Winter Banter Thread

[forkyfork]

6 minutes ago, IrishRob17 said:

That's a larger area than I expected.

was feeling kind this morning 

[forkyfork]

6 minutes ago, BxEngine said:

Nobody in nj matters ever. Your premise is incorrect.

[Winterweatherlover]

1 hour ago, forkyfork said:

nobody outside of this zone matters

Maybe that can be zone 1 as a starting point? 

[donsutherland1]

After today, no years had the combination of cold and snow required for NYC to have a March 1-April 15 temperature anomaly of 5° below normal and snowfall of 20" or above. In short, the forecast's verification now depends on an unprecedented combination of cold and snow through April 15th.  Final verification vs. the extreme forecast will be made at the end of the period involved.

[rclab]

3 hours ago, forkyfork said:

nobody outside of this zone matters

 

3 hours ago, IrishRob17 said:

That's a larger area than I expected.

 

3 hours ago, BxEngine said:

Nobody in nj matters ever. Your premise is incorrect.

Good morning Rob, BxE. Ref: forky feeling kind this morning; don’t be too concerned, I’m sure he’s been vaccinated and he’ll get over it. Bx, I hope you didn’t include our two New Jersey football teams. Stay well, as always ….

[LibertyBell]

21 hours ago, CPcantmeasuresnow said:

You know the big problem this would solve, the constant references like "oh boy just saw the Euro we're done".

And I always think who's done? It's a big forum, is Suffolk done Nassau, the Jersey coast, SW CT, Orange Sussex and Putnam, NYC? I dream of a world where we can declare the GFS says we're done for zones 1 & 2, but 5 & 6 get buried.  Rgem just annihilated zones 3 & 4, 5 & 6 not so much. That is my Utopia, a man can dream can't he?

it would be fine if all storms were like January 1996 or PD2.

Now that would be Utopia.

[Nibor]

5 hours ago, BxEngine said:

Nobody in nj matters ever. Your premise is incorrect.

[Winterweatherlover]

17 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

it would be fine if all storms were like January 1996 or PD2.

Now that would be Utopia.

Yes then it would just be hammers all zones. Unfortunately haven’t had one of those that I can remember in a while. 

[snowman19]

After today, no years had the combination of cold and snow required for NYC to have a March 1-April 15 temperature anomaly of 5° below normal and snowfall of 20" or above. In short, the forecast's verification now depends on an unprecedented combination of cold and snow through April 15th.  Final verification vs. the extreme forecast will be made at the end of the period involved.

He’s going down with the ship this year. Still hyping cold and snow for the east coast through 4/15. That guy has totally lost his mind, delusional, he really needs to retire. Crash and burn. The dude is Casey Jones now

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, snowman19 said:

He’s going down with the ship this year. Still hyping cold and snow for the east coast through 4/15. That guy has totally lost his mind, delusional, he really needs to retire. Crash and burn. The dude is Casey Jones now

It's going to be another really bad bust for him. I suspect that those who examine his forecasts could gain a lot of insight into what leads to repeated forecasting failures. From skimming some of his commentary over the past winter, it increasingly seems that his forecasts are driven by personal preferences, ideological considerations, and reinforced by confirmation bias. Moreover, once he makes his forecast, he is dogmatic about it. There is little or no flexibility to respond to synoptic changes.

While no one has a crystal ball, one can do better than fail most of the time. To do so, one needs objectivity, understanding of a place's climate/climate history, respect for uncertainty, the flexibility to change when the evidence changes, and the willingness to make an honest post-forecast assessment of what went right and what went wrong. Although forecasting error cannot be eliminated, one can reduce the risk of big forecasting failures by avoiding extreme ideas in the absence of overwhelming and consistent support for such solutions.

Sometimes extremes occur. After all, they are low probability, but not zero probability outcomes. Sometimes a "hunch" works out, but far more often, evidence-based thinking proves superior.

