Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,588
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Recommended Posts

Semantical argument....

 

Instead, just say "eastern New England got an extremely anomalous February due to atmospheric chaos within the already favorable longwave pattern"

 

We'll put it like that.

 

As humans who root for snow, we say "we got damned lucky" to shorten the sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

just discussing ,luck has no place in Meteorology.

 

It does when it is simply referring to chance. Chaos.

 

It is good luck for people in E SNE who post here because they like snow. It is bad luck for most other people in E SNE. But it is at least partially due to luck nonetheless-chance, chaos-regardless of whether you think it is good or bad.

 

Repeat those patterns 50 different times and you won't get the exact same result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

same goes for anything. It's semantics I agree but there was a physical process that enabled those to be lucky. Picking PowerBall correctly would be what I would consider luck because the fact you picked those numbers was a random match

Guess I am different I don't think physical processes involve luck.

 

Which of your actions brought about that pattern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semantical argument....

Instead, just say "eastern New England got an extremely anomalous February due to atmospheric chaos within the already favorable longwave pattern"

We'll put it like that.

As humans who root for snow, we say "we got damned lucky" to shorten the sentence.

:lol: Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

same goes for anything. It's semantics I agree but there was a physical process that enabled those to be lucky. Picking PowerBall correctly would be what I would consider luck because the fact you picked those numbers was a random match

Guess I am different I don't think physical processes involve luck.

 

There's an element of unpredictable chaos...in meteorology there is a physical reason for all of it.

 

But in the context of the way we are able to analyze patterns, we call the smaller physical processes that determine exact outcomes (such as if the blizzard hits us or ends up 100 miles east and whiffs, etc) "luck"...i.e. imbedded chaos that is unpredictable.

 

 

So I'm fine with people saying it's luck as long as they realize that the longwave pattern was very favorable...maybe just not to the point where we get 100" of snow in 3 weeks. The extra boost from random small chaos put it to that level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

same goes for anything. It's semantics I agree but there was a physical process that enabled those to be lucky. Picking PowerBall correctly would be what I would consider luck because the fact you picked those numbers was a random match

Guess I am different I don't think physical processes involve luck.

Of course there is a background physical process. But if given that same long wave pattern 100 times, how many would turn out exactly like last February? Short-wave timing is chance (luck) in the background long wave pattern.

I'd even say the record cold temps weren't by chance but 100" in 3 weeks did involve some "luck" or extra chance of randomness to have it play out exactly like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just bugs me when someone says we were unlucky because we didn't get the blizzard. Kind of bugs me when excuses are made blaming luck. Probably more in life than Meteorology.

I was pretty unlucky to miss 12"+ by 25 miles to my south in the blizzard. Hopefully this doesn't bug you but it's how I see it. A good band also gave an area just 7 miles to my west 12". I guess you can explain it scientifically somehow, I just don't have the answers besides being a tick unlucky regarding random atmospheric chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I agreed with his semantics thoughts. I don't agree with people saying their forecasts busted because of luck. Luck is a built in excuse. JC-CT said ENE was lucky the last five years and I mistook that semantically. I guess we have been unlucky this year.

Semantical argument....

Instead, just say "eastern New England got an extremely anomalous February due to atmospheric chaos within the already favorable longwave pattern"

We'll put it like that.

As humans who root for snow, we say "we got damned lucky" to shorten the sentence.

Will summed it up.

Just think of luck as chance and chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I agreed with his semantics thoughts. I don't agree with people saying their forecasts busted because of luck. Luck is a built in excuse. JC-CT said ENE was lucky the last five years and I mistook that semantically. I guess we have been unlucky this year.

I understand what you mean. However, sometimes very similar long wave patterns have nuances that produce different results. When tiny, minute details are changed....it's almost like you can chalk it up to luck. Luck is a laymen's terms to describe how small details affected the outcome thanks to chaos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you mean. However, sometimes very similar long wave patterns have nuances that produce different results. When tiny, minute details are changed....it's almost like you can chalk it up to luck. Luck is a laymen's terms to describe how small details affected the outcome thanks to chaos.

You could have the same pattern 100 times and still not see 100" in three weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you mean. However, sometimes very similar long wave patterns have nuances that produce different results. When tiny, minute details are changed....it's almost like you can chalk it up to luck. Luck is a laymen's terms to describe how small details affected the outcome thanks to chaos.

Yea, verification is verification....bust, bust.

I have had some "bad luck" with my snowfall totals, but it doesn't mean that they are not currently busting.

When you engage in any type of forecasting, you are tacitly agreeing to subject yourself to the perils of chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, verification is verification....bust, bust.

I have had some "and luck" with my snowfall totals, but it doesn't mean that they are not currently busting.

When you engage in any type of forecasting, you are tacitly agreeing to subject yourself to the perils of chaos.

That's the name of the game. You just hope that the pattern you picture in your head is as close as possible to working out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

never realized how boring winter is when there is nothing to track...my friend in Denver has a nice storm to track...mtns look to cash in...what a year for the rockies! and sierras!

Crushed,Eric headed to Squaw Valley. My son about to encounter his first Midwest Blizzard. Jealousy reigns supreme tonight in my meh life,lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

your overall forecasting of the general atmospheric evolution has been excellent. Nothing to do with luck. Smart intelligent thought provoking examination of the processes. Snowfall is a crap shoot. Some say luck others say different evolution than for seen at long range. When someone says they were unlucky with their forecasts they missed something. Ownership like you have done is what I mean, using the term luck seems like an excuse.

Well, what I mean was because I have had a pretty good handle on the overall pattern, the fact that I am so far off on snow thus far has been some bad luck.....but I am not using that as a cop out.

Grading the overall concept is one thing, but snowfall is another.

 

What I would like to work on most is not getting so carried away in the future....not being so obsessive and dismissive of the opinions of others. I'm pretty satisfied with the outlook itself, regardless of how well the snowfall does or does not verify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

attributing success to hard work and failure to luck has never been my forte. Sometimes you fail even when you work hard. You worked extremely hard on this and it shows.

Yes, but 9/10 times this January would have produced more....in much the same manner that last Feb would not have produced as much.

I think that is a fair statement.....I mean, when you verify the blizzard and a Canadian $hit streak shunts it south...that is getting hosed, but it is what it is.

Same with 2010.

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...