Late Feb/March Medium/Long Range Discussion

[CAPE]

28 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Meanwhile where is all the topical long range analysts in here that it was soooo important we stop my post about the gfs rainstorm being affected by warming?  Funny. We just had to stop that. Because it wasn’t topical.  It was derailing the discussion.  And then Fing crickets.  You guys are so transparent. 

 I know you said you were joking in a subsequent post, but dropping posts like "another perfect track rainstorm" isn't at all helpful without any context. The depiction on that run was practically the antithesis of a favorable synoptic setup for frozen. Not a case for your study imo.

[RVAman]

Getting angry at posters on a user board because of your beliefs, whether they are scientific facts or not is just silly. Thread has gone way off from what it should be..

[CAPE]

1 minute ago, RVAman said:

Getting angry at posters on a user board because of your beliefs, whether they are scientific facts or not is just silly. Thread has gone way off from what it should be..

This is a science/fact based forum. Ones 'beliefs' aren't necessarily relevant if there is no scientific basis.

[RevWarReenactor]

9 minutes ago, CAPE said:

This is a science/fact based forum. Ones 'beliefs' aren't necessarily relevant if there is no scientific basis.

We spent weeks and weeks posting tons of maps and analysis about a late Feb “epic” pattern that was totally fictional. Not only was it fictional; but we are literally in the 50’s and 60’s with rain into Canada. I’m just not seeing any science behind any of this. I am also not seeing much “ Mea culpa” and pause being given into how wrong it at was and learning from it to forecast better in the future. That frustrates me how Mets are just so wrong and move on like they didn’t make major mistakes.. 

[CAPE]

7 minutes ago, RevWarReenactor said:

We spent weeks and weeks posting tons of maps and analysis about a late Feb “epic” pattern that was totally fictional. Not only was it fictional; but we are literally in the 50’s and 60’s with rain into Canada. I’m just not seeing any science behind any of this. I am also not seeing much “ Mea culpa” and pause being given into how wrong it at was and learning from it to forecast better in the future. That frustrates me how Mets are just so wrong and move on like they didn’t make major mistakes.. 

I never read a single forecast discussion from a met at Mount Holly making reference to some potential epic pattern showing up on super LR guidance.

There is always some degree of uncertainty beyond a few days and it grows from there. This is a given.

[StormyClearweather]

4 minutes ago, RevWarReenactor said:

We spent weeks and weeks posting tons of maps and analysis about a late Feb “epic” pattern that was totally fictional. Not only was it fictional; but we are literally in the 50’s and 60’s with rain into Canada. I’m just not seeing any science behind any of this. I am also not seeing much “ Mea culpa” and pause being given into how wrong it at was and learning from it to forecast better in the future. That frustrates me how Mets are just so wrong and move on like they didn’t make major mistakes.. 

Are you seriously asking for people to take fault for failing to accurately predict the future weeks in advance, despite using the best science and guidance available at the time, all because you wanted more snow than you've gotten? Get over it. 

If you need that kind of accuracy, you need to stay away from this thread and stick to listening to the nice man on the news for your weather forecasts. With long-range forecasting comes great uncertainty. If you can't handle it, move on. 

[Terpeast]

5 minutes ago, CAPE said:

I never read a single forecast discussion from a met at Mount Holly making reference to some potential epic pattern showing up on super LR guidance.

There is always some degree of uncertainty beyond a few days and it grows from there. This is a given.

Yeah, there’s a good reason why AFDs never go past 6-7 days

[blizzardmeiser]

The only 

11 minutes ago, RevWarReenactor said:

We spent weeks and weeks posting tons of maps and analysis about a late Feb “epic” pattern that was totally fictional. Not only was it fictional; but we are literally in the 50’s and 60’s with rain into Canada. I’m just not seeing any science behind any of this. I am also not seeing much “ Mea culpa” and pause being given into how wrong it at was and learning from it to forecast better in the future. That frustrates me how Mets are just so wrong and move on like they didn’t make major mistakes.. 

I didnt see any Mets pushing an epic pattern.  What you are referring to are folks on this board posting 384hr maps that showed a great pattern.  We all know people should tread carefully with LR guidance, especially given how poor LR models perform. 

[WxUSAF]

8 minutes ago, asalt1 said:

Mods must still be asleep...

Believe it or not I have other things going on in my life

[SnowGolfBro]

25 minutes ago, StormyClearweather said:

Are you seriously asking for people to take fault for failing to accurately predict the future weeks in advance, despite using the best science and guidance available at the time, all because you wanted more snow than you've gotten? Get over it. 

If you need that kind of accuracy, you need to stay away from this thread and stick to listening to the nice man on the news for your weather forecasts. With long-range forecasting comes great uncertainty. If you can't handle it, move on. 

This makes perfect sense. So when people tell you they know what the climate will be like in 5 or 10 or 100 years from now, we should be laughing at them. 