He came into this winter with the notion that "bad" energy policies had set up Europe and the U.S. for a severe winter energy crisis with real hardship and suffering (ignoring that the energy market disruptions during the prior months were largely the result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, not policy-driven). What was needed was a severely cold winter that would elevate energy consumption and strain supplies.

But the seasonal guidance showed no such cold.

Personal belief outweighed the evidence. Time and again he called for a turn to severe cold. Each time when the cold failed to materialize, he simply pushed the timing ahead. Sometimes, he constructed narratives to try to explain away the cold's failure to arrive. January 10-30 was supposed to be severely cold in the East. That didn't happen. Parts of the Mid-Atlantic region went on to see their warmest January on record. He later claimed he expected what he termed a "thaw" all along ignoring his call for a frigid January 10-30. He even asserted that January showed that his "analog" method worked. Late February was supposed to turn very cold in his thinking. It didn't. He even doubled down calling for a possible subzero low in Boston in a timeframe that extended from the closing days of February into the first week in March. He also forecast that March 1-April 15 would average 5° below normal from Washington, DC to Boston. Shortly afterward, as March got off to a mild start, he posted a map showing 31-day temperature anomaly of an unbelievable 12° below normal average in Washington, DC for March 9 0z through April 8 0z.

What actually happened is that Europe had a "non-winter" during which there was a period of headline-making historic warmth. The eastern U.S. had among its warmest winters on record. The western U.S. has been very cold (but that hasn't been Bastardi's focus).

That cold in the West-warm in the East pattern has largely continued through the first 15 days of March (admittedly, I initially thought March would be somewhat cooler than normal but not exceptionally cold in the Middle Atlantic region, initial thinking which appears increasingly unlikely to verify). In Europe, northern Europe has been cool but much of central and southern Europe has been warm. Exceptional warmth has prevailed in eastern Europe. All the while, energy markets have stabilized and prices have fallen.

In terms of snowfall, in December he invoked the March 1993 superstorm and January 1996 blizzard regarding a storm that wound up becoming a mainly rain event followed by a short-lived Arctic blast. In January, he invoked the January 1996 blizzard and January 2016 snowstorm for an event that proved to be all rain in most of the coastal plain. Just this month, he invoked the Blizzard of 1888 for the March 13-15 nor'easter. He highlighted a snowy ECMWF run several days later to credit his thinking that referenced the Blizzard of 1888.  The glaring "red flag"--the absence of a severely cold Arctic air mass's availability to be tapped by the storm--was completely ignored.

I provided an expanded summary, because  there remain readers who see his forecasts as realistic scenarios. In the past, he could hit some of his big forecasts. Today, in a warmer climate regime that he refuses to acknowledge, he relies on methods that lack relevance. He also makes forecasts based on what he believes will occur rather than using the evidence (low ensemble support, inconsistent model support, absence of severe cold, for example, for March 13-15) to inform his conclusions.

Retired Admiral James Stavridis observed, "Decisiveness without facts is madness." That quote largely encapsulates Bastardi's approach to forecasting today.

The busts of extreme forecasts like the one in question (5° below normal in NYC with 20" or more snow from March 1-April 15) could all have been avoided. Evidence for such an outcome was lacking. The probability of verification for such a call was less than the historic frequency, as a warming climate has reduced the probability of the kind of cold needed. In contrast, the probability of warmer outcomes has increased above the historic frequency.

In sum, good forecasting requires objectivity, contextual understanding, evidence-informed thinking, and flexibility to adapt to changing facts. Without those elements, forecasts are rendered speculation that rests on little more than random chance for verification.

 

[Cfa]

I still can’t believe there was a time when Bastardi was the only met I followed. I have almost zero forecasting prowess and I’ve been right more often than him by simply going with the opposite of whatever he says.

[donsutherland1]

18 minutes ago, Cfa said:

I still can’t believe there was a time when Bastardi was the only met I followed. I have almost zero forecasting prowess and I’ve been right more often than him by simply going with the opposite of whatever he says.

