Grothar of Herndon Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 No, I'm not referring to you. More of a general sense, with a few names in particular that seem to be popping up. We have 2 of the board founders in our sub-region moderating and I think they do a generally excellent job. I'm not sure why so many people have taken on the mantle of junior self-appointed moderator with the weenie smashing...except these people can't actually delete posts but instead just add more garbage posts to wade through. Maybe my memory's not clicking, but I don't recall a time in the recent past (last few winters) where there was so much vitriol directed at people for posting e.g., the 120hr GGEM. You'd think people were hemming and hawing over 35F surface temps on a 384hr GFS blizzard. Thank you and Chris87 for speaking out honestly regarding this issue. I have been on the boards for 7 years and never seen weenie smashing at the level it has risen to recently. They are not helping. I cannot believe how some of the long time members of the Mid Atlantic region are being treated by the weenie smashers. Weenie smashing is not going to stop the weenies and only a small percentage of the weenies really need 'policing'. Randy, Ian and rest of the staff do a great job and they can handle those cases. Use the filter functions and use the 'Report' button if you feel someone is getting out of hand. And Jamie is correct that there were crazy times over at Eastern, but to me that was more about weenies out of control and not weenie smashers. This winter has seen the rise of the weenie smashers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmlwx Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 This. It's gotten pretty bad. That said, I see several great posters making the mistake of talking (and even - gasp - extrapolating) the NAM in the model thread, so I'm sure the thread police will be along shortly to lecture them. To be fair...it is never an accurate idea to extrapolate an already likely incorrect frame on a model that is not good in that range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Everyone's gun-shy of the Weenie Smashers. People are posting pbp in the banter thread because they're afraid of getting their peepee schwacked in the model disco thread. honestly.. there's almost no reason whatsoever to be looking heavily at the nam right now. who the f cares if it's a model and people talk about models here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Does CWG actually use the JMA and NOGAPS to produce a forecast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Does CWG actually use the JMA and NOGAPS to produce a forecast? the nogaps might be where the safety for the storm team came in i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Does CWG actually use the JMA and NOGAPS to produce a forecast? I don't though I'll look at them if they are posted here and might look at the JMA on occasion to see which camp it fell in. I don't think the latter is better than the NOGAPS which I pretty much ignore. I don't know what other do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Chill Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 To be fair...it is never an accurate idea to extrapolate an already likely incorrect frame on a model that is not good in that range. I remember doing it myself 5+ years ago. It wasn't too hard to figure out that the nam is a < 48 hr tool and nothing else. Sure it can do ok at 72 but not as good as the globals so why use it to find fault in the globals. It adds more confusion to the analysis than helping anything. I also used to overload my brain with looking at them all (including the nogaps, cras, etc) for every threat. It's much more efficient and less stressful to focus on the euro/gfs combo in the mid/lr and as I recently just found out adding the ukmet in the mr is good practice too. I don't have to worry about missing anything with the cras, jma, nogaps, dgex, etc because if anything looks good on them it will be posted by the usual suspects (and I don't mind it at all). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Though the interpretation of what the NAm is showing is right on I think. well at least some of it not that it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Though the interpretation of what the NAm is showing is right on I think. Evidently we can't discuss the NAM. Unless somebody is extrapolating it or trying to make a detailed forecast at 84 hours, not sure what's so wrong with discussing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 Evidently we can't discuss the NAM. Unless somebody is extrapolating it or trying to make a detailed forecast at 84 hours, not sure what's so wrong with discussing it. I was kind of liking it cause it showed a bit more confluence and blockiness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midlo Snow Maker Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Evidently we can't discuss the NAM. Unless somebody is extrapolating it or trying to make a detailed forecast at 84 hours, not sure what's so wrong with discussing it. i agree it's getting real old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Evidently we can't discuss the NAM. Unless somebody is extrapolating it or trying to make a detailed forecast at 84 hours, not sure what's so wrong with discussing it. clearly you guys can do whatever you want to waste your time.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 might be time for another break kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravensrule Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 might be time for another break kids I think a 3-6" storm would solve 90% of this board's problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCAlexandria Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 clearly you guys can do whatever you want to waste your time.. Good grief, can I get some cheese with that whine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I think a 3-6" storm would solve 90% of this board's problems. maybe. i hope the snow people get their snow. they're all kind annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtstack Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I don't see why anybody would have problems with taking a look at all of the models. Those in the know are well aware of their stengths and weaknesses, so I don't mind people posting NAM/GGEM/JMA even, if it sparks some valid discussions about possibilities. All the models are going to be wrong on something at this range, but I find it somewhat useful to see what each of them are doing with the key features, and how that downstream affects the variety of possible outcomes. Reasonable approach I would say, as long as you realize the strengths and limitations of each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Good grief, can I get some cheese with that whine? it's well and good if you have no interest in seeing anything of value discussed. perhaps im just in a different place than you are. i understand and i accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I don't see why anybody would have problems with taking a look at all of the models. Those in the know are well aware of their stengths and weaknesses, so I don't mind people