Vendor forecast thread

[The Iceman]

15 minutes ago, hurricane1091 said:

Glenn put up a map with me in the 2-4" zone of actual totals tooting his own horn, but we got closer to 6" and 30 miles North where my GF lives also got 7" but was in the 2-4/3-5 spot. Classic guy.

Yeah I was in his 1-3 zone that was coating to an inch yesterday afternoon and got 5.5". I really respect Glenn but he did not do well at all in extreme se pa and central jersey.

[zenmsav6810]

56 minutes ago, hurricane1091 said:

Glenn put up a map with me in the 2-4" zone of actual totals tooting his own horn, but we got closer to 6" and 30 miles North where my GF lives also got 7" but was in the 2-4/3-5 spot. Classic guy.

 

 

32 minutes ago, The Iceman said:

Yeah I was in his 1-3 zone that was coating to an inch yesterday afternoon and got 5.5". I really respect Glenn but he did not do well at all in extreme se pa and central jersey.

Maybe he wasn't using the most up-to-date "actual measurements" data. He probably has staff (maybe even unreliable staff) for that. Perhaps in the chaos of the daily news cycle, something got confused. Hard to believe he would compromise his scientific ethic or journalistic standard for ego. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. He was spot on with the "none to coating" region which I think is a more important/difficult forecast. Honestly how differently does one prepare for a 5.5" versus a 3 incher? that humanistic value has to be factor when judging a forecast too. hurricane1091 I know you are relatively new here but occasionally Glenn lurks on this subforum so consider your words accordingly, we like having him as a participant here even if can't necessary post his analysis. It gives some credibility/validation to what we do here. 

 

 

[The Iceman]

9 hours ago, zenmsav6810 said:

Maybe he wasn't using the most up-to-date "actual measurements" data. He probably has staff (maybe even unreliable staff) for that. Perhaps in the chaos of the daily news cycle, something got confused. Hard to believe he would compromise his scientific ethic or journalistic standard for ego. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. He was spot on with the "none to coating" region which I think is a more important/difficult forecast. Honestly how differently does one prepare for a 5.5" versus a 3 incher? that humanistic value has to be factor when judging a forecast too. hurricane1091 I know you are relatively new here but occasionally Glenn lurks on this subforum so consider your words accordingly, we like having him as a participant here even if can't necessary post his analysis. It gives some credibility/validation to what we do here. 

 

 

Receiving 5.5" is significantly different preparation than a coating to and inch which is what he forecasted 24 hours out for us. And preperation regarding plowing and number of snow removal personnel for a 1 to 3 event (which he changed us to 6 hours before the event I may add) is significantly different than a 3 to 6 event for this area. It was a pretty big bust around here. I went out to a local bar last night and everyone I talked to brought up how wrong the weather people were about this storm and how no one was prepared for it. Just because he posts here doesn't mean we all have to suck on his nuts.

[RedSky]

In all fairness this storm was a nightmare to predict, forecast amounts failed from Atlanta to Boston. Glenn got us N&W folks right.

 

[Bluescat1]

At one point yesterday It snowed at a 2 inches per hour rate. I finished with around 6 inches. Very close

to Winter Storm warning Criteria.

[svh19044]

33 minutes ago, RedSky said:

In all fairness this storm was a nightmare to predict, forecast amounts failed from Atlanta to Boston. Glenn got us N&W folks right.

 

 

Every single storm there is, and for the most part, they can't get right more than 24 hours out (and most of the time they don't get it right within 24 hours), the forecast is dead nuts wrong.  It's pathetic.  Forecasting seemed to peak in the late 90's and it has been downhill ever since.  The excuses that we make for our local "meteorologists" and vendors are astonishing.

[RedSky]

19 minutes ago, svh19044 said:

 

Every single storm there is, and for the most part, they can't get right more than 24 hours out (and most of the time they don't get it right within 24 hours), the forecast is dead nuts wrong.  It's pathetic.  Forecasting seemed to peak in the late 90's and it has been downhill ever since.  The excuses that we make for our local "meteorologists" and vendors are astonishing.

I believe climate change and everything it entails such as altered SST's and the warming pole is playing havoc with the physics of computer models, the flipping beyond 24hrs had been extreme recent winters.

 

[WEATHERBUFF]

7 minutes ago, RedSky said:

I believe climate change and everything it entails such as altered SST's and the warming pole is playing havoc with the physics of computer models, the flipping beyond 24hrs had been extreme recent winters.

 

I agree especially when they overplay the cold and underestimate the warmth.

[Ralph Wiggum]

I believe climate change and everything it entails such as altered SST's and the warming pole is playing havoc with the physics of computer models, the flipping beyond 24hrs had been extreme recent winters.