He was once a very good forecaster. Unfortunately, he failed to adapt his framework and approach to address the forecasting realities of today's warmer world. The reduced pool of cold air coverage, higher incidence of pattern-influencing marine heatwaves, greater atmospheric moisture content, the rise of quasi-resonant amplification, etc. have fundamentally altered the forecasting context.

What worked well in the 1990s or even very early 2000s doesn't work so well today. Analogs constructed from the earlier climate regime have lost relevance.

Objectivity is a prerequisite for recognizing the shift that has taken place and its implications. Flexibility is necessary to revise one's forecasting framework and approach. Denial or refusal to accept the changes that have occurred and rigidity in forecasting frameworks and approaches assure one's inability to adapt when the change takes place, as it has.

In the end, forecasting greatness is determined over time and is best distinguished in the capacity of a forecaster to successfully adapt to change. A forecaster who makes the successful transition from one forecasting context to another one while continuing to deliver sound forecasts is a great forecaster.

[snowman19]

It's going to be another really bad bust for him. I suspect that those who examine his forecasts could gain a lot of insight into what leads to repeated forecasting failures. From skimming some of his commentary over the past winter, it increasingly seems that his forecasts are driven by personal preferences, ideological considerations, and reinforced by confirmation bias. Moreover, once he makes his forecast, he is dogmatic about it. There is little or no flexibility to respond to synoptic changes.
While no one has a crystal ball, one can do better than fail most of the time. To do so, one needs objectivity, understanding of a place's climate/climate history, respect for uncertainty, the flexibility to change when the evidence changes, and the willingness to make an honest post-forecast assessment of what went right and what went wrong. Although forecasting error cannot be eliminated, one can reduce the risk of big forecasting failures by avoiding extreme ideas in the absence of overwhelming and consistent support for such solutions.
Sometimes extremes occur. After all, they are low probability, but not zero probability outcomes. Sometimes a "hunch" works out, but far more often, evidence-based thinking proves superior.
He came into this winter with the notion that "bad" energy policies had set up Europe and the U.S. for a severe winter energy crisis with real hardship and suffering (ignoring that the energy market disruptions during the prior months were largely the result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, not policy-driven). What was needed was a severely cold winter that would elevate energy consumption and strain supplies.
But the seasonal guidance showed no such cold.

Personal belief outweighed the evidence. Time and again he called for a turn to severe cold. Each time when the cold failed to materialize, he simply pushed the timing ahead. Sometimes, he constructed narratives to try to explain away the cold's failure to arrive. January 10-30 was supposed to be severely cold in the East. That didn't happen. Parts of the Mid-Atlantic region went on to see their warmest January on record. He later claimed he expected what he termed a "thaw" all along ignoring his call for a frigid January 10-30. He even asserted that January showed that his "analog" method worked. Late February was supposed to turn very cold in his thinking. It didn't. He even doubled down calling for a possible subzero low in Boston in a timeframe that extended from the closing days of February into the first week in March. He also forecast that March 1-April 15 would average 5° below normal from Washington, DC to Boston. Shortly afterward, as March got off to a mild start, he posted a map showing 31-day temperature anomaly of an unbelievable 12° below normal average in Washington, DC for March 9 0z through April 8 0z.
What actually happened is that Europe had a "non-winter" during which there was a period of headline-making historic warmth. The eastern U.S. had among its warmest winters on record. The western U.S. has been very cold (but that hasn't been Bastardi's focus).

