WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

Put Your Weather Enthusiasm on Display with a WunderPoster

By: Bob Henson 5:13 PM GMT on February 05, 2015

In our pixel-packed, circuit-crammed world, there’s something to be said for a beautifully rendered print poster that you can enjoy each day on the wall of your home or office. Starting today, we’re going to help you decorate in meteorological style with the debut of our WunderPoster series. Our first batch of 13 posters was produced by a crackerjack team of Weather Underground designers that includes Jerimiah Brown, Dan Fein, Lauren Moyer, Jennifer Potter, Skyler Rexrode, Prooshat Saberi, Aryn Shelander, and Mike Tiscareno. Each Thursday from now through the end of April, you’ll find a new poster on the WunderPosters home page. This new project is one way we’re celebrating our 20th anniversary: Weather Underground was launched in 1995 as the first public-oriented online weather service. We were around #2000 in the sequential list of Internet domains granted worldwide. Today, that list is up to more than 241 million.


Figure 1 (right). Our debut WunderPoster puts the spotlight on advection fog, the hallmark weather feature of Weather Underground’s home base in the San Francisco Bay.


Each WunderPoster will include a capsule description of the weather phenomenon illustrated. The placeholders now on the WunderPosters site provide a hint of what you’ll see appearing over the next few weeks: mammatus, sundogs, frost flowers, lenticular clouds, and much more. WunderPosters can be downloaded in a high-resolution format (2400 x 3200 pixels) that allows for high-quality printing at sizes up to 8" x 10”. There’s also a handy double-sided postcard option.

You might correctly guess from today’s kickoff entry that our WunderArtists are paying homage to the distinctive poster artwork produced in the 1930s and early 1940s by the Works Progress Administration. A major part of the New Deal, the WPA is best known for the thousands of parks, schools, and other public amenities it built (many of which still stand). Another part of WPA was an arts program that put designers to work on murals, photographs, and other creations. This included some 2 million posters in an astounding 35,000 designs, illustrating everything from national parks to theatrical productions. The Library of Congress has more than 900 original WPA posters in its permanent collection, all available online.

Want to get in on the ground floor of our newest endeavor? We'll soon be launching a contest to find the inspiration for future WunderPosters. Stay tuned for details.

I'll post an update on the West Coast atmospheric river later today.

Bob Henson


Figure 2. Advection fog on the White River in Arkansas, produced by 90°F air passing over cold spring water. Image credit: wunderphotographer StormTrain.

Wunderground News

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Gro, the WPC QPF has been showing insane totals for the pacific northwest since practically November. There is no way those estimates are verifying, or the entire coastal regions of Washington and Oregon would be under water. I’m learning more and more that the QPF is very unreliable. I do like to monitor it to see where it’s showing heavy rainfall patterns, but it’s totals are way off most of the time.
From the previous blog.
It would be nice is some of these snowfall totals verify.
First of all, I LOVE those old WPA posters.. so this is fantastic!

Second,

Weather Underground was launched in 1995 as the first public-oriented online weather service. We were around #2000 in the sequential list of Internet domains granted worldwide. Today, that list is up to more than 241 million.


Wow... that's actually kind of astonishing. Way to go guys!
Also from the previous blog, since it's inevitable that anything I post at this time of day will shortly be followed by a new blog.
==============================================
Even though Florida has lots of tornadoes, they are much lower rated than in the surrounding states. The numbers are really quite striking.

F0 Tornadoes -

Florida : 1828
Alabama : 606

F1 Tornadoes -

Florida : 851
Alabama : 721

F4 Tornadoes -

Florida : 2
Alabama : 35

F5 Tornadoes -

Florida : 0
Alabama : 9

I knew Florida in general had more but weaker tornadoes but, until I looked up the numbers, I didn't realize how many. Three time more F0's than Alabama is amazing. 585 people have died in Alabama during F4 and F5 tornadoes compared to 11 in Florida. We've had 16 people die in F1's while Florida has had 7. Even with the huge amount of F0 tornadoes in Florida, only one person has died as a result. One person also died in Alabama with one-third of the number of tornadoes. While Florida leads in total numbers, Alabama and Mississippi have had far more deadly tornadoes. It would be an interesting study to see why so many more people die in Alabama than Florida from even the same class of tornadoes. It can't just be mobile homes, since Florida has plenty of those too.
This is a big change from the Poama models. Going to be interesting to see how this pans out as the latest scan of the CFSv2 at 12Z indicated El-Nino come September as well.



Again this just updated and won't likely be reflected on the CFSv2 enso plume until next week.

El Nino Forecasts Flop as Puzzled Scientists Wonder Why

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-05 /el-nino-forecasts-flop-as-puzzled-scientists-wond er-why
Quoting 8. tampabaymatt:

El Nino Forecasts Flop as Puzzled Scientists Wonder Why

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-05 /el-nino-forecasts-flop-as-puzzled-scientists-wond er-why


Not surprised as I believe this may have something to do with many years of a -PDO and if the 2/15/2015 update comes in with another high value then odds are El-Nino could occur later this year but again well just have to see. Is very interesting to see the Poama models from the Aussie's switch to such high values come Fall.
By the way the ESPI is now in positive territory for the first time in months with a reading of 0.04 was -0.84 just 3 weeks ago.
Friend over in Melbourne said its coming down in buckets right now. Likely the cold front coming thru.

Quoting LongIslandBeaches:
First of all, I LOVE those old WPA posters.. so this is fantastic!

Second,

Weather Underground was launched in 1995 as the first public-oriented online weather service. We were around #2000 in the sequential list of Internet domains granted worldwide. Today, that list is up to more than 241 million.


Wow... that's actually kind of astonishing. Way to go guys!
I remember using Gopher to FTP my way in when WU was still on the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor's servers. You had to know the secret password but, once you were in, it was the only source of real-time weather on what was to become the internet. All text, 300 bps modem...yeah, those were the days, waiting 20 minutes to get a surface map. :-)
Quoting tampabaymatt:
El Nino Forecasts Flop as Puzzled Scientists Wonder Why

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-05 /el-nino-forecasts-flop-as-puzzled-scientists-wond er-why


Link

You've got to use the Link function here or the URL gets screwed up every time.
From previous blog

Quoting 13. sar2401:



Link

You've got to use the Link function here or the URL gets screwed up every time.


