February 2017 Observations & Discussions

So the Big Blizzard TWC and other outlets had been forecasting for Red Sox Suck yesterday appears to have bypassed Red Sox Suck for the most part.

Beantown reported 1.5 inches of snow yesterday as of midnight last night. I'll wait to see what the reports are from midnight to 7am this morning but this is what I was discussing yesterday about how people romanticize the snow totals there based on a couple of maps that often don't come anywhere near what actually happens. It looks like this is another in a long history of major busts.

So happy Red Sox Suck busted. I mean, great way to start a Monday.

And they closed school yesterday. That's what happens when you make a premature decision before the event even unfolds lol

Frank_Wx wrote:So happy Red Sox Suck busted. I mean, great way to start a Monday.

I don't think anybody took the coastal front seriously when they forecasted ahaha they ended up getting more than 1.5", I think closer to the 6-9" range after last night, but that is the exact problem I have with most weather outlets, and the reason I love hobbyists and boards like ourselves. People that are actually professionally responsible for providing forecasts take a few maps and run with them. I've seen it personally. They don't take the time to actually look at things like we do and use their synoptic horse sense to analyze the entirety of the situation and present it. Instead, they end up looking at a few QPF maps and temperature profiles and take them as gospel. Then we wonder why our profession is so often trashed by the public? Can you blame them?? You put "crap" in, do you really expect to get anything else out? I'm not bashing any particular outlet, and realize that I am broadbrushing here, as well as that this is probably banter, but it's just pure frustration on my end. It's not like the information isn't available, it's just that they are too lazy to look at it. End rant.

rb924119 wrote:

Frank_Wx wrote:So happy Red Sox Suck busted. I mean, great way to start a Monday.

I don't think anybody took the coastal front seriously when they forecasted ahaha they ended up getting more than 1.5", I think closer to the 6-9" range after last night, but that is the exact problem I have with most weather outlets, and the reason I love hobbyists and boards like ourselves. People that are actually professionally responsible for providing forecasts take a few maps and run with them. I've seen it personally. They don't take the time to actually look at things like we do and use their synoptic horse sense to analyze the entirety of the situation and present it. Instead, they end up looking at a few QPF maps and temperature profiles and take them as gospel. Then we wonder why our profession is so often trashed by the public? Can you blame them?? You put "crap" in, do you really expect to get anything else out? I'm not bashing any particular outlet, and realize that I am broadbrushing here, as well as that this is probably banter, but it's just pure frustration on my end. It's not like the information isn't available, it's just that they are too lazy to look at it. End rant.

RB the 1.5 inches was their midnight measurement. Waiting to see their final total this morning. It's not going to be anywhere near the foot plus that was being forecast. Maine getting hit hard as was expected. Hopefully Ace got his blizzard in NH.

CPcantmeasuresnow wrote:

rb924119 wrote:

Frank_Wx wrote:So happy Red Sox Suck busted. I mean, great way to start a Monday.

I don't think anybody took the coastal front seriously when they forecasted ahaha they ended up getting more than 1.5", I think closer to the 6-9" range after last night, but that is the exact problem I have with most weather outlets, and the reason I love hobbyists and boards like ourselves. People that are actually professionally responsible for providing forecasts take a few maps and run with them. I've seen it personally. They don't take the time to actually look at things like we do and use their synoptic horse sense to analyze the entirety of the situation and present it. Instead, they end up looking at a few QPF maps and temperature profiles and take them as gospel. Then we wonder why our profession is so often trashed by the public? Can you blame them?? You put "crap" in, do you really expect to get anything else out? I'm not bashing any particular outlet, and realize that I am broadbrushing here, as well as that this is probably banter, but it's just pure frustration on my end. It's not like the information isn't available, it's just that they are too lazy to look at it. End rant.

RB the 1.5 inches was their midnight measurement. Waiting to see their final total this morning. It's not going to be anywhere near the foot plus that was being forecast. Maine getting hit hard as was expected. Hopefully Ace got his blizzard in NH.

