David Conaway
EF0
The other thread regarding the SPC forecasts got me thinking about how technology has evolved just in this aspect of meteorology. Instead of hijacking the SPC thread, I decided to start a separate thread.
Outside of taking basic meteorology courses back in the 1980's, I'm a novice when it comes down to weather forecasting.
Is it possible that there is too much data available and that many meteorologists depend too much on model output?
I know that it takes a lot of hard work and dedication to become a meteorologist/forecaster. As technology has evolved, there is now so much more data available at One's fingertips. When I go into the various data sites and look at forecast model output, I'm amazed at how far things have come. Undoubtedly, this technology will only continue to improve forecasting accuracy.
I went back through some old videos I have of Harold Taft and Scott Chesner who were meteorologists in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. I would start recording their forecasts several days before a forecasted severe weather event, the day of, and the day after. I know the data that they had access to in the 1980's is no where near to what is now available. Both of these meteorologists were quite accurate with there forecasts during the years they were in this area. There were many occasions when they would indicate that the computer models were predicting one thing, yet they went with a different forecast according to their knowledge/experience.
I understand that many years of experience will usually make a forecaster better. Harold Taft was an exceptional meteorologist, but how was he able to be as accurate if not more so than many forecaster's are today? Tom Skilling is another meteorologist that comes to mind. Both of these guy's were very confident most of the time when presenting there forecast's.
I only watch TV meteorologists on occasion now, especially with the availability of data from the NWS/SPC.
I really like reading through the area forecast discussion from the NWS and will usually read it every time a new discussion is issued.
What I have noticed is that the forecast discussion will reveal a lot of doubt/uncertainty from the forecaster, usually due to the various model's not in agreement. I have seen this many times over the last 10 or so years. The forecaster will then only use the model that has been the most accurate given a situation. How many times have we seen all of the models been in agreement, the forecaster is very confident and yet the forecast ends up being wrong.
Trying to forecast the weather is so challenging due to multitude of variables present at each level of the atmosphere. In no way am I trying to be critical of any person who forecasts the weather. I know that many of you already posses knowledge that I will only scratch the surface of in my lifetime. My hat goes off to each and everyone in the field of forecasting. I have learned more than I thought possible over the last 10 years or so just by having access to Stormtrack.
I know that there is no guarantee given for any forecast. I would like to get some insight or opinion from anyone, particularly the resident meteorologists regarding how they come up with a forecast. I'm sure that some of the forecasters from back in the day had doubts in their forecasts. We just did not have access to their reasoning for a specific forecast.
What method do you use to make a forecast and how confident are you that it will be accurate? Do you strictly use only the models or do you go by your experience/gut instinct for a forecast? I think that most of the reply's will be a combination of both factors? Do any of you feel that you have data overload when forecasting? Has there been a situation where all if the models agreed on a forecast, yet you went against the grain?
I apologize for the long post and being somewhat vague with my questions and thoughts. I look forward to reading any of the responses that this will generate.
Regards, David
Outside of taking basic meteorology courses back in the 1980's, I'm a novice when it comes down to weather forecasting.
Is it possible that there is too much data available and that many meteorologists depend too much on model output?
I know that it takes a lot of hard work and dedication to become a meteorologist/forecaster. As technology has evolved, there is now so much more data available at One's fingertips. When I go into the various data sites and look at forecast model output, I'm amazed at how far things have come. Undoubtedly, this technology will only continue to improve forecasting accuracy.
I went back through some old videos I have of Harold Taft and Scott Chesner who were meteorologists in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. I would start recording their forecasts several days before a forecasted severe weather event, the day of, and the day after. I know the data that they had access to in the 1980's is no where near to what is now available. Both of these meteorologists were quite accurate with there forecasts during the years they were in this area. There were many occasions when they would indicate that the computer models were predicting one thing, yet they went with a different forecast according to their knowledge/experience.
I understand that many years of experience will usually make a forecaster better. Harold Taft was an exceptional meteorologist, but how was he able to be as accurate if not more so than many forecaster's are today? Tom Skilling is another meteorologist that comes to mind. Both of these guy's were very confident most of the time when presenting there forecast's.
I only watch TV meteorologists on occasion now, especially with the availability of data from the NWS/SPC.
I really like reading through the area forecast discussion from the NWS and will usually read it every time a new discussion is issued.
What I have noticed is that the forecast discussion will reveal a lot of doubt/uncertainty from the forecaster, usually due to the various model's not in agreement. I have seen this many times over the last 10 or so years. The forecaster will then only use the model that has been the most accurate given a situation. How many times have we seen all of the models been in agreement, the forecaster is very confident and yet the forecast ends up being wrong.
Trying to forecast the weather is so challenging due to multitude of variables present at each level of the atmosphere. In no way am I trying to be critical of any person who forecasts the weather. I know that many of you already posses knowledge that I will only scratch the surface of in my lifetime. My hat goes off to each and everyone in the field of forecasting. I have learned more than I thought possible over the last 10 years or so just by having access to Stormtrack.
I know that there is no guarantee given for any forecast. I would like to get some insight or opinion from anyone, particularly the resident meteorologists regarding how they come up with a forecast. I'm sure that some of the forecasters from back in the day had doubts in their forecasts. We just did not have access to their reasoning for a specific forecast.
What method do you use to make a forecast and how confident are you that it will be accurate? Do you strictly use only the models or do you go by your experience/gut instinct for a forecast? I think that most of the reply's will be a combination of both factors? Do any of you feel that you have data overload when forecasting? Has there been a situation where all if the models agreed on a forecast, yet you went against the grain?
I apologize for the long post and being somewhat vague with my questions and thoughts. I look forward to reading any of the responses that this will generate.
Regards, David