Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

Met Winter 2016-17 Banter


dmillz25

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

not sure why i got five posted i guess my meteorology terms are not up to date. maybe my grammar isn't well defined. the truth is i love tracking snowstorms more than anything. i live for this. i just wanted to say that we should trust the nam and ukmet at this range. I would go with the nam, also i guarantee that the euro comes west. last night i mentioned that the models would start trending west yes i did kinda give up on this storm a few days ago but i got fished in by nam. I'm not the smartest guy but i go with my feelings when it comes to weather and guidance helps me pick my gut. if the euro doesn't come west than you can take my word with a grain of salt. I'm thinking this a 4-8 inch snow for nyc metro. 

 

i think nyc gets 2 inches tonight. its a slow moving wave and no wind so i think we get 15:1 ratios. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts on the whole forecast / verification discussion is as follows. I generally operate by attempting to accurately prognosticate a period/time frame and subsequently verify that forecast (either explaining what went wrong or right) thereafter. I usually focus on my own ideas, although there is certainly nothing wrong with comparing various forecasts in the spirit of friendly competition. Moreover, issuing a forecast does open one up for potential criticism in the event that the forecast does not progress as planned. As long as these critiques are devoid of ad hominem, I see no issue with post forecast critique. That is the nature of the beast and people will hold you accountable for forecasts. One could argue that forecasting is sometimes a thankless endeavor given there's often a focus on someone's poor call, but this is why I believe it necessary to verify and recognize all forecasts - examining why a call busted or succeeded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, psv88 said:

Yes. I never understand experienced hobbyists latching onto the NAM like that. It's like groundhog day. 

Now we are back to "thunderstorms in the gulf may pull this system NW". 

I expect this stuff from newbies, but not from seasoned hobbyists. Unfortunately, those of us who challenge these ideas are often attacked. 

These are supposed to be weather boards for the objective forecasting and following of the weather. They are not wishcasting boards, which many, not just this board, have become. In fact, this board is less so than some others, which are over the top. 

You called wave 2 dead less than 48 hrs ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

You called wave 2 dead less than 48 hrs ago. 

Dead ? You are totally wrong .

I said wave 2 rides along the Arctic boundary

  8 days ago - go back and check .

With 500 looking like that you will see SN to NYC and beyond - this is 15:1 so .4 give 6 and .7 is 10. W to E

IF I am wrong I call BUST

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

You called wave 2 dead less than 48 hrs ago. 

Yea, when all of the models, including the NAM, had less for Wave 2 than Wave 1. 

But when the NAM showed me getting 2 feet, i didnt go out and buy a new snowblower. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, psv88 said:

Yea, when all of the models, including the NAM, had less for Wave 2 than Wave 1. 

But when the NAM showed me getting 2 feet, i didnt go out and buy a new snowblower. 

Meteorology, not modelology, right? Thought a seasoned hobbyist would know better than to declare a threat dead 48 hrs out ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BxEngine said:

Meteorology, not modelology, right? Thought a seasoned hobbyist would know better than to declare a threat dead 48 hrs out ;)

I dont think i actually called it dead.

And even based on meteorology, the threat looked piss poor. The better sampling changed that. 

But it isnt about who wins or loses, its about not hyping up an event based on one model. Very different than being down on a storm because no models show it haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, danstorm said:

Dead ? You are totally wrong .

I said wave 2 rides along the Arctic boundary

  8 days ago - go back and check .

With 500 looking like that you will see SN to NYC and beyond - this is 15:1 so .4 give 6 and .7 is 10. W to E

IF I am wrong I call BUST

Even the spacing between the end of a word and the period - very nice.

9 out of 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psv88 said:

I dont think i actually called it dead.

And even based on meteorology, the threat looked piss poor. The better sampling changed that. 

But it isnt about who wins or loses, its about not hyping up an event based on one model. Very different than being down on a storm because no models show it haha.

Nah you didnt call it dead, but you specifically agreed with someone who did. Just pointing out that no one is perfect, time for cooler heads to prevail, especially in non banter threads. I just like busting your balls ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BxEngine said:

Nah you didnt call it dead, but you specifically agreed with someone who did. Just pointing out that no one is perfect, time for cooler heads to prevail, especially in non banter threads.

I agree. Cooler heads meaning not calling for a MECS based solely on the NAM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IrishRob17 said:

Referring to the last winter discussion, a blizzard and a severe cold shot doesn't save a winter in my book.  Sure, one hit wonders are entertaining but I prefer a band with lots of material. To each their own, just my two cents. 

It got us to average while without it would've been a top 5 lowest snowfall year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BxEngine said:

And not declaring a threat dead then getting mad at someone else for doing the same thing. See what i mean?

Huh? 

Enough with the trolling man. It's getting old. 

He was calling it dead DESPITE all modeling showing otherwise. 

I was down on it because ALL MODELING showed it dead. 

Get it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, psv88 said:

Huh? 

Enough with the trolling man. It's getting old. 

He was calling it dead DESPITE all modeling showing otherwise. 

I was down on it because ALL MODELING showed it dead. 

Get it now?

Im not trolling even a little. You agreed it was dead. you werent "down" on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

It got us to average while without it would've been a top 5 lowest snowfall year

True and it was an awesome storm for many, everyone knows I didn't come close to half of average last year.  Like I said, to each their own.  Maybe if I got the blizzard I'd see it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IrishRob17 said:

True and it was an awesome storm for many, everyone knows I didn't come close to half of average last year.  Like I said, to each their own.  Maybe if I got the blizzard I'd see it differently.

You guys got hosed last winter, no question.

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...