No, I know, and you're right in that it is nowhere near; I'm just expressing general frustration because I have personally seen how forecasts in some weather entities are actually made, and in those places I know that what I said above about their forecast process is true, yet they'll be the very first to get bent out of shape about being called out. Meanwhile, you have people that actually know how to forecast and are exceptionally good at it in places such as weather boards and private sites, but because they don't have a piece of paper that says they're "certified" with a degree can't even apply to places that would greatly benefit from their hiring. It's just beyond ridiculous. And did you ever notice how no media outlets ever show verification maps of their forecast areas? They cherry pick totals because they know that if they actually verified their forecasts and put them in the public eye they'd be out of a job. By doing so, the public would realize their frequent inaccuracies and switch channels, thus dropping ratings. In the media world, that's the axe.

I honestly don't even know why I'm so mad, my forecast for 15 miles west of B-ston verified perfectly, as it should for Maine, which is fantastic for my interview (those were questions asked of me) lmfao I must just be an angry young man lol

rb, while I agree with you and your frustration, let me play devil's advocate for a second. This Thursday's storm is a good example of the problem that forecasters face. The Euro called for a phase of the 2 systems up until just recently while the GFS always went the other way. You can't go on TV and tell people that there will either be a severe storm or a weak storm. The viewer doesn't care about phases and closed lows and what happens at 500mb. They want quick and easy and if there's one thing I've learned on this board, it's that predicting the weather is anything but quick and easy.

CPcantmeasuresnow wrote:

rb924119 wrote:

Frank_Wx wrote:So happy Red Sox Suck busted. I mean, great way to start a Monday.

I don't think anybody took the coastal front seriously when they forecasted ahaha they ended up getting more than 1.5", I think closer to the 6-9" range after last night, but that is the exact problem I have with most weather outlets, and the reason I love hobbyists and boards like ourselves. People that are actually professionally responsible for providing forecasts take a few maps and run with them. I've seen it personally. They don't take the time to actually look at things like we do and use their synoptic horse sense to analyze the entirety of the situation and present it. Instead, they end up looking at a few QPF maps and temperature profiles and take them as gospel. Then we wonder why our profession is so often trashed by the public? Can you blame them?? You put "crap" in, do you really expect to get anything else out? I'm not bashing any particular outlet, and realize that I am broadbrushing here, as well as that this is probably banter, but it's just pure frustration on my end. It's not like the information isn't available, it's just that they are too lazy to look at it. End rant.

RB the 1.5 inches was their midnight measurement. Waiting to see their final total this morning. It's not going to be anywhere near the foot plus that was being forecast. Maine getting hit hard as was expected. Hopefully Ace got his blizzard in NH.

Negative busted way low. Had 8" from the over running and 3" from the coastal. Not even a foot. Unfortunate. Maybe next year....

TheAresian wrote:rb, while I agree with you and your frustration, let me play devil's advocate for a second. This Thursday's storm is a good example of the problem that forecasters face. The Euro called for a phase of the 2 systems up until just recently while the GFS always went the other way. You can't go on TV and tell people that there will either be a severe storm or a weak storm. The viewer doesn't care about phases and closed lows and what happens at 500mb. They want quick and easy and if there's one thing I've learned on this board, it's that predicting the weather is anything but quick and easy.

Great counter! BUT, my frustration is NOT coming from the fact that there is always a degree of uncertainty in every forecast. I'm not arguing that at all. My frustration stems from them living and dying by models, and following them/changing their forecasts every time the models change. My point is that if they took time to look at everything, they should make "a forecast" at some unspecified lead time. For example, as you brought up Thursday, my (quiet) stance on that system has been OTS since the end of last week because I didn't like the western ridge orientation and noted the fact that every deep southern stream system this season has not ejected out in its entirety, nor quickly. I couldn't care less about what the smaller results were of phasing or not phasing, rain versus snow. I made a prediction. Then, I stuck with it; I didn't change it from "40 and mostly sunny" to "36 and mostly cloudy with a chance of light snow" to "33 and a chance of a storm" to now "40 and partly sunny". By continuously changing your forecast with the models you decrease your accuracy. Think about it; you make a forecast and stick with it until the day before. If it's right you were 100%. If you have to change it the day before, you're still 50%. The way they do it, they make four forecasts, still change the day before, and then still end up to be wrong sometimes. Even if they're right with their final forecast, they're still only accurate 20% of the time.