Thanks for the tip
Not surprised as I believe this may have something to do with many years of a -PDO and if the 2/15/2015 update comes in with another high value then odds are El-Nino could occur later this year but again well just have to see. Is very interesting to see the Poama models from the Aussie's switch to such high values come Fall.



from NOAA

Next ENSO Update: February 5
There is an approximately 50-60% chance of El Niño conditions during the next two months, with ENSO-neutral favored thereafter. For information on what an El Niño event might mean for your region, follow our ENSO blog and connect with us on social media.
17. vis0

Quoting 15. tampabaymatt:



Thanks for the tip
Quote from the article because sea-surface temperatures
have flirted with being warm enough for an El Nino to form. The ENSO areas out west where so warm they "madΞout", its that the other 2 main areas of the biosphere & the ePAC ENSO regions that even now has its  Atmosphere not linking up, 'cause of the RiReRi therefore a domino affect kept blocking the starting areas for plumes of moisture to gain momentum and head in a more zonal flow towards the western areas of all of North America.          What caused the RiReRi, rather not post my theory now, Sar2401 is eating brunch and i don't want to get him dizzy.
Models suggesting neutral for now, but remaining warm
The tropical Pacific Ocean has cooled rapidly in recent weeks, since peaking in mid-December with surface temperatures briefly reaching values typical of El Niño. Current values of the NINO3.4 index in the central tropical Pacific are now well within the neutral range.
Most of the surveyed models forecast tropical Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures to remain above average, but within the neutral range, until at least April. Three models suggest renewed warming in June, with the value of NINO3.4 forecast to reach El Niño thresholds by this time, while the other five models remain neutral. However, model forecasts spanning the autumn months tend to have reduced accuracy than at other times of the year and should therefore be treated with caution.
The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) has no observed impact on Australian climate from December to April due to the natural position of the monsoon trough at this time of year.
For more details on both ENSO and the IOD, please see the ENSO Wrap-Up.
gfs has snow in new England the 9th,13th and this big one....................
I find the 10-day QPF product out of the Northwest River Forecast Center to be generally accurate on the regional scale. Personally, I am planning for bit rain and rising rivers. Today:


Link
ECMWF 12z agrees on the torch pushing the rain/snow line to the PA/NY border coupled with appreciably lighter precip. Looking forward to the warm up.

The only thing that could throw a wrench in this is the off-shore development both the UKMET and ECMWF is showing, which if timed right, could produce appreciable snowfall over the area after the torch.
Quoting 8. tampabaymatt:

El Nino Forecasts Flop as Puzzled Scientists Wonder Why

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-05 /el-nino-forecasts-flop-as-puzzled-scientists-wond er-why

Although the model consensus may have shown El Nino, I'm not so sure that observations have ended up outside the range. I also do not recall official forecasts being 100%. Did CPC ever have us in a El Nino warning? I thought it was always a watch, which just means "conditions favorable." With all that said I'm not sure I'm sold on all this discussion of a forecasts "busting." This seems more like a day with a tornado watch where do you get some hail and wind but no tornadoes rather than a day with a tornado warning false alarm.
Quoting 1. tampabaymatt:
I’m learning more and more that the QPF is very unreliable. I do like to monitor it to see where it’s showing heavy rainfall patterns, but it’s totals are way off most of the time.

...according to?
Quoting 24. ScottLincoln:


...according to?


My observation
Quoting 26. tampabaymatt:



My observation

Upon what threshold do your personal observations deem something "very unreliable?"
Quoting 27. ScottLincoln:


Upon what threshold do your personal observations deem something "very unreliable?"


I'm not going to flood the blog with a useless back and forth. Many others that you probably find more credible than me on this blog have noted the same thing. I also never used the words "very unreliable". Have a great day.




here we go again
Thanks Bob...
Interesting discussion in the CPC Blog about why they didn't pulled the trigger declaring El Nino.

Read it at my ENSO Blog.
Quoting 4. tampabaymatt:


did you get enough rain over by you last night?
Thanks for the new post Mr. Henson,
Quoting 32. LargoFl:

did you get enough rain over by you last night?



1.46" when I left the house for work. But, it rained a lot on my drive in, so I imagine my gauge will have gone up to about 1.75" when I get home today. Not bad for February.
35. bwi
Quoting 22. Drakoen:

ECMWF 12z agrees on the torch pushing the rain/snow line to the PA/NY border coupled with appreciably lighter precip. Looking forward to the warm up.

The only thing that could throw a wrench in this is the off-shore development both the UKMET and ECMWF is showing, which if timed right, could produce appreciable snowfall over the area after the torch.


In my haphazard 30-ish years of experience, depending on well offshore storms to throw wraparound snow over DC is pretty tenuous. Sometimes, yes. But not nearly as often or as disruptive as sometimes depicted by models. Usually if we're not getting snow when the storm is SW, S, or SE of us, we're not going to get much more.
Quoting tampabaymatt:


I'm not going to flood the blog with a useless back and forth. Many others that you probably find more credible than me on this blog have noted the same thing. I also never used the words "very unreliable". Have a great day.


Just sayin'...
Quoting 36. Neapolitan:



Just sayin'...


Yup, you caught me. I'll hang my head in shame for that mistake for the rest of my life.
Interesting discussion in the CPC Blog about why they didn't pulled the trigger declaring El Nino.


michael ventrice claimed that was due to the MJO and not el nino conditions.....since pulse went away...so did those conditions
Yup, you caught me. I'll hang my head in shame for that mistake for the rest of my life.



actually.....it's apples and oranges as you first were talking about the WPC....and with scott you were talking about the CPC...two separate divisions.....we'll be happy to serve you crow...but i just want to make sure the bill is accurate :-)
Quoting 28. tampabaymatt:
I'm not going to flood the blog with a useless back and forth...I also never used the words "very unreliable"...

1)
Quoting 1. tampabaymatt:
...I%u2019m learning more and more that the QPF is very unreliable...

2) It's not useless. Critical thinking is important. Claims should be based upon a logical flow and evidence when possible. I was just trying to understand why you claimed that WPC QPF is "very unreliable" because you didn't really mention why you thought that. It makes it easier to understand where one is coming from if you know the context or threshold by which they came up with their idea.

Although not without issues and far from perfect, I would find it very difficult to classify QPF as "very unreliable." This is coming from someone who uses it every single day as vital data. Using verification statistics, one can see that WPC QPF has had substantial improvements in QPF over the last several decades and averages a skill score higher than deterministic models.

QPF...
use with caution knowing the limitations and uncertainty? Absolutely.
very unreliable? On that we will disagree.
Quoting 39. ricderr:

Yup, you caught me. I'll hang my head in shame for that mistake for the rest of my life.



actually.....it's apples and oranges as you first were talking about the WPC....and with scott you were talking about the CPC...two separate divisions.....we'll be happy to serve you crow...but i just want to make sure the bill is accurate :-)

I actually was referring to the specific comment on QPF.

