Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,607
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

March 6-7 banter thread


tombo82685

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 514
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Man, I was telling people in the GLOV that Philly isn't the weenie haven that it used to be, but after a day of reading and posting here again, I don't know...

Jeez it's a weather board. I don't see any issue with what people are posting. They are just discussing and analyzing models as they come out. If that's weenie like I'll be the first to say I am one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez it's a weather board. I don't see any issue with what people are posting. They are just discussing and analyzing models as they come out. If that's weenie like I'll be the first to say I am one.

I kinda agree with Ryan, there's a feel of grasping at straws-like desperation here that I haven't seen the previous storms this winter.  Maybe its just because most people consider this the "last chance".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez it's a weather board. I don't see any issue with what people are posting. They are just discussing and analyzing models as they come out. If that's weenie like I'll be the first to say I am one.

 

The combination of these winters, combined with me missing out on Irene, Lee, Sandy, the October snowstorm, and the earthquake back home, and now missing an 8-10" event at Valpo, has turned me into a bitter old man.

 

Sorry, haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say this. I don't want people to feel they can't post models or discuss models like the nam,fim,nogaps, jma. This is a weather website and they are weather models as bad as they are. So as long as you provide analysis of them, your posts are fine.

This is for the BANTER thread? Seems a bit of an oxymoron to me.

I could see in the main thread/disco. Whatever the rule is,

I'll abide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is for the BANTER thread? Seems a bit of an oxymoron to me.

I could see in the main thread/disco. Whatever the rule is,

I'll abide.

The post wasn't an issue or where it posted at. I just disagreed with his statement. I don't think anyone was being weenie like at all last night. Sometimes i feel people hold back on posting because they are going to get flamed because they don't post something involving the euro or gfs. My point was this is a weather board, you discuss models and the weather, no matter how bad they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The combination of these winters, combined with me missing out on Irene, Lee, Sandy, the October snowstorm, and the earthquake back home, and now missing an 8-10" event at Valpo, has turned me into a bitter old man.

 

Sorry, haha

lol I'm sorry if it was taken out of context, I didn't mean it.  I think this forum is pretty darn good compared to others in terms of weenies. I know some people hate the nam and other models but you can't go all communist and restrict what people post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say this. I don't want people to feel they can't post models or discuss models like the nam,fim,nogaps, jma. This is a weather website and they are weather models as bad as they are. So as long as you provide analysis of them, your posts are fine. 

 

IMO, some folks (mainly elsewhere) put too much stock in the sh***ty models...especially if they show snow despite other, and more historically accurate, models screaming a different outcome.

 

I'm also really, really annoyed at the amount of misinformation being thrown out in twitter and other social media by folks who should know better...some of the stuff I saw yesterday being said (NAM the most consistent model with the evolution of this storm) was not only wrong, but it's flat out dishonest IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes i feel people hold back on posting because they are going to get flamed because they don't post something involving the euro or gfs. 

 

Given the track record of those models (exceptions being Canadian and UKIE), I can see why they could get flamed.

 

Discussing weather and hypotheticals is great....our midrange stuff is the best anywhere. 

 

I guess where I respectfully disagree is the idea of encouraging people to post crappy models and trying to justify why they should be looked at.  They're crappy for a reason...and people should (respectfully) get called out on it.  Also goes for bad analysis of the major models...but all of it should be done with respect...and not calling someone a slopehead or fooking stoopid weenie (/dt).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the track record of those models (exceptions being Canadian and UKIE), I can see why they could get flamed.

 

Discussing weather and hypotheticals is great....our midrange stuff is the best anywhere. 

 

I guess where I respectfully disagree is the idea of encouraging people to post crappy models and trying to justify why they should be looked at.  They're crappy for a reason...and people should (respectfully) get called out on it.  Also goes for bad analysis of the major models...but all of it should be done with respect...and not calling someone a slopehead or fooking stoopid weenie (/dt).

Pretty much agree with this, fwiw, but obviously, I haven't been around as much and tombo's promotion was a part of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, some folks (mainly elsewhere) put too much stock in the sh***ty models...especially if they show snow despite other, and more historically accurate, models screaming a different outcome.

