November Banter

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

Larry, what ENSO state did you use?  Weak/Moderate/Neutral?  Did you take into account what the ENSO state was in November or did you take Dec-Feb?  What is considered as a normal/cold/warm winter?  Atlanta typically favors colder pattern in weak ENSO years, that is skewing the results and leading people to believe that a cold Nov has the impact as opposed to the weak ENSO state which tends to produce colder winters.  Also as has been stated the colder years are from way, way back.  That was a colder time periods in general which also skews the results.  There are lots of questions here and as I said earlier a slight change here or there will change the encore result.  Sorry, but your stats don't prove or disprove anything imo,  They are interesting but not of predictive value imo.

Wha...??? You must be trolling...

[DaculaWeather]

Why are you so hung up on what Larry presented and not taking in all the other winter forecasts from mets that have presented on here?

Because he just wants to nit-pick something that he didn't want to take the time to do himself. 

 

Mari... if you question Larry's stats, why don't you come up with your own numbers and pick and choose how you do that, and then present that as a rebuttal. 

 

You obviously don't like Larry's stats so come up with your own instead of having other people do your work. You have questions, then do your own research.

[LithiaWx]

Because he just wants to nit-pick something that he didn't want to take the time to do himself. 

 

Mari... if you question Larry's stats, why don't you come up with your own numbers and pick and choose how you do that, and then present that as a rebuttal. 

 

You obviously don't like Larry's stats so come up with your own instead of having other people do your work. You have questions, then do your own research.

 

I want a cold and snowy winter like everyone else.  I think the odds are in our favor for a colder and possibly snowier winter than normal.  That said I don't believe Gawx's stats about November reinforce the idea that this winter will be colder and snowier than normal.  There are too many if's and variables that I have laid out a few times in the past hour or so regarding his conclusions.

[Brick Tamland]

I want a cold and snowy winter like everyone else.  I think the odds are in our favor for a colder and possibly snowier winter than normal.  That said I don't believe Gawx's stats about November reinforce the idea that this winter will be colder and snowier than normal.  There are too many if's and variables that I have laid out a few times in the past hour or so regarding his conclusions.

 

There are always a lot of ifs and variables when it comes to snow here. But you can't ignore the evidence that has been presented that it looks more positive than negative. Larry's research is just one more piece of evidence. 

[packbacker]

I'll wait for Larry to answer, but thank you for your attempt to answer my outstanding questions.  I seriously doubt he took the ENSO state as Neutral which is where we are right now.  He probably used a weak Nino which isn't guaranteed.  He also didn't include what a normal Nov is or what he considered a warm/cold/normal winter. 

 

If the temps listed are for November that's great but what criteria did you use for determining if a winter was cold/normal/warm..  There are outstanding questions here and I do still think a slight change in what one considers cold/warm/neutral or what ENSO we actually end up with could change everything.

 

Lastly, if a November started with a weak ENSO and continued into Dec-Feb, that could be a different set of analog years than if Nov was neutral and ended up Weak for Dec-Feb.  There are a lot of variables that are yet to be determined and can be altered just slightly(and still be correct) giving you a completely different outcome.

 

Your over thinking this...this is what he stated when he posted it originally " I looked at anything from high end neutral positive through low end moderate El Nino (33 winters) at KATL. Here is what I found for the respective winters going from coldest Nov. to warmest Nov.:'

 

His numbers showed that the colder Novembers tend to precede colder than average winters (Dec-Feb) in high end neutral to low end moderate Nino's.  The ENSO state for this winter is probably going to be right in between a warm neutral and low end moderate nino, his parameters book ended things nicely. 

[Bevo]

I don't have a problem with it at all. I do think though that Larry has a good track record of statistical analysis around here and therefore isn't likely to lead anyone astray for the sake of what he hopes to find vs. what is there. You also have to be aware that anytime anyone here gets into an argument with someone who is respected there will be people who take that person's side just in defense. That's human nature and it doesn't transcend a keyboard. 