That cold in the West-warm in the East pattern has largely continued through the first 15 days of March (admittedly, I initially thought March would be somewhat cooler than normal but not exceptionally cold in the Middle Atlantic region, initial thinking which appears increasingly unlikely to verify). In Europe, northern Europe has been cool but much of central and southern Europe has been warm. Exceptional warmth has prevailed in eastern Europe. All the while, energy markets have stabilized and prices have fallen.
In terms of snowfall, in December he invoked the March 1993 superstorm and January 1996 blizzard regarding a storm that wound up becoming a mainly rain event followed by a short-lived Arctic blast. In January, he invoked the January 1996 blizzard and January 2016 snowstorm for an event that proved to be all rain in most of the coastal plain. Just this month, he invoked the Blizzard of 1888 for the March 13-15 nor'easter. He highlighted a snowy ECMWF run several days later to credit his thinking that referenced the Blizzard of 1888.  The glaring "red flag"--the absence of a severely cold Arctic air mass's availability to be tapped by the storm--was completely ignored.
I provided an expanded summary, because  there remain readers who see his forecasts as realistic scenarios. In the past, he could hit some of his big forecasts. Today, in a warmer climate regime that he refuses to acknowledge, he relies on methods that lack relevance. He also makes forecasts based on what he believes will occur rather than using the evidence (low ensemble support, inconsistent model support, absence of severe cold, for example, for March 13-15) to inform his conclusions.
Retired Admiral James Stavridis observed, "Decisiveness without facts is madness." That quote largely encapsulates Bastardi's approach to forecasting today.
The busts of extreme forecasts like the one in question (5° below normal in NYC with 20" or more snow from March 1-April 15) could all have been avoided. Evidence for such an outcome was lacking. The probability of verification for such a call was less than the historic frequency, as a warming climate has reduced the probability of the kind of cold needed. In contrast, the probability of warmer outcomes has increased above the historic frequency.
In sum, good forecasting requires objectivity, contextual understanding, evidence-informed thinking, and flexibility to adapt to changing facts. Without those elements, forecasts are rendered speculation that rests on little more than random chance for verification.
 

The fact that he’s doubled down is really mind blowing, makes you wonder about his mental state

[CIK62]

JB has been in too many blood depriving Full Nelsons and his brain has suffered Baby Shake Syndrome as his opponents  slam it  into the canvas at will.     He better give it up.   He looks old and beaten up badly.

He started off OK for December but then started to make up Analogs for the cold coming back.     First failure was a Jan. 10 return.     For the March mess he predicted a -5 month!

Now think about this:    Warmest Jan ever, 3rd. warmest Feb. ever and a record low snow total.     If your Analogs can not even give you a clue with these extremes then you will never be right in closer to Normal seasons.

The useless CFSv2 for the Winter:        Even JB beat it.

 

At any rate Death Defying heat is on the way this Spring and Summer.      EMS will be scraping the victims off the sidewalks.

Both Spring and Summer are 4:1 favorites to be AN.     In fact, the whole N.H. seems ready to burn.

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

FDU beats Purdue . Never thought it would actually happen right to the end. Wow. 

[BxEngine]

Know a couple kids from that team, and the coach has lots of local ties too. Pretty awesome. 

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, CPcantmeasuresnow said:

FDU beats Purdue . Never thought it would actually happen right to the end. Wow. 

It's games like that which make the whole tournament worthwhile.  I hope the coach stays at that school.

 

[Chinook]

I believe once Weathafella said that he remembered this heavy NY snow storm, which happened almost on St. Patrick's Day 1956

 

[LibertyBell]

7 minutes ago, Chinook said:

I believe once Weathafella said that he remembered this heavy NY snow storm, which happened almost on St. Patrick's Day 1956

 

Very long duration snowstorm and we had a big snowstorm in April too, very much like 2018!

[donsutherland1]

8 hours ago, Chinook said:

I believe once Weathafella said that he remembered this heavy NY snow storm, which happened almost on St. Patrick's Day 1956

 

There were back-to-back storms on March 16-17 and March 18-19. It was an epic finish to the winter.

[North and West]

FDU beats Purdue . Never thought it would actually happen right to the end. Wow. 

I went there! They should make a movie about a basketball game in which a small school beats a big school from Indiana.


.

[coastalplainsnowman]

5 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

There were back-to-back storms on March 16-17 and March 18-19. It was an epic finish to the winter.

