Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,732
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Upstatesnowbird
    Newest Member
    Upstatesnowbird
    Joined

Jan 11th-12th Super Bomb or Super Bummed?


Rjay
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, North and West said:


I have to think it’s because it’s showing you what you want to see, just like other solutions show other people what they want to see, so it reinforces their own biases. Just like a slanted news source or radio station for other topics, people love having preconceived notions reinforced. It’s marketing 101.


.

The problem is models are based on mathematics not marketing, so they should be objective....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wishcast_hater said:

Definitely disagree. I want YUGE snows. I enjoy using my snowblower and driving my quad in deep snows. Plus I got a plow this year and want to try it out.


.

You'll probably get them even when the weather gets a little warmer, those plowable snows are far more common where you live than they are down here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stormlover74 said:

Yes this dusting to an inch crap is getting old. I don't need 2 feet but a few plowable storms would be nice

Yeah we need a bigger storm soon or this will start to get annoying. It still is much better than getting nothing though. 

It appears that we still have a shot at getting an inch early tomorrow morning. Latest NAM went a little south, but 12z HRRR gives our area close to an inch. Hopefully we can pull off an inch rather than just a dusting. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

The problem is models are based on mathematics not marketing, so they should be objective....

They are objective.  The humans that read them are not.

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/confirmation-bias

Expand your toolbox (diversify) and have multiple sources.  Give less weight to those sources that tend to be statisitically unreliable (GFS, NAM) and more weight to those that are more reliable (ECMWF, Ensembles, New ML models).

“If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, North and West said:


But they’re then read by humans with biases, searching for what they want to find.


.

Cherry picking data.  Exactly.  Plus the fact that was a huge outlier type event got all our attention.  I wrote a post about how perhaps looking at things from the oppositional point of view and see what it looks like as a way to clear the mind.  I.e. review the models with the idea you'd like to see cold and dry in this case.  If you did that perhaps you would have strong conviction the storm was not likely at all and the models were on your side, cut and dry.  It would be like 'oh ok.  its cold and dry period move on.'  The peeps on here who like cold and dry or warm - this does not vindicate them nor validate their biases. 

 DT always used to ask "what could go wrong" in his weenie storm forecasts to help keep things somewhat in perspective.  I don't follow him anymore at all.  
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

Yeah we need a bigger storm soon or this will start to get annoying. It still is much better than getting nothing though. 

It appears that we still have a shot at getting an inch early tomorrow morning. Latest NAM went a little south, but 12z HRRR gives our area close to an inch. Hopefully we can pull off an inch rather than just a dusting. 

How do you have this giant slug of moisture that covers almost the entire nation north to south shrink so quickly?  we shouldn't even need a coastal to get snow here, that northern storm should be enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, EWR757 said:

They are objective.  The humans that read them are not.

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/confirmation-bias

Expand your toolbox (diversify) and have multiple sources.  Give less weight to those sources that tend to be statisitically unreliable (GFS, NAM) and more weight to those that are more reliable (ECMWF, Ensembles, New ML models).

“If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”

I wish they'd update our *American* models to make them more reliable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cherry picking data.  Exactly.  Plus the fact that was a huge outlier type event got all our attention.  I wrote a post about how perhaps looking at things from the oppositional point of view and see what it looks like as a way to clear the mind.  I.e. review the models with the idea you'd like to see cold and dry in this case.  If you did that perhaps you would have strong conviction the storm was not likely at all and the models were on your side, cut and dry.  It would be like 'oh ok.  its cold and dry period move on.'  The peeps on here who like cold and dry or warm - this does not vindicate them nor validate their biases. 
 DT always used to ask "what could go wrong" in his weenie storm forecasts to help keep things somewhat in perspective.  I don't follow him anymore at all.  
 

Right. I’m not a meteorologist or scientist or engineer, but even in the most logic-driven occupations, people - who may not want to admit it - are driven by emotion and responses that they hope to find.

Just take a look at Covid five years on… many, many aspects of it were ideas driven by emotion or solutions that were hoped to work, and reasonings made verboten because they did not conform.

People don’t like to admit they’re wrong, or don’t like to concede a previous viewpoint could be wrong, or someone they disagree with or dislike had a valid point.

It’s a good point you make about just saying, what could go wrong? You want Solution A to occur, but what could make it become B or C? It’s not a character issue, just a valid question.


.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EWR757 said:

They are objective.  The humans that read them are not.

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/confirmation-bias

Expand your toolbox (diversify) and have multiple sources.  Give less weight to those sources that tend to be statisitically unreliable (GFS, NAM) and more weight to those that are more reliable (ECMWF, Ensembles, New ML models).

“If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”

The 'new ML models' are worse in the d5+ range than the EC Ens.  Many are even worse than the GFS Ens.   We have yet to see a model consistently beat the EC Ens despite tricky marketing gimmicks and selective verification to the contrary.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, winterwx21 said:

That's a good bump up by the Euro. Hopefully Euro and HRRR are correct about our area getting an inch. It sucks that we aren't getting any bigger snowstorms, but at least we're getting several light events during the cold pattern. 

If we got a 1-2 inch event every week, most would be happy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, North and West said:


Right. I’m not a meteorologist or scientist or engineer, but even in the most logic-driven occupations, people - who may not want to admit it - are driven by emotion and responses that they hope to find.

Just take a look at Covid five years on… many, many aspects of it were ideas driven by emotion or solutions that were hoped to work, and reasonings made verboten because they did not conform.

People don’t like to admit they’re wrong, or don’t like to concede a previous viewpoint could be wrong, or someone they disagree with or dislike had a valid point.

It’s a good point you make about just saying, what could go wrong? You want Solution A to occur, but what could make it become B or C? It’s not a character issue, just a valid question.


.

Well said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...