|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 14:52:10 GMT -6
Polar vortex could unleash winter Wallop by January.
That is the headline. To summarize the article says it start out by looking at a few of the past Winters where the vortex was disturbed.
They then moved on to looking at the signs pointing at the possibility that people are talking about. Models of course.
They finished up with presenting the fact that there was not any certainty this would occur.
The whole article basically says the polar vortex could become disturbed possibly and cause severe winter weather possibly. I still don't know what's so far off about a headline that says could. It's a good summary.
I see someone gushing a couple of pages ago about the possible warm over Siberia like it's almost unprecedented. A mention of the PV. Words of possible records. Isn't that pretty much the same thing? Talking about the possibilities. The could. I just don't get all this
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 14:38:03 GMT -6
“Polar vortex“ in the context of the article is very different from the term “polar vortex“ as used by the media the last however many years. That term has become a substitute for what used to be called a polar cold front or, as I was taught in school, a polar outbreak. But the headline is ambiguous about its use of the term. And since 99.9% of the population is not familiar with the former term they will see the use of the term in the headline in the context of the latter. Just as terms like “snowpocalypse“ and “snowmaggedeon“ have replaced words like snowstorm or winter storm. In this era the media is scrambling to find news superlative, higher and higher impact adjectives to describe something that is not much different than it's been for centuries. The headline is ambiguous in its use of the term? Just what does that mean.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 13:54:52 GMT -6
The word "Polar Vortex" is doom porn to the average person thanks the the media. It shouldn't be used nearly as often as it is by the media. It is new jargon that few understand so they think it is the apocalypse. If the article used "Arctic Shot" or "polar air mass" then it would be just as accurate without the click-bait doom porn jargon. Okay, since the general public doesn't get it yet we must ban this term in print. It's dangerous folks. Of course you do that and then let it slip people will think it is really something different than a prolonged cold snap. People will put it together, or maybe they won't, whatever. I just can't believe because some idiots flip out over the word that people get so upset about it. There's no shortage of stupid people in this country and it's proven every day. Why are you all so surprised? One of these days people will sit back and realize we lived through multiple polar vortexes and survived. Oh boy
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 13:52:41 GMT -6
I mean isn't this article simply restating what BRTN been bringing up the past few days? And then it goes with into a little bit more explanation? That's all this is.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 13:49:12 GMT -6
I'm pretty much convinced here nobody really reads newspapers and hasn't seen many headlines in their life if that one really got them going. There wasn't a false word in it. Give me a break
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 13:37:12 GMT -6
I think the point Guy was trying to make is that the "polar vortex" tagline has been overused as a silly catchphrase since about 2010 and that the media as a whole tends to use overdramatic headlines when it comes to weather and climate. That and it is completely misleading when compared to the content of the article. But it sells papers Still trying to figure out what you guys find misleading about this. It mentions Polar Vortex and says it could happen. You guys are talking about the possibility here lately. Are you guys trying to mislead us? Polar vortex is the language of the day and we all use it. What's the problem? People identify with it. Are they supposed to use headlines that don't catch our attention? Come on folks get over it. The big problem the original poster claims is that some people don't know what could means. That's their problem. It just the modern version of the newspaper article that comes out that says watch out folks winter's probably not over yet. Anybody who misconstrues that to think we're absolutely going into the next ice age really needs to learn how to read
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 12:56:49 GMT -6
Why not the headline? All this new information about trying to figure out the polar vortex is pretty newsworthy. What the hell is wrong with that? You think many people know what the hell the SSW is? It's informative. They didn't say the world was ending or anything. I guess they should just quit writing science articles, huh? It was a pretty good, in my opinion not sounding big alarm bells, science article about the polar vortex, and how we are trying to figure it out. What is the crime here? It's been a pretty pertinent topic on this board for the last few days, but it's not newsworthy huh? I don't get it. And it's a fairly lengthy article and they covered the it might not even happen side of it. I just don't get what the complaint is. What somebody does with this afterwards is irrelevant. Can't blame that on the authors. I guess it's okay to talk about it here or to do it when you're limited to 139 characters but God forbid you write out a well-researched article in a newspaper because it may......whatever. Where have we gone? Don't tell me there isn't a bias against the print media. You answer your own question. The headline reads: Polar vortex could unleash winter wallop by January But then, if as you believe, the article would go on to discuss the emerging analysis of the polar vortex why doesn't the headline read "Study of polar vortex could lead to better winter forecasts" or something like that? The article does mention that the science is still developing and is far from completely understood or exact. It talks about how this winter could be very cold...or that because the science isn't completely understood the very cold may not come to fruition at all. Quoting: "Forecasting stratospheric warming events is still a young science, and model predictions aren’t always that reliable." It talks that North American may get snow and the east coast may get nor'easters...or that the analysis may be in error. That's not a forecast. And, given the uncertainty of the science as spelled out in the story it shouldn't be.