In one post I was just sharing a comment that I think some of these news media stories and people's comments about El Nino forecasts "busting" are a bit exaggerated. The other post was specific to a comment made with no source saying that QPF is very unreliable. I have experience in QPF daily, thus the question about the source of the comment.
Quoting 39. ricderr:

Yup, you caught me. I'll hang my head in shame for that mistake for the rest of my life.



actually.....it's apples and oranges as you first were talking about the WPC....and with scott you were talking about the CPC...two separate divisions.....we'll be happy to serve you crow...but i just want to make sure the bill is accurate :-)


Not sure what you mean. Honestly, I don't come here to argue with anyone. So, whatever you all want to think, enjoy.
Deleted accidental duplicate.
Not sure what you mean. Honestly, I don't come here to argue with anyone. So, whatever you all want to think, enjoy.


i don't think anyone is arguing with you......nor condemning you......we all end up being thought of as wrong on here on occasion...(which you may not think you are)...well that is...those that offer an opinion...just as long as you don't make wild remarks time after time that are wrong time after time....you fit in well
hey tamps...this might help you.....

this is how they come up with the 7 day precip forecast......

About the 5-and 7-Day QPFs

The 5-Day Quantitative Precipitation Forecast (QPF) products are created by adding WPC's 6-hour QPFs for Days 1-3 (a total of 12 6-hour periods) to a 48-hour forecast for Days 4-5 prepared by our medium-range forecasters. For the 7-Day QPF, we add to the 5-day product a 48-hour forecast for Days 6-7, which is also prepared by our medium-range forecasters. Both forecasts are created twice per day, once at 09Z and again at 21Z.

Forecasts are valid from the beginning of Day 1 through the end of Day 5 (or 7), with the 21Z issuance offset by 12 hours. For example, a forecast prepared at 12Z September 2, 2012, would be valid for the 120-hour period from 12Z September 2, 2012, through 12Z September 7, 2012. The Day 1-5 forecast prepared at 21Z September 2, 2012, would be valid from 00Z September 3, 2012, through 00Z September 8, 2012.
For the Day 1-7 QPF, a forecast prepared at 12Z September 2, 2012, would be valid for the 168-hour period from 12Z September 2, 2012, through 12Z September 9, 2012. The forecast created at 21Z would be valid from 00Z September 3, 2012 through 00Z September 10, 2012.
Quoting 43. ricderr:

Not sure what you mean. Honestly, I don't come here to argue with anyone. So, whatever you all want to think, enjoy.


i don't think anyone is arguing with you......nor condemning you......we all end up being thought of as wrong on here on occasion...(which you may not think you are)...well that is...those that offer an opinion...just as long as you don't make wild remarks time after time that are wrong time after time....you fit in well


I could present a better case as to why the WPC QPF is unreliable, but what’s the point. ScottLincoln is already convinced I’m wrong, so instead of going back and forth with someone who already has their mind made up, I choose not to. All I know is that the WPC QPF underestimates rain totals for FL on a regular basis (as it just did yesterday), and constantly shows 7 day rainfall estimates for the Pacific NW in excess of 10 inches. That being said, I do check it daily to get a feel for rainfall patterns, but take the totals with a grain of salt.
I could present a better case as to why the WPC QPF is unreliable, but what’s the point. ScottLincoln is already convinced I’m wrong, so instead of going back and forth with someone who already has their mind made up, I choose not to. All I know is that the WPC QPF underestimates rain totals for FL on a regular basis (as it just did yesterday), and constantly shows 7 day rainfall estimates for the Pacific NW in excess of 10 inches. That being said, I do check it daily to get a feel for rainfall patterns, but take the totals with a grain of salt.


in scotts defense.....i looked him up a time ago...and the man seems to know his stuff.....google him and you'll see...the guy has a professional rep he can hang his hat on

however with that said...the cynical side of me must say....

he works for the NWS...so he's got to vouch for the product :-)

Quoting 45. tampabaymatt:

I could present a better case as to why the WPC QPF is unreliable, but what%u2019s the point. ScottLincoln is already convinced I%u2019m wrong, so instead of going back and forth with someone who already has their mind made up, I choose not to.

I never told you not to "present your case" so-to-speak. If fact, quite the opposite is true, I was basically asking for it.

It's not a matter of having my "mind already made up." It's more a matter of me looking at this data every day, and knowing where to go to look at objective WPC QPF verification statistics when I wonder how well they are doing. On the other hand, you've indicated that your opinion is based solely on your own personal anecdote. I've reached my opinion through evidence and experience such that, if evidence and experience changes, my resulting opinion would thus change. Thus it might be wise to reconsider your preconceived notions.

Quoting 45. tampabaymatt:

[WPC QPF] constantly shows 7 day rainfall estimates for the Pacific NW in excess of 10 inches.

Some parts of the pacific northwest are considered rainforest. Just because it "constantly shows forecasts of 10in" does not necessarily mean that those forecasts are incorrect.
Quoting 47. ricderr:

however with that said...the cynical side of me must say....

he works for the NWS...so he's got to vouch for the product :-)

Although I do not work for NWRFC nor do I work for WPC. So one could argue that I should make the other offices look bad so mine looks better! :)
Quoting 48. ScottLincoln:


I never told you not to "present your case" so-to-speak. If fact, quite the opposite is true.

It's not a matter of having my "mind already made up." It's more a matter of me looking at this data every day, and knowing where to go to look at objective WPC QPF verification statistics. On the other hand, you've indicated that your opinion is based solely on your own personal anecdote. I've reached my opinion through evidence and experience such that, if evidence and experience changes, my resulting opinion would thus change. Thus it might be wise to reconsider your preconceived notions.


Some parts of the pacific northwest are considered rainforest. Just because it "constantly shows forecasts of 10in" does not necessarily mean that those forecasts are incorrect.


Quoting 48. ScottLincoln:


I never told you not to "present your case" so-to-speak. If fact, quite the opposite is true.

It's not a matter of having my "mind already made up." It's more a matter of me looking at this data every day, and knowing where to go to look at objective WPC QPF verification statistics. On the other hand, you've indicated that your opinion is based solely on your own personal anecdote. I've reached my opinion through evidence and experience such that, if evidence and experience changes, my resulting opinion would thus change. Thus it might be wise to reconsider your preconceived notions.


Some parts of the pacific northwest are considered rainforest. Just because it "constantly shows forecasts of 10in" does not necessarily mean that those forecasts are incorrect.