 

Kind of made a point there for the other side. There used to be a time where it was meteorology and not modelology. Not saying Glenn model mongers.....I don't think he does, BUT there are those pros that 'forget' how to forecast IMHO and solely follow the models. True meteorology is becoming a lost art.

[snowwors2]

3 minutes ago, Ralph Wiggum said:

Kind of made a point there for the other side. There used to be a time where it was meteorology and not modelology. Not saying Glenn model mongers.....I don't think he does, BUT there are those pros that 'forget' how to forecast IMHO and solely follow the models. True meteorology is becoming a lost art.
 

 

So true...

and I believe Larry Cosgrove was/is one of the best modern day synopticians! Sadly he was "chased" from (the predecessor to) this board years ago, not by constructive criticism/questioning, but by cruel comments!

[Rockem_sockem_connection]

 

I have been lurking for years and know he pops up on here. All I said was "classic guy" so if he dislikes that, it's whatever I suppose. VERY difficult storm to forecast, I have zero problems with any mets who were wrong. I just dislike when the media tries to pretend that they were right, when they were wrong is all. Is that acceptable for me to feel that way? Don't put up a map saying everyone got 2-4" in an area, when literally everyone got over 4" in that particular zone! Tell me totals were higher than expected to due X Y Z but that general gradient for higher/lower snow amounts followed exactly as forecasted. Boom, everyone wins. You're honest but still somewhat correct, we're informed and learn something, everyone goes home happy. Or tell me I got 2-4" just like you predicted, when I am looking in my back yard and everyone else's backyard online and seeing otherwise lol. It's alright, I hardly watch the news anyway. He's got years and years of good experience, no one questions whether or not he knows his stuff, so I hope he doesn't feel like he needs to prove himself by pulling these kind of stunts because no one will get mad about a busted forecast by a few inches.

[snowwors2]

^^^^^^

I have to say, that is pretty well said...too much back-patting as I see it!!

With today's graphic packages it would have been Very easy to plot all the NWS observed total reports, create a smoothed color graphic and overlay (even his last call) so we could judge ourselves how he did (which in most cases was likely very good)!!

BTW... what's the "feels-like" temp? 

[Birds~69]

1 hour ago, snowwors2 said:

^^^^^^

I have to say, that is pretty well said...too much back-patting as I see it!!

With today's graphic packages it would have been Very easy to plot all the NWS observed total reports, create a smoothed color graphic and overlay (even his last call) so we could judge ourselves how he did (which in most cases was likely very good)!!

BTW... what's the "feels-like" temp? 

That is so damn annoying and useless....they just want to create the "wow" factor.

[snowwors2]

6 minutes ago, Birds~69 said:

That is so damn annoying and useless....they just want to create the "wow" factor.

You are absolutely correct...exactly what I told my wife (as I was grumbling at their weather spot the other night) 

[Animal]

8 hours ago, The Iceman said:

Receiving 5.5" is significantly different preparation than a coating to and inch which is what he forecasted 24 hours out for us. And preperation regarding plowing and number of snow removal personnel for a 1 to 3 event (which he changed us to 6 hours before the event I may add) is significantly different than a 3 to 6 event for this area. It was a pretty big bust around here. I went out to a local bar last night and everyone I talked to brought up how wrong the weather people were about this storm and how no one was prepared for it. Just because he posts here doesn't mean we all have to suck on his nuts.

What the heck or how do you prepare for a 5 inch storm.

What I see is that most people in the field struggle with forecasting snow.

People enjoy talking about a good old bustorama too. Not enough snow or too much snow caused a busted forecast.

snow is a visual and rain is not. Never really hear people complain about not enough or too little rain in a storm.

[ChescoWx]

10 hours ago, RedSky said:

I believe climate change and everything it entails such as altered SST's and the warming pole is playing havoc with the physics of computer models, the flipping beyond 24hrs had been extreme recent winters.

 

ugh....not for this site but as a proud card carrying climate denier - I hate any comments around something that is not a fact.....world is round = fact - global warming/climate change or whatever it is called today....not so much. If it was a fact all scientist would believe...but of course they all do not so - much more time needed. By then we will all be long gone from this world! 

[hazwoper]

23 minutes ago, ChescoPaWxman said:

ugh....not for this site but as a proud card carrying climate denier - I hate any comments around something that is not a fact.....world is round = fact - global warming/climate change or whatever it is called today....not so much. If it was a fact all scientist would believe...but of course they all do not so - much more time needed. By then we will all be long gone from this world! 