Now, you could say that by not changing with models you aren't making the uncertainty known. My counter to that is even though you stick with your call, you can still just mention something like "I'm alone in this forecast right now, as guidance says 'x', and I will alert you to any changes in my forecast as soon as I can." But by taking a stance, you demonstrate you have a backbone and aren't afraid to follow what you believe. People understand that it is a highly imperfect science and there will be busts, they know this. But when you constantly change and are STILL wrong (ala B-ston) it starts changing the public view of our broader reputation, understandably, yet the people responsible are the first to retaliate. THAT's where my frustration comes from.

Stepped outside a moment ago. Saw a few flakes. And a few snow flurries.

rb924119 wrote:

TheAresian wrote:rb, while I agree with you and your frustration, let me play devil's advocate for a second. This Thursday's storm is a good example of the problem that forecasters face. The Euro called for a phase of the 2 systems up until just recently while the GFS always went the other way. You can't go on TV and tell people that there will either be a severe storm or a weak storm. The viewer doesn't care about phases and closed lows and what happens at 500mb. They want quick and easy and if there's one thing I've learned on this board, it's that predicting the weather is anything but quick and easy.

Great counter! BUT, my frustration is NOT coming from the fact that there is always a degree of uncertainty in every forecast. I'm not arguing that at all. My frustration stems from them living and dying by models, and following them/changing their forecasts every time the models change. My point is that if they took time to look at everything, they should make "a forecast" at some unspecified lead time. For example, as you brought up Thursday, my (quiet) stance on that system has been OTS since the end of last week because I didn't like the western ridge orientation and noted the fact that every deep southern stream system this season has not ejected out in its entirety, nor quickly. I couldn't care less about what the smaller results were of phasing or not phasing, rain versus snow. I made a prediction. Then, I stuck with it; I didn't change it from "40 and mostly sunny" to "36 and mostly cloudy with a chance of light snow" to "33 and a chance of a storm" to now "40 and partly sunny". By continuously changing your forecast with the models you decrease your accuracy. Think about it; you make a forecast and stick with it until the day before. If it's right you were 100%. If you have to change it the day before, you're still 50%. The way they do it, they make four forecasts, still change the day before, and then still end up to be wrong sometimes. Even if they're right with their final forecast, they're still only accurate 20% of the time.

Now, you could say that by not changing with models you aren't making the uncertainty known. My counter to that is even though you stick with your call, you can still just mention something like "I'm alone in this forecast right now, as guidance says 'x', and I will alert you to any changes in my forecast as soon as I can." But by taking a stance, you demonstrate you have a backbone and aren't afraid to follow what you believe. People understand that it is a highly imperfect science and there will be busts, they know this. But when you constantly change and are STILL wrong (ala B-ston) it starts changing the public view of our broader reputation, understandably, yet the people responsible are the first to retaliate. THAT's where my frustration comes from.

I think your idea for saying you split from guidance is the best way to go, but media personalities are the wrong place to look for the integrity that you and the rest of the forecasters on this board possess.

And my apologies to the mods and other members is this is banter rather than discussion.

100% agree

Were we hacked?!! OUR ENTIRE RADAR SYSTEM IS DOWN, NATION-WIDE!

ALL METAR SITES ARE DOWN TOO!!! Wth?

rb924119 wrote:Were we hacked?!! OUR ENTIRE RADAR SYSTEM IS DOWN, NATION-WIDE!

??? All my radar sites are working

sroc4 wrote:

rb924119 wrote:Were we hacked?!! OUR ENTIRE RADAR SYSTEM IS DOWN, NATION-WIDE!

???  All my radar sites are working

Not on mobile for the NWS pages lol hold on, false alarm maybe?

I'm just a dumbass aha for some reason they wouldn't on my phone, and only the national mosaic is down. Working fine on my computer. But the METARs aren't. I think they are down.

OK I have a question for someone on this board.. Is there a way to get a snow total for a town (centereach ny 11720)..My friend and I had a bet that I who live in centereach which he says no i got 13.5inches but I am insisting it was 16.0inches.. There was a spotter report from centereach at like 2:15 for 13.5 but nothing after.. Please help I need to beat his ass. lol..

