Winter 2022-2023 Conjecture

[George001]

3 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Well, that struck a nerve..it was just a joke. I understand that arrogant and condescending people like you never solicit feedback and exchange ideas with others (or at least won't admit to it), but the reality is that most people do...its a wonderful way to facilitate growth and advance the field. I don't know everything and yes, there are other people with great ideas, like yourself, that add value to my efforts. Always cited, of course. I don't steal anything or take credit for the work of others. Perhaps you should take a break from using others as a conduit for the incessant stroking of your ego and and actually open your mind; you'll be a better forecaster for it.

Yeah being unwilling to use other people’s ideas is not a good mentality to have. This is true for just about everything, when I first started playing chess I tried making up my own openings and didn’t want to castle because everyone else did it and I wanted to be original. I sucked, and got my ass kicked over and over again until I started reading books and applying the ideas from them to my own games. Even the best chess player in the world, Magnus Carlsen has a team of coaches to help him with opening prep. There are a lot of great minds on this site, if you are making a forecast without trying to incorporate research from others you would be doing yourself a disservice. 

[dmillz25]

4 hours ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Well, that struck a nerve..it was just a joke. I understand that arrogant and condescending people like you never solicit feedback and exchange ideas with others (or at least won't admit to it), but the reality is that most people do...its a wonderful way to facilitate growth and advance the field. I don't know everything and yes, there are other people with great ideas, like yourself, that add value to my efforts. Always cited, of course. I don't steal anything or take credit for the work of others. Perhaps you should take a break from using others as a conduit for the incessant stroking of your ego and and actually open your mind; you'll be a better forecaster for it.

The dude know his shit but that know it all gotta stop with him 

[bristolri_wx]

8 hours ago, raindancewx said:

The last four Februaries have all been near-average to cold here.  A lot of the correlations I use have r-squared values over 0.4, and they work when I hindcast in random years in the 1890s-1930s. 

I actually don't think I have any direct correlations for ABQ in February though. My ACE stuff works much better for mid-Dec to mid-Jan, not that you ever read or remember anything people tell you. I wish you'd come up with an original idea once in a while instead of just copying everyone you follow.

So he should just make things up?

Using previously researched and tested methodologies is an important part of weather forecasting, and in science in general.

Of course if you are willing provide a $500,000 grant, some number crunching equipment, and some grad student assistants, I’m sure he can come up with the next set of determining factors for winter forecasts that have been yet to be discovered.

[CoastalWx]

Maybe he’s just cranky from the heat in ABQ?

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

Virtual brawls occurring…winter must be coming. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

On 9/9/2022 at 12:39 AM, dmillz25 said:

The dude know his shit but that know it all gotta stop with him 

What's funny is that because I respect him as a forecaster, I will ask his opinion on certain issues, and he will just completely blow it off and carry on commenting below like the post didn't exist. I have also cited him several different times as one of my "must reads" and one of the more talented seasonal forecasters that I know of, but that one passing kernel of sarcasm is what he chooses to acknowledge and then attack/essentially accuse me of plagiarizing the work of other forecasters. I mean, this field is driven by PEER REVIEWED research for a reason....the free and open exchange of ideas is what drives the science, and is an entirely different concept from presenting the work of others as your own. No one accused him of not coming up with his own ideas when he cited the article on the release of water vapor into the atmosphere from volcanoes lol. Jesus, its how we learn, but apparently he was born with all of this immense meteorological insight.

[40/70 Benchmark]

15 minutes ago, RUNNAWAYICEBERG said:

Virtual brawls occurring…winter must be coming. 

I honestly didn't expect that...wow. lol

[40/70 Benchmark]

46 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Maybe he’s just cranky from the heat in ABQ?

Yow know who he reminds me of? You remember Jim Hughes on Eastern? I know @ORH_wxman will remember him. The guy knew his stuff and offered valuable insight with respect to the solar implications of meteorology, but the dude just turned people off...always craving credit and accusing people of not "recognizing him" etc...you'd try to engage him about some frontier way of using the sun to forecast, and he'd literally be like "I remember when I tried to bring that up on Eastern like 10 years ago, and no one  listened". Such an edge to him....Raindance kind of me reminds of him. So much valuable insight that essentially falls on deaf ears because his attitude, tone and demeanor just turns people off. One correlation he apparently hasn't studied yet is social aptitude and success.

Hughes is till on Twitter, BTW....and you can hear echoes within each of his Tweet threads.