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, CAPE said:

 I know you said you were joking in a subsequent post, but dropping posts like "another perfect track rainstorm" isn't at all helpful without any context. The depiction on that run was practically the antithesis of a favorable synoptic setup for frozen. Not a case for your study imo.

I respectfully disagree. I saw some equally awful pattern setups with pac puke airmasses that we managed a snow because of nothing other than a lucky wave track before.  1997 was one. The difference imo was the crap airmasses used to be +5 instead of +8 or worse. As the torches get even warmer it’s getting harder to luck into a Snow from a lucky track in a bad pattern. 
 

Lately there is another even more depressing phenomenon of waves that take a good track in a decent or even good long wave pattern and rain because it’s still not cold enough. Yea those are the more alarming cases. The ones where we can definitely say “this should have been snow”.  The other category of which that gfs storm would fall are storms where I say “in the past there was an outside chance that could have been snow maybe…but none of them seem to be anymore and it’s not even close anymore” and that’s also worth noting. 
 

But this is the kind of discussion that is topical and important to have. Maybe you’re right about that gfs storm. So the dialogue is important. Your pushback isn’t what got me heated. It was the various disingenuous passive aggressive attempts to stop the discussion from happening at all. 

[Solution Man]

Just realized I'm the only one in here, Damn

[Weather Will]

I think the issue is that people want this thread to stay focused on winter weather possibilities or other significant weather events expected through March.  Having to go through pages of other dialogue to find posts  that focus on the threads topic is tedious.

[stormtracker]

Looks like i picked the wrong week to not check the LR thread daily 

[stormtracker]

2 minutes ago, Weather Will said:

I think the issue is that people want this thread to stay focused on winter weather possibilities or other significant weather events expected through March.  Having to go through pages of other dialogue to find posts  that focus on the threads topic is tedious.

Weather Will finally said something I 100% endorse.  That post was not gahooie

[CAPE]

5 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I respectfully disagree. I saw some equally awful pattern setups with pac puke airmasses that we managed a snow because of nothing other than a lucky wave track before.  1997 was one. The difference imo was the crap airmasses used to be +5 instead of +8 or worse. As the torches get even warmer it’s getting harder to luck into a Snow from a lucky track in a bad pattern. 
 

Lately there is another even more depressing phenomenon of waves that take a good track in a decent or even good long wave pattern and rain because it’s still not cold enough. Yea those are the more alarming cases. The ones where we can definitely say “this should have been snow”.  The other category of which that gfs storm would fall are storms where I say “in the past there was an outside chance that could have been snow maybe…but none of them seem to be anymore and it’s not even close anymore” and that’s also worth noting. 
 

But this is the kind of discussion that is topical and important to have. Maybe you’re right about that gfs storm. So the dialogue is important. Your pushback isn’t what got me heated. It was the various disingenuous passive aggressive attempts to stop the discussion from happening at all. 

The climate is changing. It goes without saying. This thread is intended for discussion about potential upcoming events, in the here and now, with the understanding that 'things are different'. We don't need to constantly be told how the outcome would have/might have been different 30 years ago. There are other threads for that sort of discussion.

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, RVAman said:

Getting angry at posters on a user board because of your beliefs, whether they are scientific facts or not is just silly. Thread has gone way off from what it should be..

That goes both ways. The occasional post discussing how warming is affecting a storm wouldn’t derail the thread if the same handful of people didn’t show up every time and try to shut it down. That’s what derails the thread. Last night if they didn’t do that @CAPE and I would have had our little 4 post back and forth discussion and then it would have been over. Finito. But they showed up as usual and turned it into a train wreck then the coup de grace is they use the mess they intentionally created to justify why we can’t talk about that!   

[Ji]

There is nothing to really talk about till day 16. Finally seeing some signs of height rises in the west coast but will take till about mid month to give us any chance.
The first half of March is cooked as a lamb

[Ji]

That goes both ways. The occasional post discussing how warming is affecting a storm wouldn’t derail the thread if the same handful of people didn’t show up every time and try to shut it down. That’s what derails the thread. Last night if they didn’t do that [mention=1005]CAPE[/mention] and I would have had our little 4 post back and forth discussion and then it would have been over. Finito. But they showed up as usual and turned it into a train wreck then the coup de grace is they use the mess they intentionally created to justify why we can’t talk about that!   

I don’t think the discussion should have been moved. When there is nothing to talk about in the long range thread we need to talk about why there is nothing to talk about in the long range thread

[psuhoffman]

2 minutes ago, CAPE said:

The climate is changing. It goes without saying. This thread is intended for discussion about potential upcoming events, in the here and now, with the understanding that 'things are different'. We don't need to constantly be told how the outcome would have/might have been different 30 years ago. There are other threads for that sort of discussion.

That was a discussion of a potential event. But granted a day 15 op gfs storm is a stretch. But not like much else was being talked about.
 