So, if I consistently see it fail with regards to rainfall total estimates for my area, that is somehow an invalid opinion because I observed it? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Quoting 47. ricderr:

I could present a better case as to why the WPC QPF is unreliable, but what’s the point. ScottLincoln is already convinced I’m wrong, so instead of going back and forth with someone who already has their mind made up, I choose not to. All I know is that the WPC QPF underestimates rain totals for FL on a regular basis (as it just did yesterday), and constantly shows 7 day rainfall estimates for the Pacific NW in excess of 10 inches. That being said, I do check it daily to get a feel for rainfall patterns, but take the totals with a grain of salt.


in scotts defense.....i looked him up a time ago...and the man seems to know his stuff.....google him and you'll see...the guy has a professional rep he can hang his hat on

however with that said...the cynical side of me must say....

he works for the NWS...so he's got to vouch for the product :-)




I'm sure he does, and I never assumed otherwise. My point is that there are tons of people on this blog that seem to enjoy going back and forth with others, when they have no intention of actually learning anything or changing their view point. It's a pointless waste of time and I don't see the need to repeat it.
Up to a blazing 21 to my SW, 18 to my N, from a low of 3 this a.m. for both. Pressure has started to drop below the 30.5s" we had this a.m. and the SW station has started to show some SE wind instead of N. Snow underperformed estimates, only .5 to 1" here instead of 1.5 - 2. Won't stick around long as S winds get us near 50 this weekend in S C IL (and now two days w/out snow or rain in extended Sun. forecast as those temps were raised). Have some frozen mix at end of 7 day, we'll see if still there after weekend.
Quoting 50. tampabaymatt:





So, if I consistently see it fail with regards to rainfall total estimates for my area, that is somehow an invalid opinion because I observed it? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Not invalid necessarily. But less valid than objective statistics.
Afternoon all... well the rain is down here in Nassau... started about 35 minutes ago, and it has already modulated from the heavy downpour to lighter, but still steady, showers. Already "dusk" has set in, and I'm sure we'll see a few signs of flash flooding in the low lying areas.



From the looks of this, we're likely to have at least some rain for the rest of the afternoon, evening, and night.
In my area over the past few years I have watched the precip forecast from the WPC. There are times that they are completely wrong with the totals but there are also times that they completely nail it. The WPC has done pretty well with big rain events over here with the occasional bust so I can't complain about it.

But we all have to remember this is a forecast, it should give you a general idea of what to expect.

I don't know how accurate they are over on the West Coast since I don't live over there. Lets give it a week and we'll see how much rain/snow has fallen over there.
PART TWO - WEATHER ANALYSIS AT 051200
SUBTROPICAL DEPRESSION AT 25S046W WITH CENTRAL PRESSURE 1004 HPA MOVING TO S/SE AT 10/15 KT WITH HIGH CHANCE TO EVOLVE TO SUBTROPICAL STORM DURING FEB 06. ESTIMATED POSITION AT 061200 UTC %u2013 31S043W.







Link
Quoting 40. ScottLincoln:


1)

2) It's not useless. Critical thinking is important. Claims should be based upon a logical flow and evidence when possible. I was just trying to understand why you claimed that WPC QPF is "very unreliable" because you didn't really mention why you thought that. It makes it easier to understand where one is coming from if you know the context or threshold by which they came up with their idea.

Although not without issues and far from perfect, I would find it very difficult to classify QPF as "very unreliable." This is coming from someone who uses it every single day as vital data. Using verification statistics, one can see that WPC QPF has had substantial improvements in QPF over the last several decades and averages a skill score higher than deterministic models.

QPF...
use with caution knowing the limitations and uncertainty? Absolutely.
very unreliable? On that we will disagree.

I actually was referring to the specific comment on QPF.

In one post I was just sharing a comment that I think some of these news media stories and people's comments about El Nino forecasts "busting" are a bit exaggerated. The other post was specific to a comment made with no source saying that QPF is very unreliable. I have experience in QPF daily, thus the question about the source of the comment.


While QPF forecasting has improved, it is still indeed quite inaccurate, although it is getting better as you've mentioned.
Now I'm not sure where I could acquire statistical accuracy on WPC qpf forecasts, but I am aware of some statistics that show that qpf forecasts in general, especially beyond the very short term, still have pretty poor accuracy. The accuracy is better in the winter because synoptic scale generated rains are easier to forecast, but QPF becomes much harder in more tropical and less synoptic scale systems in the summer, which makes sense.

If you don't believe me, I could do some searching to dig them up again, however I honestly avoid posting research on blogs for the most part. It takes a lot of time that I would normally reserve for when thorough factual research is really needed like for school. Sometimes I do post a research based argument for something here, but most of the time I don't, lol.

Thankfully it will get better, it wasn't long ago when I was in elementary school that tropical cyclone forecasting accuracy was still pretty darn bad. It's improved dramatically in recent years, so there may be a breakthrough with rainfall forecasting at some point. Obviously it's important to the NWS and meteorologists as a whole as rainfall flooding is very destructive and takes many lives still.

The WPC sometimes will forecast several inch rainfall events in the long term, and I just don't think that fits weather forecasting guide lines to have that bold of a forecast, you'll never see 90 or 100% pops or that high of qpf with local NWS forecasts several days out like with the WPC.

Now some forecasters may disagree with my statement by saying that we have to make strides for doing so several days out or we won't improve, and maybe that's the goal of the WPC, I don't know really know. I just know my main complaint personally and from some other meteorologists I know is that they aren't conservative enough in the long term.

Some of the complaints with the WPC forecast may have to do with resolution on a large map. I was actually having this discussion earlier with some other bloggers here about how the WPC Pacific Northwest forecasts look a bit deceiving, because at first it looked liked they were forecasting over 12 inches in Seattle, but a closer and more careful look shows that the forecast with those numbers is on mountain rainforest areas that average over 100 inches of rain a year in some places compared to 40-50 or so in the lower lands. The lack of resolution with a national map can create confusion sometimes that way.

I'll say this much, their forecast for Florida was pretty good last night, actual totals were similar.

Quoting 14. Grothar:

From previous blog




Also from the previous blog:

Although the graphic depicts a nice amount of precipitable water already passing thru Central California, we have had no rain at all. Even the north coast has only just now started reporting some local moderate rain. Most of the moisture has probably simply been condensed out as clouds as in most tropical plumes that go thru our region in the absence of cold air dynamics. The more interesting moisture is to the west, not the current plume. That moisture is closer to the jet max and left front quad outflow. Still, the jet has yet to break through the strong ridge. Nearby barometers are actually rising right now, and the sun is out here in the Bay Area. There are high clouds of course, but nothing in the mid or low levels. Winds are calm. Buoys are showing 25 knot winds. If the forecast of a deluge busts, with the new GFS model and the concentrated special monitoring in place, this should still be an excellent research bonanza regardless.
Quoting tampabaymatt:




So, if I consistently see it fail with regards to rainfall total estimates for my area, that is somehow an invalid opinion because I observed it? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Here's a graph which could have been presented at the beginning of this discussion by Scott. You can see a ton of graphs at the WPC verification site.



This graph shows how well the major models did predicting two inch or more precipitation at three days for the last year. Some months, the WPC did better, especially in the first six months. For some reason, the WPC forecasts started to slip the last six months, with the NAM or GFS beating the WPC, forecast.. Regardless of the models, the accuracy of predicting big rainfall amounts isn't good. In a perfect world, the threat score would be 1.00. The best performance was in December by the GFS, and even that was a 0.28. So you're not crazy, the WPC and all models with big rain events out three days don't do very well. You can imagine what the scores look like at seven days.
As I've said before, the WPC is good at alerting you where you might expect rain but not so good at giving anywhere near the exact total at seven days.
Not sure what the big deal is; the models usually get us in the ball park of where the weather threat will be and then the local offices fine tune the forecasts for their particular regions (along with Satt, Doppler, and all the other tools used in the trade). And the longer in range, the more potential for margins of error. Most Pro-Mets will try to go with consensus modelling and they will usually note when there are major differences between some of the models. Some models perform better than others in a given scenario, and some don't (and they continue to be upgraded over time) but their role is to alert the public as to what they are seeing so people can take precautions.