May need to tread lightly here with this ^ post.  Making yourself look a tad silly.  Stick to weather and try and fight this battle in the Climate section (you won't do well as nearly every scientist agrees with the science and understands our impacts on climate)

[ChescoWx]

9 hours ago, hazwoper said:

May need to tread lightly here with this ^ post.  Making yourself look a tad silly.  Stick to weather and try and fight this battle in the Climate section (you won't do well as nearly every scientist agrees with the science and understands our impacts on climate)

 Thanks Haz! could not have said it better "nearly every scientist" remains the key phrase - not a fact. When it is universally accepted like world is round....by all scientists - I will be a believer 

[Rockem_sockem_connection]

Forecasting is most certainly not very good these days. We all know the models are back/forth, back/forth, etc making it tough to predict. I briefly attended school for meteorology, but switched majors. Had I stuck with it, I would like to believe I would of learned a ton about atmospheric science itself, and not just how to read weather models. Perhaps the models sincerely are not very good (news flash: they are not, because not one is consistently correct) and perhaps meteorologist today rely too much on them instead of applying what they know, combined with their years of experience, to analyze current atmospheric conditions to determine what may happen in the future? Hard to say of course. We all understand no one wants to get caught calling for a blizzard only for it to bust (this just happened in recent history again though!), but I seem to recall watching Rob Guarino as a kid, and him always having more thoughts on upcoming storms before anyone else, and really did a good job of teaching viewers at home. Something has changed, but I am unsure of what that is. I know for a fact these guys can't pull up the NAM/EURO/GFS and that is it - right? There is most certainly some sort of art that has been lost along the way here, without a doubt. The forecast from all of these TV meteorologist called for conservative numbers based off of certain models. What did the NAM see that those other models did not, and why did the TV meteorologists not pick up on this? I just know there's more to the gig than staring at models and putting your faith into a solution based off of a few of them. So much science behind weather, but it just isn't being put to use.

[Hurricane Agnes]

2 hours ago, hurricane1091 said:

Forecasting is most certainly not very good these days. We all know the models are back/forth, back/forth, etc making it tough to predict. I briefly attended school for meteorology, but switched majors. Had I stuck with it, I would like to believe I would of learned a ton about atmospheric science itself, and not just how to read weather models. Perhaps the models sincerely are not very good (news flash: they are not, because not one is consistently correct) and perhaps meteorologist today rely too much on them instead of applying what they know, combined with their years of experience, to analyze current atmospheric conditions to determine what may happen in the future? Hard to say of course. We all understand no one wants to get caught calling for a blizzard only for it to bust (this just happened in recent history again though!), but I seem to recall watching Rob Guarino as a kid, and him always having more thoughts on upcoming storms before anyone else, and really did a good job of teaching viewers at home. Something has changed, but I am unsure of what that is. I know for a fact these guys can't pull up the NAM/EURO/GFS and that is it - right? There is most certainly some sort of art that has been lost along the way here, without a doubt. The forecast from all of these TV meteorologist called for conservative numbers based off of certain models. What did the NAM see that those other models did not, and why did the TV meteorologists not pick up on this? I just know there's more to the gig than staring at models and putting your faith into a solution based off of a few of them. So much science behind weather, but it just isn't being put to use.

Maybe GOES-16 will help (or not) - https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES-R-Launch

Still a ways off from what impact that will have in the future, but it will have some just due to the resolution of its instruments.

I think a lot of what we see today is also driven by the 24/7 world where schools, businesses, and governmental entities increasingly demand precise measures in order to activate certain responses to the more severe sensible weather (i.e., closures, postponements, evacuations) and that leads to model-hugging in order to tease out those numbers and report them as soon as possible.   However we have seen time and time again a long range model "see" something 10 days out and then lose it in the mid-range, and then resurrect it again in the short range/nowcast period.  IMHO, that type of whiplash seems to cause some to overthink or lose the forest for the trees.

Overall, I doubt at this point that "weather" for mass consumption will ever go back to appealing to met fans.  TWC used to do it but long sense decided to leave that niche world and go for drama over substance.

[Rockem_sockem_connection]

I would just be curious to know what goes into a forecast. We are perceiving that forecasting was more accurate at another period of time, but is that actually true? If it is true, why is it? Is it because weather models have become less reliable, or because more models are available than ever and meteorologist are being forced to pick and choose which they think are right? Aside from weather models, what else goes into a forecast? Different atmospheric conditions are looked at like the AO and NAO, and those are even discussed on here. Are models relied on too much do you think? Possible perhaps, but it would take an insider from the business to really give proper insight to the matter as to what has changed from a forecasting perspective over the years.

 

Someone could go back and look at each model, and determine the conservative models were suffering some sort of misinterpretation of data, and go into detail about what actually occurred instead. It would be up to the scientist/programmers to continue to improve weather models to increase accuracy, but I do believe the weather is just too tricky to ever be nailed down to a T from a computer model - at least at the moment. It would be up to the meteorologist of the world to look at current conditions and rely on experience to determine what is actually going to happen. A tough task indeed, and beyond my scope of knowledge for sure. I would be curious to learn about what the Euro/GFS/etc were seeing differently from what actually panned out, and why many meteorologist did not go with the solutions of the more amped models. Perhaps for no other reason than that it is safer to go with conservative numbers?

