Some problems in the data...Food for thought

[NJWxGuy]

This is not a forecast, just some speculation, so look at this objectively.

I personally do not like the solutions that I am seeing one bit. To me they don't seem to fit and bring with it very high bust potential. If it were not for my prolific busts on 2 occassions this winter, I may be more apt to go against all model data, but instead we'll just discuss it and watch it all play out.

To me, the models are clearly keying in on the wrong s/w. I don't see how a much more strung out and smaller s/w with much lower vorticity is going to initiate coastal cyclogenesis. Instead, it would make more sense to have this first s/w pass through with the fropa and get sheared out to the NE, with some lagging back to phase with and conglomerate into the main, much more robust AJ s/w diving in through MN/WI. The models also forecast the highest jet streak to be on the NE side of the trough RIGHT In the vicinity of the first s/w. With the trough on a positive tilt through 72hrs, this should help to shear out this lead s/w. This is usually the type of system/setup/pattern that causes major errors in the data, as they cannot correctly resolve the highly complex situation with numerous s/w's in the flow, let alone inside the same trough!

Another possibility is the AJ s/w is much more vigorous and amplified and thus dives in a little further W, carves out the trough more, and forces the initial s/w to shear out to the NE with the jet streak that was already discussed ripping it apart even more. This would not allow for the first low to cut inland, but instead wait for the main UL feature and develop on the baroclinic zone leftover from the fropa on the SC/NC coastline. As such we would see sfc low cut across the famed "benchmark" with bombogenesis incurring as it headed NEward. Also, we'd see much more precipitation and a probable deformation zone across the cold sector with heavy precipitation and perhaps prolific totals across the Coastal Plain from DCA northward to BOS. Moisture would not be a problem at all with the increasingly popular Cuban or now Lesser Antille heat ridge in place that I have been talking about for a while now, running a STJ conveyor belt right into the center of any developing storm. This is the reason why we see such extreme and tropical QPF forecasts in the SR data.

That's it. Buckle up, could be a rollercoaster ride.

[paul e]

very nice andy! I see you and LC are on the identical page with this one... And I Like it! Now you guys, just make it happen!!!

[Colin]

Agreed exactly...

[JCT777]

Nice write-up. I expect a mostly rain event, but will watch to see if your thoughts come to fruition.

[Chrisant]

It's hard to go against the data. I see rain on the Plain. Away from the coast some ice and snow. The CAD will probably not stick around for too long.

[NJWxGuy]

For all the complete morons around the internet, and especially WWBB, that want to call this discussion a FORECAST for a major blizzard then you need to get a freakin life and stop obsessing over me and my forecasts. Every chance these certain individuals get they start ripping me apart like a lion on a peice of steak. It's really rather sick, but also sad. But hey, I must be doing something right if all these sophomoric idiots can't get me off their minds.

Please feel free to pass this message along as well. I'd love for those NIMBY's to read it.

[Chris the Weather Man]

Andy, You are a VERY GOOD forecaster, It is not a forecast like you said, a speculation.

[Chrisant]

You may know what you're talking about, but you're still an idiot. No one is obsessing over your forecast, or lack thereof. Your pseudo-intelligent Dennis Miller type rants are so old at this point. You don't post over at WWBB anymore because people refuse to talk to you these days. I see your still the same.

[Chrisant]

Oh, and another thing, if you initiate an attack such as that, don't cry when people start ripping you apart, you fraud.

[NJWxGuy]

You may know what you're talking about, but you're still an idiot. No one is obsessing over your forecast, or lack thereof. Your pseudo-intelligent Dennis Miller type rants are so old at this point. You don't post over at WWBB anymore because people refuse to talk to you these days. I see your still the same.

ARE you frickin blind? There were two threads initiated about my post, the second of which compared me to JB jr!! I was also approached privately by some of these miniscule morons and it p!ssed me off.

NO I am not the same, Chris, I'm just sick of the trash talk. I refuse to allow anyone to go as far as they did last night, plain and simple. It's great because I have the support of some of the best in the biz; can't say the same for the rest of 'em!!

GROW UP, I'm no fraud and you know it. Geezus GET A GRIP!!!

[donsutherland1]

Chrisant,

I believe you are being too harsh on Andy.

He's learning and he's progressing. When he graduates, I fully expect that he will be a fine meteorologist.

Going to his post, he wrote:

<i>This is not a forecast, just some speculation, so look at this objectively.

I personally do not like the solutions that I am seeing one bit. To me they don't seem to fit and bring with it very high bust potential. If it were not for my prolific busts on 2 occassions this winter, I may be more apt to go against all model data, but instead we'll just discuss it and watch it all play out. </i>

Several points:

1) He has made clear that this post is not a forecast.
2) He has expressed some concerns about the model guidance--if one looks at the ensemble guidance, one can often find some members that are at odds with the operational guidance.
3) The current synoptic situation is complex and Andy is correct in my view that there is "very high bust potential." If there is to be a bust, I believe that snowfall forecasts e.g., my idea for 1"-3" for NYC might be underdone if heavier precipitation arrives sooner. That's the scenario I believe offers the greatest possibility of a bust. If the heavier precipitation arrives sooner and continues until the changeover commences between 9Z and 12Z, NYC could receive 4"-6" but that is not the more likely scenario, in my view.
4) Andy has also recognized that his two attempts this winter to go against all the model guidance did not pan out very well. Thus, he has exercised greater caution against his first inclination. This demonstrates that he is learning from experience.
5) There can be reasons why the model guidance might pick up on a given system with lower vorticity than another. Needless to say, the model guidance could be in error.

