Friday 3/4 "Last Gasp?" - Model Disco and Obs

[WEATHER53]

Lol...forecasting is about expressing confidence...whether it be low, medium or high. Decision makers need to know what our confidence is.[/quote your position Is ridiculous. The word confidence means "assurance of". What you are doing is trying to couch your forecasts so that you have a bail position. Low confidence is incompatible with the word confidence. It's partially why the populous has disdain for weatherman. But keep trying to work it both ways and I will keep pointing out the complete flaw in it

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Lol...forecasting is about expressing confidence...whether it be low, medium or high. Decision makers need to know what our confidence is.[/quote your position Is ridiculous. The word confidence means "assurance of". What you are doing is trying to couch your forecasts so that you have a bail position. Low confidence is incompatible with the word confidence. It's partially why the populous has disdain for weatherman. But keep trying to work it both ways and I will keep pointing out the complete flaw in it

 

I've generally liked a lot of what you contribute in here, but I find this to be overly cynical and not quite right, I have to say.  Forecasting of any type, perhaps most especially the weather, has inherent uncertainty.  I agree that the public can hold a lot of disdain for weather forecasters, but I don't think that's necessarily due to expressing the probability or uncertainty.  People I think nowadays appreciate seeing a confidence level, particularly in a tricky setup that can go either way.  At least they're then aware.  CWG's "boom/bust/most likely" scenarios being just one example of displaying this.  I'm sure there are some who use uncertainty as an excuse to "bail" or "CYA" (so that they can claim being correct no matter what), but most are trying to honestly state when a situation has a low degree of confidence and to "stay tuned".  You give your best estimate or range, yes, but at the same time understand the impact of that forecast and give decision makers some idea of the probability of that occurring.

[Ian]

He's not totally wrong. We've moved more more toward forecastong not involving making a real call over the years. It might be the 'best' way to do it but sometimes it seems more about minimizing potential error rather than trying to say what is going to happen.

[BTRWx]

He's not totally wrong. We've moved more more toward forecastong not involving making a real call over the years. It might be the 'best' way to do it but sometimes it seems more about minimizing potential error rather than trying to say what is going to happen.

Is that not how it should be?

[mitchnick]

He's not totally wrong. We've moved more more toward forecastong not involving making a real call over the years. It might be the 'best' way to do it but sometimes it seems more about minimizing potential error rather than trying to say what is going to happen.

You're bending over backwards to appear kind. Why we can't be blunt in this world is nauseating to me, not that I'm being critical of you. Botton line, nobody wants to be called out for being wrong and mets have found a way to appear "reasonable and scientific" but they ain't fooling me. As my late father so aptly used to say "shiat or get of the pot." I say make a real forecast and let the chips fall where they may. If you're wrong, oh well. It's worked since the early days of the NWS and the only reason for the change is not to promote the field, but to cover backsides.

[ers-wxman1]

Lol...forecasting is about expressing confidence...whether it be low, medium or high. Decision makers need to know what our confidence is.[/quote your position Is ridiculous. The word confidence means "assurance of". What you are doing is trying to couch your forecasts so that you have a bail position. Low confidence is incompatible with the word confidence. It's partially why the populous has disdain for weatherman. But keep trying to work it both ways and I will keep pointing out the complete flaw in it

You are the only person that thinks this way. We are in a whole new world of weather forecasting. The deterministic forecasts are fading away and the age of communicating forecast uncertainty is where we are at. Saying our confidence is low, medium, or high equates to the amount of uncertainty in the forecast. I make a living explaining confidence factors and range of solutions.

[ers-wxman1]

You're bending over backwards to appear kind. Why we can't be blunt in this world is nauseating to me, not that I'm being critical of you. Botton line, nobody wants to be called out for being wrong and mets have found a way to appear "reasonable and scientific" but they ain't fooling me. As my late father so aptly used to say "shiat or get of the pot." I say make a real forecast and let the chips fall where they may. If you're wrong, oh well. It's worked since the early days of the NWS and the only reason for the change is not to promote the field, but to cover backsides.