[Hurricane Agnes]

1 hour ago, hurricane1091 said:

why many meteorologist did not go with the solutions of the more amped models. Perhaps for no other reason than that it is safer to go with conservative numbers?

I think because of incidents like this (1/26 - 1/27/15) - http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Meteorologists_apologize_for_busted_forecast.html

Many were hugging the Euro and dissing the lowly GFS - http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/weather/Snow-What-went-wrong.html

I think that is why today, you are seeing folks bemoaning the rise and fall of the mighty Euro.... and as much as we laugh about being "NAM'd", I expect that sometimes the NAM does have the right idea but with the details obscured in the overdoneness of a burnt steak on the barbie.

You can hunt around and find the pbp thread(s) here in the forum of that 2015 flizzard.

[ChescoWx]

JB goin "boom" with his late Jan and Feb thoughts this evening....

"So what is the big deal with it getting warm for mid month? The fact is this reminds me alot of the 67-68 thaws, where we were in 1993 and 2013 and the thaws of of 14-15. At the end of those winters, no one was talking about the thaw, but about how long and strong winter was. Remember Endless summer. Perhaps when we get to April we may think the same thing about this winter.Yes the thaw is coming but I think it gets blown up A boom boom boom boom"

[Birds~69]

^ Sounds like he needs new subscriptions...

[MGorse]

On 1/8/2017 at 11:53 AM, svh19044 said:

 

Every single storm there is, and for the most part, they can't get right more than 24 hours out (and most of the time they don't get it right within 24 hours), the forecast is dead nuts wrong.  It's pathetic.  Forecasting seemed to peak in the late 90's and it has been downhill ever since.  The excuses that we make for our local "meteorologists" and vendors are astonishing.

Are you an expert weather forecaster? There is a ridiculous amount of model data available now, and in my opinion this can certainly cause problems. I have been a meteorologist for the NWS now for over a decade and there is only so much time to look at model guidance and coordinate with neighboring offices and national centers, plus to complete all the forecast database grid editing. More and more data but not more time to look at it. 

[zenmsav6810]

1 hour ago, MGorse said:

Are you an expert weather forecaster? There is a ridiculous amount of model data available now, and in my opinion this can certainly cause problems. I have been a meteorologist for the NWS now for over a decade and there is only so much time to look at model guidance and coordinate with neighboring offices and national centers, plus to complete all the forecast database grid editing. More and more data but not more time to look at it. 

 

 

Interesting to put it that way. I never thought of it from that perspective before. Basically, you are saying its harder to make a good forecast because there are simply more duties and less time to sit back and take a good think.

[penndotguy]

2 hours ago, zenmsav6810 said:

Interesting to put it that way. I never thought of it from that perspective before. Basically, you are saying its harder to make a good forecast because there are simply more duties and less time to sit back and take a good think.

Mt Holly has been spot on with my area so far,  they can only work with what the Computers give them then use their education and experience from there. 

[zenmsav6810]

8 hours ago, penndotguy said:

Mt Holly has been spot on with my area so far,  they can only work with what the Computers give them then use their education and experience from there. 

I think mount holly has been excellent this season. Im in no way criticizing just trying to understand the prevailing consensus attitude of forecasting using modern models at nws.

[ChescoWx]

All I can say is we have by far the best NWFO in the country! I do not say that lightly...the reputation of Mt. Holly is top notch!!

I love to hear other opinions like JB / DT / WB / LC etc. - however when push comes to shove my only go to spot for the best forecast is unquestionably my NWS point and click!!

Keep up the great work NWSFO Mount Holly!!

 

[Rockem_sockem_connection]

13 hours ago, MGorse said:

Are you an expert weather forecaster? There is a ridiculous amount of model data available now, and in my opinion this can certainly cause problems. I have been a meteorologist for the NWS now for over a decade and there is only so much time to look at model guidance and coordinate with neighboring offices and national centers, plus to complete all the forecast database grid editing. More and more data but not more time to look at it. 

Very interesting, as I did mention this already but was interested to learn some insight from an insider. This is totally a loaded question, but in your mind, why is it that many TV meteorologist sided with data coming from the models with more conservative solutions, as opposed to the more aggressive solutions offered by other models? What kind of comparison goes on with current atmospheric conditions versus what is likely to happen, and why did some models simply not pick up on what actually occurred? An unrealistic question I am sure to ask, as it probably requires a lot of details to explain that we likely cannot even understand - but if you could entertain this just a bit I think it would be awesome.

 

I do find the NWS to be quite good as well - to add to what others have said.