Summer of 2012 BANTER thread...

[Guest Pamela]

Im assuming if i check back, a post apologizing to earthlight will be found, judging by this, correct?

I'm pretty sure I made zero posts to the "worst bust ever thread"...did not even read it 'till yesterday...the one rude post I did make to Earthlight was where he was overly critical of me briefly going off-topic...posts I deleted almost immediately and before his reprimand...I may have crossed the line...but I do not think his reprimand was necessary either...particularly after my quick removal of the questionable posts...so no apology will be forthcoming.

[BxEngine]

I'm pretty sure I made zero posts to the "worst bust ever thread"...did not even read it 'till yesterday.

I was refering to your condescending post to earthlight and others who 'have no lives and spend all day staring out the window and refreshing the SPC website'.

[ChrisM]

were you this outraged last year when posters in SNE were telling the mets who actually surveyed the MA tornado damage last year that they were wrong as it was really an EF4 and not an EF3. One weenie actually said they did their own survey, as if to say the NWS didn't do it right. LOL.

Can't think of anything more dis-respectful than telling people with actual met degrees and skill in surveying this type of damage who spent hours if not days putting together a report only to be told minutes after its posted that they are wrong.

yes, yes...no one should ever be allowed to debate things because it is disrespectful. There was talk even within that office of whether it should have been an ef3 or ef4. I was there and some of the damage looked very ef4-esque. Debate is healthy IMO.

[Guest Pamela]

I was refering to your condescending post to earthlight and others who 'have no lives and spend all day staring out the window and refreshing the SPC website'.

See edited post above.

[BxEngine]

See edited post above.

Kind of cowardly. Earthlights job as moderator is to keep this sh*tshow running. The fact that you feel its ok to publicly make a fairly crappy comment and then attempt to justify it proves you are no better than those you complain about.

[Guest Pamela]

Kind of cowardly. Earthlights job as moderator is to keep this sh*tshow running. The fact that you feel its ok to publicly make a fairly crappy comment and then attempt to justify it proves you are no better than those you complain about.

You are entitled to your opinion...though perhaps my comment...though not accurately directed...struck a cord with some who read this forum...and I'm certain there are some out there...members or non-members to whom the comment was applicable. If even one logs off their computer and gets off their tail...then the value of my comment outweighs its shortcomings.

[BxEngine]

You are entitled to your opinion...though perhaps my comment...though not accurately directed...struck a cord with some who read this forum...and I'm certain there are some out there...members or non-members to whom the comment was applicable. If even one logs off their computer and gets off their tail...then the value of my comment outweighs its shortcomings.

Pointing out post counts is an immediate admittance of a lost argument. I expected better from a well respected member, to be honest.

[OSUmetstud]

You are entitled to your opinion...though perhaps my comment...though not accurately directed...struck a cord with some who read this forum...and I'm certain there are some out there...members or non-members to whom the comment was applicable. If even one logs off their computer and gets off their tail...then the value of my comment outweighs its shortcomings.

you're doing God's work...

[TheTrials]

For the record, I am generally in agreement with those who claimed that the event from a couple of days ago was *not* incorrectly forecast (colloquially a "bust"). Placing the area under a "moderate risk" for severe weather was entirely appropriate.. just because severe weather does not take place in one's backyard does not invalidate the validity of the forecast...and an understanding of probabilities associated with the issuance of a severe weather watch box is generally lacking among those who called the event a bust and were highly critical of government forecasters.

for the record, i made no comment on it being a bust. I have only been looking for an answer as to structural vs. non structural wind damage. The stuff I dont need to see if piler oners from other regionds looking to start region wars.

[Guest Pamela]

Pointing out post counts is an immediate admittance of a lost argument. I expected better from a well respected member, to be honest.

I don't know where I pointed out post counts...but spending all day on a message board is evidence of a person wasting one's life.

[TheTrials]

yes, yes...no one should ever be allowed to debate things because it is disrespectful. There was talk even within that office of whether it should have been an ef3 or ef4. I was there and some of the damage looked very ef4-esque. Debate is healthy IMO.

i agree it is healthy, but look back at the posts and those threads, plenty of monday morning QBing COMPLAINING that it wasn't an EF4. The scientific debate was top nothc.

[Guest Pamela]

you're doing God's work...

Thnxs..

