October Comes Early: Late September Multi-Hazard Hybrid Storm

[Great Snow 1717]

1 minute ago, WxWatcher007 said:

Yeah I’m not sure there’s a lot of trust in forecasts generally, but the storm being the lead story for a few days isn’t necessarily hype in my book. Now, if you’re not adjusting your forecast as you’re certainly heading toward a bust, that’s a whole different issue and problematic. 

Other than the clowns online using 925mb wind images and calling this tropical, I didn’t see a lot of hype, but we probably have different definitions of what hype is. Showing a legitimate rain and wind forecast map and saying we don’t usually get these in September doesn’t rise to the level for me. 

That is being done far less now than at one time. There is nothing  wrong with a forecaster make adjustments to their forecast. One of the major issues is the forecasters keep relying far too much on future radar as opposed to current radar. Often times the current radar looks nothing like the futurecast radar at that point..that creates doubt for me as the future cast radar moves forward in time.

[Typhoon Tip]

Part of the issue is that any precipitation event is background favored to over perform over quantitative/guidance-based QPF totals.

This is an unavoidable aspect of CC.  

This storm performed pedestrian as far as Nor'easter/coastal event climatology, but over performed on QPF relative to that.

It seems the relativity aspect doesn't filter analytically by many when it comes to assessing forecast. 

Like Wiz was intimating, ...all storms will have over and unders, and right ons.  What you can do is determine the axis of modeled QPF or wind or surf ... vs whichever metric being studied. Then, plot all the empirical results on a bell-curve graph. Super impose the two graphs.  If the interquartile density of results is left of the storm forecast axis/max, the system under performed.  If it is over the max, it over performed.  If it's closely spaced then it performed according to the guidance profile/projection. 

[Great Snow 1717]

5 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Part of the issue is that any precipitation event is background favored to over perform over quantitative/guidance-based QPF totals.

This is an unavoidable aspect of CC.  

This storm performed pedestrian as far as Nor'easter/coastal event climatology, but over performed on QPF relative to that.

It seems the relativity aspect doesn't filter analytically by many when it comes to assessing forecast. 

Like Wiz was intimating, ...all storms will have over and unders, and right ons.  What you can do is determine the axis of modeled QPF or wind or surf ... vs whichever metric being studied. Then, plot all the empirical results on a bell-curve graph. Super impose the two graphs.  If the interquartile density of results is left of the storm forecast axis/max, the system under performed.  If it is over the max, it over performed.  If it's closely spaced then it performed according to the guidance profile/projection. 

I agree the majority of storms will have overs and unders but can't the forecasters adjust their forecasts based on what is actually taking place?

[ineedsnow]

Stopped at salisbury before going to hampton.. pretty gusty now

[Great Snow 1717]

Just now, ineedsnow said:

Stopped at salisbury before going to hampton.. pretty gusty now

Beach Pizza for you???

[tamarack]

Finally got some decent rain - 0.70" overnight.  Mostly very light rain since, event total including Sunday early is approaching 0.90", biggest precip since August 3.

[weatherwiz]

1 hour ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

I do not agree with that at all. lol I think numerous people do not put a lot of trust in forecasts.  ...especially after this in the Merrimack Valley area..

 

1 hour ago, WxWatcher007 said:

Yeah I’m not sure there’s a lot of trust in forecasts generally, but the storm being the lead story for a few days isn’t necessarily hype in my book. Now, if you’re not adjusting your forecast as you’re certainly heading toward a bust, that’s a whole different issue and problematic. 

Other than the clowns online using 925mb wind images and calling this tropical, I didn’t see a lot of hype, but we probably have different definitions of what hype is. Showing a legitimate rain and wind forecast map and saying we don’t usually get these in September doesn’t rise to the level for me. 

There's research out there (but yeah you could argue lack of sample size) which shows a great deal of trust within weather forecasts, particularly with weather forecasts from local outlets. 

[WxWatcher007]

4 minutes ago, weatherwiz said:

 

There's research out there (but yeah you could argue lack of sample size) which shows a great deal of trust within weather forecasts, particularly with weather forecasts from local outlets. 

That’s interesting 

[Typhoon Tip]

42 minutes ago, Great Snow 1717 said:

I agree the majority of storms will have overs and unders but can't the forecasters adjust their forecasts based on what is actually taking place?

Well they do... the effort is referred to as "now-casting"  ...

The idea is to tailor the forecast as the results are unfolding, which moves the goal posts on whichever metric is or isn't behaving according to the plan. ...etc

I good example of this is flood headline management.  There's a flash flood watch issue mid way through the event, or not.  Warnings then will or won't need applying ... based upon what is observed.   They can forecast a high wind warning, and if only three reports of down trees occurs, that by definition verifies the warning - even though the general dystopian hobbyists expects down forests.  LOL  ...kidding there but you get it...