Not so. Our agency mission is to protect life and property. It's not to tell how much snow will fall in someone's backyard. The people we serve are the ones who make tough decisions like whether or not to evacuate a coast line, deploy resources to a fire, stop a fireworks show because of high winds, open an EOC to activate a national guard. Those folks absolutely need a range of solutions because many of them...particularly airlines have to make decisions based on the worst possible solution. These folks need to know the best case, most likely case, worst case scenario. I was brought to this area to develop tools and strategies to make this reality. None of our customers want a strict deterministic forecast anymore...they want to know the uncertainties.

[kurtstack]

Not so. Our agency mission is to protect life and property. It's not to tell how much snow will fall in someone's backyard. The people we serve are the ones who make tough decisions like whether or not to evacuate a coast line, deploy resources to a fire, stop a fireworks show because of high winds, open an EOC to activate a national guard. Those folks absolutely need a range of solutions because many of them...particularly airlines have to make decisions based on the worst possible solution. These folks need to know the best case, most likely case, worst case scenario. I was brought to this area to develop tools and strategies to make this reality. None of our customers want a strict deterministic forecast anymore...they want to know the uncertainties.

Exactly!!! Planners need to understand the range of possibilities and likelihood of each. Fact is we never really know exactly what is going to happen - thus a range of possibilities seems the best way to do it. While joe q public may want a deterministic forecast so he can troll it on twitter, the planners actually need the possibilities to make the best resource allocation decisions they can.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wonderdog]

You're bending over backwards to appear kind. Why we can't be blunt in this world is nauseating to me, not that I'm being critical of you. Botton line, nobody wants to be called out for being wrong and mets have found a way to appear "reasonable and scientific" but they ain't fooling me. As my late father so aptly used to say "shiat or get of the pot." I say make a real forecast and let the chips fall where they may. If you're wrong, oh well. It's worked since the early days of the NWS and the only reason for the change is not to promote the field, but to cover backsides.

They probably need to take the word "forecast" out of the lexicon. Forecast means to predict a future event. So if need be, maybe referring to future weather conditions in levels of confidence as they do now is the right thing to do. Just as long as they do not refer to a future weather event as a forecast. Semantics, but I think I grew up in the same era as Mitch and back then they were forecasts and as far as winter weather was concerned in South Jersey, the forecasts for snow were usually wrong or at least flawed because they did try to predict the weather.

[mitchnick]

They probably need to take the word "forecast" out of the lexicon. Forecast means to predict a future event. So if need be, maybe referring to future weather conditions in levels of confidence as they do now is the right thing to do. Just as long as they do not refer to a future weather event as a forecast. Semantics, but I think I grew up in the same era as Mitch and back then they were forecasts and as far as winter weather was concerned in South Jersey, the forecasts for snow were usually wrong or at least flawed because they did try to predict the weather.

Imagine a confidence forecast only to Ike in June, 1944. I think it's a bunch of malarkey and ground cover. Whatever. Time for the 0z model suite...

[ers-wxman1]

Imagine a confidence forecast only to Ike in June, 1944. I think it's a bunch of malarkey and ground cover. Whatever. Time for the 0z model suite...

I can see your point but it is not malarkey.

[Bob Chill]

A definitive forecast beyond 72 hours with a storm threat is a low batting average proposition in general. Add in "winter threat" and it gets even worse.

But I'll give it a shot...lol

1-4" overnight thurs into Friday morning. Minimal impacts on main roads. Some issues north and west of 95 before 9am but no big deal for most. Loudon schools closed.

[WinterWxLuvr]

A definitive forecast beyond 72 hours with a storm threat is a low batting average proposition in general. Add in "winter threat" and it gets even worse.

But I'll give it a shot...lol

1-4" overnight thurs into Friday morning. Minimal impacts on main roads. Some issues north and west of 95 before 9am but no big deal for most. Loudon schools closed.

I prefer the old "travelers advisory" forecast for this one. Snow likely, possible accumulations of 1-3".

I absolutely hate the max/min ranges being made publicly available. JQP has absolutely no need to know that "in a perfect scenario" there's a 2% chance that it might snow 8" Thursday night.

[Wonderdog]

A definitive forecast beyond 72 hours with a storm threat is a low batting average proposition in general. Add in "winter threat" and it gets even worse.

But I'll give it a shot...lol

1-4" overnight thurs into Friday morning. Minimal impacts on main roads. Some issues north and west of 95 before 9am but no big deal for most. Loudon schools closed.