The headline talks about a winter wallop, which is indeed eye grabbing and sensationalistic. But the article offers all kinds of other scenarios that cover the gamut from the sedate to what the headline mentions. I've seen this article quoted 4 different places now. Every one of them talked about that the polar vortex and winter blast, as if it were a certainty. Not one of them talked about the science or the other possibilities as discussed in the article. Every one of them sourced the Washington Post. Every one of them used more than 139 characters. Tell me that headline isn't misleading or, at best, incomplete. But how many people who see those headlines (including the sensationalized Washington Post one) or read any of those other articles will know that the "winter wallop" is just one of many possibilities. None. And they won't know anything about the science of studying the polar vortex.
Do you see the problem now?
And that's before we get to the fact that even if the "winter wallop" does materialize it would happen in January. That's when that sort of thing generally does happen. We had very cold winters and not so cold winters for decades. We've had snowy winters and rainy winters for decades. That's not news. That's what winter is. If it happened in July, yes, that would be noteworthy. But, January? That's a "dog bites man" headline.
Oh heaven forbid that they use those words. Don't you know what headlines are for? Should they just use the old standard Lookout folks winter's not over yet? I mean, come on. They said could happen and they said we could get walloped. Oh my gosh call the police. It wasn't a scientific paper. Newspaper headline. Go read up on that stuff sometimes. They try to keep it in the now and get it some attention. What's the sin? They got guys at newspapers that just dream up headlines. Obviously this one worked cuz it sure got your attention. I found it to be pretty mild actually. It is misleading for idiots who do not know what the word could means. Anybody who reads that statement as an absolute needs an education. I will not fault an author for lack of Education among the public.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 10:09:24 GMT -6
I'm not sure about the everyone freaked out part of this. It's basically talking a lot about what a lot of the discussion has been around here lately and even talking about the same scientist. They're not saying this is a certainty. You read the whole article and you get the picture. Could happen and they talked about what some of the possibilities are. I'm not really sure what's wrong with an article about that except maybe it came from a paper you didn't like. I think it is a pretty good article if you actually read it. I guess it's all ethical for us to sit here and say oh, it looks like, it looks like, oh my gosh look what Cohen is saying. Papers can't do that, huh? Let's not talk about science in print. I swear the print media is in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation now. I'm glad I subscribe to several of the major print news organizations because they at least investigate and use credible sources. Hell, all media is under fire now, but blogosphere, Twitter, and of course Fox, is to be trusted. One of the things that happens with these articles is when they go to the other newspapers somebody slaps a real sexy headline on it and of course the ridicule continues but nobody reads a damn articles they just read the headlines. We have a short attention span. No wonder Twitter appeals to some of us. The headline even has the word could in it. I'm sorry but trashing this article for any reason just shows a bias. It's a good article. It could also rain chickens. At least that would warrant a headline. You are assuming I have political motivations. Even to the point of deciding my political views. You also make the assumption that I didn't read the entire article (which is not true) based on nothing but YOUR OWN bias and then proceed to talk down to me based on those assumptions. When you assume... My point is that 40 years ago all the "what ifs" the article stipulates were described as "winter" and merited no headlines except in extremes. Is there anything mentioned as a potential in the article that hasn't happened previously? Nope. So why a headline? Why not the headline? All this new information about trying to figure out the polar vortex is pretty newsworthy. What the hell is wrong with that? You think many people know what the hell the SSW is? It's informative. They didn't say the world was ending or anything. I guess they should just quit writing science articles, huh? It was a pretty good, in my opinion not sounding big alarm bells, science article about the polar vortex, and how we are trying to figure it out. What is the crime here? It's been a pretty pertinent topic on this board for the last few days, but it's not newsworthy huh? I don't get it. And it's a fairly lengthy article and they covered the it might not even happen side of it. I just don't get what the complaint is. What somebody does with this afterwards is irrelevant. Can't blame that on the authors. I guess it's okay to talk about it here or to do it when you're limited to 139 characters but God forbid you write out a well-researched article in a newspaper because it may......whatever. Where have we gone? Don't tell me there isn't a bias against the print media.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 7:03:56 GMT -6
