see you're still suffering from jackass itis, Must be a chronic condition.

[weathafella]

And guess what-tonight's GEFS suddenly lost the somewhat suboptimal look and is very much like the EPS was at 12Z.  Looks great actually So what type of crying will I see whenever I check in tomorrow?  Unless the EPS goes the other way but I'm not staying up to find out....

[40/70 Benchmark]

5 hours ago, dryslot said:

I see you're still suffering from jackass itis, Must be a chronic condition.

"Show me on the doll where mother nature touched you...its okay, go ahead".....

[MJO812]

5 hours ago, weathafella said:

And guess what-tonight's GEFS suddenly lost the somewhat suboptimal look and is very much like the EPS was at 12Z.  Looks great actually So what type of crying will I see whenever I check in tomorrow?  Unless the EPS goes the other way but I'm not staying up to find out....

6z op gfs looks great

[SnoSki14]

6 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

6z op gfs looks great

Believe it or not I think the post Christmas into Jan 10 period could be favorable for snows even down to us. 

Will take a while to get cold so after new year's is when I think we get accumulating snows. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

24 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

Believe it or not I think the post Christmas into Jan 10 period could be favorable for snows even down to us. 

Will take a while to get cold so after new year's is when I think we get accumulating snows. 

Wow....your boy @snowman19turned on you....that was fast  What a bastion of objectivity he is 

[snowman19]

6z op gfs looks great

Definitely a slam dunk if the long range 6z op GFS is showing it!!!!

[Great Snow 1717]

43 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

6z op gfs looks great

looks almost as great as the Giants future does with Daniel Jones as QB...

[40/70 Benchmark]

39 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

Definitely a slam dunk if the long range 6z op GFS is showing it!!!!

 

24 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

looks almost as great as the Giants future does with Daniel Jones as QB...

Not sure why the ridicule for mentioning model output on a weather forum...its so tiresome. 

Once Bluewave waxes poetic about the west Pac warm pool and phase 5, you guys drop your drawers.

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

5 hours ago, weathafella said:

And guess what-tonight's GEFS suddenly lost the somewhat suboptimal look and is very much like the EPS was at 12Z.  Looks great actually So what type of crying will I see whenever I check in tomorrow?  Unless the EPS goes the other way but I'm not staying up to find out....

EPS looks good again. Cross guidance support for winter. 

[Spanks45]

9 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

EPS looks good again. Cross guidance support for winter. 

6z GEFS, look pretty good as well....fi gers crossed as it looks like the "change" is starting to occur inside of day 10 now. Time will tell, for now it feels like mid October with a tropical storm near by....

[SnoSki14]

47 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Wow....your boy @snowman19turned on you....that was fast  What a bastion of objectivity he is 

Just saying EPS/GEFS look good. MJO will be favorable too. 

It's not cold by any stretch of the imagination, just cold enough for snow with a potentially favorable storm track. 

And Snowman is daily post limited for a reason..just sayin. All he can do is hurl weenies now

[40/70 Benchmark]

5 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

Just saying EPS/GEFS look good. MJO will be favorable too. 

It's not cold by any stretch of the imagination, just cold enough for snow with a potentially favorable storm track. 

And Snowman is daily post limited for a reason..just sayin. All he can do is hurl weenies now

 I would give anything to count those as posts

I agree on January....I don't expect a really cold month...just serviceable. 

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

16 minutes ago, Spanks45 said:

6z GEFS, look pretty good as well....fi gers crossed as it looks like the "change" is starting to occur inside of day 10 now. Time will tell, for now it feels like mid October with a tropical storm near by....

It’s coming. Until then, we rebuild from today’s damage. What’s your highest gust down there in the SBY valley?

[MJO812]

57 minutes ago, snowman19 said:

Definitely a slam dunk if the long range 6z op GFS is showing it!!!!

Troll

32 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

 

Not sure why the ridicule for mentioning model output on a weather forum...its so tiresome. 

Once Bluewave waxes poetic about the west Pac warm pool and phase 5, you guys drop your drawers.

Exactly 

[SouthCoastMA]

There should be a 5 'reaction' limit as well. The meaning just gets watered down if a weenie emoji is used every time a poster gets butthurt on an otherwise logical post

[40/70 Benchmark]

Its a shame Snowman can't reign it in and be a bit more objective because he knows his shit.

[Spanks45]

14 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

It’s coming. Until then, we rebuild from today’s damage. What’s your highest gust down there in the SBY valley?

Davis says 29 mph, second highest gust this year, (February 3rd had a 33.1 mph gust) so pretty impressive winds for here at least....was just out with the kids wondering around the yard (kids love this stuff too), I would say gusting around 40 to 45 mph right now, the stuff that woke me up at 4:30 was probably pushing 50?