Wow, was the 16th-17th a snow event for LI?  If so, the record for snowcover depth following that storm must be the all time March record for LI near ISP, if they were keeping records back then, right?

[Wannabehippie]

19 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

He was once a very good forecaster. Unfortunately, he failed to adapt his framework and approach to address the forecasting realities of today's warmer world. The reduced pool of cold air coverage, higher incidence of pattern-influencing marine heatwaves, greater atmospheric moisture content, the rise of quasi-resonant amplification, etc. have fundamentally altered the forecasting context.

What worked well in the 1990s or even very early 2000s doesn't work so well today. Analogs constructed from the earlier climate regime have lost relevance.

Objectivity is a prerequisite for recognizing the shift that has taken place and its implications. Flexibility is necessary to revise one's forecasting framework and approach. Denial or refusal to accept the changes that have occurred and rigidity in forecasting frameworks and approaches assure one's inability to adapt when the change takes place, as it has.

In the end, forecasting greatness is determined over time and is best distinguished in the capacity of a forecaster to successfully adapt to change. A forecaster who makes the successful transition from one forecasting context to another one while continuing to deliver sound forecasts is a great forecaster.

JB is also all about the page clicks these days, as it generates revenue. No one wants to hear about boring, warm, dry weather. They want to hear about cold, snow. Hot, stormy, etc. So that is what he looks for in the models, looking for something in them so he can come up with a cold, snowy forecast.

 

[donsutherland1]

On 3/18/2023 at 8:16 AM, coastalplainsnowman said:

Wow, was the 16th-17th a snow event for LI?  If so, the record for snowcover depth following that storm must be the all time March record for LI near ISP, if they were keeping records back then, right?

Unfortunately, ISP’s period of record doesn’t go back to 1956. Data from Patchogue (2 N) is available:

March 16-17: 4.2"

March 18-19: 12.4"

[donsutherland1]

10 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Unfortunately, ISP’s period of record doesn’t go back to 1956.

 

31 minutes ago, Wannabehippie said:

JB is also all about the page clicks these days, as it generates revenue. No one wants to hear about boring, warm, dry weather. They want to hear about cold, snow. Hot, stormy, etc. So that is what he looks for in the models, looking for something in them so he can come up with a cold, snowy forecast.

 

Pursuing clicks at the expense of one's credibility is not a good trade-off. The costs far exceed the short-term benefits once one's credibility is lost. Loss of credibility is damaging to one's professional reputation.

[JTA66]

I’ve often wondered if JB puts out one forecast of cold & snow for the weenies and a more realistic forecast for WxBell’s paying clientele.

If they are the same forecast, I can’t believe WxBell has many customers at this point. You could do better and save money just going by NOAA 30-day outlooks.

[Wannabehippie]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

 

Pursuing clicks at the expense of one's credibility is not a good trade-off. The costs far exceed the short-term benefits once one's credibility is lost. Loss of credibility is damaging to one's professional reputation.

Page clicks are what drives ad revenue. That is what JB care about these days. The ad revenue.

 

[Stormlover74]

20 minutes ago, Wannabehippie said:

Page clicks are what drives ad revenue. That is what JB care about these days. The ad revenue.

 

No I sadly think he believes everything he spews 

[donsutherland1]

23 minutes ago, Wannabehippie said:

Page clicks are what drives ad revenue. That is what JB care about these days. The ad revenue.

 

The question is whether the ad revenue begins to dry up when his repeated forecasting debacles become evident. Already, some meteorologists, including former Accuweather colleagues, are starting to call out his failures on Social Media.

[etudiant]

3 hours ago, Wannabehippie said:

JB is also all about the page clicks these days, as it generates revenue. No one wants to hear about boring, warm, dry weather. They want to hear about cold, snow. Hot, stormy, etc. So that is what he looks for in the models, looking for something in them so he can come up with a cold, snowy forecast.

 

How does that work given that he is on a pay for access site?