Tuesday, November 28, 2006

told you so

all i can say is i told you so.

wow. for once, i was right.

mark this day. ;)

8 Comments:

At 11:36 AM, Anonymous at breakNEC speed said...

You were right? Don't you mean the models were right?

That's the problem with you carbon-based meteorologists -- you claim credit for merely falling into step with the real meteorological powers of this world: rapidly moving electrons.

Just more proof that your time is passed.

 
At 11:51 AM, Anonymous at breaknec speed said...

Meanwhile Winnipeg gets 30 centimetres of snow on New Year's Eve.

The model missed the worst of it. The carbon-based meteorologists missed it worse!

73 32 116 111 108 100 32 121 111 117 32 115 111

(That's ASCII for "I told you so")

 
At 4:30 PM, Blogger Weather Central said...

yes i mean the models were right. eventually. they flip-flopped about the storm. but to those who don't follow the models, i was giving a heads up.

as for your second assertion in comment 1, i respectfully disagree. our in-house verification shows that we beat the model output in the 0-48 hour range, on average. in individual cases, of course, meteorologists can be wrong.

btw, abs, you're getting dangerously close to ad hominem. i tolerate dissent here, but not personal attacks. this is your one and only warning.

 
At 9:15 PM, Anonymous at breaknec speed said...

You're serious? Nothing in my two comments comes anywhere close to an ad hominem attack, which of course requires an attack on a particular person, not on their argument.

"Weather central", I fail to see how an orginization, a Web page, or a profession can be construed as a particular individual. My use of the word "you" in my first two posts clearly refers to "carbon-based meteorologists -- not to "you" in particular. However, I'll refrain from the use of the word "you", and put this site's tolerance for dissent and debate to the test:

I respectfully again submit that human meteorologists typically claim credit for the model's successes, but are just as typically quick to blame their failures on the computer.

Therefore, I once again submit that the heyday of the human meteorologist, in a forecasting capacity, is in the past.

It is too bad meteorologists rely on in-house verification. Why don't they have any independent source to back up the claim that humans beat the model?

 
At 9:33 PM, Blogger Weather Central said...

au contraire, this comes pretty close:

"That's the problem with you carbon-based meteorologists -- you claim credit for merely falling into step with the real meteorological powers of this world: rapidly moving electrons."

because it was an attack on myself and my colleagues. specifically. and an untruth. but i digress. anyhow, onto points:

"I respectfully again submit that human meteorologists typically claim credit for the model's successes, but are just as typically quick to blame their failures on the computer.

Therefore, I once again submit that the heyday of the human meteorologist, in a forecasting capacity, is in the past."

completely disagree. i'd like to know what you're seeing if you ever go into the weather office, but what i see (and practice when i work) is analysis, diagnosis, and prognosis. i and others don't even bother looking at the model because we've shown that we do better when we don't look at it.

"It is too bad meteorologists rely on in-house verification. Why don't they have any independent source to back up the claim that humans beat the model?"

who would pay for it?

 
At 11:08 PM, Anonymous ABS said...

"because it was an attack on myself and my colleagues. specifically. and an untruth. but i digress. anyhow, onto points:"

Again, an ad hominem attack is one directed at a particular person. A criticism of a group of meteorologists does not qualify, unless you seriously wish to suggest that human meteorologists must remain above reproach.

Also, the veracity of an argument does not make it an ad hominem attack.

but I digress as well:

"completely disagree. i'd like to know what you're seeing if you ever go into the weather office, "

I was in a weather office in Toronto once, one in Fredericton once and and one in Winnipeg more than once. (Is it still there?) I have been in a few in the U.S.A. as well.

What I saw were a bunch of people looking at models.

"i and others don't even bother looking at the model because we've shown that we do better when we don't look at it."

OK, I believe you. Y'all must have been on days off when I was visiting.

Again, I must ask, how do you know you do better?

"who would pay for it? "

Well, I would hope the forecast service would pay for it, or at least some professional association of meteorologists would.

A quick google search offers many published papers that disagree with your in-house data:

Here are some snippets easily obtained:

#1. Verification as shown that value is added by the forecaster to the initial SCRIBE set of weather
concepts but only for the first 24 hours. Beyond this period (day 2-3) little or no value is added to the forecast.

#2. The performance of the automated forecasts was found to trail closely to that of subjective forecasts under an objective verification scheme.

#3. The question of who is the best forecaster in a particular media market is one that the public frequently asks. The authors have collected approximately one year's forecasts from the National Weather Service and major media presentations for Oklahoma City. Diagnostic verification procedures indicate that the question of best does not have a clear answer. All of the forecast sources have strengths and weaknesses, and it is possible that a user could take information from a variety of sources to come up with a forecast that has more value than any one individual source provides. The analysis provides numerous examples of the utility of a distributions-oriented approach to verification while also providing insight into the problems the public faces in evaluating the array of forecasts presented to them.