Now that's an idea for a thread 48 hours before every winter threat. Forum members can submit their forecasts 48 hours ahead of the event and then we can compare bedpans.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

He's not totally wrong. We've moved more more toward forecastong not involving making a real call over the years. It might be the 'best' way to do it but sometimes it seems more about minimizing potential error rather than trying to say what is going to happen.

Again, I think this is a bit cymical of a view but I kind of see what you're saying all the same. I don't view it as minimizing potential error so much as expressing a very uncertain situation so that people understand. What's worse, saying "I'm saying we get 6 inches of snow (but inside you're really not sure)" and then you get 2" of slush on only the grassy areas but schools close anyhow for no real reason...or saying "most guidance is indicating 6" snow but the temperatures look marginal and there are indications it's a less impactful event, so stay tuned." Or something like that.

Sure, when you have a case like the January blizzard or the March 1993 superstorm when every model was screaming historical event days in advance, you can go tell big time decision makers that we're in for a crippling event with 18" or more and be nearly certain of it. But an event like later this week? No way, even though that is clearly a much more minor event.

Sometimes trying to sound more certain for the sake of sounding certain isn't the best way to go, and it's not always about CYA.

[Bob Chill]

I prefer the old "travelers advisory" forecast for this one. Snow likely, possible accumulations of 1-3".

I absolutely hate the max/min ranges being made publicly available. JQP has absolutely no need to know that "in a perfect scenario" there's a 2% chance that it might snow 8" Thursday night.

Travelers advisory is perfect for this one. But no sense issuing it this early of course.

[WinterWxLuvr]

Travelers advisory is perfect for this one. But no sense issuing it this early of course.

Do you remember when they stopped using the travelers advisory? I know it's been a long time ago.

[gymengineer]

I don't understand why this is even a thing. It's clear some clients/segments of the public want percent confidence type products and some clients/segments of the public want the narrative forecast. Both are *readily* available for every event-- if you despise percent confidence then just stay away from CWG or one little corner of LWX's website. You'll find the deterministic forecast right there in the zones or point-and-click. Others-- like most of my coworkers-- appreciate the confidence-based forecasts and can readily assimilate the uncertainty into a picture of what's most likely to happen vs. what may happen. 

[HighStakes]

Do you remember when they stopped using the travelers advisory? I know it's been a long time ago.

Maybe late 80's. I know they went to a snow advisory for a while before winter weather advisory.

[Interstate]

Maybe late 80's. I know they went to a snow advisory for a while before winter weather advisory.

 

Remember Heavy Snow Warnings

[BristowWx]

0z NAM looks awful to me. It's not that I believe the NAM but the 500 map looks weak to me. Weaker since 6z. This one could fade I'm sure.

[HighStakes]

Remember Heavy Snow Warnings

Yup. They used them up until about 10 years ago.

[Ian]

You're bending over backwards to appear kind. Why we can't be blunt in this world is nauseating to me, not that I'm being critical of you. Botton line, nobody wants to be called out for being wrong and mets have found a way to appear "reasonable and scientific" but they ain't fooling me. As my late father so aptly used to say "shiat or get of the pot." I say make a real forecast and let the chips fall where they may. If you're wrong, oh well. It's worked since the early days of the NWS and the only reason for the change is not to promote the field, but to cover backsides.

Well, I've been trained as a forecaster for many years now. Say things without saying anything.

 

The technological ability to predict accurately has grown considerably but forecasting weather is increasingly more and more a game of hedging. Add in the ludicrous model hugging and changing from run to run even from official sources... I think it's a lie to say forecasters are advancing in ability as fast as the technology is.

 

I don't think many or any are arguing that there should be a deterministic call from 5-7 days out that doesn't shift. That said it's not totally impossible to imagine a world where no one ever makes a call on anything and declares themselves right at every turn. (yeah that's a stretch...)  Still, part of forecasting is being wrong. You want to minimize the being wrong as much as possible but I'm not sure the best way to to obfuscate.

[Kevin Reilly]

Do you remember when they stopped using the travelers advisory? I know it's been a long time ago.

Thinking the good olde "Travlers Advisory" left us in either 1987 or 1988 or so.

[gymengineer]

Well, I've been trained as a forecaster for many years now. Say things without saying anything.