 

I'm not overly confident in the snowy winter forecasts myself. And given the performance of the last 3 winters (especially last year), I will never believe one can take the prettiest of indices to the bank. Last year should not have performed the way it did (on paper). I can relate to Marietta - and most of the forum members here know that I am one care away from giving zero "F's" about people taking my opinions personally. I post what I believe to be truth and/or my opinion. I try to do it respectfully, but I won't take responsibility for someone's personal inference.

 

And that's really what this is, isn't it? It's similar to the "college football fanbase axiom" in which anyone posting a forum opinion contrary to the popular consensus is automatically labelled as a posing spy from the rival team and not allowed to speak - truth or not.

 

Taking sides because of human nature - which is absolutely a true phenomenon - does nothing for advancement.

 

When making such long range progs for cold/snowy or warm/dry winters, I believe that looking for reasons it won't materialize is just as important as looking at all the data implying that it should.

 

We'll call this "Marietta's Razor". Every single forecaster has some level of assumption riddled within their solutions. He's just looking for the one with the least amount.

[Brick Tamland]

I'm not overly confident in the snowy winter forecasts myself. And given the performance of the last 3 winters (especially last year), I will never believe one can take the prettiest of indices to the bank. Last year should not have performed the way it did (on paper). I can relate to Marietta - and most of the forum members here know that I am one care away from giving zero "F's" about people taking my opinions personally. I post what I believe to be truth and/or my opinion. I try to do it respectfully, but I won't take responsibility for someone's personal inference.

 

And that's really what this is, isn't it? It's similar to the "college football fanbase axiom" in which anyone posting a forum opinion contrary to the popular consensus is automatically labelled as a posing spy from the rival team and not allowed to speak - truth or not.

 

Taking sides because of human nature - which is absolutely a true phenomenon - does nothing for advancement.

 

When making such long range progs for cold/snowy or warm/dry winters, I believe that looking for reasons it won't materialize is just as important as looking at all the data implying that it should.

 

We'll call this "Marietta's Razor". Every single forecaster has some level of assumption riddled within their solutions. He's just looking for the one with the least amount.

 

I think the mets that have given their winter forecasts have looked at everything. And most of them have concluded the evidence is more in favor of a winter with above average snow than not. Maybe it won't happen and maybe it'll be a bust. Even App State beat Michigan in football once. Upsets can happen. But what the mets and others are saying is the evidence is more in favor of a big winter, and there is no reason to be so pessimistic about it at this stage. It just goes against the evidence, and the only reason for doing so is just for the sake of being pessimistic.

[LithiaWx]

Being skeptical is what advances science.  I will continue to do so.  Some can call it pessimism, or cynicism.  I call it skepticism and that imo is healthy.  I appreciate all of the constructive comments that some have said to me.  Discussion is a good thing and it should never be quelled even if it's not what someone wants to hear.

[Bevo]

I think the mets that have given their winter forecasts have looked at everything. And most of them have concluded the evidence is more in favor of a winter with above average snow than not. Maybe it won't happen and maybe it'll be a bust. Even App State beat Michigan in football once. Upsets can happen. But what the mets and others are saying is the evidence is mor ein favor of a big winter, and there is no reason to be so pessimistic about it at this stage. It just goes against the evidence, and the only reason for doing so is just for the sake of being pessimistic.

 

There is no reason to be anything at this stage.

 

How did all the cold and snowy forecasts for the 2011-2012 winter work out - despite the "evidence"? Or maybe it was 2012-2013...they are both the same as far as I'm concerned.

 

That 2010-2011 winter that the local mets here progged to be disappointing? Nope.

 

Why would I be anything at this point - positive or negative? And although I do appreciate your seeming willingness to be more substantiative in your posts, what you believe about the upcoming winter has no relevance/affect on the actual outcome.

 

Bulldozing Marietta's (or anyone's) opinions and questions because you just don't like them is not up for consideration.

[Brick Tamland]

Being skeptical is what advances science.  I will continue to do so.  Some can call it pessimism, or cynicism.  I call it skepticism and that imo is healthy.  I appreciate all of the constructive comments that some have said to me.  Discussion is a good thing and it should never be quelled even if it's not what someone wants to hear.

 

Even if it goes against the preponderance of evidence presented by a lot of mets and others on here? 

