January Banter 2021

[Grothar of Herndon]

59 minutes ago, leesburg 04 said:

Man the euro is awfully jumpy....the gfs just meandered it's way down to a nice solution while the euro said here have a big storm let me jack SW Virginia or maybe let me jack NE Maryland or how about Central PA or Philly no wait let me jack DC and SE nevermind let me jack NW Virginia and WV now. I guess at least the jacks have been in a circle.....what a jerk model. Go America/Canada combo

Weather53 influence? 

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

55 minutes ago, SnowDreamer said:

I love CWG, and they were a big inspiration to me. That being said, when they give a forecast saying 30% bust and 30% boom chances... my takeaway is that they think their main forecast is more likely wrong than right. 

I also really don’t like the boom/bust thing.  I understand why they think they should do it but IMO it’s overcomplicating it. 90% of people outside of weather boards aren’t going to look at the boom/bust and understand it anyway.  Just give us the range you think is most likely.   

[WinterFire]

Just now, DCTeacherman said:

I also really don’t like the boom/bust thing.  I understand why they think they should do it but IMO it’s overcomplicating it. 90% of people outside of weather boards aren’t going to look at the boom/bust and understand it anyway.  Just give us the range you think is most likely.   

But isn't that what they're doing? They say in their text forecast and their graphic that they expect 4-8" in DC. Then they add information about uncertainty which is an important thing to do in public communication, no?

[jaydreb]

Just now, DCTeacherman said:

I also really don’t like the boom/bust thing.  I understand why they think they should do it but IMO it’s overcomplicating it. 90% of people outside of weather boards aren’t going to look at the boom/bust and understand it anyway.  Just give us the range you think is most likely.   

I think boom/bust makes sense, but saying 30% chance of boom, 20% bust just confuses things, because it gives the appearance that there is a likelihood that there forecasted range (4-8”) won’t be right. 
 

It might make more sense to just give a forecast and state a confidence level (high/medium/low) rather than putting percentages on the boom/bust.  They do a good job of conveying uncertainty overall.  

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

Just now, WinterFire said:

But isn't that what they're doing? They say in their text forecast and their graphic that they expect 4-8" in DC. Then they add information about uncertainty which is an important thing to do in public communication, no?

Like I said, I understand all that and reasonable minds can disagree here, but I think it’s overdoing it for one graphic.  

[jaydreb]

1 minute ago, WinterFire said:

But isn't that what they're doing? They say in their text forecast and their graphic that they expect 4-8" in DC. Then they add information about uncertainty which is an important thing to do in public communication, no?

They do, but saying there is a 50% chance that the forecast will bust is confusing.  

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

Just now, jaydreb said:

I think boom/bust makes sense, but saying 30% chance of boom, 20% bust just confuses things, because it gives the appearance that there is a likelihood that there forecasted range (4-8”) won’t be right. 
 

It might make more sense to just give a forecast and state a confidence level (high/medium/low) rather than putting percentages on the boom/bust.  They do a good job of conveying uncertainty overall.  

I like this idea much better.  It conveys the uncertainty without people walking away saying well we’re getting 3-15 inches. 

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

Like my forecast is 30% bust (2-4), 20% boom (8-12) and the middle 50% (4-8).  Instead of looking at all that nonsense just tell me 4-8 with low/medium confidence. 

[jaydreb]

1 minute ago, DCTeacherman said:

Like my forecast is 30% bust (2-4), 20% boom (8-12) and the middle 50% (4-8).  Instead of looking at all that nonsense just tell me 4-8 with low/medium confidence. 

I think that’s actually what they are trying to say, but the graphic is a little confusing. I like CWG and think they do a good job overall.  They are usually pretty conservative about snow events - which is a wise thing around here.  

[ravensrule]

2 hours ago, mappy said:

UP YOUR ASS AND TO THE LEFT  

I wish.

[stormtracker]

Just now, ravensrule said:

I wish.

[mappy]

Just now, stormtracker said:

ugh

[jaydreb]

1 minute ago, wxtrix said:

everyone i knows who follows CWG has no problem understanding their products. if you don’t like them, you’re free to consult other forecasters.

Huh?  I literally just said that I liked them.  

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

4 minutes ago, jaydreb said:

I think that’s actually what they are trying to say, but the graphic is a little confusing. I like CWG and think they do a good job overall.  They are usually pretty conservative about snow events - which is a wise thing around here.  

Yeah don’t get me wrong I love capitol weather gang, I think they do a phenomenal job.  I’m guessing most cities don’t have something comparable.  They post tons of great articles and analysis and everything.  

[Deer Whisperer]

13 minutes ago, jaydreb said:

I think boom/bust makes sense, but saying 30% chance of boom, 20% bust just confuses things, because it gives the appearance that there is a likelihood that there forecasted range (4-8”) won’t be right. 
 