Just noting the fact that we sometimes will blast a particular individual or organization/outlet if the forecast does not pan out "exactly" as expected but the models are not perfect and neither are we.........Also, I would never think about going after the "modellers" themselves at the GFS facility or any of the other labs where the models are run; they just input the data and let the models do their thing.

The models are a great thing but for the real short-term, nothing beats the satellites and radar and on-site observations as you fine tune the short-term local forecast IMHO.
Quoting 61. sar2401:

Here's a graph which could have been presented at the beginning of this discussion by Scott. You can see a ton of graphs at the WPC verification site.



This graph shows how well the major models did predicting two inch or more precipitation at three days for the last year. Some months, the WPC did better, especially in the first six months. For some reason, the WPC forecasts started to slip the last six months, with the NAM or GFS beating the WPC, forecast.. Regardless of the models, the accuracy of predicting big rainfall amounts isn't good. In a perfect world, the threat score would be 1.00. The best performance was in December by the GFS, and even that was a 0.28. So you're not crazy, the WPC and all models with big rain events out three days don't do very well. You can imagine what the scores look like at seven days.
As I've said before, the WPC is good at alerting you where you might expect rain but not so good at giving anywhere near the exact total at seven days.

Quoting 59. Jedkins01:



While QPF forecasting has improved, it is still indeed quite inaccurate, although it is getting better as you've mentioned.
Now I'm not sure where I could acquire statistical accuracy on WPC qpf forecasts, but I am aware of some statistics that show that qpf forecasts in general, especially beyond the very short term, still have pretty poor accuracy. The accuracy is better in the winter because synoptic scale generated rains are easier to forecast, but QPF becomes much harder in more tropical and less synoptic scale systems in the summer, which makes sense....

It all depends on how you use QPF and how you interpret QPF over long forecast durations.
It's also important to understand what goes into those verification scores. It's based on a comparison of QPF to QPE. Even assuming that QPE is perfect (it isn't), it may not be as simple as "QPF is bad" because of a low threat score. The threat skill score takes contours from QPE and tries to match them to QPF. It could be that the QPF was just offset 50 miles in one direction, but had the exact same sized contours and the same magnitude, but in that case the threat score could suffer tremendously.

If one understands uncertainty in longer range QPF, it can be useful. Should you take one pixel on that map for a 7 day QPF and treat it as a forecast? I know I wouldn't. Should you use it for overall patterns, observing the magnitude and spatial trends? Should you use long range QPF values in the context of the probabilistic values and forecaster discussion on uncertainty? That's how I would use it.

The main point, however, remains that saying "xx is bad" or "yy is unreliable" without any evidence or source is probably not a good idea. Without the context of how it is used and without objective evidence, it is very hard to say that. There are many who would find QPF with a maximum only 100 miles off 7 days out to be a very good forecast. That's the entire reason why I was pushing for more context about why an individual found QPF to be "very unreliable."
Quoting 59. Jedkins01:



While QPF forecasting has improved, it is still indeed quite inaccurate, ...


Again, still begs the question as to what threshold one is using to define "quite inaccurate."
Quoting 7. StormTrackerScott:

This is a big change from the Poama models. Going to be interesting to see how this pans out as the latest scan of the CFSv2 at 12Z indicated El-Nino come September as well.



Again this just updated and won't likely be reflected on the CFSv2 enso plume until next week.


Hi Scott, have you been reading JB's material on the upcoming spring and summer Nino, Nina pattern? JB has some interesting ideas regarding this upcoming spring and summer. Maybe La Nina by the end of summer with a cool neutral in the spring and early summer. If this were to pan out we might have a very active season coming up. I know some of the people on here don't like JB, and that is fine as everybody has an opinion, and I don't agree with some of the things he says, but I trust his Nino and Nina forecast.
Quoting tampabaymatt:


The WPC, 7 Day is showing rain (precipitation) for about 90% (eye ball estimate) of the U.S.
I don't see that all that often.
And Juno was a good example, the models were a bit divergent on the snow totals but as the low tracked, and wobbled, the snow belt really bloomed a little further North than New York but people were prepared. Once the snow arrived in the NE, the long-range radar loops clearly showed the snow belt flowing in off the coast of Mass and we ended up with the records inland from Boston and such but you could see it coming in the short term.
I'd like to be able to use a modified form of that poster for my icon on this blog. Possible?
Quoting BayFog:


Also from the previous blog:

Although the graphic depicts a nice amount of precipitable water already passing thru Central California, we have had no rain at all. Even the north coast has only just now started reporting some local moderate rain. Most of the moisture has probably simply been condensed out as clouds as in most tropical plumes that go thru our region in the absence of cold air dynamics. The more interesting moisture is to the west, not the current plume. That moisture is closer to the jet max and left front quad outflow. Still, the jet has yet to break through the strong ridge. Nearby barometers are actually rising right now, and the sun is out here in the Bay Area. There are high clouds of course, but nothing in the mid or low levels. Winds are calm. Buoys are showing 25 knot winds. If the forecast of a deluge busts, with the new GFS model and the concentrated special monitoring in place, this should still be an excellent research bonanza regardless.


Indeed, so far it's been pretty much a non-event here in Eureka. It was supposed to start storming around midnight. We had a few gusts overnight, but nothing significant. We got a spritz of rain around 0400 and then it stopped. Didn't start raining again until about 1000. We had a nice downpour just as I was walking two blocks to get lunch (lucky me), but is back to a light rain again now.

Back in December we had a busted forecast and people still remember that and are skeptical about this new forecast. If this keeps up, pretty soon people won't pay any attention to storm warnings at all, and who can blame them?

The biggest pulse of rainfall is supposed to be overnight. I guess we'll see...

Still, I can believe you have sunshine down there!

EDIT: Meant to say "can't believe..." but it kind of works either way.
I'm a whitewater rafter and one of the strangest days I ever spent on a river was the McKenzie River in mid-summer back in the 1990's. It was a bright sunny but extremely humid day for Oregon and the river water is very cold. There was a thick layer of fog over the river only, so thick I couldn't see more than about 20 or 30 feet down the river which made running the whitewater difficult. Sitting on my raft seat I could raise my arm straight up and it was considerably hotter on my hand than it was on the rest of my body. It was an unforgettable experience.
Quoting 69. riverat544:

I'm a whitewater rafter and one of the strangest days I ever spent on a river was the McKenzie River in mid-summer back in the 1990's. It was a bright sunny but extremely humid day for Oregon and the river water is very cold. There was a thick layer of fog over the river only, so thick I couldn't see more than about 20 or 30 feet down the river which made running the whitewater difficult. Sitting on my raft seat I could raise my arm straight up and it was considerably hotter on my hand than it was on the rest of my body. It was an unforgettable experience.