 

[DaculaWeather]

That's fine, be skeptical, but dig for your own data instead of trying to pick apart something that someone else did. If you were truly skeptical, you would be doing that anyway. 

[Brick Tamland]

There is no reason to be anything at this stage.

 

How did all the cold and snowy forecasts for the 2011-2012 winter work out - despite the "evidence"? Or maybe it was 2012-2013...they are both the same as far as I'm concerned.

 

That 2010-2011 winter that the local mets here progged to be disappointing? Nope.

 

Why would I be anything at this point - positive or negative? And although I do appreciate your seeming willingness to be more substantiative in your posts, what you believe about the upcoming winter has no relevance/affect on the actual outcome.

 

Bulldozing Marietta's (or anyone's) opinions and questions because you just don't like them is not up for consideration.

 

 

It has nothing to do with liking them or not. It has everything to do with the fact that most mets have said this winter should see above average snowfall here and have given plenty of evidence why. It makes no sense to be so pessimistic when it goes against all the evidence. In the past there have been a lot of ifs and maybes and such. I don't recall ever seeing so many forecasts with so much evidence for a big winter as I have this winter since I have been on these weather boards. Based on what all the mets have said and their scientific evidence, there is a lot more reason to be optimistic than pessimistic about this winter if you want snow.

[Bevo]

Even if it goes against the preponderance of evidence presented by a lot of mets and others on here? 

 

 

I think I understand why you're struggling with M's skepticism. You seem to be confusing assumption with factual evidence.

 

You do realize that - while productive and very helpful - using analogs is still pretty much "assumption" at the end of the day, right? We are assuming that if "this" and "this" occur, then "that" and "those" should be the outcome.

[LithiaWx]

Even if it goes against the preponderance of evidence presented by a lot of mets and others on here? 

 

 

I have not had a pessimistic post about this winter.  Please show me one where I claim that the mets with cold forecasts will be wrong.  I replied to Gawx about his theory that a cold November will portend a colder winter.  I am skeptical of that assumption and have stated why many times. 

[jburns]

He came up with the results by looking at winters of the past and seeing  what the conditions were then. What other parameters does he need?

 

Well, if you look at the history AmWx and EasternWx, you could easily claim that most members could look at the pattern on an old paisley shirt and come up with a cold winter forecast.  It will be what it will be.  Same as any other year. 

[GaWx]

Being skeptical is what advances science.  I will continue to do so.  Some can call it pessimism, or cynicism.  I call it skepticism and that imo is healthy.  I appreciate all of the constructive comments that some have said to me.  Discussion is a good thing and it should never be quelled even if it's not what someone wants to hear.

 

1)  Marietta just said this in regard to my November analysis:

 

 'It's not scientific, period.  The current ESNO is not even weak nino yet, it may end up there but are we basing this on the current state or weak nino?  Also what constitutes a normal or cold November or a normal/cold/warm winter?  The stats don't prove anything.  I hate to be that harsh but they are of no predictive value as you can manipulate those numbers a bunch of different ways and come out with a different look."

 

 This isn't discussion. This is bashing. I'm not going to waste my time so that he can nitpick at me on every response and try to force me into a corner.

 

2) Thanks for the support from others here. It is much appreciated because it will probably tend to come across as more credible than if only I defend myself.

[LithiaWx]

That's fine, be skeptical, but dig for your own data instead of trying to pick apart something that someone else did. If you were truly skeptical, you would be doing that anyway. 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone is going to post their thoughts they need to be prepared for some to pick apart and try and verify what they are saying is in fact accurate.  Just because Larry has a long track record of providing invaluable information does not mean his posts should be taken as gospel with no skepticism.

[calculus1]

Pitchforks, and people wonder why nobody will come out on the warm/skeptical side of things.  This is why you see cold and snowy forecasts.  If you don't you get shouted down as ignorant of science, pessimistic, and unreasonable.

 

MariettaWx, I think the pitchforks have been pointed your way, not because of your skepticism, but because of your method of engagement.  Your initial posts today came across as confrontational.  Your posts read like you were picking a fight, not rationally debating a viewpoint.

 

(I also know you didn't ask for my opinion on the matter, and yet I just offered it here.)