 

[40/70 Benchmark]

5 hours ago, bristolri_wx said:

So he should just make things up?

Using previously researched and tested methodologies is an important part of weather forecasting, and in science in general.

Of course if you are willing provide a $500,000 grant, some number crunching equipment, and some grad student assistants, I’m sure he can come up with the next set of determining factors for winter forecasts that have been yet to be discovered.

To be fair, I honestly couldn't lol The funny part is that math and science are not my thing....I am SO mathematically deficient...can hardly do algebra. But I am very articulate and have a way of integrating and synthesizing info, which coupled with an immense passion for snow fuels a very meticulous (think OCD) method of research.

[It's Always Sunny]

11 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

To be fair, I honestly couldn't lol The funny part is that math and science are not my thing....I am SO mathematically deficient...can hardly do algebra. But I am very articulate and have a way of integrating and synthesizing, which coupled with an immense passion for snow fuels a very meticulous (think OCD) method of research.

If there's a will there's a way, especially if you have a passion for something. It's unfortunate that the intensity of college math/physics deters some people with a true passion from getting the actual degree. My program started with like 30-40 people and there were 15-20 of us who actually ended up graduating; it's a common theme everywhere. There are several people on this board that know more than some degreed mets that I know, with the only difference being they're skilled in math, when in reality most of us professional mets seldom use math in our day to day flow.

[CoastalWx]

30 minutes ago, It's Always Sunny said:

If there's a will there's a way, especially if you have a passion for something. It's unfortunate that the intensity of college math/physics deters some people with a true passion from getting the actual degree. My program started with like 30-40 people and there were 15-20 of us who actually ended up graduating; it's a common theme everywhere. There are several people on this board that know more than some degreed mets that I know, with the only difference being they're skilled in math, when in reality most of us professional mets seldom use math in our day to day flow.

I’m glad I took you under my wing and showed you how to forecast. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

34 minutes ago, It's Always Sunny said:

If there's a will there's a way, especially if you have a passion for something. It's unfortunate that the intensity of college math/physics deters some people with a true passion from getting the actual degree. My program started with like 30-40 people and there were 15-20 of us who actually ended up graduating; it's a common theme everywhere. There are several people on this board that know more than some degreed mets that I know, with the only difference being they're skilled in math, when in reality most of us professional mets seldom use math in our day to day flow.

Totally me.....I can't count how many times I was asked, or it was suggested that I should pursue weather...my answer was always the same; I can't do the math. Buts its okay....the events of my life unfolded in such a manner that I think I provide tremendous value as a LICSW/therapist, and the meteorology is one of my key outlets.

It works.

[It's Always Sunny]

1 minute ago, CoastalWx said:

I’m glad I took you under my wing and showed you how to forecast. 

Well that explains why I'm such a terrible forecaster 

[40/70 Benchmark]

4 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Totally me.....I can't count how many times I was asked, or it was suggested that I should pursue weather...my answer was always the same; I can't do the math. Buts its okay....the events of my life unfolded in such a manner that I think I provide tremendous value as a LICSW/therapist, and the meteorology is one of my key outlets.

It works.

I've said this before, but believe it or not....there is a great deal of commonalty between writing clinical formulations and seasonal outlooks. They each work into my strengths of integrating/synthesizing data. I like being able to refine and formulate my own perspective form info...I hate the way math "worm holes" you in to one precise solution lol

[It's Always Sunny]

9 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

Totally me.....I can't count how many times I was asked, or it was suggested that I should pursue weather...my answer was always the same; I can't do the math. Buts its okay....the events of my life unfolded in such a manner that I think I provide tremendous value as a LICSW/therapist, and the meteorology is one of my key outlets.

It works.

Kind of going along with the topic here but being a degreed met, one thing I can't stand is when other degreed mets hold math above other people's heads in a demeaning way. Like a "I'm better than you". It's obnoxious. I've seen it on Twitter a lot and it may scare some enthusiasts away from even pursuing a degree which is unfortunate. It's essentially a subtle form of cyber bullying imo.

[40/70 Benchmark]

1 minute ago, It's Always Sunny said:

Kind of going along with the topic here but being a degreed met, one thing I can't stand is when other degreed mets hold math above other people's heads in a demeaning way. Like a "I'm better than you". It's obnoxious. I've seen it on Twitter a lot and it may scare some enthusiasts away from even pursuing a degree which is unfortunate. It's essentially a subtle form of cyber bullying imo.