#4. "...with NWS scoring better
for the overnight period and NGM MOS scoring better for the next-day forecast period."

#5. And my favourite: "The accuracy of temperature and precipitation forecasts for Toronto was studied
for the 20-year period 1960-1979. For temperature forecasts, the record indicates a sigmficant loss of skill over the 20-year
period in theprediction of maximum temperature for the first day. This was observed not only for the Bloor Street observing station for which the entire 20-year record was analysed, but also for observing stations at Toronto Island, Downsview and Malton. The loss of skill over the years is greatest in winter when temperature is consistently predicted too low at all stations."

There are many more...

 
At 11:29 PM, Blogger Weather Central said...

okay, if you saw people looking at models, then that's not cool. meteorological cancer, it's called.

you were in the winnipeg office more than once. is it still there? yes. i work there.

how do i know i do better? the verification scores show it. my personal verification scores.

as for independent verification, the government can't justify paying for any more, as it's already being done. and i don't know, maybe cmos would pay for it--that's an interesting idea.

quote 1 says that we're better, at least in the 24 hour period. i would submit that we're better out to 48.

quote 2, well, it depends on the objective verification scheme. i can verify that the model is within 3 degrees of sfc temperature x amount of the time and that meteorologists are within it x + a little bit. but how much does temperature matter? how much does cloud cover matter? how much does precipitation matter? it depends on your point of view and even on the day in question. so which verification scheme you use depends partly on the spin you want to put on things, positive or negative.

3 seems to be a bit of a red herring.

4 is possible--but does it apply to canadian weather offices?

5 i find difficult to believe--do you have a source?

at the end of the day, abs, i would like to know: what was your original point? i mean, you've come in here dissing the forecasts (and not quite ad hominem, so i humbly apologize for suggesting otherwise) but regardless, it didn't seem to be meant as a constructive criticism--more as a "ha ha, you guys suck". why?

 
At 12:22 AM, Anonymous ABS said...

"okay, if you saw people looking at models, then that's not cool. meteorological cancer, it's called."

LOL! I like that term. Of course, it implies that some peoiple in your organization are worried about the degradation of forecasting vis-a-vis the models.

"how do i know i do better? the verification scores show it. my personal verification scores."

Since you ask me for one (which I will provide) allow me the same request: Can you provide a source for that claim?

"as for independent verification, the government can't justify paying for any more, as it's already being done. and i don't know, maybe cmos would pay for it--that's an interesting idea."

It's already being done? By whom? Are you referring to your in-house verification. If so, here's an idea. Scrap paying for that, and start paying for an independent verification that would pass scientific muster.

"quote 1 says that we're better, at least in the 24 hour period."

No, it says you're better, but only in the first 24 hours. That's clear in the quote. I would submit that there is little need for a forecast for the first day. Make-or-break decisions often depend on longer forecasts, don't they.

"quote 2, well, it depends on the objective verification scheme. i can verify that the model is within 3 degrees of sfc temperature x amount of the time and that meteorologists are within it x + a little bit. but how much does temperature matter? how much does cloud cover matter? how much does precipitation matter? it depends on your point of view and even on the day in question. so which verification scheme you use depends partly on the spin you want to put on things, positive or negative."

Hence the need for independent verification: eliminate the spin.

The real question is, is that little bit worth the big expense?

"3 seems to be a bit of a red herring."

How? I see it as an advertisement for ensemble forecasting.

"4 is possible--but does it apply to canadian weather offices?"

Are you that much worse than your U.S. counterparts? I don't think so.

"5 i find difficult to believe--do you have a source?"

Sure do. It's from a CMOS presentation.

http://www.cmos.ca/Ao/Abstracts/v210302.pdf

By the way, all the quotes were from papers submitted to AMS and other scientific meteorological organizations.

"at the end of the day, abs, i would like to know: what was your original point? i mean, you've come in here dissing the forecasts (and not quite ad hominem, so i humbly apologize for suggesting otherwise) but regardless, it didn't seem to be meant as a constructive criticism--more as a "ha ha, you guys suck". why?"

Not at all. To an outsider -- me -- it seemed as though "you" were touting the model forecast prior to the event, and then claimed credit after the fact. Here are some snippets from your posts in the days prior to the storm:

"using the models to forecast something 5 days out is a fool's game"

"the models want to dig"

"but also, if it's right,"

"the 12Z GEM Regional run is still progging"

After the storm, you wrote: "all i can say is i told you so. wow. for once, i was right."

In that context, can you now see my point about carbon-based meteorologists? (I nevertheless did appreciate your self-deprecating tone.)

Cheers

 

Post a Comment

<< Home