Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Staff Recommended Posts

Did anyone actually get severe weather out of this yesterday.  i may hve gotten about 30 minutes of light rain at most and then just hot and just down right humid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PlanetMaster said:

 

It wont change because its not the fine men and women that work there but the 100% complete reliability on the computer forecast models which are obviously having issues with whats really happening up/out there. I always heard numbers like the models are 50% accurate, or 75% accurate, even over 85% but in my experience and observation overall they barely crack 5% or 10% accuracy on a daily basis. if you are off 5 of the 7 days of the week and we are talking forecasts within 24 hours so no excuses, lol how the hell do you achieve 80% ??? :352nmsp:

You'd become highly unpopular but... how about we add some kind of "score card" here on the site?  Just map the major predicted storms, maybe?  Accuracy of temperatures and precipitation, maybe wind if it's supposed to be strong?  It could be its own thread.

Not easy to do, since every person experiences a storm differently.  If it's pouring in your yard and just raining in my yard, 10 miles away, which prediction is fairly called a "hit?"  Maybe just discussing that would bring value.

Just a thought.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A chilly 54° this morning, back up near 70° currently..

Picked up 0.0" of liquid. 

U think the models are bad? Try following them during a lake effect event lol

3 feet to nada just hours before an event, multiple times, just last year :classic_rolleyes:

It's frustrating not knowing your forecast until the day of, and still usually wrong..

One of the main problems is we have to many models to analyze these days..

Edited by Mike W IN ALTMAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of showers in the usual spots, CNJ/SEPA, hope they cross south shore of LI cause we need it.

radar.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got some pretty decent rainfall late last night and this morning. Dews back up above 70 again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to reply to @RobBucksPA's comments here, since he posted his thoughts in this thread. I carefully read, and now reread, the posts, because I was intrigued as always by his writing, but was somewhat confused by the message. I hesitated responding, because I sure as s don't want to get into a climate discussion here, or have anyone misconstrue what I'm trying to say and accuse me of disparaging any group of people.

I feel much of the misinformation that is distributed these days is due to premature dispensing of "news" of ANY sort, because we now live in a world where many people expect a constant barrage of media alerts 24/7. News outlets, be they weather, sports, politics, want /NEED to be first with "Breaking News"...doesn't matter if it's fake news or not, whether it can be verified or not, just that they broke it. Again, without being political at all, greed is the driving factor...more clicks, retweets, shares, means more $$$ for someone, including sites like AW now.

As far as Rob's questioning the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the NWS's forecasts, I get that, to a certain extent. But it's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, IMO only! How many times have they been berated for both underplaying AND overplaying a weather forecast? It's a fine line, a blurred line...these days people see a "warning" or "alert', and that's all they see. It's too much ag to actually do a radar search, or to follow a local forecast in real time. I would probably be more in sync with Rob's way of thinking a year ago, but having experienced TWO separate excessive rainfall events here last summer, both over 7" in less than 24 hours, I'm a little more apt to forgive the mets for "blown" forecasts. We had heavy rain forecast for those events, but no where NEAR what we actually received was mentioned. In circumstances like that, while they are relying on models for forecasting, I don't believe the models can handle those kinds of anomalies, which there seem to be more of in recent years. 

You know I'm just an amateur here, and I tend to oversimplify things, but I kinda feel like we might need to rely on now-casting more. I don't follow the models all that closely, but it just seems that trying to predict amounts/types/location of precip more than 24 hours out has become a bit of a bug-a-boo. That's all I wanted to say...I always enjoy Rob's posts, he gets me thinking. Which may, or may NOT be a good thing?!?

Oh, just one other thought...we are all weather geeks here, let's face it. MOST OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ARE NOT!!! They get their weather info from some unknown phone app, and believe whatever they see on there. I can't say how many times someone has looked at their phone and said, "Oh, it's going to get cold next week!" NOOO!!! No it's NOT! So you also have the instant gratification expectations to deal with if you are a legitimate weather outlet.

  • Like 3
  • Love it! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As @lynniethelurker said, this is the thread where I posted, so I'll reply here.

I was in a meeting yesterday where someone told me that their kids viewed email as glacially slow.  Why would anyone use that, when there is Instant Messaging (and 50 other instant apps)?

So, yes, we live in a world where people expect news to be reported, preferably before it even happens.  I believe that this actually doubles-down on my point.  Mets need to either KNOW that they are right (almost an impossibility), or hedge their language.  I believe the second path is the only logical path, and the proof is the many times that I've come down on them here for flubbing major forecasts.

I don't care if they flub a minor forecast.  If they predict 85 degrees and it gets to 88 degrees, who really cares?

I do, however, take serious issue with the dissemination of "Catastrophe Forecasts" without a crushingly high level of certainty.  So high, in fact, that this wouldn't be my third or fourth thread in the last year to that effect.  We should see this kind of miss maybe once every other year.  Maybe.  If they really can't do better, then they HAVE to dial back the language.