That reminds me of something similar that I experienced about ten years ago. A big windy storm was headed in, and I decided to head to Ocean Beach in SF to watch the swells. The wind was already well over gale force. There had been a preceding dry spell, and so the sand was blowing. Typically the sand blows onshore at Ocean Beach, and onto adjacent roadways which have to be cleared like snow, but this day, the sand was blowing along the beach and in a very shallow layer, about two feet high. I had to walk out into it to see what it was like. Very weird. I put my hand down into the blowing sand and it stung, but above, nothing but clear fresh air. The spectacle across the expanse of the beach was amazing. And the swells.
National Weather Service survey in West Boca Raton has found the wind damage this morning was from a tornado. Winds 90-100mph making it an EF-1. Tornado touchdown 7:36am. The tornado lifted and touched down again as an EF-0 tornado with additional downed trees.
Huzzah. With the future snow predictions it seems I will run out of places to put snow for the first time since living in Bloomfield, NY. There is no solid snow foundation as we have not gotten above freezing at my location in about a month, which is rare. It is all fluff! This means my 4-wheeler and plow cannot knock off the tops of the snow heaps by driving over them to push them further away to make room for more snow.

This should be "interesting". 1200' long gravel driveway on a hill.

At least I am not in Manchester, NH. I was there yesterday and my God it looks like Oswego, NY! Snow heaps so large on the side of the road you cannot make out some of the businesses!
Local NWS SF-Monterey is hanging tough with their precipitation forecast, and even upped the ante as far as extent. Boy I hope they're right.
I like the really warm days during the late Winter/early Spring when there's sunny skies all the way to the beach. Then right when you get to the beach parking lot, the temperature drops about 25 degrees and there's a layer of low clouds and fog over the water and the beach.

You can just see the disappointment in everyone face when they pull into the parking lot at the beach and it's cool and foggy and they were expecting warm and sunny.


I'm intrigued now with the QPF......enough that on monday...i'm going to take the 7 day forecast ......pick a few cities in the highest precip zones....and track how well they do
Since no one pays attention to the South Atlantic came here trying to call your attention. Forms the Subtropical Depression over South Brazil, again. The pressure drops to 1002 mbar now and winds reaches 35 mph (around). The hydrographic center of Brazil's Navy issued a short note with something new, a list of nine names in alphabetical order in the language "Tupi Guarani," one of the largest tribes inhabiting our country before turning a republic.
As 2011 when we saw the Subtropical Storm in March been called Arani (bad weather in Tupi Guarani), the next name that will be used by the Navy is "Bapo" that means "Rattle", if reach subtropical or tropical storm status tomorrow. If appointed will be the fourth time ever that a tropical or subtropical cyclone/storm will be called by some name in our waters. The first time was the Hurricane Catarina in March 2004, followed by Anita in March 2010 and Arani in March 2011. Guys, i'm very excited about that. The newspapers still continuous emitting watches and warnings about the storm.

WRF (WindGuru):


someone will get over 12 inches snow in the northeast
Quoting 74. Sfloridacat5:

I like the really warm days during the late Winter/early Spring when there's sunny skies all the way to the beach. Then right when you get to the beach parking lot, the temperature drops about 25 degrees and there's a layer of low clouds and fog over the water and the beach.

You can just see the disappointment in everyone face when they pull into the parking lot at the beach and it's cool and foggy and they were expecting warm and sunny.





It's interesting to watch marine layers in early spring through early summer in the Mid Atlantic. Temperature contrasts with these are also ~20-30F and they are most prominent during synoptically warm periods with weak westerly flow when the warm side is also humid.. then a layer of mixing cloud can form at the top edge protecting the shallow cold air from solar warming.
So my rain gauge officially clocked in at 1.47 for the event, 1.37 yesterday and 0.10 after midnight.

So far I'm already at 2.68 for February month to date and it's only the first week, we had 5.14 in January, so we're already at 7.82 for only about 5 weeks into the new year, a nice wet start!

My parents rain gauge ended up with 2.01 down in the Tampa Bay area, and they have had 2.24 so far for February.
According to CWG expect little to no snow the next two weeks in D.C and more useless cold.For all you in the mid-atlantic its time to give up and realize the reality of the situation.Don't fret! Spring will be here soon though and with the way the pattern is going perhaps March will have more nice days.
Quoting 80. washingtonian115:

According to CWG expect little to no snow the next two weeks in D.C and more useless cold.For all you in the mid-atlantic its time to give up and realize the reality of the situation.Don't fret! Spring will be here soon though and with the way the pattern is going perhaps March will have more nice days.


82. jpsb
Quoting 16. ricderr:




When you ask someone to reply to you and they take the time to do so, silence is poor manners.
Quoting 80. washingtonian115:

According to CWG expect little to no snow the next two weeks in D.C and more useless cold.For all you in the mid-atlantic its time to give up and realize the reality of the situation.Don't fret! Spring will be here soon though and with the way the pattern is going perhaps March will have more nice days.
Looks like March could be calm.
pretty poster...
love when the kitties get all upset over the wind :)
Quoting 57. BaltimoreBrian:




There's a video I saw of an octopus that would not only change color but shape to look like sea snakes, flounder, crustaceans, and a lion fish. It's on YT somewhere.
24 days until Meteorological Spring.
44 days until the First Official Day of Spring. 6 more weeks but getting closer.
91S got dropped. The circulation got near Africa yesterday. This sprang from the moisture or more a reprise. It's pulled together on ASCAT alot from this morning. NOAA doesn't have a floater on it yet. FNMOC is calling it 92S.
Quoting 80. washingtonian115:

According to CWG expect little to no snow the next two weeks in D.C and more useless cold.For all you in the mid-atlantic its time to give up and realize the reality of the situation.Don't fret! Spring will be here soon though and with the way the pattern is going perhaps March will have more nice days.


Winter 1941-42. Total snow to late March 1.5" in DC. March 30, another 12"

April 7 or 8, 1972. 0.5" ice pellets and freezing rain from an AFTERNOON event!

It ain't over till it's over.
Quoting 87. Climate175:

24 days until Meteorological Spring.
44 days until the First Official Day of Spring. 6 more weeks but getting closer.


Climatological first lawn mowing here. March 30.

