May 2026 Obs/Discussion

[vortex95]

1 hour ago, tamarack said:

If we have to endure 3 awful May days, I wish it would RAIN - the 20 months 9/24 thru 4/26 have racked up a deficit of 21.2".  Not mid-1960s but troubling.  Last week's 3-day soaking rain dropped a modest 0.62"; 2" would be nice.

 

[dendrite]

1 minute ago, vortex95 said:

 

Need the video with Clapton in it.

[dendrite]

4 minutes ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

That a top 12 bummer for you

[Damage In Tolland]

43 minutes ago, vortex95 said:

X post is hype for attention.  And bandwagon/sample size logical fallacies -- "nobody I have connected with in the community wants this to happen."  So this person's connections are all encompassing and represent the *entire* wx community?  That's pretty narrow-minded and arrogant.  And who exactly is saying they don't like the RRFS?  Vague proclamations are a red flag.

This reminded me of last year when the DoD was going to stop the data dissemination of the 3 legacy DMSP polar orbiter satellite, and the TC community was up in arms b/c of the loss of the microwave data, acting like this would cripple TC forecasting.  Well, there are other satellite like this other countires have we have access to, and the DoD had already launched the first in a set of replacement satellites for this legacy batch.

More and more, ppl post stuff for mere engagement bait, looking for the 15 microseconds of fame.

And the flip side, as if 12km NAM is great?  It hasn't been tweaked in 10+ years and is often useless after 36 hr.  The 3km NAM issues w/ it overdoing its QPF, esp. orographics, do we need that still?  Ppl who don't understand models use this 3 km NAM flaw and run w/ it as if 50" snowfalls in SNE will happen!  Getting rid of NAM and it derivatives is a good thing.

These days ppl will latch onto any change and act like it is end of days.  They prey on the human basic instinct to fear change.  Not all change is bad by default, and sometimes you have to move on for things to advance.

Yes, the RRFS has its share of issues (SPC noted it has problems w/ the BL for convection), but what model does not have it share of issues?  And as we get higher and higher resolution for models and try to directly simulate directly atmospheric process, rather than emulate, the challenge here is not linear.

RRFS been in test and evaluation mode for some time, and available for all to see, so it not just like cold turkey,  The HRRR will be run in tandem likely for some time (look at how long the NAM has stuck around).  
 

Earrhlight 

BTW .. what happened to Allsnow from NJ?

Any intel ?

[CoastalWx]

54 minutes ago, vortex95 said:

X post is hype for attention.  And bandwagon/sample size logical fallacies -- "nobody I have connected with in the community wants this to happen."  So this person's connections are all encompassing and represent the *entire* wx community?  That's pretty narrow-minded and arrogant.  And who exactly is saying they don't like the RRFS?  Vague proclamations are a red flag.

This reminded me of last year when the DoD was going to stop the data dissemination of the 3 legacy DMSP polar orbiter satellite, and the TC community was up in arms b/c of the loss of the microwave data, acting like this would cripple TC forecasting.  Well, there are other satellite like this other countires have we have access to, and the DoD had already launched the first in a set of replacement satellites for this legacy batch.

More and more, ppl post stuff for mere engagement bait, looking for the 15 microseconds of fame.

And the flip side, as if 12km NAM is great?  It hasn't been tweaked in 10+ years and is often useless after 36 hr.  The 3km NAM issues w/ it overdoing its QPF, esp. orographics, do we need that still?  Ppl who don't understand models use this 3 km NAM flaw and run w/ it as if 50" snowfalls in SNE will happen!  Getting rid of NAM and it derivatives is a good thing.

These days ppl will latch onto any change and act like it is end of days.  They prey on the human basic instinct to fear change.  Not all change is bad by default, and sometimes you have to move on for things to advance.

Yes, the RRFS has its share of issues (SPC noted it has problems w/ the BL for convection), but what model does not have it share of issues?  And as we get higher and higher resolution for models and try to directly simulate directly atmospheric process, rather than emulate, the challenge here is not linear.

RRFS been in test and evaluation mode for some time, and available for all to see, so it not just like cold turkey,  The HRRR will be run in tandem likely for some time (look at how long the NAM has stuck around).  
 

RRFS is hot garbage. Most agree with that. Hopefully it continues to be evaluated. 

[CoastalWx]

There’s people all over the Weather community, in here, NWS, text messages from some Mets, and LinkedIn all talking about how bad the RRFS is.

[jm1220]

38 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Earrhlight 

BTW .. what happened to Allsnow from NJ?

Any intel ?

He posted during and before the 2/24 blizzard, we even named the thread/blizzard for him lol. He said he just generally doesn’t come by here anymore unless there’s a major threat of some kind.