 

Brick, you just pulled out a million-dollar word in the discussion thread:  preponderance.

[Bevo]

It has nothing to do with liking them or not. It has everything to do with the fact that most mets have said this winter should see above average snowfall here and have given plenty of evidence why. It makes no sense to be so pessimistic when it goes against all the evidence. In the past there have been a lot of ifs and maybes and such. I don't recall ever seeing so many forecasts with so much evidence for a big winter as I have this winter since I have been on these weather boards. Based on what all the mets have said and their scientific evidence, there is a lot more reason to be optimistic than pessimistic about this winter if you want snow.

 

"Evidence" - you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Most of what you are reading as "scientific evidence" is actually closer to "scientific theory". Nothing has occurred in the months of December, January and February. Unless someone has successfully bent the space/time continuum.

 

*** Plot twist: We will find out that it was, in fact, Brick who broke the laws of space and time ***

[calculus1]

"Evidence" - you keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

 

Most of what you are reading as "scientific evidence" is actually closer to "scientific theory". Nothing has occurred in the months of December, January and February. Unless someone has successfully bent the space/time continuum.

 

*** Plot twist: We will find out that it was, in fact, Brick who broke the laws of space and time ***

 

My name is Inigo Montoya...

[Bevo]

My name is Inigo Montoya...

 

Didn't have time to make a meme. I figured most people know it by now anyway, so it would not be lost.

[Brick Tamland]

"Evidence" - you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Most of what you are reading as "scientific evidence" is actually closer to "scientific theory". Nothing has occurred in the months of December, January and February. Unless someone has successfully bent the space/time continuum.

 

*** Plot twist: We will find out that it was, in fact, Brick who broke the laws of space and time ***

 

Well, what else are we supposed to use as evidence when it comes to forecasting other than science and what we have known to happen in the past with similar conditions and indicators? That's what we use as evidence unless we can travel into the future. 

[snowlover91]

Being skeptical is what advances science. I will continue to do so. Some can call it pessimism, or cynicism. I call it skepticism and that imo is healthy. I appreciate all of the constructive comments that some have said to me. Discussion is a good thing and it should never be quelled even if it's not what someone wants to hear.

One should always put weight where the evidence demands it, and when the majority of evidence lends itself to show something one should first examine that theory and see the validity of it. The evidence by not only Larry but countless other mets suggests that the data is pointing to a colder than normal winter, and to go against the evidence is not scientific in any way. Asking questions is good, but you will find all your questions have been addressed by the different forecasters. Some mentioned the solar peak, possibility of it going La Niña instead of El Niño, and lack of blocking as possibilities that could mess the winter forecasts up yet showed why those are highly unlikely. When it comes to weather forecasting and the science behind it, you must use the tools you have and forecast based on the highest level of evidence given. When using computer models, we understand certain ones have a bias and must account for that in medium to long range, even short range, forecasts. For example, the NAM is often very wet and sometimes too amplified in winter, but it gives you a good idea what will happen inside 48 hours. The Euro is great at picking up long range patterns, but it sometimes misses as well. No model has 100% accuracy or verification scores, that is fact. Yet we shouldn't discard them because they aren't 100% accurate and fool proof, they are a tool to use in forecasting and extremely helpful.

I say all this to say that when one does seasonal forecasting, one must use the evidence and historical evidence to find possible correlations and similarities in which the pattern may repeat in a similar fashion. Larry and many other mets have done their research and used statistics of past years as well as other metrics to predict this winter. Does that mean it will verify exactly like they say? No, not necessarily, just as computer models don't verify with that pinpoint accuracy. However these statistics and research are vital to scientifically advance weather forecasting. To go against all evidence to the contrary and say you have no idea what will happen and to bash someone who has provided ample evidence is not only foolish but highly unscientific. If you're going to be scientific, try asking these questions and going with the outcome which has the most evidence in its support. That would be a wise starting point. This winter will likely be far colder than average, I see sufficient evidence to make this conclusion based on statistics, history, and weather patterns which lend strong evidence to this happening. While there is always "bust" potential, that certainly is no valid reason for discrediting the evidence and pattern being set up. Just my 2 cents on this topic, I certainly wouldn't want a torch for November, that would take longer to establish needed snow cover to our north and would make me question if the winter would be cold as forecast, a cold November is right in line with better chances for a cold winter. It may not happen but I'll go with the evidence I see the largest support for.

