What does (insert the person you are asking about) say about the storm?

[TheTrials]

Got a met or a person who pretends to be a met you like to follow? Ask about post about it in here. This keeps the threat and model threads cleaner. Enjoy.

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

where is the real HM???

[A-L-E-X]

Got a met or a person who pretends to be a met you like to follow? Ask about post about it in here. This keeps the threat and model threads cleaner. Enjoy.

It's funny how people derail models threads with the thoughts of their "favorite" met, but when you make a thread devoted to it, the sound of silence (that is lack of typing) becomes deafening.

[FreeRain]

It's funny how people derail models threads with the thoughts of their "favorite" met, but when you make a thread devoted to it, the sound of silence (that is lack of typing) becomes deafening.

What's the logical difference between posting a private sector met's forecast and posting a NWS met's forecast?

Why is posting one considered "derailing" a thread while posting the other is not?

[Cary]

Uhm, its NOT about what he says, but what he says IS often relevant and alot of posters are interested in what he says, as they are also interested in what a lot of mets say.. If hes commenting about a storm we are discussing, the nature of his comments probably Should be referred to.. Why would you want to intentionally omit information from an informed and respected source??

[A-L-E-X]

What's the logical difference between posting a private sector met's forecast and posting a NWS met's forecast?

Why is posting one considered "derailing" a thread while posting the other is not?

I'd agree with you if it was a met's forecast thread, but it was a model thread and what happened was people started arguing about what the met was saying while someone was doing PBP of the model. (I think it was the Euro.)

I guess one thing both have in common is people argue as much over the interpretation of words as much as they do over the interpretation of maps.

[TheTrials]

there is a huge difference between an nws/hpc disco and someone like JB, DT, etc. Since NYC has their own thing now, lets maximize it and have everything broken down. No one has to dig through pages of posts now to find out what their fav met says, it will be posted in here. And just to show I am not anti anyone, if I hear or see something from one of these "mets", ill try to post it in here too to help you.

[FreeRain]

I'd agree with you if it was a met's forecast thread, but it was a model thread and what happened was people started arguing about what the met was saying while someone was doing PBP of the model. (I think it was the Euro.)

I guess one thing both have in common is people argue as much over the interpretation of words as much as they do over the interpretation of maps.

Alex,

I agree model threads need to be strictly moderated. The moderators do a good job with that.

But my comment was about an obs thread. The last obs thread that I was on, a single reference to the amount of snow Nick Gregory was calling for, was deleted. Again, that was on an obs thread and not a model thread.

And I'm not making the point that a TV met's forecast is something necesarily good that we all need to see. My point is that a TV met's forecast is seen by thousands of people, and whether that forecast is good or bad, it is something we all should be critiquing.

Just my 2 cents.

[EasternLI]

I'd agree with you if it was a met's forecast thread, but it was a model thread and what happened was people started arguing about what the met was saying while someone was doing PBP of the model. (I think it was the Euro.)

I guess one thing both have in common is people argue as much over the interpretation of words as much as they do over the interpretation of maps.

Just to add to this, I think a select few like to start trouble or perhaps get some enjoyment out of that. Notice that I didn't mention anyone specific, therefore if I get called out for this statement you are indeed one of those people.

[winterwarlock]

too much direction and policing trying to go on this board...split this in half, dont let them talk about that in this thread, people taking this stuff way too seriously

why shouldnt a mets thought be posted in a thread about an upcoming storm, its exactly where it belongs. What needs to be cut out in those threads are the weenies and their wishcasts propping up the models that show snow and trying to find every scenerio where snow can happen, thats whats bogging those threads down

[A-L-E-X]

Alex,

I agree model threads need to be strictly moderated. The moderators do a good job with that.

But my comment was about an obs thread. The last obs thread that I was on, a single reference to the amount of snow Nick Gregory was calling for, was deleted. Again, that was on an obs thread and not a model thread.

And I'm not making the point that a TV met's forecast is something necesarily good that we all need to see. My point is that a TV met's forecast is seen by thousands of people, and whether that forecast is good or bad, it is something we all should be critiquing.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree, the obs threads by their very nature should be more freeranging-- after, in theory, observations should include observation of a TV weather report of a forecast a great Met like Nick Gregory, Bill Evans, Craig Allen, Lee Goldberg or Jeff Smith made or DT on facebook or his website, or HM, Will, Chuck or John on here. Janice Huff and the rest can be left out of the discussion.

[TheTrials]

too much direction and policing trying to go on this board...split this in half, dont let them talk about that in this thread, people taking this stuff way too seriously

why shouldnt a mets thought be posted in a thread about an upcoming storm, its exactly where it belongs. What needs to be cut out in those threads are the weenies and their wishcasts propping up the models that show snow and trying to find every scenerio where snow can happen, thats whats bogging those threads down

the problem is three pages gets devoted to bickering over what X met meant, or his bias, or he busted this time that time etc. It overwhelms the discussion and takes away from the threat.