March 2012, cutting grass every 5 days after mid March and it still got shaggy.
Wonder if we'll see something similar in the gulf this year....
Quoting pablosyn:
Since no one pays attention to the South Atlantic came here trying to call your attention. Forms the Subtropical Depression over South Brazil, again. The pressure drops to 1002 mbar now and winds reaches 35 mph (around). The hydrographic center of Brazil's Navy issued a short note with something new, a list of nine names in alphabetical order in the language "Tupi Guarani," one of the largest tribes inhabiting our country before turning a republic.
As 2011 when we saw the Subtropical Storm in March been called Arani (bad weather in Tupi Guarani), the next name that will be used by the Navy is "Bapo" that means "Rattle", if reach subtropical or tropical storm status tomorrow. If appointed will be the fourth time ever that a tropical or subtropical cyclone/storm will be called by some name in our waters. The first time was the Hurricane Catarina in March 2004, followed by Anita in March 2010 and Arani in March 2011. Guys, i'm very excited about that. The newspapers still continuous emitting watches and warnings about the storm.

WRF (WindGuru):
So Brazil now has their own name list for tropical and subtropical storms? Cool. I wondered when they would finally start that since there seem to be at least a couple every year. What will this storm do around Porto Alegre?
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
Quoting ScottLincoln:


It all depends on how you use QPF and how you interpret QPF over long forecast durations.
It's also important to understand what goes into those verification scores. It's based on a comparison of QPF to QPE. Even assuming that QPE is perfect (it isn't), it may not be as simple as "QPF is bad" because of a low threat score. The threat skill score takes contours from QPE and tries to match them to QPF. It could be that the QPF was just offset 50 miles in one direction, but had the exact same sized contours and the same magnitude, but in that case the threat score could suffer tremendously.

If one understands uncertainty in longer range QPF, it can be useful. Should you take one pixel on that map for a 7 day QPF and treat it as a forecast? I know I wouldn't. Should you use it for overall patterns, observing the magnitude and spatial trends? Should you use long range QPF values in the context of the probabilistic values and forecaster discussion on uncertainty? That's how I would use it.

The main point, however, remains that saying "xx is bad" or "yy is unreliable" without any evidence or source is probably not a good idea. Without the context of how it is used and without objective evidence, it is very hard to say that. There are many who would find QPF with a maximum only 100 miles off 7 days out to be a very good forecast. That's the entire reason why I was pushing for more context about why an individual found QPF to be "very unreliable."

Again, still begs the question as to what threshold one is using to define "quite inaccurate."
The graph speaks for itself. If I was at the range and only shooting 2 of 10 on target, the instructor wouldn't be very happy. If I improved to 3 out of 10, it's better, but I still wouldn't be getting any high fives.

Your point about one pixel is a good one however, and some people do indeed look at the WPC map and do just that. I don't think the presentation with the "X" and an amount helps matters either, since people tend to focus on that area without understanding that amount of rainfall, if it was accurate, covers a lot bigger area. It seems like it would be better to just use the contours without those bullseye type numbers. Just looking at today's 3 day QPF map, for example, we have a 2.77" bullseye over northern California and a measly 0.11" over South Dakota. I'm reasonably sure that the WPC doesn't have models that are that precise three days out.
Quoting 92. sar2401:

So Brazil now has their own name list for tropical and subtropical storms? Cool. I wondered when they would finally start that since there seem to be at least a couple every year. What will this storm do around Porto Alegre?


Thanks to read it!!! Everything started in January 2004 when a tropical depression formed at the East Coast of Bahia, Northeast of Brazil. 2 months later, my state, Rio Grande do Sul and the other state, Santa Catarina were affected by Hurricane Catarina with winds around 110 mph. This was the first time that we have a couple in one year. After that we had a tropical storm in February 2006, a subtropical storm in January 2009. After that we had a subtropical depression and the Tropical Storm Anita in March 2010, in the same year but in November we also have a subtropical storm without name. In March 2011 we had the Subtropical Storm Arani, the first of Navy gives a name that means "bad weather" in the language of Tupi Guarani. In 2010 we have the first time that 3 subtropical or tropical storm forms in one single year, after all the subtropical depression wasn't very well officially for our meteorologists. After almost 3 years without any system, during the Christmas of 2013 we have a subtropical storm without a name again...followed by two subtropical depressions, one in February 2014 and other in March 2014. Finally last month we had a subtropical depression unnamed in the same area that today we had the formation of future "Bapo". And now here we are. haha... So, the forecasts are diverging from each other but a lot of websites said that the Area of Porto Alegre could be reached by wind gusts of 45 mph between tomorrow and saturday maybe with isolated heavy rain events. The circulation of the system already affect us today. Until right now we don't have any severe alert at this moment, maybe tomorrow we'll see another alerts about this storm. With this formation we already had 8 formation of tropical or subtropical storms in the South Atlantic since 2010, this is very impressive. Almost 10 storms or depressions formed in five years in a region where it was said to be impossible the formation of these phenomena. Is quite impressive!!!


Quoting 63. ScottLincoln:



It all depends on how you use QPF and how you interpret QPF over long forecast durations.
It's also important to understand what goes into those verification scores. It's based on a comparison of QPF to QPE. Even assuming that QPE is perfect (it isn't), it may not be as simple as "QPF is bad" because of a low threat score. The threat skill score takes contours from QPE and tries to match them to QPF. It could be that the QPF was just offset 50 miles in one direction, but had the exact same sized contours and the same magnitude, but in that case the threat score could suffer tremendously.

If one understands uncertainty in longer range QPF, it can be useful. Should you take one pixel on that map for a 7 day QPF and treat it as a forecast? I know I wouldn't. Should you use it for overall patterns, observing the magnitude and spatial trends? Should you use long range QPF values in the context of the probabilistic values and forecaster discussion on uncertainty? That's how I would use it.

The main point, however, remains that saying "xx is bad" or "yy is unreliable" without any evidence or source is probably not a good idea. Without the context of how it is used and without objective evidence, it is very hard to say that. There are many who would find QPF with a maximum only 100 miles off 7 days out to be a very good forecast. That's the entire reason why I was pushing for more context about why an individual found QPF to be "very unreliable."

Again, still begs the question as to what threshold one is using to define "quite inaccurate."


I agree that it does depend on the threshold, and from my prospective that data tells me pqf forecasting is still quite inaccurate. As I mentioned earlier, it is improving yes, but we should still note that there is a long way left go still before it's very reliable. I know at least for me, I wasn't mentioning the inaccuracy of qpf as some sort of way of picking at meteorologists and thinking they should do better or try harder. I'm just saying that even though meteorologists are doing their best with latest data and model output available, rainfall forecasting is still pretty inaccurate.

Now if you choose to to interpret the data differently than I do, sure, I guess we just disagree on whether it should be considered accurate or not.

Now I also agree that qpf can also be interpreted differently itself. If it's taken only at face value, such as location x should get 3 inches, but instead they only got 1, or they got 5, then it's going to look even less accurate than it is.

I've talked about the subject before about the disconnect between the public and meteorology products. Most people don't understand and really realize what probability of precipitation means.

In the same way, QPF is done in a probabilistic manner too, at least from a meteorologist's perspective. If interpreted this way, the accuracy is higher, but the public certainly won't understand why or how to interpret that.