Washington Post has gone to a "let's see if we can get everyone to freak out" story. In the ''whatever it's worth' department. But I'm betting all kinds of smaller newspapers and electronic media outlets will pick the story up as a 100% certainty Polar vortex could unleash winter wallop by JanuaryI'm not sure about the everyone freaked out part of this. It's basically talking a lot about what a lot of the discussion has been around here lately and even talking about the same scientist. They're not saying this is a certainty. You read the whole article and you get the picture. Could happen and they talked about what some of the possibilities are. I'm not really sure what's wrong with an article about that except maybe it came from a paper you didn't like. I think it is a pretty good article if you actually read it. I guess it's all ethical for us to sit here and say oh, it looks like, it looks like, oh my gosh look what Cohen is saying. Papers can't do that, huh? Let's not talk about science in print. I swear the print media is in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation now. I'm glad I subscribe to several of the major print news organizations because they at least investigate and use credible sources. Hell, all media is under fire now, but blogosphere, Twitter, and of course Fox, is to be trusted. One of the things that happens with these articles is when they go to the other newspapers somebody slaps a real sexy headline on it and of course the ridicule continues but nobody reads the articles, they just read the headlines. We have a short attention span. No wonder Twitter appeals to some of us. The headline even has the word could in it. I'm sorry but trashing this article for any reason just shows a bias. It's a good article.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 15, 2018 13:06:28 GMT -6
Its been a muddy mess since October with way too much rain. And it rains every weekend. It's been a muddy mess at my house since last January. I obviously have worsening drainage issues, also, because my sump pump has been running all year. Literally. All year. When it rains like it has the last couple days, it runs about every 5 minutes. I'm starting to wonder if the pipe is separated where it makes the turn and it's just dumping the water right back down the side of the house. Hmmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 12, 2018 19:19:27 GMT -6
What time will the rain move in? My local forecast says mid-to-late morning tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 11, 2018 15:22:37 GMT -6
WPC has a killer track for the trailing low. Only problem is it's petering out in Arkansas
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 11, 2018 11:19:14 GMT -6
I have to assume the lead low will have a front associated with it. Is it a Pacific front?
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 11, 2018 11:06:49 GMT -6
GEM still showing backside blizzard. Where? I noticed the WPC has a secondary low. It drops down into Arkansas by Thursday evening
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 8, 2018 20:59:34 GMT -6
We saw one or two rainy deformations during the past few "non-winters"...but this year is much different. "Rainy deformation zone" might be the most depressing event in all of weather forecasting. Argggggh
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 7, 2018 17:03:52 GMT -6
Haven't looked at the drought monitor lately. I was kind of surprised by what I saw when I did. Almost all of the Plains are out of it now
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 7, 2018 14:33:00 GMT -6
The more I look at the 82 storm the more of a freak it seems. Most storms nowadays we see most of our snow from the deformation band on the backside of the low. We started getting heavy snow back in 82 when the surface low was in The Arklatex. That surface low did not hit Memphis until after midnight. Then, of course, we got into the deformation band. All the thunder and lightning was prior to that in that unbelievable WAA event. It was wild. Heavy snow started and we had lightning within 1/2 hour.