I do appreciate the value of mathematics because it does provide a superior understanding of the foundational physical processes at play, but I also agree that there are plenty of good forecasters that were never exposed to Calculus VI.

[ORH_wxman]

25 minutes ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

I've said this before, but believe it or not....there is a great deal of commonalty between writing clinical formulations and seasonal outlooks. They each work into my strengths of integrating/synthesizing data. I like being able to refine and formulate my own perspective form info...I hate the way math "worm holes" you in to one precise solution lol

Given how uncertain LR forecasting is, the math becomes less and less useful and learning to analyze, quality-check, and weight data becomes a lot more important. There is definitely a bit of art to LR forecasting.

The physics/math seems to become more important in shorter term forecasts where we have a lot more certainty on certain parameters....like, I can say "jesus, there is a 75 knot low-level jet slamming into a dead calm cold dome over the interior.....I don't care what certain QPF forecasts look like, someone is going to get a fronto death band". But even these days, the models have gotten so much better, you don't have to augment them as much as we did 15 years ago. Back in the late-aughts, we still had model guidance that would print a half inch of QPF in the cold sector of a coastal when you had dynamics that would easily support double that and we had to tell everyone to stop being QPF queens. Nowadays, the discrepancies aren't as large, though they obviously still do exist.

[forkyfork]

without differential equations you wouldn't have models to look at

[40/70 Benchmark]

5 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

without differential equations you wouldn't have models to look at

Absolutely. I do not at all dispute the importance of math. I salute those those can do it at a high level....no sarcasm intended.

[40/70 Benchmark]

9 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Given how uncertain LR forecasting is, the math becomes less and less useful and learning to analyze, quality-check, and weight data becomes a lot more important. There is definitely a bit of art to LR forecasting.

The physics/math seems to become more important in shorter term forecasts where we have a lot more certainty on certain parameters....like, I can say "jesus, there is a 75 knot low-level jet slamming into a dead calm cold dome over the interior.....I don't care what certain QPF forecasts look like, someone is going to get a fronto death band". But even these days, the models have gotten so much better, you don't have to augment them as much as we did 15 years ago. Back in the late-aughts, we still had model guidance that would print a half inch of QPF in the cold sector of a coastal when you had dynamics that would easily support double that and we had to tell everyone to stop being QPF queens. Nowadays, the discrepancies aren't as large, though they obviously still do exist.

Absolutely. Have said the same thing myself.

[CoastalWx]

Forecasting in general depends on being a weenie to be successful. And by weenie, I mean passion. Some of the brightest people can't forecast their way out of a paper bag. Whereas some of the best mets I know, are the ones with passion. 

That was one of the things I tried to snoop out when I used to hire. If they weren't really into forecasting...I didn't want them.

[dendrite]

[40/70 Benchmark]

20 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Forecasting in general depends on being a weenie to be successful. And by weenie, I mean passion. Some of the brightest people can't forecast their way out of a paper bag. Whereas some of the best mets I know, are the ones with passion. 

That was one of the things I tried to snoop out when I used to hire. If they weren't really into forecasting...I didn't want them.

LOL If they didn't know the date of the traffic nightmare storm of 2007, then it was no dice.

[forkyfork]

we barely even need human forecasters anymore

[ORH_wxman]

11 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Forecasting in general depends on being a weenie to be successful. And by weenie, I mean passion. Some of the brightest people can't forecast their way out of a paper bag. Whereas some of the best mets I know, are the ones with passion. 

That was one of the things I tried to snoop out when I used to hire. If they weren't really into forecasting...I didn't want them.

There really isn't a replacement for looking at models all the time and noticing what they do in winter storms.

Basically experience. That requires a lot of weenie-ism though as you said. You have to want to look at them all the time or you never will.

 

You can read stuff from a textbook, but it is not always going to help....or you might even get the wrong idea if it's not applicable to our area. I know Chris (Oceanstatewx) and I have discussed in the past on here how reading about ice storm climo/setups in a text book will probably get you into a lot of trouble in New England because a lot of that climo and literature was based off the midwest/plains where the undercutting airmasses are typically shallower....so they all say "the ice will be the worst in the valleys and hold there the longest".....whereas in New England, we typically have a normal lapse rate in the lowest 2000-2500 feet so elevation actually helps in most cases up to that level while a lot of times the valleys could be raining.