 

I'm also really, really annoyed at the amount of misinformation being thrown out in twitter and other social media by folks who should know better...some of the stuff I saw yesterday being said (NAM the most consistent model with the evolution of this storm) was not only wrong, but it's flat out dishonest IMO. 

yeah, but the JMA is 3rd in verification scores :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just made it up hahaha. But that's the $hite you hear with the 3rd string models.

Gotcha.

 

FWIW, the hierarchy in terms of correlations is 1. Euro, 2/3. UKMO/GFS, 4/5. CMC/JMA, 6. LOLGAPS

 

I actually prefer the GFS to the UKMO, though, for major events. Empirically, the UKMO model seems to have more trouble with rapid deepening situations (of course, which means it does a better job than the GFS in mundane weather situations).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the mets down in the DC area say it is dumb to toss any model...

By that logic, I guess they weigh and look at the NAM, CRAS, NAVGEMS, KMA and JMA for day 3 threats along side the rest of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotcha.

 

FWIW, the hierarchy is 1. Euro, 2/3. UKMO/GFS, 4/5. CMC/JMA, 6. LOLGAPS

I wonder how the GGEM is doing with the upgrade? GUes we'll keep for another disco.

Ps, going to start a poll to see how long your commutes are come wed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the track record of those models (exceptions being Canadian and UKIE), I can see why they could get flamed.

 

Discussing weather and hypotheticals is great....our midrange stuff is the best anywhere. 

 

I guess where I respectfully disagree is the idea of encouraging people to post crappy models and trying to justify why they should be looked at.  They're crappy for a reason...and people should (respectfully) get called out on it.  Also goes for bad analysis of the major models...but all of it should be done with respect...and not calling someone a slopehead or fooking stoopid weenie (/dt).

You know my opinion on the nam, its garbage. What i mean is if someone wants to talk about and provides analysis of it you can't just delete everything they write because the model is garbage. This forum is here to talk about weather. As long as what they say is an accuarate analysis of it should be fine imho. I'm pretty sure a good deal a people in this forum know the nam is garbage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know my opinion on the nam, its garbage. What i mean is if someone wants to talk about and provides analysis of it you can't just delete everything they write because the model is garbage. This forum is here to talk about weather. As long as what they say is an accuarate analysis of it should be fine imho. I'm pretty sure a good deal a people in this forum know the nam is garbage. 

 

Probably less than you think when the snow goggles are on but we'll agree to disagree on this :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda agree with Ryan, there's a feel of grasping at straws-like desperation here that I haven't seen the previous storms this winter.  Maybe its just because most people consider this the "last chance".

 

I think this is correct.  For me, I sure would love to see this event turn into a 4"+ snow in my area since I think this is likely to be the last such opportunity until next winter.  However, it appears this event will be an elevation event for the Philly area (my sub-300' of elevation won't help me at all in this case) and/or a south-of-the-Mason-Dixon-line event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the mets down in the DC area say it is dumb to toss any model...

By that logic, I guess they weigh and look at the NAM, CRAS, NAVGEMS, KMA and JMA for day 3 threats along side the rest of them.

For the record, not me....

 

 

i think i saw Maue post it was step for step with the gfs?

From 17 Feb. through today, it has certainly closed the gap at day 5 in the NH...but it's way too small of a sample.  Looking at other stuff, my sense is that in general it is much closer to the GFS now, but probably still slightly behind.  We'll have to see if this holds for other metrics, periods, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precip-wise, the 12z GFS looks real nice.  Now, we just need the Euro to come north.... and for the temps to come down on all the models... and for about ten other things to come to pass.  Kidding aside, we are closer to a real hit now than we have been since this thing showed up in the long term.... we definitely have a ways to go, but maybe.... just maybe... the trend is our friend.  

 

It goes without saying, but it will be beyond painful if the 12z GFS verifies verbatim and DC AND Boston are BOTH measuring snow with a yardstick while we get a cold rain.  

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...