Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,608
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

The Official 2014 Fall Discussion Thread


jburns

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Copied a post of mine from main BB's ATL tropical thread:

 Still mainly for entertainment for now: Including the just run 0Z Sunday GFS, a whopping 10 GFS runs in a row have shown TC genesis in the SW Caribbean ~10/10. Actually, the last couple (at least) have shown genesis of the very weak surface low closer to 10/8-9. So, that would be only 3-4 days out. Looking back at my posts, there have been a whopping 19+ runs since 9 days ago showing something similar with largely similar timing. So, you heard that right...a run from Fri 9/26 actually had a SW Caribbean genesis ~10/10 with a strengthening TC just E of Honduras on 10/12 on its 384 hour map, very similar to what the last 10 runs have shown! This lack of slippage is unlike the June horrible debacle and somewhat different from the ~9/20-2 false TC Gulf hit from 9 of 10 runs. Also, this is a more climo favored time for SW Caribbean development than just about any other time. Furthermore, the Euro ens. MJO forecast isn't unfavorable (it is neutral). The discussion of these runs might soon move out of the just for entertainment/record keeping category soon if this keeps up for a few more runs and especially if the Euro were to give a little support like it did on yesterday's 0Z run.

 

 Specifics of last five GFS runs fwiw:

- 0Z 10/4: hits FL Big Bend 10/18 and then well off NC 10/19.

- 6Z 10/4: hits near Tampa late 10/15 as TS and then skims just offshore GA/SC/NC on 10/16

- 12Z 10/4: hits SW FL early 10/15 as strong TS/weak 'cane, goes bit offshore SE, but then curls back in to skim NE coast 10/16

- 18Z 10/4: hits SW FL very late 10/15 as TS, goes offshore E/C FL, and then hooks right/stays well offshore rest of US E coast 10/16

- 0Z 10/5: hits SW FL early 10/15 as strong TS/weak 'cane, comes out but stays along NE FL/GA coasts late 10/15, and then moves NNE somewhat inland Carolinas northward to NE 10/16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting perspective from Robert on a Facebook post this morning concerning low temperature forecasts.  It does seem to me (anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias, all that stuff...) that many TV mets are hesitant to forecast temperatures that are climatologically lower than normal very far out in the future, but the same does not appear to be true for hot temperatures.  I think the NWS (at least my local GSP office) does a much better job of reporting the likely cold scenario earlier than do the local TV mets that I watch from time to time.  Here's a snippet from Robert's rather lengthy post:

 

 

What is really interesting to me as a forecast is just how often the majority of forecasts tend to show the surface temperatures as too warm in a 3 to 7 day outlook...only to have to drop them as time gets closer.  Using statistics, you would expect a 3 to 7 day forecast to typically have about 50 % of the forecasts to go too high, and about 50% of the forecast to go to low, with a slight percentage landing right about on target.  I have noticed that the vast majority of forecasts in the 3 to 7 day range will go substantially too high on forecast temps during the cool season, when there is a cool pattern in place.  I almost never observe forecasts to go "too low" on temps.  This is true on any type of CAD event (cold air damming), any advective type of severe cold pattern , which occurred numerous times last Winter in much of the Southeast and nation as a whole, and in most cooler than normal patterns overall (trough east, ridge west).  I'm assuming there is a "group think" mentality to explain this.  And a tendency to want to forecast temps "closer to the climatological norms".  However, at WxSouth, I look at the patterns, the indidividual situation, the models themselves, and usually go with the best model that matches reality and has the hot hand ,and have to throw out model biases.  And finally will add in what normally happens in this particular situation in the past for a given area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting perspective from Robert on a Facebook post this morning concerning low temperature forecasts.  It does seem to me (anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias, all that stuff...) that many TV mets are hesitant to forecast temperatures that are climatologically lower than normal very far out in the future, but the same does not appear to be true for hot temperatures.  I think the NWS (at least my local GSP office) does a much better job of reporting the likely cold scenario earlier than do the local TV mets that I watch from time to time.  Here's a snippet from Robert's rather lengthy post:

 

 

There could very well be a regional bias from the media, especially those stations who have lead Meteorologists who have either were raised or has spent a lengthy amount of time in this region...

 

I would assume the same might apply (in reverse) for northern-based outlets predicting abnormally warm weather.

 

Speaking of WxSouth...I noticed they are hinting of another major amplification of the jet by mid-month leading to a significant storm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spoke with a TV met here in Atlanta, and he said they were restricted by station policies as to what they can do and say. He said about the only time they can open up is during live severe weather. Must vary from station to station and the confidence they have in their mets.