The technological ability to predict accurately has grown considerably but forecasting weather is increasingly more and more a game of hedging. Add in the ludicrous model hugging and changing from run to run even from official sources... I think it's a lie to say forecasters are advancing in ability as fast as the technology is.

I don't think many or any are arguing that there should be a deterministic call from 5-7 days out that doesn't shift. That said it's not totally impossible to imagine a world where no one ever makes a call on anything and declares themselves right at every turn. (yeah that's a stretch...) Still, part of forecasting is being wrong. You want to minimize the being wrong as much as possible but I'm not sure the best way to to obfuscate.

Right, Ian, but when you turn on WTOP and listen to the forecast, NBC4 is still saying a forecast. "1-3" for the metro area and up to 4" for the northwest suburbs." The TV weather folk are still putting out the traditional forecast range bands on their snow maps even in 2016. The internet surely has more other types of presentations of forecasts. But again, might it not be somewhat self-selecting? The people who want more find more and the people who go by the radio/TV get their forecast narrative.

[Amped]

The coastal will kill this event for northern areas. The only way we get good rates is with a strong warmfront. from the primary. The coastal scoots east to fast to help anyone but extreme eastern areas.

[Ian]

not letting me quote, so gym..

 

I dunno. I'm sort of agnostic on which method is best. I don't like hiding behind probability all that much because I don't think most people get it.. that said, it's a logical way to forecast especially if you still end up favoring something that looks like a deterministic forecast instead of just huge broad probabilities across the board-- which I think many or most do. 

 

I guess in some ways my bigger beef is we are always like "omg this is very uncertain, we can't even think properly yet.." and that's how it is 95% of the storms except for the few super blocked events that become more easily predictable. I just don't think the former is totally true. A seasoned forecaster should be able to use the increasingly quality guidance from several days out to paint a fairly accurate picture of what to expect rather than full on waffling until "things are sampled" properly or whatever. 

 

Or the idea that we should weight the CMC with any sort of weight more than like 1/2 a percent against a model like the Euro. Or how Judah Cohen is somehow still considered a good long range forecaster after failing repeatedly. It's all just very confused quite a lot of the time.

[Warm Nose]

Well, I've been trained as a forecaster for many years now. Say things without saying anything.

 

The technological ability to predict accurately has grown considerably but forecasting weather is increasingly more and more a game of hedging. Add in the ludicrous model hugging and changing from run to run even from official sources... I think it's a lie to say forecasters are advancing in ability as fast as the technology is.

 

I don't think many or any are arguing that there should be a deterministic call from 5-7 days out that doesn't shift. That said it's not totally impossible to imagine a world where no one ever makes a call on anything and declares themselves right at every turn. (yeah that's a stretch...)  Still, part of forecasting is being wrong. You want to minimize the being wrong as much as possible but I'm not sure the best way to to obfuscate.

 

I'd argue that we're seeing less and less true 'forecasters.' That is, individuals who take all data and meld it with hyperlocal knowledge and experience to come up with the most likely outcome even if it goes against the consensus.  Seems like we mostly have a bunch of people who are quick to take models and other sims as gospel and rarely question the data anymore.

[BristowWx]

The coastal will kill this event for northern areas. The only way we get good rates is with a strong warmfront. from the primary. The coastal scoots east to fast to help anyone but extreme eastern areas.

Agreed. A passing flurry Thursday night. GFS should be along to confirm this idea in 30 min. I will stay up to witness the demise of this threat and winter 15-16.

[gymengineer]

This winter was a humbling one for sure. I dove head first into an entirely new challenge and survived. I gained a lot of respect for the hard calls a lot of forecasters (especially NWS) have to make on a daily basis. It isn't easy, and it requires a lot of time and dedication. Fortunately I don't suck as much for NE as I do for the MA.

You are adjusting well to snow-forecasting in the DC area . One more thing I've been meaning to say to you, but it just hasn't come up: Picking up one-inch of snow here just doesn't happen nearly as easily as it does in New England. What I mean is, we need to see an organized precip shield on radar with sub-freezing temps before being confident that a measly inch is going to fall. We don't just score an inch of snow from a moderate burst part-way through a busted event, nor do we generally score the 1" when the models are showing a quick before a rapid transition to rain. So, we know an inch isn't just going to happen when we're looking out the window to bare ground partway through an event.