psuhoffman Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 this shot here is why I wonder how much split flow blocking works in this regime. I know with the time of year it doesn’t matter but the same concept applies mid winter. If that energy in the west was less amplified and the ridge in front was slightly less that system would slide east under the block and 50/50 and be a threat. But there is a tipping point where the ridging in front of every pacific wave is too much and they amplify out west and then try to cut regardless of blocking. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 I’m reading Bob Ryan’s 2002 Almanac which has on front cover”Weather Forecasting in 2025”. I will enter some excerpts later it is disheartening to read the great hope for accuracy that he foresaw and hoped for. 90% accuracy day 5 and in. Not even close to reality. I would estimate if the dozen or so things specifically identified as likely occurring by now, about one third have come to fruition. The idea that high tech satellites could get start snd stop times down to one hour and accumulations within 5-10% error margins just hadn’t happened. I sense he felt wholesale technological advancements and revolutions would occur. That failed also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 1 hour ago, WEATHER53 said: I’m reading Bob Ryan’s 2002 Almanac which has on front cover”Weather Forecasting in 2025”. I will enter some excerpts later it is disheartening to read the great hope for accuracy that he foresaw and hoped for. 90% accuracy day 5 and in. Not even close to reality. I would estimate if the dozen or so things specifically identified as likely occurring by now, about one third have come to fruition. The idea that high tech satellites could get start snd stop times down to one hour and accumulations within 5-10% error margins just hadn’t happened. I sense he felt wholesale technological advancements and revolutions would occur. That failed also He was being optimistic. Nothing wrong with that. I think back then with the advancements happening at that time in models and supercomputing it was fair to think it was possible but truth is after a significant leap in the 2000s we did hit a sort of leveling point where our scientific advancements bumped up against the chaos we can’t account for. Maybe he underestimated that chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 I was shocked to read Pittsburgh averages 44 inches of snow a year? How is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTy Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 23 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: He was being optimistic. Nothing wrong with that. I think back then with the advancements happening at that time in models and supercomputing it was fair to think it was possible but truth is after a significant leap in the 2000s we did hit a sort of leveling point where our scientific advancements bumped up against the chaos we can’t account for. Maybe he underestimated that chaos We used to play golf on the moon 50yrs ago but nowadays our unmanned probes just tip over when they land. In the heady days of 2002 it was easy to believe computers in the 2020s we're going to be more HAL-9000 than tik-tok and Robinhood. Predictions are hard, especially about the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vastateofmind Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 9 hours ago, IronTy said: We used to play golf on the moon 50yrs ago but nowadays our unmanned probes just tip over when they land. In the heady days of 2002 it was easy to believe computers in the 2020s we're going to be more HAL-9000 than tik-tok and Robinhood. Predictions are hard, especially about the future. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paleocene Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 10 hours ago, Ji said: I was shocked to read Pittsburgh averages 44 inches of snow a year? How is that? They get all the clippers before they die when they hit the Allegheny plateau. Lots of nickel and dime events 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbmclean Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 18 hours ago, psuhoffman said: this shot here is why I wonder how much split flow blocking works in this regime. I know with the time of year it doesn’t matter but the same concept applies mid winter. If that energy in the west was less amplified and the ridge in front was slightly less that system would slide east under the block and 50/50 and be a threat. But there is a tipping point where the ridging in front of every pacific wave is too much and they amplify out west and then try to cut regardless of blocking. I wanted to say something meaningful about this but realized i could not because I have very little understanding of what actually causes ridges or troughs. If someone asked you to explain the mechanism(s) by which synoptic-scale variations in geopotential height arise and move around, how would you do it in a paragraph? I know that thicknesses are highly correlated to average temperature in a column of air, but is it just that simple for heights: cold air = low heights and warm air = high heights? Assume your listener has a strong background in basic physics but very little detailed knowledge of fluid dynamics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 16 hours ago, psuhoffman said: He was being optimistic. Nothing wrong with that. I think back then with the advancements happening at that time in models and supercomputing it was fair to think it was possible but truth is after a significant leap in the 2000s we did hit a sort of leveling point where our scientific advancements bumped up against the chaos we can’t account for. Maybe he underestimated that chaos i think a lot of the drop offs here are those like me who have been active in internet weather for over20 years and originally found great excitement in the details