Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,698
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Scinestro
    Newest Member
    Scinestro
    Joined

2012 Winter Banter Thread #3


yoda

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think the most amusing part about the 84hr nam disco is that it happens every single year. same argument / same outcome.

There are alot of these types of discos that happen every year and get hashed out the exact same way. We could probably be more efficient and just dig up and link the threads from eastern 6 years or longer ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he didn't extrapolate it. he explained how it lined up with past runs and other models. big distinction.

the issue isn't talking about the models. it is posting endless posts of dumb stuff. one thing should be clear from reading even just THIS banter thread: the 84 NAM is essentially meaningless. if you've been reading a lot of the board then you'd know that its accuracy is in the shorter range, not out there.

He didn't extrapolate it? What's this then?

"The area of low pressure will likely ride this front so to speak."

"If you extract out the 6z GFS Ensemble members and look at the Canadian, one would expect the 12z NAM would likely end up threatening at least, KY/TN/VA/northern NC with snow."

Quick, someone head over to the SE thread and yell at him! ;-)

Trixie, I've been reading the board for years. Enough to know the weenie basics, at least. I KNOW that the 84h NAM isn't reliable. I can't repeat that enough times, apparently. But we've spent how many posts and hours discussing the 150h GFS in the last couple of days - how is that accuracy working out for us? Discussing models is a big part of this board, and someone should be able to make one post asking about the features on the 84h NAM without getting yelled at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't extrapolate it? What's this then?

"The area of low pressure will likely ride this front so to speak."

"If you extract out the 6z GFS Ensemble members and look at the Canadian, one would expect the 12z NAM would likely end up threatening at least, KY/TN/VA/northern NC with snow."

Quick, someone head over to the SE thread and yell at him! ;-)

Trixie, I've been reading the board for years. Enough to know the weenie basics, at least. I KNOW that the 84h NAM isn't reliable. I can't repeat that enough times, apparently. But we've spent how many posts and hours discussing the 150h GFS in the last couple of days - how is that accuracy working out for us? Discussing models is a big part of this board, and someone should be able to make one post asking about the features on the 84h NAM without getting yelled at.

Ignore Trixie she is like a bad case of hemroids that no matter what you can not get rid of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trixie, I've been reading the board for years. Enough to know the weenie basics, at least. I KNOW that the 84h NAM isn't reliable. I can't repeat that enough times, apparently. But we've spent how many posts and hours discussing the 150h GFS in the last couple of days - how is that accuracy working out for us? Discussing models is a big part of this board, and someone should be able to make one post asking about the features on the 84h NAM without getting yelled at.

I know you were writing to Trixie but if you look up at my last post you will see a good response to this.

The issue is that that you asked a question - it's the fact that if you wanted to learn about a 500mb map or another kind of map questions should be asked. But what you did is you prefaced your post by saying that the frame on the model looked "good" and then proceeded to ask. If you are unsure, just ask, as long as you don't inject weenie banter into your posts, people will generally be more willing to answer your questions.

If you haven't already tried them - I would suggest the COMET modules. They are an excellent learning tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was in the model discussion thread. it contributed nothing and essentially asked what we could expect if? the 84 hour NAM panel were to be? extrapolated.

if that kind of stuff has to be posted at all, it should be posted in the banter thread.

Just give it a rest already, when you become a mod you can scold people and move their posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone step away from the keyboard for just a second and take a chill pill.... we all want the same thing.... no need to bash each other.... we're mature adults here. I've never seen so much badgering in a winter weather forum before. Being used to the SE thread, we never had this type of mob mentality. I don't understand where it stems from. Be nice folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I think a lot of the newbies and weenies are missing is this -

There is not ONE simple way that a scenario on a model will proceed if the model were to run farther. There are so many different ways that something could evolve even in a similar situation. Some of the folks on here are asking the red taggers to tell them how it would play out when the red taggers themselves may not know. Given a nearly identical frame on a model, the next frame will play out differently. There isn't a good way to say "oh the 84hr NAM showed this so that means if we had 90 it would show this" - in reality, there's many ways those 6 hours could play out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone step away from the keyboard for just a second and take a chill pill.... we all want the same thing.... no need to bash each other.... we're mature adults here. I've never seen so much badgering in a winter weather forum before. Being used to the SE thread, we never had this type of mob mentality. I don't understand where it stems from. Be nice folks.

I think it stems from having people demand far too much out of meteorology as a whole. There are people who want straight answers on how something WOULD progress if it were run for another 6 hours when that simply is not possible (or smart). It also stems from people who are originally NICELY told to read more and post less not taking the advice and continuing the flood the threads with weenie banter (not directed at any one person).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. But no opinion of the nam at that time range is worth much. Today is another golf day. I do think I'm getting jaded as I'm having a harder time getting interested in the threads but that might just be because this winter has been so bad.

I find a day on the water out of Homosassa or Crystal River in FLA does wonders for my outlook....by April/May, the trout and a maybe some reds should be hot and heavy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this in the main thread but let's be honest here, the gfs shows a big ugly and mean rainer for us but look at h5 @ hr 81:

Is it really possible to nail these features @ 72+ hours away? Not a chance. Not saying it's not going to be a soaking rainstorm but having confidence in the solution is not a good idea.