It might make more sense to just give a forecast and state a confidence level (high/medium/low) rather than putting percentages on the boom/bust.  They do a good job of conveying uncertainty overall.  

I like this idea. The boom/bust percentages really seem to confuse things for me, let alone the general public

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

2 minutes ago, wxtrix said:

professional forecasters and communicators:  here’s a detailed nuanced forecast, designed to teach you about weather and presented in a clear, informative way.

weenies:  i know more. do it my way.

Ah yes, the ole no ones allowed to have opinions schtick.  I feel like I’ve seen this before.  

[jaydreb]

Just now, DCTeacherman said:

Yeah don’t get me wrong I love capitol weather gang, I think they do a phenomenal job.  I’m guessing most cities don’t have something comparable.  They post tons of great articles and analysis and everything.  

Apparently we don’t like them and should go elsewhere since we made comments about their graphic.  

[jaydreb]

Just now, Deer Whisperer said:

I like this idea. The boom/bust percentages really seem to confuse things for me, let alone the general public

I thought so too but apparently everyone else has no problem with them.  

[SnowenOutThere]

With the models starting to form something useable for snowfall maps I thought I would make some. The one with the most snow is assuming the RGEM run, GFS and others that have a robust coastal low and give a good amount. The one with the least snow has the low to far out to the east or north. I think it is a descent repersentation of what will happen also winter storm watch. 

[Deer Whisperer]

Just now, jaydreb said:

I thought so too but apparently everyone else has no problem with them.  

Maybe we're just dumb 

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

Just now, Deer Whisperer said:

Maybe we're just dumb 

I know for sure I'm not a particularly intelligent individual, but I can't speak to anyone else. 

[JakkelWx]

I just laughed too hard in the main thread. 

[WinterFire]

1 minute ago, jaydreb said:

I thought so too but apparently everyone else has no problem with them.  

I don't know if you were following them up to the Snowquester...debacle...but people were really upset about CWG's forecast bust. Back then they were describing the forecasts the way you suggested (they had DC at 5-10" and low-medium confidence). Their post-analysis is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/snowquester-when-forecast-information-fails/2013/03/07/5d0d77ae-873b-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_blog.html

I think after this "storm", they changed their approach to try to be clearer about what a busted forecast might look like. I think the bigger issue is that the public isn't interested in trying to understand the forecast but then will take it out on the mets if the forecast they internalized was wrong...

[SomeguyfromTakomaPark]

1 minute ago, WinterFire said:

I don't know if you were following them up to the Snowquester...debacle...but people were really upset about CWG's forecast bust. Back then they were describing the forecasts the way you suggested (they had DC at 5-10" and low-medium confidence). Their post-analysis is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/snowquester-when-forecast-information-fails/2013/03/07/5d0d77ae-873b-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_blog.html

I think after this "storm", they changed their approach to try to be clearer about what a busted forecast might look like. I think the bigger issue is that the public isn't interested in trying to understand the forecast but then will take it out on the mets if the forecast they internalized was wrong...

I agree with this.  People think that weather forecasts should always be right.  They have no idea of the herculean amount of computing power that it takes to get us to the accuracy levels we're currently at.  I don't think the boom/bust thing would've solved the snowquester problem though, pretty much everyone busted on that one.  

[jaydreb]

5 minutes ago, WinterFire said:

I don't know if you were following them up to the Snowquester...debacle...but people were really upset about CWG's forecast bust. Back then they were describing the forecasts the way you suggested (they had DC at 5-10" and low-medium confidence). Their post-analysis is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/snowquester-when-forecast-information-fails/2013/03/07/5d0d77ae-873b-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_blog.html

I think after this "storm", they changed their approach to try to be clearer about what a busted forecast might look like. I think the bigger issue is that the public isn't interested in trying to understand the forecast but then will take it out on the mets if the forecast they internalized was wrong...

Yeah, I remember that.  I guess they’re in a tough spot and can’t win sometimes.  

[mappy]

Just now, wxtrix said:

me too-- @mappy can you please move that post here because i think we all need to see it?

which one? 

[mappy]

oh, just saw it. hang tight

[SnowenOutThere]

Well pretty sure my post got deleted in the other thread which makes sense but where is my higher end accumulation map. This was made before the Watch was issued.  The other one is my very low end forecast. 

[mappy]

Just now, wxtrix said:

the home made snowfall maps one.

done, its back a page

Edit: he added it here for us to see 

[mappy]

Just now, SnowenOutThere said:

Well pretty sure my post got deleted in the other thread which makes sense but where is my higher end accumulation map. This was made before the Watch was issued.  The other one is my very low end forecast. 

 

i actually moved that post here to this thread for you. thanks for your contribution