We transitioned from one to the other seamlessly. It's no wonder it's never been repeated. Very few storms do that
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 7, 2018 12:18:44 GMT -6
Does anybody have the link where you could go back and look at historical weather maps?
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 7, 2018 5:00:03 GMT -6
Big Arkansas storm is getting smaller
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 6, 2018 10:42:20 GMT -6
already out of Kansas City
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 5, 2018 21:22:10 GMT -6
Zzzzzzzzzz
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 5, 2018 11:14:37 GMT -6
The most notable snowstorm in STL history was a rain-snow storm but I can't remember a good one in recent years. I don't know about where other folks were but where I was at there was a notable break between the rain and snow in 82. In fact, there was such a long break the National Weather Service started backing off on accumulations. We all know what happened once the snow started. I would love to see a radar loop of the 72-hour period starting on Thursday noon from that event. As I recall the radar for St.Louis got pretty quiet and then it exploded. I'm almost certain the first snowflakes I saw came from something that developed over us, not from something moved in. That trailing system, which it was, produced all snow in our area
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 5, 2018 10:12:54 GMT -6
That's kinda what I thought, thanks Chris. The clipper could work either for or against the southern system... 1) The ridging ahead of the clipper could force the southern storm south... 2) The two phase more....ridging is overplayed....and overcome...allowing for more phasing...pulling the southern storm further north. if they would phase completely rapid deepening would probably be expected. Isn't that what happens with a few of the northeasters?
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 4, 2018 18:07:00 GMT -6
Hit two areas of heavy snow coming into Mt Vernon on I64. First was hamsters. Highway partially covered. Second was shaker, but still heavy. Same thing. Overpasses are really tricky.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 4, 2018 16:23:26 GMT -6
The hamsters have arrived in in the Evansville Indiana area. This ought to be an interesting drive back this evening
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 4, 2018 13:55:26 GMT -6
So, do we have some super cold air aloft flowing along?
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 4, 2018 10:39:51 GMT -6
I'm back in Benton now in moderate to heavy mostly grapule
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 4, 2018 10:38:10 GMT -6
I still remember a night back in the early 80s when we had a night time convection event of scattered snow in certain places. Over a foot some spots and other places got next to squat on the east side. I never really understood that one. I got to drive in it on my rural paper route though. Where was snowing it was coming down in buckets and then you get outside the shower and there wasn't zip. There was even clear skies between some of these showers. I remember seeing the stars. I remember the Moon illuminating the convective blobs too. They looked quite impressive
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 4, 2018 10:12:49 GMT -6
Snow in the city. Nothing before to the West and very little after. Look to be very localized That's why I asked. The accumulating snow has been VERY VERY isolated. We had video in Milstadt that showed about 1" and my jaw dropped. I was like... how did that happen (and when?) Nothing on radar looked like it could support that kind of snow there. I drove along and saw nothing and then came into Benton and they had an isolated shower and they had a good quarter inch real quick on the central part of town. Someone in Pinckneyville told me a friend of theirs said they had a solid half inch up in Mount Vernon. I would doubt it was all over town though
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 4, 2018 10:01:19 GMT -6
Solid 1/2 inch here in Sparta Of what? The airport camera there has shown nothing accumulating in Sparta at all.... Snow in the city. Nothing before to the West and very little after. Look to be very localized. It seemed to hit everything along 154 at least. By the time I got to Eden it was down to a dusting and not much farther than that nothing.
|
|