December Banter Thread

[mappy]

the count makes his return

[H2O]

Why does total drid loss scare me more than heavy dry air sh*tting?

[Scuddz]

Why does total drid loss scare me more than heavy dry air sh*tting?

 

 

better than drid sh*tting

[mattie g]

better than drid sh*tting

It's going to snain nuts and bolts.

[snowdude]

Well that's better than it snaining nuts OR bolts. Yeah I like AND better  

It's going to snain nuts and bolts.

[Mrs.J]

You might be ice skating to 7-11 for hot coffee and firewood

 

You know what is funny about that. Growing up in OH we got Ice storms and almost never lost power. One time we did was because a squirrel wanted to stay warm inside a transformer, lets just say it did not do that again.

[H2O]

Here come the slew of dry/wet, looks bad/good GFS commentary.  

[Scuddz]

Here come the slew of dry/wet, looks bad/good GFS commentary.  

 

 

the freezing line moves to fast/slow

[aldie 22]

Here come the slew of dry/wet, looks bad/good GFS commentary.

The commentary is based off of the posters expectations. If someone was expecting 8" of all snow and a ton of moisture then their analysis is sad and upset....how's my 3" of sleet looking?

[Ian]

Here come the slew of dry/wet, looks bad/good GFS commentary.  

this sounding looks pretty horrible for snow

 

[Scuddz]

this sounding looks pretty horrible for snow

 

GFS_12_006_38.gif

 

 

Not if we're on Mt. Mitchell

[wxdude64]

Not if we're on Mt. Mitchell

Or in the top of a tree on peak at Snowshoe.

[H2O]

this sounding looks pretty horrible for snow

 

GFS_12_006_38.gif

 

looks bad for severe too

[Ian]

I swear we had the exact same conversation last winter about the NAM and LWX etc that's in the discussion thread.  Serious deja vu. 

[ravensrule]

I swear we had the exact same conversation last winter about the NAM and LWX etc that's in the discussion thread.  Serious deja vu. 

Yes we did, we should put it on a loop and just replay it every Dec 1st.

[aldie 22]

So what did the gfs show exactly?

[Ian]

I like the NAM. People should stop using it wrong. 

[H2O]

I swear we had the exact same conversation last winter about the NAM and LWX etc that's in the discussion thread.  Serious deja vu. 

 

Our weather every winter is deja vu.  They go hand in hand.  And I've lived here for so long too.  

[mappy]

So I guess DC is only getting the ice storm and MD is **** outta luck?

[Ian]

So I guess DC is only getting the ice storm and MD is **** outta luck?

I fixed sorta. I was tempted to put for everyone but mapgirl but who knows who has a sense of humor here.  

[mappy]

I fixed sorta. I was tempted to put for everyone but mapgirl but who knows who has a sense of humor here.

 

That's fine. Its just a title to a thread on a weather forum.

[clueless]

So what did the gfs show exactly?

I showed you need to cover you bushes.

[aldie 22]

I showed you need to cover you bushes.

Covered in SLEET!!!

[Ji]

How come its always snowing in Arkanasas

[aldie 22]

How come its always snowing in Arkanasas

Supposed to snow in Fresno

[North Balti Zen]

winter storm wanrings in 10 states now. But not our area. We suck.

[kurtstack]

I don't agree at all. I think everyone understands how difficult weather forecasting can be (despite how far we've come) and understands there is inherent uncertainty that should be expressed.

 

A forecast, for example, like this: 40% 3-6", 30% 6-10", 20% 1-3", 10% <1", tells you more than a forecast like this: 100% chance of 3-6".  

 

The first one says the forecaster believes 3-6" is most likely and that there is a 90% chance of accumulating snow that totals over 1". If things do in fact bust, based on the most likely outcome, it is most likely to do so by being more snowy. This is great information for a snow removal company who needs to prepare, for example.

 

The second one says, 3-6" is coming. That may or may not be correct; but, over time you'll see that 100% forecasts do end up causing more harm than good. Now you might say, well you can tell the viewers how it may bust more snowy or whatever...but then you are being probabilistic now, just without the raw numbers.

I think the public prefers that you give them a single forecast scenario and attach a confidence value to the forecast.  Listing all the possible scenarios and attaching somewhat arbitrary probabilities (they can never be verified since it is a single event we are measuring) just seems to muddy the waters for most of the public.  At least that's the sense I get from the majority of the public.  The probabilistic forecast is better for city planners and educated weather weenies than the general public, IMHO.  The average joe doesn't care about all the other scenarios.  They want to know what the weather is gonna be not the 3 different things it "might" be. And the I know for a fact, the general public doesn't want to hear about how hard it is to forecast the weather, lol.

[aldie 22]

I hope the gfs is 10-12 degrees too warm

[Ji]

this looks intersting....of course it will be colder as we get closer to CAD:)

 

http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/ImageFourPanel.php?model=gfs&area=namer&cycle=12&fhr=228&param=300_wnd_ht|850_vort_ht|700_rh_ht|10m_wnd_precip&size=medium

[Ji]

I hope the gfs is 10-12 degrees too warm

i used that joke a few times in the past few days