provided and potential for great “coming true” of especially winter time model output. It all over Ryan’s writings as to what appeared to be in place. But it hasn’t happened . Every 5 years or so this board gets a new model enthusiast who tries to take over and run away those who don’t engage in model worship and who don’t contend that they are accurate and effective. Then they go away. Kinda cycling thru that right now . So let me get some excerpts from Ryan’s thoughts and hopes and post them here . If you were 10 -15 when he wrote it might want to zip it and learn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 10 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said: i think a lot of the drop offs here are those like me who have been active in internet weather for over20 years and originally found great excitement in the details provided and potential for great “coming true” of especially winter time model output. It all over Ryan’s writings as to what appeared to be in place. But it hasn’t happened . Every 5 years or so this board gets a new model enthusiast who tries to take over and run away those who don’t engage in model worship and who don’t contend that they are accurate and effective. Then they go away. Kinda cycling thru that right now . So let me get some excerpts from Ryan’s thoughts and hopes and post them here . If you were 10 -15 when he wrote it might want to zip it and learn I prefer to focus on improving my own methods rather than worrying about the failings of others. My own analog based methodologies failed me horribly 2 of the last 4 winters so I don't feel like throwing stones at anyone. In my own reflection I think I failed to weight the importance of smaller scale cycles on analog selection. Had I done so I would have weighted 1973 and 1952 higher even though they did not match as many criteria that I weighted too highly like QBO. I also need to correctly adjust analogs for the current temperature regime. The last time I predicted too much snow was 2020 and when I reflect on what went wrong there...I predicted slightly below avg and it ended up nearly nothing...looking back at the analogs I selected had I adjusted them for warming I would have seen how bad it might be. Almost all the snows in the analogs came in marginal setups that when adjusted for a warmer climate I would have seen most wouldn't be snow anymore and I was over predicting based on what happened 30 years ago v what would happen in the same pattern in a warmer period now. So not saying using analogs are bad...but selecting the right ones is a trick and its easier in hindsight to see than ahead of time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhino16 Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 52 minutes ago, cbmclean said: I wanted to say something meaningful about this but realized i could not because I have very little understanding of what actually causes ridges or troughs. If someone asked you to explain the mechanism(s) by which synoptic-scale variations in geopotential height arise and move around, how would you do it in a paragraph? I know that thicknesses are highly correlated to average temperature in a column of air, but is it just that simple for heights: cold air = low heights and warm air = high heights? Assume your listener has a strong background in basic physics but very little detailed knowledge of fluid dynamics. Does the hypsometric equation kind of relate to the question you’re asking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 1 hour ago, cbmclean said: I wanted to say something meaningful about this but realized i could not because I have very little understanding of what actually causes ridges or troughs. If someone asked you to explain the mechanism(s) by which synoptic-scale variations in geopotential height arise and move around, how would you do it in a paragraph? I know that thicknesses are highly correlated to average temperature in a column of air, but is it just that simple for heights: cold air = low heights and warm air = high heights? Assume your listener has a strong background in basic physics but very little detailed knowledge of fluid dynamics. Holy crap... if it was possible to explain wave physics in a paragraph I would put a lot of professors and text book writers out of business! But... I think I can try to explain the basics of what you are getting at fairly briefly, at least I will try. Ultimately what puts the whole atmosphere into motion is the Coriolis effect. But what causes waves to form within this are inequities in how heat is added to the equation which disrupts the stable flow or air and then the attempts to balance those inequities. More sunlight in one location. Fluxes in radiation. Water temps. etcetera... now pull back and imagine a flow of water like a river, and imagine an object being thrown into the flow of water and how this will cause a reaction in the flow. At first this is predictable as the waves reaction to the object...but as these ripples interact with other variables and bounce off each other it becomes less predictable over time. It's the same concept in the atmosphere, only infinitely more variables to try to predict for on a global scale. Now to really get into this on the physics level we would have to discuss things like Bernoulli's principle and how speed and pressure factor into these equations but I'm not interested or qualified to teach that physics course on here lol. If it could be explained in a forum post there wouldn't be whole courses on this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenkinsJinkies Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 A post from a facebook friend, screenshot redacted for privacy reasons. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbmclean Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 8 hours ago, psuhoffman said: Holy crap... if it was possible to explain wave physics in a paragraph I would put a lot of professors and text book writers out of business! But... I think I can try to explain the basics of what you are getting at fairly briefly, at least I will try. 8 hours ago, psuhoffman said: Now to really get into this on the physics level we would have to discuss things like Bernoulli's principle and how speed and pressure factor into these equations but I'm not interested or qualified to teach that physics course on here lol. If it could be explained in a forum post there wouldn't be whole courses on this. I understand it is a big ask but I appreciate the attempt. One thing I have noticed is that for many topics, for example Calculus, differential equations, planetary science etc., there is a large amount of material available for those who are beyond the basics but who aren't ready for the 4 year degree level. For synoptic meteorology, not so much. Most of the stuff I can find is the basic stuff. I learn a lot lurking here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbmclean Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 8 hours ago, Rhino16 said: Does the hypsometric equation kind of relate to the question you’re asking? Yes, but that appears to pertain more to thicknesses as opposed to heights. I know that thicknesses are closely related to virtual temperature, and I know that thicknesses are related to heights. But if you look at maps of gph anomalies vs temp anomalies, you can tell they are related but never identical. What I would like to understand is why they are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhino16 Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Just now, cbmclean said: Yes, but that appears to pertain more to thicknesses as opposed to heights. I know that thicknesses are closely related to virtual temperature, and I know that thicknesses are related to heights. But if you look at maps of gph anomalies vs temp anomalies, you can tell they are related but never identical. What I would like to understand is why they are different. Ah okay. That’s a question for next fall semester me… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 No matter how many 6 paragraph rebuttals are thrown out, we don’t have the necessary predictive tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Page 46 opening statement in collaboration with atmospheric scientists. “By 2025 the data problem for weather prediction will be solved. Global weather prediction models with 1km horizontal resolution will have reached the limits of predictability. Numerical prediction in the 0-2 day time frame will be essentially perfect” Bob Ryan 2002 Almanac as to weather forecasting in 2025 Ryan may have been the best DC ever had. He was No snow crow. When he went big it meant it was gonna snow These people who wrote this were not hopers and dreamers. They saw where things were and what could be. Instead we are still bogged down with what is not working and lately not working with ever increasing inaccuracy . Model huggers have thwarted progress. Ill pull a couple more excerpts but essentially the opening paragraph says it all as to what was correctly and reasonably envisioned vs where we are actually at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 5 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said: Page 46 opening statement in collaboration with atmospheric scientists. “By 2025 the data problem for weather prediction will be solved. Global weather prediction models with 1km horizontal resolution will have reached the limits of predictability. Numerical prediction in the 0-2 day time frame will be essentially perfect” Bob Ryan 2002 Almanac as to weather forecasting in 2025 Ryan may have been the best DC ever had. He was No snow crow. When he went big it meant it was gonna snow These people who wrote this were not hopers and dreamers. They saw where things were and what could be. Instead we are still bogged down with what is not working and lately not working with ever increasing inaccuracy . Model huggers have thwarted progress. Ill pull a couple more excerpts but essentially the opening paragraph says it all as to what was correctly and reasonably envisioned vs where we are actually at. That seemed hopeful, no matter how good the resolution gets we don't yet have the ability to measure every variable involved in the equations accurately. We don't have accurate measurements of every inch of the earth. Plus...incoming radiation impacts the equation and we can't always know today what that will be in 5 days, predictions of solar radiation aren't perfect either. No one is arguing with you that the tools are lacking and need to improve...but not sure what the next step is other than continuing to push the envelope the improve where possible one step at a time. This includes models and non model methods. We are still improving analog based methods and now including AI in both of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: That seemed hopeful, no matter how good the resolution gets we don't yet have the ability to measure every variable involved in the equations accurately. We don't have accurate measurements of every inch of the earth. Plus...incoming radiation impacts the equation and we can't always know today what that will be in 5 days, predictions of solar radiation aren't perfect either. No one is arguing with you that the tools are lacking and need to improve...but not sure what the next step is other than continuing to push the envelope the improve where possible one step at a time. This includes models and non model methods. We are still improving analog based methods and now including AI in both of these. See you dismiss as “hopeful” You are not qualified to do that. You were about 15 when he wrote it and are not a met nor atmospheric scientist. You are able to provide great detailed discussions with very little forecasting . You are most certainly and ardent model hugger and defender of the failing status quo The abilities you assess us as “not having” are largely because they have not been sought due to defenders of. and monetary concerns about, the preservation of the current operating methods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terpeast Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 1 minute ago, WEATHER53 said: You are not qualified to do that. You were about 15 when he wrote it and are not a met nor atmospheric scientist. And yet he understands more about the climate and its trends than most mets and atmos scientists do. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 36 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said: See you dismiss as “hopeful” You are not qualified to do that. You were about 15 when he wrote it How old do you think I am? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 39 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said: See you dismiss as “hopeful” You are not qualified to do that. You were about 15 when he wrote it and are not a met nor atmospheric scientist. You are able to provide great detailed discussions with very little forecasting . You are most certainly and ardent model hugger and defender of the failing status quo The abilities you assess us as “not having” are largely because they have not been sought due to defenders of. and monetary concerns about, the preservation of the current operating methods And….if I recall you predicted a colder than average winter and it was one of the warmest ever! But no one is attacking you over it because long range forecasting is difficult. Stop being an ass. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 3 minutes ago, psuhoffman said: And….if I recall you predicted a colder than average winter and it was one of the warmest ever! But no one is attacking you over it because long range forecasting is difficult. Stop being an ass. not sure whats happening here....lol...is this what happens to all of us when we get older? we start acting like 9 year olds again 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 4 hours ago, Ji said: not sure whats happening here....lol...is this what happens to all of us when we get older? we start acting like 9 year olds again You’ve been stuck at that age since first appearing. But I have grown to love eternally youthful Ji **d. I value your veteraness so I will ask even though the answer I think I know Were Ryan’s writings just pie in the sky hopefulness ? Do you believe model predictions or examples were successful this winter? Are you looking forward to the same kind of success rate next winter? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 5 hours ago, Terpeast said: And yet he understands more about the climate and its trends than most mets and atmos scientists do. Much like DT but gentler, he is a great discusser 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 4 hours ago, psuhoffman said: And….if I recall you predicted a colder than average winter and it was one of the warmest ever! But no one is attacking you over it because long range forecasting is difficult. Stop being an ass. Yeah both our winter outlooks were bad. My temps terrible although snowfall range of 15-22 not as bad as going big Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 37 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said: Yeah both our winter outlooks were bad. My temps terrible although snowfall range of 15-22 not as bad as going big My forecast was worse than yours because let’s be honest snow is what most care about! No one is more critical of my mistakes than me. The whole point of my participation in this thread is to analyze what happened so I don’t repeat the same mistakes. But you’re off base with the model worship stuff. Go back and read my winter forecast. There is nothing about models. It’s based on analog and pattern recognition. I messed that up just as bad as the models did, but that’s my fault. I valued the wrong variables and miscalculated some factors. This thread has had almost nothing to do with models. The long range thread often is. And we probably do rip and read day 15 crap too much. I think this has become a nasty habit born out of the fact nothing inside day 10 ever looks good recently. And I don’t feel like analyzing fiction range nonsense so I’ll engage in posting unicorn maps for fun. But we all know those day 15 maps are not likely to actually happen. And there is good discussion not model based too. Pattern recognition and analogs. And you should just contribute what you want to be disused. If something’s being missed add it. Participate. Add that value. I have no issue with your point of view. I don’t agree with some of it but so what. But why the attacks? You can make your case without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 You’ve been stuck at that age since first appearing. But I have grown to love eternally youthful Ji **d. I value your veteraness so I will ask even though the answer I think I know Were Ryan’s writings just pie in the sky hopefulness ? Do you believe model predictions or examples were successful this winter? Are you looking forward to the same kind of success rate next winter? Thanks I thought climate models did a good job this year till they failed February! Everything was on track. But we should have sensed something was off when the mjo wouldnt move to the cold phases. I just assumed everything was on track and how can a Nino February fail given that we came off a successful January. I think we got caught up in the analogs and ignored the warning signals like a -pdo…no cold air in Canada. We failed as the models because this had to be an epic winter no matter what 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jebman Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 On 3/6/2024 at 5:58 AM, vastateofmind said: I see I am not the only one who has seen 2001 and 2010 half a billion times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now