 

Steve, I want to make sure I understand context here.  Are you talking about TV mets in Atlanta forecasting low temperatures?  What does it mean that they can "open up"?  What station policies would restrict the mets from forecasting what weather they actually thought was going to occur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I want to make sure I understand context here.  Are you talking about TV mets in Atlanta forecasting low temperatures?  What does it mean that they can "open up"?  What station policies would restrict the mets from forecasting what weather they actually thought was going to occur?

 

 

Not meaning to answer his question...but some TV stations and management like to keep their personnel from making what would appear as bold predcitions to the general public at the risk of losing credibility if those calls did not verify.

Meanwhile there are other stations out there where management gives a little more leeway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not meaning to answer his question...but some TV stations and management like to keep their personnel from making what would appear as bold predcitions to the general public at the risk of losing credibility if those calls did not verify.

Meanwhile there are other stations out there where management gives a little more leeway...

 

They have to tip-toe around as to not make the station look bad if they are wrong. It's hard to be too wrong when you're forecasting climo.

 

Well, that must stink for them.  They can't forecast what they actually think has the greatest chance of occurring because their management have little faith in them.  Meteorology is an inexact science, you'd think people would understand it.  But, from reading Facebook posts here and there, you can see that there is a large chunk of society that think meteorologists should be able to accurately predict the future 100% of the time.  These are the ones who must call up the stations and complain, because they have no idea what they are talking about and have no sense of how difficult the job is.  I would much rather a met who was straight-up with me on air and told me what he/she really thought (even though they would be wrong sometimes) than one who is forced to just regurgitate climatological stats that I can look up for myself if I cared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would much rather a met who was straight-up with me on air and told me what he/she really thought (even though they would be wrong sometimes) than one who is forced to just regurgitate climatological stats that I can look up for myself if I cared.

 

I agree calc.  It's like wxsouth said, the errors should equal out...50% too cold, 50% too warm.  It would be interesting to see the error bias for those outlets that heavily lean climo.  Seems like Panovich in Charlotte goes against the grain a bit with his forecasts...not afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that must stink for them.  They can't forecast what they actually think has the greatest chance of occurring because their management have little faith in them.  Meteorology is an inexact science, you'd think people would understand it.  But, from reading Facebook posts here and there, you can see that there is a large chunk of society that think meteorologists should be able to accurately predict the future 100% of the time.  These are the ones who must call up the stations and complain, because they have no idea what they are talking about and have no sense of how difficult the job is.  I would much rather a met who was straight-up with me on air and told me what he/she really thought (even though they would be wrong sometimes) than one who is forced to just regurgitate climatological stats that I can look up for myself if I cared.

A bias toward climo is pretty much SOP throughout meteorology. I know Raleigh NWS will often state in their discussions that the long range appears even colder than their forecast, but they have plenty of time to adjust as it gets closer. Also, if I am not mistaken, even the models are programmed to do some the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bias toward climo is pretty much SOP throughout meteorology. I know Raleigh NWS will often state in their discussions that the long range appears even colder than their forecast, but they have plenty of time to adjust as it gets closer. Also, if I am not mistaken, even the models are programmed to do some the same thing.

 

I'm pretty sure that the MOS products (e.g. GFS MOS MEX) have climo built into them little by little the farther into the future you go, but I don't think that's the case with any of the typical model maps that we view.  MOS in that sense is a bias correction to the raw model output. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that the MOS products (e.g. GFS MOS MEX) have climo built into them little by little the farther into the future you go, but I don't think that's the case with any of the typical model maps that we view.  MOS in that sense is a bias correction to the raw model output.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. In my view, whatever the product, the longer the range the more the trend toward climo. It does make sense to do so to a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree calc.  It's like wxsouth said, the errors should equal out...50% too cold, 50% too warm.  It would be interesting to see the error bias for those outlets that heavily lean climo.  Seems like Panovich in Charlotte goes against the grain a bit with his forecasts...not afraid.

 

 

 

 

Through conversations with those in the industry I've been given the impression that Brad has the blessing of his station management and he has the green light on most anything weather-wise...given Brad's performance record he deserves that leeway.

 

 

I've also heard through inside sources that a nationally-recognized TV Meteorologist that works in the Southeast US could leave his long-time post due to recent changes in management...out of respect I won't say any names  but given the company involved, it's no surprise to me at all...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Through conversations with those in the industry I've been given the impression that Brad has the blessing of his station management and he has the green light on most anything weather-wise...given Brad's performance record he deserves that leeway.

 

 

I've also heard through inside sources that a nationally-recognized TV Meteorologist that works in the Southeast US could leave his long-time post due to recent changes in management...out of respect I won't say any names  but given the company involved, it's no surprise to me at all...

 

The fact that Brad is a full blown meteorologist with great credentials doesn't hurt.  :)  But some of these guys don't even have a meteorology degree of any type, much less a broadcast meteorology degree. :huh:

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...