I'm sticking with the idea of a more ots idea and couple inches of snow on the fringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this in the main thread but let's be honest here, the gfs shows a big ugly and mean rainer for us but look at h5 @ hr 81:

Is it really possible to nail these features @ 72+ hours away? Not a chance. Not saying it's not going to be a soaking rainstorm but having confidence in the solution is not a good idea.

I'm sticking with the idea of a more ots idea and couple inches of snow on the fringe.

Funny you grabbed 81hr. I was looking at that one too and comparing to the 0z run. big differences still run to run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sticking with the idea of a more ots idea and couple inches of snow on the fringe.

Certainly the purely southern stream storm that goes OTS is the most likely solution right now. Betting against a phase is a bet that you'll win more often than not. That said, I think the fact that many individual runs of each model have hit on a phase or partial phase at one point in the last several days shows that there is still a good chance for at least a partial phase. I'd very much like a solution that is a partial phase that brings the storm up the coast to at least near VA before going OTS. We'd still get fringed a bit, but would certainly be in play for a 2-4" or 3-5" event in that situation. I think the odds are much better right now that Sunday is partly cloudy rather than 35F with 1-2" of rain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly the purely southern stream storm that goes OTS is the most likely solution right now. Betting against a phase is a bet that you'll win more often than not. That said, I think the fact that many individual runs of each model have hit on a phase or partial phase at one point in the last several days shows that there is still a good chance for at least a partial phase. I'd very much like a solution that is a partial phase that brings the storm up the coast to at least near VA before going OTS. We'd still get fringed a bit, but would certainly be in play for a 2-4" or 3-5" event in that situation. I think the odds are much better right now that Sunday is partly cloudy rather than 35F with 1-2" of rain.

Look at us. Rooting against a phase? Is this what it's come to? lol

If the gl low wasn't screwing everything up I would be rooting for a phase because we would have at the very least a 1025-1030hp sitting right where we need it. But noooooo, a stupid weak little area of lp cuts off our chances of a good cold air supply and we end up never standing a chance with the exception of "back end snow" and we know how that works around here. Back end snow can kiss my back end.

Partial phase and no stupid gl low ftw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny because you were the one who started the discussion...

With this complicated of a setup, spending one second on the NAM at 84hr+ is a giant waste of time.

No sh*t, Sherlock. Who did you think I was defending. I didn't start a discussion of the NAM with any intent on trying to apply it to this storm. I just saw a map that looked markedly different from the other models and wondered what a mets thinking would have been if they had been presented with the same map. I was trying to learn something.

Congratulations on being able to multi-quote, btw. Maybe next time you should actually try reading some of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From HPC...

THE GFS APPEARS TO HAVE WORSE INITIALIZATION OF THE TROUGH'S PLACEMENT OVER BRITISH COLUMBIA AND NUNAVUT THIS MORNING COMPARED TO THE NAM/ECMWF. MEANWHILE...THE GFS IS MOST AGGRESSIVE IN ALLOWING AN UPSTREAM PERTURBATION CURRENTLY OVER THE PACIFIC TO CUT THROUGH THE SHORTWAVE RIDGE OVER THE CANADIAN ROCKIES ON THURSDAY...WHICH THEN PHASES WITH THE NORTHERN STREAM AND SLOWS THE ENTIRE GFS SOLUTION. THE COMBINATION OF WORSE INITIALIZATION AND QUESTIONABLE AND EVEN SUSPICIOUS PHASING OF THE SEPARATE STREAMS IS SUFFICIENT TO DISCARD THE GFS PARTICULARLY LATE IN THE PERIOD. AMONG THE REMAINING SOLUTIONS...THE NAM BECOMES SLIGHTLY FASTER THAN THE 00Z ECMWF/UKMET/CANADIAN WHICH ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT. GIVEN THE NARROWER WINDOW FOR DATA ASSIMILATION IN THE NAM VERSUS THE OTHER REMAINING SOLUTIONS...ALONG WITH THE CLUSTERING OF THE NON-NCEP MEMBERS...THE PREFERENCE IS FOR THE ECMWF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sh*t, Sherlock. Who did you think I was defending. I didn't start a discussion of the NAM with any intent on trying to apply it to this storm. I just saw a map that looked markedly different from the other models and wondered what a mets thinking would have been if they had been presented with the same map. I was trying to learn something.

Congratulations on being able to multi-quote, btw. Maybe next time you should actually try reading some of them.

The thing is, you shouldn't apply it to ANY storm or any other situation because it doesn't mean jack. You'll learn absolutely nothing from extrapolating the NAM (EDIT: or any other model for that matter).

The quotes provide an attempt to try the impossible in an effort to answer your question. It's a worthless exercise regardless of what their answers were.

Feel free to waste all your time wondering what could be instead of figuring out what is most likely.

I'll do all of you a favor and just stop posting in this sub-forum. It's obvious that the weenies are steering the discussion towards fantasy and pointless conversation that does not get us any closer to anticipating what the storm will do. As much of an a-hole as I've been, I've had valid points that some of you have chosen to ignore in favor of going about your weenie business. Enjoy your peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...