<Can't tell if the post was meant sarcastically...on a board with a heavy agnostic percentage....might very well be>

[BxEngine]

I don't know where I pointed out post counts...but spending all day on a message board is evidence of a person wasting one's life.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

You seem awfully hung up on where people spend their time. Probably not a good use of time.

[Guest Pamela]

http://en.m.wikipedi...noratio_elenchi

You seem awfully hung up on where people spend their time. Probably not a good use of time.

We could move onto the subject of the taxes I must pay to support the idle...but I think you get the picture. Thank you for the Latin lesson.

[Isotherm]

Who was potentially right or wrong is irrelevant. My issue is we should be able to have an honest, intellectual discussion without people getting personally offended and reacting in a childish, condescending manner. There was a certain level of impatience, I thought unwarranted, from other side of the argument. The questions were fair and respectful from what I saw.

[Guest Pamela]

Who was potentially right or wrong is irrelevant. My issue is we should be able to have an honest, intellectual discussion without people getting personally offended and reacting in a childish, condescending manner. There was a certain level of impatience, I thought unwarranted, from other side of the argument. The questions were fair and respectful from what I saw.

From the way I remember it, the pros were, IMO, in the right, they gave their explanations as to why...some non-pros responded with reasonable counter arguments...but there were a couple of non-pro posters (not naming names) who were somewhat recalcitrant and unwilling to digest or even consider the pros arguments...the pros became upset...reacting more to the couple of recalcitrant non-pros then to the reasonable arguments made by people like yourself. Then some people from other forums chimed in and it became a mess.

[Guest Pamela]

The thing to keep in mind with regards to the issuance of a severe thunderstorm watch box is that the govt. is saying that the *possibility* of severe thunderstorms exists in and close to the watch box. It does *not* mean that every square mile within the watch box will actually experience a period of genuine severe weather. The same applies when a tornado watch is issued for a region. Again, it is a way of making the public aware that the *possibility* for tornadoes exists in and close to the watch box. It does *not* mean tornadic conditions are likely, or even probable, at any one location within the confines of the box.

[psv88]

I suspect psv is a weenie. I wasn't talking about you...you seem quite knowledgeable and add info to the board.

Despite my hiatus, i will respond to attacks on myself, which i see have not ended.

I am definitely not a weenie as defined by the board. I dont think anybody would describe me as a weenie by any means or stretch of the imagination. I didn't know that not having a met degree made someone a weenie.

And BX, read back at that thread i REPEATEDLY, OVER AND OVER, said i respect the mets and their analysis...if you are going to attack me at least be accurate and use facts. I would never bash Earthlight, that is ridiculous and anybody who do so is delusional. I constantly treat mets with respect, even when they are at times (not earthlight) condescending and arrogant.

Read my argument. To defend a forecast as not being a bust based on probabilities that make it impossible to be a bust ever is ridiculous in ANY field. Further, the fact that a large branch down is used to verify a severe event that obviously "underperformed" in the NYC metro is definitely a topic that can and should be debated. No field is immune from criticism and debate, yet for some reason some on this board cannot take it.

Also, when our board was invaded by others, i was one of a few DEFENDING OUR BOARD. Where were the rest of you when we were being attacked? We were being judged on one thread that was in its essence a banter thread of sorts and i stepped in to defend us and VERY few other than AG3 and some others stepped in. If you want to rip me based upon my defense of our board then go ahead.

If you want to judge me, at least be fair and look at my entire record. I stated my respect for the mets and earthlight repeatedly, defending our board from outside attacks (while bashing Philly...which who can protest?!?!) and arguing what the general pubic knows, that the severe event busted for the immediate nyc area.

Not fair to be attacked when im not posting. Be classy.

[Sundog]

There's only one way to know if the forecast busted: is Lonnie Quinn still doing the weather?

[BxEngine]

Lolwut

[Guest Pamela]

Also, when our board was invaded by others, i was one of a few DEFENDING OUR BOARD. Where were the rest of you when we were being attacked? We were being judged on one thread that was in its essence a banter thread of sorts and i stepped in to defend us and VERY few other than AG3 and some others stepped in. If you want to rip me based upon my defense of our board then go ahead.

When the situation started to deteriorate and some outsiders started to no longer address the question at hand but rather take cheap shots at This Forum...yep...have to agree...you did defend it. But, as you can tell from above...I disagree with you regarding the question at hand.