Just twelve hours into the future they were calling for a scary event, and they were calling it as a Sure Thing.  Two inches of rain, minimum, with a good chance of three.  Damaging winds.  Damaging hail.  Flooding.  It was enough, as I showed, that other "news" outlets declared it to be The News, and not just "the forecast," and put it on the top of their sites, with large "ALERT!" banners.

In the event we got... well, nothing.  A few showers, for some, but mostly Nothing.  

How many people didn't go to the doctor (etc.), out of concern?  Old people are famous for this kind of thing, and rightly so.  Do you want your 80 year old parent driving to the doctor in that kind of weather?  So they skipped medical appointments.

How many job interviews were postponed or otherwise disrupted?  How many business meetings?  Calling a soccer game is a nuisance to the family and nowhere near as important as these other things, but even so - how many thousands of people were nuisanced out of concern for the storm?  How many left work early?

To quote a kindergarten teacher: The NWS, and many other mets, needs to USE THEIR WORDS more effectively.

"Chance of T-Storms, some might be severe.  50% chance"

That's wishy-washy... but it's also the truth.  It's the best they can do.  Blame it on model-hugging, blame it on the phase of the moon, blame it on whatever you'd like, but facts are facts: their use of disaster-words is an affront to common decency.  Responsible adults don't act this way.

That's my beef.  Don't scare thousands of people with doom-language unless you are absolutely certain that it's coming.  

To quote that same kindergarten teacher: "Once upon a time there was a boy named Peter, who called 'WOLF!' when there was no wolf..."

These are basic life lessons.  The mets need to internalize them.  Is this Science, or Pachinko?  We're supposed to make large environmental calls based on what these people say?  Seriously?

It's not a question if intent.  I'm sure that nobody wanted to mess things up.  All intentions were pure, I'm sure.  It's a question of humility, and openly admitting "this ain't as scientific as you are led to believe..."

Never forget - at its highest level, Mathematics is considered an Art, not a Science.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RobBucksPA, my thinking is, and perhaps the nws's reason for over-hyping forecasts (skewed as it may be), is that OVER-HYPING never cost a life, whereas UNDER-HYPING has cost lives. I know, Peter and the Wolf, it's a definite issue, and that's where the fine line comes into play. I don't think it's an easy call to make for mets, and I imagine there have been many, many arguments amongst them when issuing an important forecast. How would you feel as a met, if you had the ability to warn folks of a possible life-threatening weather event but backed off, because you didn't want old people to cancel appointments, and the weather DID pan out, and said elderly person went to the doctor's appointment and got swept away in flash flood waters? I know personally, I would not be sleeping well for quite some time. 

  • Like 3
  • Love it! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RobBucksPA, Oddly, my mother in law (coincidentally 80 years old) had a physical therapy appt locally yesterday at 10:30am.  She did end up going as it was only 2-3 miles away.  She has absolute fear of bad weather driving b/c when she bought a car back in 2003 she did not remember how to operate the wipers so she drove down the interstate in huge downpour with the window open and her head sticking out since the windshield since she couldnt see out the window, but i digress.  But I did inquire about she cancelled as she has cancelled many times over just the threat you refer to.  

My wife had gone there Monday to take her to her other appointment for an epidural.  Oddly, SHE is the one who left EARLY on Tuesday morning to get home before the "Storms."  I knew the threat shifted south, but there was not deterring her. 

Aside from that, the other statement " "Chance of T-Storms, some might be severe.  50% chance" is not necessarily wishy-washy.  It's tough to explain and I may not get it exactly right, but that forecast does not mean "50% chance that it's going to rain or t-storm" , which does sound wishy-washy,  it actually means something like "during the forecast period 50% of the forecast area will be receiving rain and thunderstorms."  Nitpicky, but slightly different.  If I get hammered and you get nothing and we are in the same forecast area, then they pretty much nailed the storm potential.  How many times do we say "hey it missed me and went south by 10 miles.  Boom, 50% chance of storms. 

However, I do agree the wording is often too strong for around here.  There are places in the CONUS that truly have absolute severe and dangerous weather.  Around here it's usually a lot more localized and when that happens all the news stations flock to that one tree that fell down in someone's back yard. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lynniethelurker said:

@RobBucksPA, my thinking is, and perhaps the nws's reason for over-hyping forecasts (skewed as it may be), is that OVER-HYPING never cost a life, whereas UNDER-HYPING has cost lives. I know, Peter and the Wolf, it's a definite issue, and that's where the fine line comes into play. I don't think it's an easy call to make for mets, and I imagine there have been many, many arguments amongst them when issuing an important forecast. How would you feel as a met, if you had the ability to warn folks of a possible life-threatening weather event but backed off, because you didn't want old people to cancel appointments, and the weather DID pan out, and said elderly person went to the doctor's appointment and got swept away in flash flood waters? I know personally, I would not be sleeping well for quite some time. 

 Read that somewhere in Michigan they got 18 inches of hail. I cannot imagine the damage. That is horrible, in every way. I wonder if it was forecast? Your point is good, Lynnie , that better to be safe than sorry. I do think that there is too much “safety“ when the language is that strong 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...