GaWx, I appreciate your posts and please do keep posting your research as I thoroughly enjoy reading it.

[frazdaddy]

1)  Marietta just said this in regard to my November analysis:

 

 'It's not scientific, period.  The current ESNO is not even weak nino yet, it may end up there but are we basing this on the current state or weak nino?  Also what constitutes a normal or cold November or a normal/cold/warm winter?  The stats don't prove anything.  I hate to be that harsh but they are of no predictive value as you can manipulate those numbers a bunch of different ways and come out with a different look."

 

 This isn't discussion. This is bashing. I'm not going to waste my time so that he can nitpick at me on every response and try to force me into a corner.

 

2) Thanks for the support from others here. It is much appreciated because it will probably tend to come across as more credible than if only I defend myself.

One only needs to read the main forum to see how well respected your analysis is.

 

Being skeptical is what advances science.  I will continue to do so.  Some can call it pessimism, or cynicism.  I call it skepticism and that imo is healthy.  I appreciate all of the constructive comments that some have said to me.  Discussion is a good thing and it should never be quelled even if it's not what someone wants to hear.

Skepticism without backing it up with data to the contrary is not productive for the debate

[LithiaWx]

So the science of what has happened in the past isn't evidence?

 

Picking 33 analog years (using criteria that can be slightly manipulated to give different years) from one reporting station and claiming that you can take those results and forecast future outcomes isn't a method based in science.  Correlation does not equal causation and there are other factors you have to consider that aren't being discussed.

[Brick Tamland]

Picking 33 analog years (using criteria that can be slightly manipulated to give different years) from one reporting station and claiming that you can take those results and forecast future outcomes isn't a method based in science.  Correlation does not equal causation and there are other factors you have to consider that aren't being discussed.

 

Why do you keep bringing up that one thing? I am talking about all the other mets and what they have said about things pointing to this being a big winter. You have to take all of the indicators as a whole and judge things based on that. Larry's research is just one more indicator that is favorable for a big winter. 

[LithiaWx]

I have not had a pessimistic post about this winter.  Please show me one where I claim that the mets with cold forecasts will be wrong.  I replied to Gawx about his theory that a cold November will portend a colder winter.  I am skeptical of that assumption and have stated why many times. 

 

 

Why do you keep bringing up that one thing? I am talking about all the other mets and what they have said about things pointing to this being a big winter. You have to take all of the indicators as a whole and judge things based on that. Larry's research is just one more indicator that is favorable for a big winter. 

 

Please read my post from earlier that I just quoted.

[Bevo]

So the science of what has happened in the past isn't evidence?

 

 

Thank you, Brick. You've been incredible!!

 

I did say productive and helpful, didn't I? You missed that part, did you?

 

However, it's never going to be the tool that gives difinitive answers. It can certainly guide us. But if you are banking on the parameters yeilding the same results, you've missed the last three winters somehow.

 

Brick, you have to inject some amount of reason. Larry certainly does. It's not like he's throwing around a bunch of numbers like a candy tosser in a parade. But there are two sides to every coin - it is not unreasonable to look at both.

[snowlover91]

Picking 33 analog years (using criteria that can be slightly manipulated to give different years) from one reporting station and claiming that you can take those results and forecast future outcomes isn't a method based in science.  Correlation does not equal causation and there are other factors you have to consider that aren't being discussed.

I think you missed this little tidbit from his original post... "I looked at anything from high end neutral positive through low end moderate El Nino (33 winters) at KATL. Here is what I found for the respective winters going from coldest Nov. to warmest Nov.:'

[frazdaddy]

"Evidence" - you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

Most of what you are reading as "scientific evidence" is actually closer to "scientific theory". Nothing has occurred in the months of December, January and February. Unless someone has successfully bent the space/time continuum.

 

*** Plot twist: We will find out that it was, in fact, Brick who broke the laws of space and time ***

In the context that he used. The evidence are the indicators that have happened and are known facts.