Additionally, even from a probabilistic approach to evaluating QPF, while its very valuable, and sometimes is accurate, there are still a lot of blown forecasts. But as I said, I have no credentials to claim there is a better way, nor am I even if I did. Forecasters are doing their best job, I just think QPF is one of the weaker points in forecasting relative to other types of forecast products right now.
Quoting 94. sar2401:

The graph speaks for itself. If I was at the range and only shooting 2 of 10 on target, the instructor wouldn't be very happy.

Apparently it doesn't speak for itself because you've misunderstood it. It is not equivalent to being "at the range" and "shooting a 2 out of 10." There are not even the same kind of thing... you are comparing something point-based to something spatial!
Quoting 95. pablosyn:



Thanks to read it!!! Everything started in January 2004 when a tropical depression formed at the East Coast of Bahia, Northeast of Brazil. 2 months later, my state, Rio Grande do Sul and the other state, Santa Catarina were affected by Hurricane Catarina with winds around 110 mph. This was the first time that we have a couple in one year. After that we had a tropical storm in February 2006, a subtropical storm in January 2009. After that we had a subtropical depression and the Tropical Storm Anita in March 2010, in the same year but in November we also have a subtropical storm without name. In March 2011 we had the Subtropical Storm Arani, the first of Navy gives a name that means "bad weather" in the language of Tupi Guarani. In 2010 we have the first time that 3 subtropical or tropical storm forms in one single year, after all the subtropical depression wasn't very well officially for our meteorologists. After almost 3 years without any system, during the Christmas of 2013 we have a subtropical storm without a name again...followed by two subtropical depressions, one in February 2014 and other in March 2014. Finally last month we had a subtropical depression unnamed in the same area that today we had the formation of future "Bapo". And now here we are. haha... So, the forecasts are diverging from each other but a lot of websites said that the Area of Porto Alegre could be reached by wind gusts of 45 mph between tomorrow and saturday maybe with isolated heavy rain events. The circulation of the system already affect us today. Until right now we don't have any severe alert at this moment, maybe tomorrow we'll see another alerts about this storm. With this formation we already had 8 formation of tropical or subtropical storms in the South Atlantic since 2010, this is very impressive. Almost 10 storms or depressions formed in five years in a region where it was said to be impossible the formation of these phenomena. Is quite impressive!!!





Interesting stuff Pablo!
99. vis0

Quoting 82. jpsb:



When you ask someone to reply to you and they take the time to do so, silence is poor manners.
That's like the black cat calling the kettle, unlucky?
100. vis0
wrong quote
101. vis0

Quoting 76. pablosyn:

Since no one pays attention to the South Atlantic came here trying to call your attention. Forms the Subtropical Depression over South Brazil, again. The pressure drops to 1002 mbar now and winds reaches 35 mph (around). The hydrographic center of Brazil's Navy issued a short note with something new, a list of nine names in alphabetical order in the language "Tupi Guarani," one of the largest tribes inhabiting our country before turning a republic.
As 2011 when we saw the Subtropical Storm in March been called Arani (bad weather in Tupi Guarani), the next name that will be used by the Navy is "Bapo" that means "Rattle", if reach subtropical or tropical storm status tomorrow. If appointed will be the fourth time ever that a tropical or subtropical cyclone/storm will be called by some name in our waters. The first time was the Hurricane Catarina in March 2004, followed by Anita in March 2010 and Arani in March 2011. Guys, i'm very excited about that. The newspapers still continuous emitting watches and warnings about the storm.

WRF (WindGuru):

Deja me ver donde estas Brasil???◄sp|en►(Let me see where is Brazil?)
No es de calidad original(700kb v. 2mB)◄sp|en►not the original quality(700kb vs. 2mb)
Un programa gratis para a ver retratos que YO CREO es muy bueno es "xlideit" se puede descargar de aqui http://sourceforge.net/projects/xlideit (si es lento ha descargar, toca el boton de verde de descargar dos veces imediatamente que lo ves.◄sp|en► Have a nice day. ;-P

THIS HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK IS FOR EASTERN WEST VIRGINIA...
NORTHERN AND CENTRAL VIRGINIA...AND CENTRAL AND WESTERN MARYLAND
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF GARRETT COUNTY.

.DAY ONE...TODAY AND TONIGHT

A WIND CHILL ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR THE WESTERN AREAS OF
THE POTOMAC HIGHLANDS EARLY THIS MORNING. PLEASE REFER TO WBCWSWLWX FOR
MORE DETAILS.

.DAYS TWO THROUGH SEVEN...SATURDAY THROUGH THURSDAY

LOW PRESSURE MAY BRING WINTRY PRECIPITATION LATE SUNDAY NIGHT
THROUGH MONDAY NIGHT. THERE REMAINS UNCERTAINTY REGARDING THE
TRACK OF THE LOW AND HOW MUCH COLD AIR WILL BE IN PLACE...SO
PLEASE CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE LATEST FORECASTS.

.SPOTTER INFORMATION STATEMENT...

SPOTTER ACTIVATION IS NOT EXPECTED AT THIS TIME.

$$
Quoting 99. vis0:


That's like the black cat calling the kettle, unlucky?

Thats like when kettle listens and understands cat.?...:)
Quoting 95. pablosyn:



Thanks to read it!!! Everything started in January 2004 when a tropical depression formed at the East Coast of Bahia, Northeast of Brazil. 2 months later, my state, Rio Grande do Sul and the other state, Santa Catarina were affected by Hurricane Catarina with winds around 110 mph. This was the first time that we have a couple in one year. After that we had a tropical storm in February 2006, a subtropical storm in January 2009. After that we had a subtropical depression and the Tropical Storm Anita in March 2010, in the same year but in November we also have a subtropical storm without name. In March 2011 we had the Subtropical Storm Arani, the first of Navy gives a name that means "bad weather" in the language of Tupi Guarani. In 2010 we have the first time that 3 subtropical or tropical storm forms in one single year, after all the subtropical depression wasn't very well officially for our meteorologists. After almost 3 years without any system, during the Christmas of 2013 we have a subtropical storm without a name again...followed by two subtropical depressions, one in February 2014 and other in March 2014. Finally last month we had a subtropical depression unnamed in the same area that today we had the formation of future "Bapo". And now here we are. haha... So, the forecasts are diverging from each other but a lot of websites said that the Area of Porto Alegre could be reached by wind gusts of 45 mph between tomorrow and saturday maybe with isolated heavy rain events. The circulation of the system already affect us today. Until right now we don't have any severe alert at this moment, maybe tomorrow we'll see another alerts about this storm. With this formation we already had 8 formation of tropical or subtropical storms in the South Atlantic since 2010, this is very impressive. Almost 10 storms or depressions formed in five years in a region where it was said to be impossible the formation of these phenomena. Is quite impressive!!!



Yep..It was not long ago when the records stated that a tropical cyclone has never formed in the South Atlantic.