 

If you didn't look at obs all the time, soundings all the time, or drive around like a weenie during marginal ice events, you might never really learn about our icing climo and still think the cookie cutter textbook is the way to forecast here.

[CoastalWx]

3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

There really isn't a replacement for looking at models all the time and noticing what they do in winter storms.

Basically experience. That requires a lot of weenie-ism though as you said. You have to want to look at them all the time or you never will.

 

You can read stuff from a textbook, but it is not always going to help....or you might even get the wrong idea if it's not applicable to our area. I know Chris (Oceanstatewx) and I have discussed in the past on here how reading about ice storm climo/setups in a text book will probably get you into a lot of trouble in New England because a lot of that climo and literature was based off the midwest/plains where the undercutting airmasses are typically shallower....so they all say "the ice will be the worst in the valleys and hold there the longest".....whereas in New England, we typically have a normal lapse rate in the lowest 2000-2500 feet so elevation actually helps in most cases up to that level while a lot of times the valleys could be raining.

 

If you didn't look at obs all the time, soundings all the time, or drive around like a weenie during marginal ice events, you might never really learn about our icing climo and still think the cookie cutter textbook is the way to forecast here.

That's a good example. Honestly, my first taste of how elevation mattered for ice around here, was during the '98 event. I may have said this before, but we tried going skiing during that lol. Nothing was open except Wachusett and I literally almost killed myself there..not a joke.  

In any case, on 93 near the Hooksett tolls..you have a little elevation. That's where I saw the ice building up. Down in Concord, there was no ice that I saw, but then getting north of CON and up a bit, all hell started to break loose. After realizing this was not working out, we went to Wachusett which was caked in ice. Not much noticeable until you get near the mtn towards 1K or so. 

[40/70 Benchmark]

18 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

There really isn't a replacement for looking at models all the time and noticing what they do in winter storms.

Basically experience. That requires a lot of weenie-ism though as you said. You have to want to look at them all the time or you never will.

 

You can read stuff from a textbook, but it is not always going to help....or you might even get the wrong idea if it's not applicable to our area. I know Chris (Oceanstatewx) and I have discussed in the past on here how reading about ice storm climo/setups in a text book will probably get you into a lot of trouble in New England because a lot of that climo and literature was based off the midwest/plains where the undercutting airmasses are typically shallower....so they all say "the ice will be the worst in the valleys and hold there the longest".....whereas in New England, we typically have a normal lapse rate in the lowest 2000-2500 feet so elevation actually helps in most cases up to that level while a lot of times the valleys could be raining.

 

If you didn't look at obs all the time, soundings all the time, or drive around like a weenie during marginal ice events, you might never really learn about our icing climo and still think the cookie cutter textbook is the way to forecast here.

The elevated valleys are where its at....the areas around 1000' within a 1500' ridge.

[CoastalWx]

1 minute ago, 40/70 Benchmark said:

The elevated valleys are where its at....the areas around 1000' within a 1500' ridge.

Another area tough to get ice is at 1K downwind of the ORH hills. Hate to see it. 

[ORH_wxman]

11 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

That's a good example. Honestly, my first taste of how elevation mattered for ice around here, was during the '98 event. I may have said this before, but we tried going skiing during that lol. Nothing was open except Wachusett and I literally almost killed myself there..not a joke.  

In any case, on 93 near the Hooksett tolls..you have a little elevation. That's where I saw the ice building up. Down in Concord, there was no ice that I saw, but then getting north of CON and up a bit, all hell started to break loose. After realizing this was not working out, we went to Wachusett which was caked in ice. Not much noticeable until you get near the mtn towards 1K or so. 

I started figuring it out in the early '90s when we had some ice events and on the weather channel local forecatss when they showed the nearby obs, Chicopee Falls and Hartford and Windsor Locks were always like 34F and raining. I kept thinking "I remember reading that valleys are supposed to keep the ice longer, why are they always warmer in these events?"

Then I remember Harvey cam eon in an event maybe in the mid'90s and explained that the coldest layer of the atmosphere was actually around 1500-2000 feet in an ice event, and that is when it started really clicking....the soundings later on just confirmed when I had started learning.

[ORH_wxman]

7 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Another area tough to get ice is at 1K downwind of the ORH hills. Hate to see it. 

Saw this in the Dec '08 ice storm....FIT and Leominster at 300-400 feet were covered in over an inch of ice and looked like a war zone....you went up to the other side and even areas at like 800-900 feet near ORE and Athol had trouble accreting more than a tenth or two.