[Guest Pamela]

Read my argument. To defend a forecast as not being a bust based on probabilities that make it impossible to be a bust ever is ridiculous in ANY field. Further, the fact that a large branch down is used to verify a severe event that obviously "underperformed" in the NYC metro is definitely a topic that can and should be debated. No field is immune from criticism and debate, yet for some reason some on this board cannot take it.

It is my understanding that there were some actual severe weather reports from some locations within the confines of the box. Thus one cannot conclude that the forecast busted. Moreover, I do not think that the definitions given preclude any forecast from ever being considered a bust...as you argue above. If, in fact, a severe weather watch box was issued and no severe reports came in (which certainly happens...especially in sparsley populated areas west of the Mississippi)...then the issuance of the watch would unquestionably go down as a bust.

[psv88]

When the situation started to deteriorate and some outsiders started to no longer address the question at hand but rather take cheap shots at This Forum...yep...have to agree...you did defend it. But, as you can tell from above...I disagree with you regarding the question at hand.

I respect that and we can disagree as gentlemen. Better than you calling me a weenie and stating over and over that because i did not have my roof blown off i called bust. Nobody was even saying that, not a single poster.

BTW, Noreaster and others were ripped when they said the line was weakening and we wouldnt see widespread severe...RIPPED...but they were correct. I think they deserve apologies. They were correct and were dismissed as weenies/naysayers.

[Ed Lizard]

I'm not in a completely different field than met, but we use probabilitues in assigning total oil or gas in place in a reservoir because we can't know the exact rock properties at every point in the reservoir. They try to model for it, by applying limited core data and wireline log measurements and apply it to seismic, but you still wind up with a P-50 oil in place number, and a P-90 and a P-10. Reservoir engineers wind up doing their best with Monte Carlo type simulations to model uncertainty, but we still drill wells based on the best science and its P-10 reserves, won't even justify running casing and completing the well.

If all the variables can't be known, expressing results as a probability range is probably the best way to do it.

Even riskier, drilling wells based soley on seismic and analog structures in the same area. Risk/reward, that. High risk, high reward. But even well developed fields with a fair amount of infield core and log data and seismic will produce uncommercial wells...

[Guest Pamela]

I think a common mistake is that we sometimes tend to equate a severe weather watch with say a winter storm watch....while the two items are very different beasts. When an area is covered by a winter storm watch...the govt. is indicating that there is a possibility of winter storm conditions over the watch area in x number of hours (usually 36). Winter storms are quite a bit different from summer time t-storms. The former are very likely to spread the winter storm conditions over an entire forecast CWA...that is, every square acre. T-storms are the opposite...highly localized and much more difficult to predict. The chances of accurately forecasting 6" of snow at a given location 36 hours in advance is far greater than accurately predicting that hail will fall at the same location even 2 hours in advance. So, until technology advances us further along, some leeway regarding the issuance of these severe weather predictions must be granted. When things like a tornado or severe t-storm watch are issued....the NWS is not being alarmist...rather, they are making a reasonable attempt to alert people to the *potential* for severe weather in their neck of the woods for the purposes of safeguarding life and property.

[OSUmetstud]

Despite my hiatus, i will respond to attacks on myself, which i see have not ended.

I am definitely not a weenie as defined by the board. I dont think anybody would describe me as a weenie by any means or stretch of the imagination. I didn't know that not having a met degree made someone a weenie.

And BX, read back at that thread i REPEATEDLY, OVER AND OVER, said i respect the mets and their analysis...if you are going to attack me at least be accurate and use facts. I would never bash Earthlight, that is ridiculous and anybody who do so is delusional. I constantly treat mets with respect, even when they are at times (not earthlight) condescending and arrogant.

Read my argument. To defend a forecast as not being a bust based on probabilities that make it impossible to be a bust ever is ridiculous in ANY field. Further, the fact that a large branch down is used to verify a severe event that obviously "underperformed" in the NYC metro is definitely a topic that can and should be debated. No field is immune from criticism and debate, yet for some reason some on this board cannot take it.

Also, when our board was invaded by others, i was one of a few DEFENDING OUR BOARD. Where were the rest of you when we were being attacked? We were being judged on one thread that was in its essence a banter thread of sorts and i stepped in to defend us and VERY few other than AG3 and some others stepped in. If you want to rip me based upon my defense of our board then go ahead.

