Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,583
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    23Yankee
    Newest Member
    23Yankee
    Joined

Jan 11-12 Model/Forecasting Discussion


Ji

Recommended Posts

I don't know. The issue with me is that they, for some reason, made the call five days out. Now there were qualifiers in the write-up, words like "probably" and the like, but they still put their reputation on the line. It is a business, is my point. If it verifies, people will talk about it and that's the business side of it. Is their forecast so out on a limb that it is ridiculous? If someone thinks so, please enlighten me. I know what the models show now but as everyone knows, they will change.

Let's see if I can make this nice and easy for you to understand.

What Accuweather is showing on their map right now, is not consistently being shown from model run to model run, they have changed and as you said, they will continue to change. They could have posted a map showing OPTIONS of tracks, and the possiblity of heavy snow should the low hug the coast or how we do not get any snow should the low go out to sea. But they didn't do that, they posted the "worst case" scenario. It's a wishcast.

Mentioning snow 5 days out is one thing - saying where heavy snow is going to fall is another.

We don't mention JB, Henry and the like here because they are a bunch of weenie wishcasters. So, if you enjoy that type of stuff, Accuweather has their own forum. Perhaps you should visit it, then you can hug their mets, and their maps without people giving you a hard time about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not to start a real problem here but there are numerous indicators on this forum referencing websites that generate money. As I have stated before,I just like mets making forecasts when they have some degree of confidence and then if it needs to be changed, then it needs to be changed.

Thank you Wes. As usual, nicely done and very level headed.

Eagle Man - here is your reason to why ACCUWEATHER is all about the money and not about being serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculous, yes. But they still have latitude to say "we were kinda right..." Of course someone in the south east will have some mixed precip, and following the general path of the storm they can conclude that someone will see light snow and heavier snow; they just of course don't quantify how much heavy snow there will be.

yes their forecast is ridiculous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to start a real problem here but there are numerous indicators on this forum referencing websites that generate money. As I have stated before,I just like mets making forecasts when they have some degree of confidence and then if it needs to be changed, then it needs to be changed.

Degree of confidence and wishcasting are two completely different things

But you hug Accuweather, JB, Henry, the CRAS whatever is showing the solution YOU want. Whatever makes your weenie heart happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but they still put their reputation on the line.

Their reputation, among most people on this forum, is worthless because of how often they do that. You don't get bonus points in meteorology for being one-for-ten, but having that one forecast correct 7 days out.

If their forecasts from this range were so good, I'd have shoveled a copule feet of snow so far. I'm just over 2"! Now lots of people messed up the Dec 26 storm, but some (DT as a good example), admitted their mistake. Accuwx just ignores it and starts hyping the next 384hr GFS HECS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to start a real problem here but there are numerous indicators on this forum referencing websites that generate money. As I have stated before,I just like mets making forecasts when they have some degree of confidence and then if it needs to be changed, then it needs to be changed.

Sure they be confident, but nobody has confidence in them any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I wrote for the Capital Weather Gang.

There are still two possible scenarios that depend on how two upper level features interact with each other. One in which the two features essentially remain separate and storm tracks across the gulf and off the southeast coast and then out to sea with giving DC little or no snow and another in which they phase (mesh together) and the low starts moving up the coast. This year, systems have had trouble phasing early enough to give us to hold the low close enough to the coast for us to get significant snowfall. The GFS has trended away from the phased solution towards the European model's out to sea solution. Because of the inherent difficulty in getting phasing, the more likely scenario is for the storm to scoot out to sea. However, we're still looking so far in the future that we cannot rule out a solution that stays closer to the coast which would offer DC accumulating snow as several ensemble members have such a track. There still is considerable uncertainty about the track of the potential storm and either of these solutions remains possible.

There still is considerable uncertainty about the track .....

Yeah, I know. Thx for keeping it real. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There still is considerable uncertainty about the track .....

[/size]Yeah, I know. Thx for keeping it real. :)

That's why I think JB's post showing amounts is unconscionable. He certainly has heard of chaos so putting a map out that consistently shows a worst case scenario isn't meteorology or even a real forecast. If you forecast 10 events and 1 come in. How has you map helped anyone. The false alarm ratio is just too large if you are actually statistically verifying your forecasts and then are comparing them to some type of standard (for example a model forecast) or if you're forecasting probabilities MOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which regional thread did you get this from?

i checked the source -- i must admit i was pleasantly surprised that it looked like it did

though also, it's still a glancing hit at best probably

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...