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. 

[kdxken]

So any consensus on the rain? Maine the winner / loser depending upon your viewpoint?

[Damage In Tolland]

25 minutes ago, jm1220 said:

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. 

Someone must have run him off. Unless you’ve got really thin skin.. which a few folks do.  This is the Hotel California. You can check out anytime you like ,but you can never leave 

[dendrite]

31 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Someone must have run him off. Unless you’ve got really thin skin.. which a few folks do.  This is the Hotel California. You can check out anytime you like ,but you can never leave 

Last login 2/24

Allgone

[Damage In Tolland]

9 minutes ago, dendrite said:

Last login 2/24

Allgone

Maybe came back under different name?

[dendrite]

Just now, Damage In Tolland said:

Maybe came back under different name?

I haven't validated an account since 2/26 so probably not.  

[vortex95]

1 hour ago, CoastalWx said:

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.

Again, I would caution, just b/c a lot of ppl say one thing is true or similar, does not necessarily mean it is correct or close to reality.  The bandwagon fallacy is most common in society.  And w/ social media today, one person says something and it spreads like it is gospel.  Groupthink is rife.  So be careful.

When the ETA came out (precursor to the NAM) in 1993, it had all sorts of problems.  I recall them vividly, but they were fixed in time. So how it is any different here?  Actually, it is different, but in a better sense than 33 years ago.  We have *far* more models out there now to assist us and compare against any new model as to its shortcomings.   So CoastalWx fear of his beloved S+ event forecasts are in good hands overall!  

Geez, you think we world was going to end b/c the RRFS is going live looking at social media in last 24 hr.  Can we cut out the drama please?   

Also, the RRFS we have been seeing so far is in test and evaluation mode.  What we are seeing is not the final operational version most likely.  What goes live on 8/31 may be not the version we have seen up to this point.

On PivotalWx, we see the RRFS-A, so that implies there is RRFS-B.  What about that?

So before flying off the handle, one needs to take a step back and account for "you don't know what you don't know" and consder asking "is it really that much of an issue in the big pix?   And I ask again, would ppl rather just stay w/ the NAM?  How many negative memes has this model been the subject or over the years?  So please keep things in proper perspective.
 

[vortex95]

2 hours ago, dendrite said:

Need the video with Clapton in it.

Yes, I had never actually seen the full video until I looked it up earlier today!  I thought that looked like Clapton!  But the video starts w/ a mini movie, and the song does not begin until 2:25, so I opted out of posting that! 

[CoastalWx]

3 minutes ago, vortex95 said:

Again, I would caution, just b/c a lot of ppl say one thing is true or similar, does not necessarily mean it is correct or close to reality.  The bandwagon fallacy is most common in society.  And w/ social media today, one person says something and it spreads like it is gospel.  Groupthink is rife.  So be careful.

When the ETA came out (precursor to the NAM) in 1993, it had all sorts of problems.  I recall them vividly, but they were fixed in time. So how it is any different here?  Actually, it is different, but in a better sense than 33 years ago.  We have *far* more modes out there now to assist us and compare against any new model as to its shortcomings.   So CoastalWx fear of his beloved S+ event forecasts are in good hands overall!  

Geez, you think we world was going to end b/c the RRFS is going live looking at social media in last 24 hr.  Can we cut out the drama please?   

Also, the RRFS we have been seeing so far is in test and evaluation mode.  What we are seeing is not the final operational version most likely.  What goes live on 8/31 may be not the version we have seen up to this point.

On PivotalWx, we see the RRFS-A, so that implies there is RRFS-B.  What about that?

So before flying off the handle, one needs to take a step back and account for "you don't know what you don't know" and consder asking "is is really that much of an issue in the big pix?   And I ask again, would ppl rather just stay w/ the NAM?  How many negative memes has this model been the subject or over the years?  So please keep things in proper perspective.
 

My point is when you have various people from various parts of the industry, as well as what I have been noticing too… It tells you that something isn’t ready for primetime. They got three months to figure this out.

[vortex95]

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

My point is when you have various people from various parts of the industry, as well as what I have been noticing too… It tells you that something isn’t ready for primetime. They got three months to figure this out.

 

[dendrite]

44.5° for a high so far and only 0.09” rain

We’re a few days away from the timing of the 5/18/23 freeze that took out a lot of fruit trees and leaves. But the leaves and flowers are way behind where we were the . 

[dendrite]

46.9°

Pouring

[jbenedet]

Beautiful mid spring morning walk with the dog—even some sun in the eastern sky

[jbenedet]

54/50 

 

Dews up — landscape flowered up and plenty of deep greens.

Noice.

[dendrite]

Really hope this rain train sets up over the coop. I want water pouring out of the hillside and my road to wash out. 

[Damage In Tolland]

Severe chances next week 

[CoastalWx]

Looks like a gravy train for several hours near Kev and then another one near lunch time through even over far ern areas into SNH. Someone is getting 3-4” in the ern one…probably SNH.

[CoastalWx]

85-90 Tuesday and Wednesday. 

[CoastalWx]

Ineedsnow approved. 

[weatherwiz]

Coming down pretty good out there. 

[OceanStWx]

45 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Looks like a gravy train for several hours near Kev and then another one near lunch time through even over far ern areas into SNH. Someone is getting 3-4” in the ern one…probably SNH.

HREF mean is like 2-2.25" for parts of our area. Typically we've found that the max HREF QPF may not occur in the right area, but it occurs somewhere in the CWA. That's like 4+, so I believe it.

[SJonesWX]

i would love to get 2" of rain, but want no part of 4" (insert  joke here).     too much at one time

[Typhoon Tip]

14 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

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.

Oh geez - personally have no experience yet working with these tools set to replace the existing ...

I was talking to Wiz' yesterday, just the roll-out in August could end up a cluster fuck.  So many tech suites have the present existing modeling tools deeply integrated, soup to nuts, and all that has to be reworked.   Graphical processing alone -  eesh

So if on top of all that headache, it's to put a piece of shit bad models into play?  haha.   Sounds like a governmental operation, huh

[Brian5671]

El busto here.  Looks like very little rain