If you want to judge me, at least be fair and look at my entire record. I stated my respect for the mets and earthlight repeatedly, defending our board from outside attacks (while bashing Philly...which who can protest?!?!) and arguing what the general pubic knows, that the severe event busted for the immediate nyc area.

Not fair to be attacked when im not posting. Be classy.

Huh? Again you are not understanding what is being discussed. Probability forecasts are still verified...refined...and advanced. They are not verfied by any single event, they are verified in totality. ie..you make 100 forecasts of 10% probability of showers...the amount of times you get showers should be around 10%...

[psv88]

Huh? Again you are not understanding what is being discussed. Probability forecasts are still verified...refined...and advanced. They are not verfied by any single event, they are verified in totality. ie..you make 100 forecasts of 10% probability of showers...the amount of times you get showers should be around 10%...

I agree...which is why calling bust for a single event is impossible...you are agreeing with me...discussing whether a single event busted is not possible, and by that i mean scientifically feasible.

You literally are re-stating the same concept. That a single event cannot be assessed as a bust or not by the numbers alone.

BTW, telling me that "i dont understand" is condescending and can be left out of the remainder of your response, which possessed the same message without the hostility. Deleting the first part is what makes the discussion professional.

[Stormlover74]

Of course. It's also much easier to determine a 'bust'. If the forecast is for 12-18'" of snow and a few places fall short and some get more than 18" it's still an accurate forecast. However if the average amount is 4 to 6" then it's a bust. With severe weather it will always technically be a bust because there is no way every location that is under a watch or warning is going to see those conditions verify. You will always have somebody saying oh that storms missed me..bust... even if 90% of the area got raked.

I think a common mistake is that we sometimes tend to equate a severe weather watch with say a winter storm watch....while the two items are very different beasts. When an area is covered by a winter storm watch...the govt. is indicating that there is a possibility of winter storm conditions over the watch area in x number of hours (usually 36). Winter storms are quite a bit different from summer time t-storms. The former are very likely to spread the winter storm conditions over an entire forecast CWA...that is, every square acre. T-storms are the opposite...highly localized and much more difficult to predict. The chances of accurately forecasting 6" of snow at a given location 36 hours in advance is far greater than accurately predicting that hail will fall at the same location even 2 hours in advance. So, until technology advances us further along, some leeway regarding the issuance of these severe weather predictions must be granted. When things like a tornado or severe t-storm watch is issued....the NWS is not being alarmist...rather, they are making a reasonable attempt to alert people to the *potential* for severe weather in their neck of the woods for the purposes of safeguarding life and property.

[psv88]

Of course. It's also much easier to determine a 'bust'. If the forecast is for 12-18'" of snow and a few places fall short and some get more than 18" it's still an accurate forecast. However if the average amount is 4 to 6" then it's a bust. With severe weather it will always technically be a bust because there is no way every location that is under a watch or warning is going to see those conditions verify. You will always have somebody saying oh that storms missed me..bust... even if 90% of the area got raked.

I agree that sometimes a few posters in the past may have made comments about their locations...but just look at that thread dude...nobody was saying that. Literally not one person was calling it a bust based on their specific location not getting severe.

All posters were basing their opinion on the area-wide severe reports. Not their own location. If people would have called bust based on their own yards, i would agree fully that it was a ridiculous argument. But it was simply not the case and it is very easy to dismiss the opposing side by regurgitating that same statement...and this is not directed at you, just a general statement.

[OSUmetstud]

I agree...which is why calling bust for a single event is impossible...you are agreeing with me...discussing whether a single event busted is not possible, and by that i mean scientifically feasible.

You literally are re-stating the same concept. That a single event cannot be assessed as a bust or not by the numbers alone.

BTW, telling me that "i dont understand" is condescending and can be left out of the remainder of your response, which possessed the same message without the hostility. Deleting the first part is what makes the discussion professional.

right...but you just told me that is somehow ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? How and why should a probability based forecast be judged as a singular event? If I forecast a 30% chance of rain and it rains is that a bust? If a forecast a 30% chance of rain and it doesn't rain, is that a bust? It makes no sense from a scientific viewpoint. The reason why the majority of forecasts and outlooks are probability based is because the science hasn't advanced far enough to make determinstic predictions, especially for things like convection and severe convection.