Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,607
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

February Banter Thread


George BM

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
22 minutes ago, Tenman Johnson said:

So March is magic now and not early to mid Feb?

have not used this term in a long time but it's useful now-the Pied Pipers of winter weather

Wth are you talking about?  Who said march was going to be great or that it was going to snow?  

Some are discussing possibilities.  Everyone has said any threat is very low probability. I've not seen anyone predict snow. If we discuss something that has a 10% chance that's not predicting snow. We're just having fun speculating and looking for signs of hope. That's it. Then the usual suspects chime in with this crap again. 

If you think snow is unlikely I can't argue with you. But if you think the fact is hasnt snowed a lot means we can't get a single good event the rest of the way then you are ignorant of history because there are plenty of years that we had crap going into late feb or march then got a fluke snowstorm. And several examples are ninas. 

So even if it's a long shot it's a shot and so we will discuss it. Do you think we should just close up shop every time things aren't looking great?   I'm curious what you think this thread should look like. Since you and some others chime in daily with complaints about how we talk in here what should the long range thread be like. 

I'm serious. This is an open invite to all the chronic complainers about how the discussion in here goes to explain in detail what you think this thread should look like in your perfect world. Educate is to how we should talk about the long range. Please. Because I'm tired of the constant whining about how we do talk about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

Wth are you talking about?  Who said march was going to be great or that it was going to snow?  

Some are discussing possibilities.  Everyone has said any threat is very low probability. I've not seen anyone predict snow. If we discuss something that has a 10% chance that's not predicting snow. We're just having fun speculating and looking for signs of hope. That's it. Then the usual suspects chime in with this crap again. 

If you think snow is unlikely I can't argue with you. But if you think the fact is hasnt snowed a lot means we can't get a single good event the rest of the way then you are ignorant of history because there are plenty of years that we had crap going into late feb or march then got a fluke snowstorm. And several examples are ninas. 

So even if it's a long shot it's a shot and so we will discuss it. Do you think we should just close up shop every time things aren't looking great?   I'm curious what you think this thread should look like. Since you and some others chime in daily with complaints about how we talk in here what should the long range thread be like. 

I'm serious. This is an open invite to all the chronic complainers about how the discussion in here goes to explain in detail what you think this thread should look like in your perfect world. Educate is to how we should talk about the long range. Please. Because I'm tired of the constant whining about how we do talk about it. 

Glad to see you are still fighting the good fight. But it has been obvious for awhile that no manner of reasonable discourse or even somewhat rough discourse is going to dissuade them from totally trashing the thread and making everyone just as miserable as they are. And as far as the type of thread they want? I think they are already getting it as many have quit even making an effort to post about the models. Just mind boggling that grown adults can be so self absorbed that they can ruin something for others. It is no better then a preschooler taking another child's toy and breaking it just because they can't enjoy it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

satoransky is a good perimeter defender, but definitely delegates a bit much on offense.  the wiz need less delegators (which for some reason is showing up as a misspelled word here) and a couple more alpha scorers.  tough stretch for them continues with chicago on saturday, a team with multiple players on the floor who can get to the basket similar to boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BTRWx's Thanks Giving said:

That's meteorology!

climo and persistence is one piece of the puzzle that is meteorology.   Yes climo and pattern should be incorporated into any forecast.  But ignoring changes and synoptic scale features and base 100 percent of a forecast solely on climo or persistance and just play the odds is bad forecasting IMO.  Yes you will be right more then 50% of the time but you will miss every anomaly.  Climo is made up of a wide range of weather.  Look at one of our best winters ever.  2009/10.  We started with a huge HECS...then went through a period that had many complaining that the year was turning into a let down after a fast start....then we went on our best heater of all time....then ended the year with 2 misses.  How would persistence have worked then?  Persistence from December would have argued more snow in January.  Persistence in January would have argued no snow in early Feb.  Then persistence would have argued we shouldnt have missed the big storms in late feb and early march.  

On a longer time scale persistence doesn't always work for a whole season even when one looks persistent...  Like my 1976 example.  1942 Baltimore had almost no snow going into March then got over 20".  1958 sucked into February then had 2 HECS storms.  1997 only had one decent snow in February.  1999 and 2009 in march.  