[FreeRain]

I agree, the obs threads by their very nature should be more freeranging-- after, in theory, observations should include observation of a TV weather report of a forecast a great Met like Nick Gregory, Bill Evans, Craig Allen, Lee Goldberg or Jeff Smith made or DT on facebook or his website, or HM, Will, Chuck or John on here. Janice Huff and the rest can be left out of the discussion.

The Janet Huffs, the Linda Churches and the other stinkers, when they forecast rain, and we are about to get hit by a blizzard, need to be publicly discussed and humiliated.

And what better place to do it than on a weather board.

[A-L-E-X]

The Janet Huffs, the Linda Churches and the other stinkers, when they forecast rain, and we are about to get hit by a blizzard, need to be publicly discussed and humiliated.

And what better place to do it than on a weather board.

True, but that usually descends into chaos. I dislike their methods as much as anyone though and wonder what models they look at to make their forecasts. I guess there's the difference between being a meteorologist and just playing one on TV.

[FreeRain]

the problem is three pages gets devoted to bickering over what X met meant, or his bias, or he busted this time that time etc. It overwhelms the discussion and takes away from the threat.

True. But that doesn't mean that you ban a reasonable amount of TV met discussion. Instead you step in and moderate an obs thread when Met posts, weenie posts or any other type of posts, become overwhelming.

And again, I'm referring to obs threads. Model thread moderating should be strict.

Just my suggestion.

[TheTrials]

True. But that doesn't mean that you ban a reasonable amount of TV met discussion. Instead you step in and moderate an obs thread when Met posts, weenie posts or any other type of posts, become overwhelming.

And again, I'm referring to obs threads. Model thread moderating should be strict.

Just my suggestion.

Well, I really dont have a problem with the tv met discussion, it usually doesnt bog down a thread. But there is no denying the jb dt stuff can totally take over a thread. Im not a mod obviously, sot its not my decision. I thikn this thread though will work well during an event. well know in a few days.

[SnowGoose69]

True, but that usually descends into chaos. I dislike their methods as much as anyone though and wonder what models they look at to make their forecasts. I guess there's the difference between being a meteorologist and just playing one on TV.

Janice Huff is actually a meteorologist but she has been a better butcher than Howard Johnson was at 3rd base for the Mets since she got to NY in January 1995 starting with her forecast of rain for the 2/4/95 event.

[green tube]

Janice Huff is actually a meteorologist but she has been a better butcher than Howard Johnson was at 3rd base for the Mets since she got to NY in January 1995 starting with her forecast of rain for the 2/4/95 event.

i never watch janice huff...... i've always assumed she just passes along the upton forecast verbatim.

is that true?

btw, hojo hit a lot more home runs than janice huff.

[EasternLI]

Janice Huff is actually a meteorologist but she has been a better butcher than Howard Johnson was at 3rd base for the Mets since she got to NY in January 1995 starting with her forecast of rain for the 2/4/95 event.

LOL....I stopped watching TV mets altogether. Always uber conservative and never explain all the possibilities. Only time I like to check things out is during a storm, not really for forcasts but more for live reports.

[SnowGoose69]

LOL....I stopped watching TV mets altogether. Always uber conservative and never explain all the possibilities. Only time I like to check things out is during a storm, not really for forcasts but more for live reports.

The 12/26 disaster for NYC DOT may finally turn around the conservative approach that came about following the March 2001 storm...although honestly I did not notice many of the TV Mets going that way with the event 10 days ago...but we really needed something to kick out that 2001 hangover with the media and 12/26 and 1/26 could do that.

[EasternLI]

The 12/26 disaster for NYC DOT may finally turn around the conservative approach that came about following the March 2001 storm...although honestly I did not notice many of the TV Mets going that way with the event 10 days ago...but we really needed something to kick out that 2001 hangover with the media and 12/26 and 1/26 could do that.

That would be great news indeed, not so much for me...I'm a weenie...lol...but it's good for the public in general. Honestly, all I hear these days are how aweful all METS are and I know it's just not true. It stems from getting forcasts, for example 3-6 in. and then winding up with 12-18. The general public just thinks it's a joke. If the different situations were explained a little more clearly, I think that perception would change.

