|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 16, 2019 10:18:10 GMT -6
I was getting ready to cancel all our plans for Saturday and Saturday evening. I'm glad I held off on that.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 16, 2019 10:15:15 GMT -6
It just goes to show you. Yesterday and the day before everybody was saying, but the one sure thing.......... is it going to get real cold. Lol
Oh boy. Nothing like the weather. There is no sure thing of anything
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 16, 2019 9:52:39 GMT -6
With the area the National Weather Service is showing for the heaviest precip to be that is snow looks like the b word could come out for them. That area is pretty flat as you get up towards Springfield
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 16, 2019 8:07:31 GMT -6
If my local forecast is correct this snow is going to be long gone by the time the back side snow hits. I'm forecast to get an inch of rain before change over
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 16, 2019 7:50:30 GMT -6
20 to 30 miles I would think... We've seen that before. Going to be interesting. I remember the Weather Service issued a warning with barely a county and a half wide one time. And even then it really didn't cover the whole counties they were putting into it. It will be one of those situations where somebody could jackpot at 8 inches and 15 miles away they got 2 or less. You could have a town like Belleville with 8in on the East End and 2in on the West End I still get a kick out of people getting amazed at these gradients, but we have it happen with rain and nobody really remarks about it. It is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 16, 2019 7:30:54 GMT -6
So what is narrow in this case. Are we talk in 20 miles, 40 miles, or 50 miles? One County, two counties, or less?
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 15, 2019 17:56:46 GMT -6
While we have a lull in systems.....I spent the day shopping auto and homeowners insurance. I ended up decreasing my insurance premiums by $400 a month! Seems to be the norm to have shop policies every two years. If we decreased ours by $400 per month we'd be getting it for free
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 15, 2019 15:22:05 GMT -6
Blizzard conditions almost never verify outside of locals with wide open topography like central IL...that doesn't mean that blizzard warnings shouldn't be issued because the populated areas don't see those conditions. Personally I think this storm is a good contender for a blizzard warning for parts of the area. It's not too often you get a 1045mb+ ridge pushing into a deepening storm around here... We have some areas around here I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole in 25-35 mile an hour winds with snow. We have a road called Paderborn Road that is flat as a pancake with farm field all around and changes angles several times so it's almost guaranteed to have some blowing and drifting somewhere. Of course that's not typical topography. St. Clair County has some spots though. Particularly south of Belleville
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 15, 2019 14:39:10 GMT -6
You don't even need falling snow to have blizzard conditions. How long are the winds expected to be strong as that passes?
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 15, 2019 14:20:50 GMT -6
A blizzard watch/warning would be fascinating to have after last weekend's major storm. Though, I feel like the STL NWS would be really reluctant to issue one, even with the current wind potential. Reluctant, I hope so. As some have pointed out though the potential for the dry snow to have free reign to blow about if this current snow cover crusts over is very high. You get a couple or three inches of that on top of this with 45 mile an hour winds you can have whiteout conditions easily
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 15, 2019 8:02:32 GMT -6
The reason I ask is the GFS really had trouble handling the last system until the later runs closer to the arrival the storm. If it's still having the same data problems I don't know why we would expect it to be reliable at this point American models are not being maintained due to the shutdown. Their accuracy is degraded and will continue to degrade until noaa has the staffing to do more than just run them. A wash post article covered this pretty well. I just am too lazy to find it. Capitol weather blog. Sooo, I guess toss them til later.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 15, 2019 7:39:26 GMT -6
Have the earlier problems with the GFS been taken care of? The reason I ask is the GFS really had trouble handling the last system until the later runs closer to the arrival the storm. If it's still having the same data problems I don't know why we would expect it to be reliable at this point
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 15, 2019 7:18:56 GMT -6
Have the earlier problems with the GFS been taken care of?
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 14, 2019 20:40:35 GMT -6
The fields with snow in town look like pillowtop mattresses. Rain, when it falls on snow does some cool things sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Jan 14, 2019 18:31:43 GMT -6
To all the mods I apologize for my actions here.
To the rest........on with winter!
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 20, 2018 18:17:58 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 JanuaryWell Chris if this is no swipe at the post I guess you could call it a compliment. What the hell is a newspaper supposed to do when they have a real science writer? Dumb it down? You can't see? It's like, here we go again. This was not here we go again, it was a solid piece of Journalism. I guess they need to get rid of their science writer? What the hell? And then some say leave this to the journals. Well okay I'll say gun makers should quit making guns and then will draw that out the same way. Give me a break, God. But just leave the country dumb and not let them read this sort of stuff I guess it's dangerous. Oh my God Leave the serious science stuff in the closet where it belongs. I'm telling you guys, I just don't believe you guys sometimes. Knowledge is dangerous. Boy Leave with this last thought. Can anybody tell me how many people have been killed or injured by this loose science we talk about?
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 20, 2018 17:20:06 GMT -6
Another small piece of news to you all there is no the media. There isn't.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 20, 2018 17:17:07 GMT -6
Okay folks. I'll say it as slow as I can. I will defend solid journalism till the day I die. This man smeared the post and the article. You all stood around and pretty much let it sink into the morass of all the rest of the quote, media. That was a solid piece of Journalism. This was an attack basically on the Washington Post. It doesn't belong here. Open your eyes folks that's what's wrong with this country. We don't care anymore. It's "the media". We have no sense of discerning. We lump it all together and we'll lose the great ones. We will. The poster should have pulled up that fox article today because that was the real bul! POOPY !.