Persistence works until it doesn't.  What is annoying is I throw these factual statistics of anomalies that happened in an otherwise snowless winter out there EVERY time this persistence "it can't snow because it hasnt snowed" argument comes up and it doesn't matter because the same stuff gets drug up the next time and the next time no matter how many statistics show its nonsense.  Is snow less likely in a year that hasn't been snowy...yes duh...but does that mean we cant get a fluke snowstorm and should ive up...NO history doesn't support that either.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, showmethesnow said:

Glad to see you are still fighting the good fight. But it has been obvious for awhile that no manner of reasonable discourse or even somewhat rough discourse is going to dissuade them from totally trashing the thread and making everyone just as miserable as they are. And as far as the type of thread they want? I think they are already getting it as many have quit even making an effort to post about the models. Just mind boggling that grown adults can be so self absorbed that they can ruin something for others. It is no better then a preschooler taking another child's toy and breaking it just because they can't enjoy it themselves.

You make a good point.  I had no idea facts would scare away people, but you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

climo and persistence is one piece of the puzzle that is meteorology.   Yes climo and pattern should be incorporated into any forecast.  But ignoring changes and synoptic scale features and base 100 percent of a forecast solely on climo or persistance and just play the odds is bad forecasting IMO.  Yes you will be right more then 50% of the time but you will miss every anomaly.  Climo is made up of a wide range of weather.  Look at one of our best winters ever.  2009/10.  We started with a huge HECS...then went through a period that had many complaining that the year was turning into a let down after a fast start....then we went on our best heater of all time....then ended the year with 2 misses.  How would persistence have worked then?  Persistence from December would have argued more snow in January.  Persistence in January would have argued no snow in early Feb.  Then persistence would have argued we shouldnt have missed the big storms in late feb and early march.  

On a longer time scale persistence doesn't always work for a whole season even when one looks persistent...  Like my 1976 example.  1942 Baltimore had almost no snow going into March then got over 20".  1958 sucked into February then had 2 HECS storms.  1997 only had one decent snow in February.  1999 and 2009 in march.  

Persistence works until it doesn't.  What is annoying is I throw these factual statistics of anomalies that happened in an otherwise snowless winter out there EVERY time this persistence "it can't snow because it hasnt snowed" argument comes up and it doesn't matter because the same stuff gets drug up the next time and the next time no matter how many statistics show its nonsense.  Is snow less likely in a year that hasn't been snowy...yes duh...but does that mean we cant get a fluke snowstorm and should ive up...NO history doesn't support that either.  

I can appreciate all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, showmethesnow said:

Glad to see you are still fighting the good fight. But it has been obvious for awhile that no manner of reasonable discourse or even somewhat rough discourse is going to dissuade them from totally trashing the thread and making everyone just as miserable as they are. And as far as the type of thread they want? I think they are already getting it as many have quit even making an effort to post about the models. Just mind boggling that grown adults can be so self absorbed that they can ruin something for others. It is no better then a preschooler taking another child's toy and breaking it just because they can't enjoy it themselves.

I took 4 days off from posting at all and it actually seemed pretty tame in there...albeit without much discussion going on except a few really good posts from bob and you and a few others....so I decided to dip back in and immediately the "why are we doing this" BS starts up again.  What I don't get is no one is making them read or post in there.  If they don't like long range discussions why go in there and this sh!t all over the rest of us that want to talk about it.  Do they not want it to even exist and so they want to ruin it and chase everyone out of there?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psuhoffman said:

I took 4 days off from posting at all and it actually seemed pretty tame in there...albeit without much discussion going on except a few really good posts from bob and you and a few others....so I decided to dip back in and immediately the "why are we doing this" BS starts up again.  What I don't get is no one is making them read or post in there.  If they don't like long range discussions why go in there and this sh!t all over the rest of us that want to talk about it.  Do they not want it to even exist and so they want to ruin it and chase everyone out of there?  

Well, we're having our first late season ssw/split that seems to want to connect to the trop in as long as i remember. That in itself is worth discussing. The best thing you and I can do is discuss the F out of it. It's an interesting phenomenon that only happens once in a while. 

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...