All said, Andy appears to be in a learning phase where he is increasingly trying to reconcile what he sees synoptically with what the model guidance offers. This is a trial and error process and Andy is learning.

I don't believe very many people have accumulated the extent of their knowledge without at least some aspect of learning from acting and building knowledge from successful and unsuccessful outcomes. Andy is little different.

Finally, as this thread indirectly refers to another WWBB member, I believe that the difference in view between that member and Andy is, more than anything, a matter of a clash of styles. Unfortunately, the whole issue has gotten blown out of proportion.

That member, too, has demonstrated a good degree of learning over the past year and the skills he is developing in terms of presentation of ideas--setting forth ideas, supporting those ideas, communicating those ideas effectively--will be useful whether or not he chooses to pursue the field of meteorology in university.

In the end, I have a good deal of respect for both Andy and that WWBB member. People can and do have honest disagreements or differences of opinion and sometimes the passions involved can create sharper conflicts than might otherwise be the case. In no way do these disagreements or differences of view on a given complex matter undercut the potential and progress such people are making.

[NJWxGuy]

AND a few more things...

I never said "everyone" obsessed. I said some certain individuals did.

Secondly, I don't post at WWBB for two reasons:

1) My original username was banned because I defended HM

2) I wasn't posting that much anyways because I simply did not and still do not have the time. Baseball, schoolwork and my fraternity are far more important than catering to people I don't even know. I get more than enough meteorological discussion on AOL and through email talking to real mets.

[NJWxGuy]

Chrisant,

I believe you are being too harsh on Andy.

He's learning and he's progressing. When he graduates, I fully expect that he will be a fine meteorologist.

Going to his post, he wrote:

<i>This is not a forecast, just some speculation, so look at this objectively.

I personally do not like the solutions that I am seeing one bit. To me they don't seem to fit and bring with it very high bust potential. If it were not for my prolific busts on 2 occassions this winter, I may be more apt to go against all model data, but instead we'll just discuss it and watch it all play out. </i>

Several points:

1) He has made clear that this post is not a forecast.
2) He has expressed some concerns about the model guidance--if one looks at the ensemble guidance, one can often find some members that are at odds with the operational guidance.
3) The current synoptic situation is complex and Andy is correct in my view that there is "very high bust potential." If there is to be a bust, I believe that snowfall forecasts e.g., my idea for 1"-3" for NYC might be underdone if heavier precipitation arrives sooner. That's the scenario I believe offers the greatest possibility of a bust. If the heavier precipitation arrives sooner and continues until the changeover commences between 9Z and 12Z, NYC could receive 4"-6" but that is not the more likely scenario, in my view.
4) Andy has also recognized that his two attempts this winter to go against all the model guidance did not pan out very well. Thus, he has exercised greater caution against his first inclination. This demonstrates that he is learning from experience.
5) There can be reasons why the model guidance might pick up on a given system with lower vorticity than another. Needless to say, the model guidance could be in error.

All said, Andy appears to be in a learning phase where he is increasingly trying to reconcile what he sees synoptically with what the model guidance offers. This is a trial and error process and Andy is learning.

I don't believe very many people have accumulated the extent of their knowledge without at least some aspect of learning from acting and building knowledge from successful and unsuccessful outcomes. Andy is little different.

Finally, as this thread indirectly refers to another WWBB member, I believe that the difference in view between that member and Andy is, more than anything, a matter of a clash of styles. Unfortunately, the whole issue has gotten blown out of proportion.

That member, too, has demonstrated a good degree of learning over the past year and the skills he is developing in terms of presentation of ideas--setting forth ideas, supporting those ideas, communicating those ideas effectively--will be useful whether or not he chooses to pursue the field of meteorology in university.

In the end, I have a good deal of respect for both Andy and that WWBB member. People can and do have honest disagreements or differences of opinion and sometimes the passions involved can create sharper conflicts than might otherwise be the case. In no way do these disagreements or differences of view on a given complex matter undercut the potential and progress such people are making.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to say. It just took a more established person than myself to emphasize it. I can't always be the one to defend myself, if you know what I mean...

I'll PM you sometime and we can talk more about the guidance.

[donsutherland1]

You're very welcome. I just felt things were starting to go too far.

Keep up the good work at school and enjoy the experience (fraternity, sports, university life), as well.

[Chrisant]

I'll admit, I jumped too fast on that one. It was right after my post and felt it was directed at me. But.......... Andy, the rants are unecessary. Let your knoweldge and know how speak for itself.

Again, sorry for jumping on you so hard.

[Chrisant]

Don,

You're right. He did state it was speculation. Andy's a good guy, just a little hot headed sometimes.