[Jet-Phase]

Per LC:

"After dumping heavy snowfall over the Rocky Mountains, the low should undergo a deepening phase across central Texas before tracking through the Deep South (roughly along Interstate 10). I expect a turn north-northeast, just to the right of the Appalachian Mountains, through the major cities of the Interstate 95 corridor. Again, I will state that the surface track is pushed to the left of what is shown on the ECMWF panels, and probably will be accelerated as well. This feature represents yet another heavy snowfall threat to the Dallas/Fort-Worth metroplex, with cities such as Texarkana AR, Memphis TN, Louisville KY, all of the major cities in Ohio, Pittsburgh PA, and Buffalo NY implicated in a risk for heavy snow or ice. Sleet and freezing rain will again be an issue, especially in Appalachia. A snow/sleet to rain scenario seems the most likely option for the megalopolis above the Mason-Dixon Line."

Continue reading on Examiner.com: WEATHERAmerica Newsletter, Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 5:00 P.M. CT - Houston Weather | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-houston/weatheramerica-newsletter-saturday-february-5-2011-at-5-00-p-m-ct#ixzz1D8mkLBXa

[EasternLI]

Noticed JB said "The back of winter is broken". A little hard for me to put much faith in him though, since he changes his mind about as often as my ex-girlfriend did...and she's bi-polar

[A-L-E-X]

Per LC:

"After dumping heavy snowfall over the Rocky Mountains, the low should undergo a deepening phase across central Texas before tracking through the Deep South (roughly along Interstate 10). I expect a turn north-northeast, just to the right of the Appalachian Mountains, through the major cities of the Interstate 95 corridor. Again, I will state that the surface track is pushed to the left of what is shown on the ECMWF panels, and probably will be accelerated as well. This feature represents yet another heavy snowfall threat to the Dallas/Fort-Worth metroplex, with cities such as Texarkana AR, Memphis TN, Louisville KY, all of the major cities in Ohio, Pittsburgh PA, and Buffalo NY implicated in a risk for heavy snow or ice. Sleet and freezing rain will again be an issue, especially in Appalachia. A snow/sleet to rain scenario seems the most likely option for the megalopolis above the Mason-Dixon Line."

Continue reading on Examiner.com: WEATHERAmerica Newsletter, Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 5:00 P.M. CT - Houston Weather | Examiner.com http://www.examiner....t#ixzz1D8mkLBXa

I dont know about LC, but reading others' opinions of him, it doesnt sound like he has a good track record at all. And that's putting it nicely.

[Jet-Phase]

I dont know about LC, but reading others' opinions of him, it doesnt sound like he has a good track record at all. And that's putting it nicely.

I've actually been following his newsletter for a few years now. He's actually been pretty good with his forecasts and how he outlines his thoughts. His newletter is very informative too.

[A-L-E-X]

I've actually been following his newsletter for a few years now. He's actually been pretty good with his forecasts and how he outlines his thoughts. His newletter is very informative too.

He used to be on the old forum, I wish he had moved on over to here. So he's better than the "usual suspects" then?

[Brian5671]

JB says expanding cone of snow with Tue system, OK TO new England--mainly west of I95 cities...(Twitter)

[Stormlover74]

His latest update calls for a major shift and warmup especially in upper midwest and midatlantic/NE, I realize he's said this before but I do tend to agree when he says PHL and NYC have probably received 75-90% of their total snowfall for the season already. If you take NYC for example with most snow chances not looking very good this week even if we get back to a wintry/snowy pattern for the end of the month and into march we could still get another 8-15" of snow, and of course it only takes one March 93 type event to really put us over the top. But I do think the chances for a 100" season are drastically dropping.

JB says expanding cone of snow with Tue system, OK TO new England--mainly west of I95 cities...(Twitter)

[EasternLI]

His latest update calls for a major shift and warmup especially in upper midwest and midatlantic/NE, I realize he's said this before but I do tend to agree when he says PHL and NYC have probably received 75-90% of their total snowfall for the season already. If you take NYC for example with most snow chances not looking very good this week even if we get back to a wintry/snowy pattern for the end of the month and into march we could still get another 8-15" of snow, and of course it only takes one March 93 type event to really put us over the top. But I do think the chances for a 100" season are drastically dropping.

This is good news indeed........since whatever he says lately.......usually the opposite happens

[A-L-E-X]

His latest update calls for a major shift and warmup especially in upper midwest and midatlantic/NE, I realize he's said this before but I do tend to agree when he says PHL and NYC have probably received 75-90% of their total snowfall for the season already. If you take NYC for example with most snow chances not looking very good this week even if we get back to a wintry/snowy pattern for the end of the month and into march we could still get another 8-15" of snow, and of course it only takes one March 93 type event to really put us over the top. But I do think the chances for a 100" season are drastically dropping.

Well if you go by the 12 month rule we've already had close to 100" .... Feb 2010 to Jan 2011 = 93" And that includes a very near miss on 2/6/2010 and a snowless March. We could have had 120" with ease in the last 12 months, and 60 inches in Feb 2010 alone.