Here is the thing, this is a game they play. The little 4 post back respectful and forth we had isn’t what derailed things. It was the fit they threw about it. And then they use the mess they create on purpose to say “see we can’t talk about this”.  
 

And how much more delusional can we get. There was even a discussion implying “it’s actually been snowy”. It’s been literally the worst period in history and we’re debating “but has it actually been good”. I just can’t. 

[osfan24]

14 minutes ago, Weather Will said:

I think the issue is that people want this thread to stay focused on winter weather possibilities or other significant weather events expected through March.  Having to go through pages of other dialogue to find posts  that focus on the threads topic is tedious.

Like what? LOL.

[CAPE]

6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

That was a discussion of a potential event. But granted a day 15 op gfs storm is a stretch. But not like much else was being talked about.
 

Here is the thing, this is a game they play. The little 4 post back respectful and forth we had isn’t what derailed things. It was the fit they threw about it. And then they use the mess they create on purpose to say “see we can’t talk about this”.  
 

And how much more delusional can we get. There was even a discussion implying “it’s actually been snowy”. It’s been literally the worst period in history and we’re debating “but has it actually been good”. I just can’t. 

I have accepted that "good" now isn't the same as in the past. The bar is lower. Already factored into my expectations. What good does it do (in the context of this thread) to constantly go on about how our current snow climo sucks compared to a couple decades ago.

[WxUSAF]

19 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

Looks like i picked the wrong week to not check the LR thread daily 

I literally move a bunch of posts and the conversation just continues anyway 

[MDScienceTeacher]

1 hour ago, CAPE said:

There is always some degree of uncertainty beyond a few days and it grows from there. This is a given.

Right.  This is why I have never really understood why someone would trust a 384 hour H5 map any more than they would trust a blizzard being shown during the same time period.  I get it, the higher up you go, the longer the wave and the more skillful the long range models get.  But 10 days is fantasy land on the surface AND at 500 MBs.

when I am looking at the ensembles,  I like to look a the individual members to get an idea about how far out in to the long range I can trust the output that the model is producing.  At some point what you will see is significant divergence of the members.  If you look at the latest GEFS, the point at which the members start to significantly diverge is at about 192 hours.  

Thats tells me that the upper limit of models range is at about 6-8 days.  Anything after that the confidence is pretty low.

[caviman2201]

11 minutes ago, WxUSAF said:

I literally move a bunch of posts and the conversation just continues anyway 

Its an insurrection! 

May as well throw fuel on the fire... 

[MDScienceTeacher]

13 minutes ago, CAPE said:

I have accepted that "good" now isn't the same is in the past. The bar is lower. Already factored into my expectations. What good does it do (in the context of this thread) to constantly go on about how our current snow climo sucks compared to a couple decades ago.

I wouldnt give up so fast.  The mid atlantic has had several long periods (7-10 years) of significantly below average snow fall.  We are probably just going through one of those now.  In terms of warming.. I am with @Bob Chill in thinking the net effect is going to be more severe winters storms but who knows.  We are just in one of those long droughts.  

[Ralph Wiggum]

1 hour ago, RevWarReenactor said:

We spent weeks and weeks posting tons of maps and analysis about a late Feb “epic” pattern that was totally fictional. Not only was it fictional; but we are literally in the 50’s and 60’s with rain into Canada. I’m just not seeing any science behind any of this. I am also not seeing much “ Mea culpa” and pause being given into how wrong it at was and learning from it to forecast better in the future. That frustrates me how Mets are just so wrong and move on like they didn’t make major mistakes.. 

I posted a discussion prior to the epic collapse of how I thought the weeklies were deriving at those epic looks. Then I reposted again after they collapsed. They were based on algorithms programmed into guidance based on analogs from seasons past which matched things as pdo, qdo, enso as well as current data when models/weeklies were ran. With that said, if we had similar conditions to say late Jan 2010 when those weeklies were ran, a heavily weighted analog was used thus showing us something which looked like Feb  2010. Honestly it wasn't surprising things flipped but I played along for a bit with the positive vibes gang because I actually enjoy posting here. Just have to walk on eggshells at times.

[EastCoast NPZ]

I think I said it back in 2016 coming off 3 consecutive AN winters..... 3 out 4 winters here are probably BN, so we were staring at 9 ratters coming down the pipe.  Looks like we're getting them all in succession.   '25 - 26 is our year.

[CAPE]

6 minutes ago, MDScienceTeacher said:

I wouldnt give up so fast.  The mid atlantic has had several long periods (7-10 years) of significantly below average snow fall.  We are probably just going through one of those now.  In terms of warming.. I am with @Bob Chill in thinking the net effect is going to be more severe winters storms but who knows.  We are just in one of those long droughts.  

Not giving up. Its quite possible we will again see snowier than avg winters in the coming years. There will be short term irregular variations within the longer term trend.

[CAPE]

20" is above average in my yard. Did that 2 winters ago.