posting NAM/GGEM/JMA even, if it sparks some valid discussions about possibilities. All the models are going to be wrong on something at this range, but I find it somewhat useful to see what each of them are doing with the key features, and how that downstream affects the variety of possible outcomes. Reasonable approach I would say, as long as you realize the strengths and limitations of each. the nam is awful and i mean AWFUL outside like 2 days.. there is absolutely zero reason to look at it right now other than the lag in between respectable models. people can huff over that being pointed out but they are huffing about nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TowsonWeather Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 To be fair...it is never an accurate idea to extrapolate an already likely incorrect frame on a model that is not good in that range. Who says it is accurate? People discussing a model aren't implicitly saying: "I think this is going to happen!", they are simply discussing a model. We aren't on a quest for The Ultimate Truth - we are on a weather forum, engaging in discussion about weather, a topic we are all passionate about or we wouldn't be here. If someone wants to comment about the 84h NAM and they do so in a way that is respectful and reasonable, then maybe it's ok to let that slide without wagging your finger and saying "How dare you talk about something that isn't super likely to be accurate!" If we limited discussion to things that were likely to happen, then there wouldn't be much to talk about. Frankly it's getting exhausting watching a small group of determinedly self-righteous posters try to censor the discussion. Especially when there aren't always clear lines drawn between what is "realistic" discussion, what is recreational analysis, and what is just speculative nonsense. Where does it stop? Should we also stop talking about the 162-hour GFS because THAT isn't likely to happen? If someone says something wildly off topic or incorrect, I'm pretty confident the mods can handle it. Not the self-appointed mods, the actual mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deck Pic Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Nobody who isn't a met should pay any attention to the NAM at this range unless it is merely for fun..It has inferior skill to the globals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtracker Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 clearly you guys can do whatever you want to waste your time.. What is that supposed to mean? We're weather enthusiasts on a weather board talking about a model that involves a potential event. So what people talk about the NAM...it's a model. That's what we do here. As long as there is no extrapolating or using it to be definitive, what's the issue? You want us to wait until we're 6 hours out to talk about the NAM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtstack Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 the nam is awful and i mean AWFUL outside like 2 days.. there is absolutely zero reason to look at it right now other than the lag in between respectable models. people can huff over that being pointed out but they are huffing about nothing. It could be argued that all the models are AWFUL outside of 48 hours, depending on your criteria. Since they are all pretty much wrong on some aspect of the solution nearly always outside of 48 hours. It's almost like saying the boards should shut down and all model discussion should cease until we are inside 48 hours. Again, as long as you know the NAMs limitations, there is still very little harm in watching the features and comparing what it does with them to the other models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Nobody who isn't a met should pay any attention to the NAM at this range unless it is merely for fun..It has inferior skill to the globals the whole "it's a model we should talk about it without anyone caring" is silly. if someone was calling people retarded for posting about it that's one thing.. why should others who realize it's a totally futile exercise have to read it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravensrule Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Nobody who isn't a met should pay any attention to the NAM at this range unless it is merely for fun..It has inferior skill to the globals I think people use it just to pass the time between the major models, i am sure anyone with common sense understands what it shows at 84 hours has as much a chance at happening as the 384 hr GFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 It could be argued that all the models are AWFUL outside of 48 hours, depending on your criteria. Since they are all pretty much wrong on some aspect of the solution nearly always outside of 48 hours. It's almost like saying the boards should shut down and all model discussion should cease until we are inside 48 hours. Again, as long as you know the NAMs limitations, there is still very little harm in watching the features and comparing what it does with them to the other models. im not going to do anything to stop it.. im outnumbered as usual in winter when it comes to that stuff. it's fine. i don't need to dissect the nam with people on a weather forum anyway. maybe that's what's frustrating to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Nobody who isn't a met should pay any attention to the NAM at this range unless it is merely for fun..It has inferior skill to the globals This is the MA forum. No fun allowed unless you are in the banter thread and then only if ellinwood is offline and not able to count the number of posts you are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtstack Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Also. I'd like to point out that there is a forum feature I found that one can be used to block the "usual suspects" posts, so you DON'T have to see those images if you choose not to. I've blocked a couple of the garbage posters myself and it has really helped. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalcottWx Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 What is that supposed to mean? We're weather enthusiasts on a weather board talking about a model that involves a potential event. So what people talk about the NAM...it's a model. That's what we do here. As long as there is no extrapolating or using it to be definitive, what's the issue? You want us to wait until we're 6 hours out to talk about the NAM? Agree. Why not look at the 500 charts within 84 hours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 What is that supposed to mean? We're weather enthusiasts on a weather board talking about a model that involves a potential event. So what people talk about the NAM...it's a model. That's what we do here. As long as there is no extrapolating or using it to be definitive, what's the issue? You want us to wait until we're 6 hours out to talk about the NAM? remember when the nam had a phased super qpf event for us 24 hours out and got it like 95% wrong? that's all im saying. the whole "it's a model" thing doesnt hold weight when you pit the nam at 84 on a storm that's at 100 v the euro. but carry on.. it's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.