HEATMISER wrote:OK I have a question for someone on this board.. Is there a way to get a snow total for a town (centereach ny 11720)..My friend and I had a bet that I who live in centereach which he says no i got 13.5inches but I am insisting it was 16.0inches.. There was a spotter report from centereach at like 2:15 for 13.5 but nothing after.. Please help I need to beat his ass. lol..

Unless you have access to something like a "point and click" type of map that interpolates actual observations and fills in all of the gaps in the data, if there isn't an ob in that location (which there is, just not recent), then that's all you have to go on. You can add any additional snow that you've received since that ob was taken under the assumption that that measurement was an accurate proxy for your backyard to plead your case, but otherwise, not that I'm aware of. I see what you're saying, though; it's your word against his, and the objective data is an outdated ob, but unfortunately that's the best you can do without an interpolated map with real-time data.

HEATMISER wrote:OK I have a question for someone on this board.. Is there a way to get a snow total for a town (centereach ny 11720)..My friend and I had a bet that I who live in centereach which he says no i got 13.5inches but I am insisting it was 16.0inches.. There was a spotter report from centereach at like 2:15 for 13.5 but nothing after.. Please help I need to beat his ass. lol..

Are any of these other sites near you that have a later reading?

SUFFOLK COUNTY...
BOHEMIA 15.5 530 PM 2/09 PUBLIC
FARMINGVILLE 14.4 300 PM 2/09 TRAINED SPOTTER
HAUPPAUGE 14.0 500 PM 2/09 NWS EMPLOYEE
NORTH BABYLON 14.0 500 PM 2/09 PUBLIC
SELDEN 14.0 545 PM 2/09 TRAINED SPOTTER
SETAUKET 14.0 500 PM 2/09 PUBLIC
SMITHTOWN 13.8 500 PM 2/09 SOCIAL MEDIA
ISLIP AIRPORT 13.7 400 PM 2/09 FAA OBSERVER
ISLIP 13.6 530 PM 2/09 TRAINED SPOTTER
COMMACK 13.5 445 PM 2/09 PUBLIC
CENTEREACH 13.5 210 PM 2/09 PUBLIC
EASTPORT 13.5 500 PM 2/09 PUBLIC
PATCHOGUE 12.3 420 PM 2/09 NWS EMPLOYEE
SAYVILLE 12.0 300 PM 2/09 TRAINED SPOTTER
WEST ISLIP 12.0 600 PM 2/09 TRAINED SPOTTER
EAST ISLIP 12.0 225 PM 2/09 TRAINED SPOTTER
MATTITUCK 11.8 500 PM 2/09 TRAINED SPOTTER
WEST BABYLON 11.7 330 PM 2/09 TRAINED SPOTTER
BAY SHORE 11.4 500 PM 2/09 NWS EMPLOYEE
UPTON 11.1 100 PM 2/09 NWS OFFICE
ORIENT 11.0 240 PM 2/09 TRAINED SPOTTER
SOUND BEACH 10.8 500 PM 2/09 PUBLIC
RIVERHEAD 10.5 430 PM 2/09 NWS EMPLOYEE
GREENLAWN 10.3 343 PM 2/09 PUBLIC
RIDGE 10.2 515 PM 2/09 NWS EMPLOYEE
DEER PARK 10.0 200 PM 2/09 TRAINED SPOTTER
LINDENHURST 8.6 118 PM 2/09 PUBLIC
JAMESPORT 7.1 430 PM 2/09 PUBLIC
SOUTHAMPTON 6.5 245 PM 2/09 PUBLIC

Or this?

rb924119 wrote:Were we hacked?!! OUR ENTIRE RADAR SYSTEM IS DOWN, NATION-WIDE!

http://www.weathernationtv.com/news/national-weather-service-suffered-nationwide-data-outage/

Radz wrote:

rb924119 wrote:Were we hacked?!! OUR ENTIRE RADAR SYSTEM IS DOWN, NATION-WIDE!

http://www.weathernationtv.com/news/national-weather-service-suffered-nationwide-data-outage/

Well lookie there Ray. Your not crazy. Lol

11.6, 85%, 29.67 R

Winds are now calm, great snowpack.Looks like we torch for the weekend.After that...?????????????

Any merit to the wind event for Thursday accuwx has me gusting to 52mph. Same thing they showed for yesterday a week out. Props to them for get it right for once.