 

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

6 minutes ago, Spanks45 said:

Davis says 29 mph, second highest gust this year, (February 3rd had a 33.1 mph gust) so pretty impressive winds for here at least....was just out with the kids wondering around the yard (kids love this stuff too), I would say gusting around 40 to 45 mph right now, the stuff that woke me up at 4:30 was probably pushing 50?

 

What weenies. They got after it. @Damage In Tollandcould learn from them on how it’s truly done. 

[George001]

36 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

It’s a shame Snowman can't rein it in and be a bit more objective because he knows his shit.

Yeah snowman19 absolutely knows his shit, he just likes warmer weather.

[George001]

17 hours ago, brooklynwx99 said:

and yeah the EPS looks great. hopefully it has a clue

I’ll take this look over shit pacific + big blocking any day. If we see a look similar to this inside 7 days, I’ll start getting excited. I’m not surprised that the big blocking that was hyped up for December didn’t work out for the coastal plain. 

[Typhoon Tip]

9 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Another hapless effort at persistence forecasting born of some infantile defense mechanism. Log off and seek out a skilled therapist.

Ah, unfoooortunately ... there is a kernel of value to his/her post, though. 

   (firstly, there may be a history between that particular poster vs the consensus that I don't wish to broach, so tfwiw) 

All forecast efforts should be evaluated.  No issue with that nested sentiment.  If a trend of failure is/or can be objectively proven to be so, stop whatever philosophy that is being used in the materialization of the forecasting.   That's just good science.  

I didn't read anything particularly sloppy - like 'not lucid' - nor personally attacking but again, if there is some 'greasy' history to that where I'm not aware, oh well -

[Layman]

24 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Ah, unfoooortunately ... there is a kernel of value to his/her post, though. 

   (firstly, there may be a history between that particular poster vs the consensus that I don't wish to broach, so tfwiw) 

All forecast efforts should be evaluated.  No issue with that nested sentiment.  If a trend of failure is/or can be objectively proven to be so, stop whatever philosophy that is being used in the materialization of the forecasting.   That's just good science.  

I didn't read anything particularly sloppy - like 'not lucid' - nor personally attacking but again, if there is some 'greasy' history to that where I'm not aware, oh well -

I might be in the minority on this but I've always understood science to be just that - not "good" or "bad".  If you're following the scientific method then the results are simply what they are.  To that end, what passes as "science" these days in every realm strikes me as anything but, so that subjective "good" and "bad" is determined by the interpreter of the data and how it fits their personal biases.  Actual, unadulterated, unbiased, non-incentivized science should stand on its own.  Good luck finding it. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

50 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Ah, unfoooortunately ... there is a kernel of value to his/her post, though. 

   (firstly, there may be a history between that particular poster vs the consensus that I don't wish to broach, so tfwiw) 

All forecast efforts should be evaluated.  No issue with that nested sentiment.  If a trend of failure is/or can be objectively proven to be so, stop whatever philosophy that is being used in the materialization of the forecasting.   That's just good science.  

I didn't read anything particularly sloppy - like 'not lucid' - nor personally attacking but again, if there is some 'greasy' history to that where I'm not aware, oh well -

I don't agree...its lazy science. I'm sorry, dude, but just because it went wrong last year isn't good enough. I have spent hours, and hours, and hours, and hours and hours learning from last season's failure and at the end of the day, I am better equipped to avoid it happening again and am very confident that it won't.

If you want to take the "lets wait and see what happens" approach, sure....but the BS about ostracizing anyone that expects a pattern change because of what happened last year is just so tiresome.

[Typhoon Tip]

16 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I don't agree...its lazy science. I'm sorry, dude, but just because it went wrong last year isn't good enough. I have spent hours, and hours, and hours, and hours and hours learning from last season's failure and at the end of the day, I am better equipped to avoid it happening again and am very confident that it won't.

If you want to take the "lets wait and see what happens" approach, sure....but the BS about ostracizing anyone that expects a pattern change because of what happened last year is just so tiresome.

You're missing the point in lieu of being angry - got it... I won't push any buttons. Wasn't the intent.  I'm out

[Typhoon Tip]

32 minutes ago, Layman said:

I might be in the minority on this but I've always understood science to be just that - not "good" or "bad".  If you're following the scientific method then the results are simply what they are.  To that end, what passes as "science" these days in every realm strikes me as anything but, so that subjective "good" and "bad" is determined by the interpreter of the data and how it fits their personal biases.  Actual, unadulterated, unbiased, non-incentivized science should stand on its own.  Good luck finding it. 

Like I said, ... there may be a history there that is contentious?  I am not in defense of either side and don't really have any awareness to begin with, and don't care to be involved. 

The principled approach of evaluating one's forecasting technique, if/when the technique is not successful, IS SCIENCE.

period.

not open to debate.

that's the only point I was making - hence the kernel of value in the this 'edbugg' poster's comments.