The poster implied that the Post had other motives, but what they they were really trying to show us was that they have a science writer. He wrote a damn good article.
Then I post the fox thing and a moderator comes back and says I can't believe we are still doing this. Excuse me, but count me out. I'm not doing this. neither is my Washington Post.
FOX did it
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 20, 2018 15:26:12 GMT -6
You know what screw y'all I'm leaving let the idiot stay here. I'm serious folks.
Have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 20, 2018 15:18:53 GMT -6
Go ahead all you mods. Stick your heads in the sand. I don't know where they were yesterday. I'm not backing off of this because I was right yesterday. That was b******* about that Washington Post article. That was solid journalism. You guys let that s*** slide don't expect people not to get upset.
Go back and read the damn thing. The poster implies The Washington Post had some sort of motive to stir s*** up or something. It was a damn solid scientific article. That's all it was. We get a good solid scientific article in journalism and everybody lumped in with all the other crap. Open your eyes.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 20, 2018 14:58:28 GMT -6
I think we are so blinded and baffled by the b******* that we miss the obvious. That post should have been pulled my one of the moderators, but they couldn't see it for what it was. Just goes to show you
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 20, 2018 14:47:16 GMT -6
Can we stop with this please Phil? Enough, geesh lol Ryan, I'll say this as slowly as I can for all the impaired people. Posting that Washington Post article yesterday as some sort of example of anything but good journalism was a serious mistake by the poster. Covered with bias. I will not back away from that statement because it is true. To say that pissed me off yesterday is just putting it mildly
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 20, 2018 14:40:02 GMT -6
That headline and much of the statements within the article are simply misleading. "Last year a vortex that originated in Eurasia swept eastern North America, causing windstorms that lasted weeks."...um, what? They make it sound like the vortex is a glorified cold front. Are we still doing this? I didn't even bother to read that far into the fox article because I knew it was trash when I saw it. They don't have a clue. They don't have a scientist on staff, I'll bet money on it. I don't even know if they believe in science there. Did you read the Washington Post article? It was a good, solid scientific article. Please take the we out of this and just point to the perpetrators. It's not all media.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 20, 2018 14:12:54 GMT -6
Looks like Fox is trying to panic us.What's good for the goose. Of course they're going with the same story because they don't have any smart scientists at FOX. They open up with this passage which is pretty much creative writing. You were right that some tiddlywink organizations would pick it up and turn it into something else. "Climate researchers are sounding the alarm on a polar vortex that’s predicted to sweep through the U.S.’ east coast later this month and inflict one of the harshest winters in years, The Washington Post reported." Nowhere in that Washington Post article did they claim it would be one of the worst in years. All they did was pointed out what happened in past years. Love the creative writing here
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 20, 2018 7:01:02 GMT -6
Washington Post has gone to a "let's see if we can get everyone to freak out" story Read more: morethanweatherstl.com/thread/187/chriss-corner-december-2018-thread?page=23#ixzz5aECnoXlcThere is the headline. This is what I am complaining about. This implies some sort of intent on the part of the newspaper. That is erroneous at best. I guess we can chatter about it here, we do, but God forbid a science person in a newspaper write an article about it. I'm not backing away. It was obvious bias played a part in this. We don't even know how much media bias is ingrained into our thinking. We're paranoid about media. It's crazy. We see intent where there is none. That is called paranoia. I am done.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 17:00:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 16:29:25 GMT -6
I almost wonder about this thought that the media has done something with the sacred word that has led to great misunderstanding. I see an arrogance among the meteorologist and would-be meteorologists of the word world when one of their terms gets tossed about what they call to freely.
I'd like to see some of the examples of media catch phrasing.
I myself think you don't have to do anything wrong and the public can be misled simply because they don't read it all. It's a common problem. But let's blame it all on the media. We have no faults
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 16:05:59 GMT -6
The problem is that "polar vortex" is a scientific/meteorological term taken out of context by the media and turned into an overused catch phrase. Why is that so hard to understand? Got that, but what's the problem with the article? That's the part I can't grasp. What gets me in this situations is how people say The Media. Who is The Media? Don't point out individual sins, just label the whole group. Well you just called Chris part of the problem. That leads to BIAS. It does folks. I would much rather have you folks point out the instances of turning this into a catchphrase when not appropriate then ripping apart an article was appropriate. All I have been shown about this article here is that people are reposting it with gross misunderstanding. I will say this slowly as I can. Why blame the author? Oh yeah, he's part of the media. You guys get it?
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 16:02:27 GMT -6
Lol
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Dec 19, 2018 15:04:42 GMT -6
The headline is ambiguous in its use of the term? Just what does that mean. I explained what I meant in the first paragraph, plain and simple. Clearly others understand what I am saying. I'm sorry that you don't. I've said my piece. I'm done. I guess they should have came out and said we're not using the media term we're talkin about the real thing. This is just so silly. It's not a bad headline. If people don't get it tough cookies. that doesn't mean you can't use it anymore. They use the term in the headline. They wrote an article that touched upon it often. It is the right term for what they were talking about. What is wrong with that? Because we have a confused public we must stay away from the term? I don't get it. Oh wait a minute. They are part of the media and they are part of the blame so they can't do it anymore. I understand. You may think you're not exhibiting a bias towards the media, but I got to tell you..... whatever. It is not a bad article. People get confused don't blame the author. You're condemning the author for past sins that may not even even belong to him.
|
|