MAPROOM Addition: POST ANALYSIS

Just thought of the idea of adding the thread type 'POST ANALYSIS' or something similar to MAPROOM. Currently we give a lot of attention to forecasting the event, but after it's happened we don't reanalyze and verify what occurred to see if it matched our forecasts. I think this could be a very useful area if people utilized it. Ideas to consider and discuss in this area would be 1) Did the models verify?; 2) What type of outbreak occurred?; 3) Why did certain areas that were expected to get severe not get severe?; 4) Did your forecast verify - why or why not?...Etc, etc.

I think it is important that we as chasers / forecasters go over our assessments and assumptions after the fact to see if they were realistic. IMO that is one of the only and best ways to learn and improve our forecasts. It also allows us to truly appreciate what meteorology event just took place.
 
Just thought of the idea of adding the thread type 'POST ANALYSIS' or something similar to MAPROOM. Currently we give a lot of attention to forecasting the event, but after it's happened we don't reanalyze and verify what occurred to see if it matched our forecasts. I think this could be a very useful area if people utilized it. Ideas to consider and discuss in this area would be 1) Did the models verify?; 2) What type of outbreak occurred?; 3) Why did certain areas that were expected to get severe not get severe?; 4) Did your forecast verify - why or why not?...Etc, etc.

I think it is important that we as chasers / forecasters go over our assessments and assumptions after the fact to see if they were realistic. IMO that is one of the only and best ways to learn and improve our forecasts. It also allows us to truly appreciate what meteorology event just took place.

Bill, in every single aspect I agree with you on that... As I have a true love for forecasting and storm chasing and love to post-analyze my own forecasts to match up how the event(s) actually matched up. However, we have "WeatherLab" for past weather events... So why bring them into the Maproom? I personally would love for this forum to be devoted to meteorological analysis of past events (especially in the off-season, such as we're going into) -- but I think "WeatherLab" should be used for it (and leave the Maproom for current discussions).
 
Just thought of the idea of adding the thread type 'POST ANALYSIS' or something similar to MAPROOM. Currently we give a lot of attention to forecasting the event, but after it's happened we don't reanalyze and verify what occurred to see if it matched our forecasts. I think this could be a very useful area if people utilized it. Ideas to consider and discuss in this area would be 1) Did the models verify?; 2) What type of outbreak occurred?; 3) Why did certain areas that were expected to get severe not get severe?; 4) Did your forecast verify - why or why not?...Etc, etc.

I think it is important that we as chasers / forecasters go over our assessments and assumptions after the fact to see if they were realistic. IMO that is one of the only and best ways to learn and improve our forecasts. It also allows us to truly appreciate what meteorology event just took place.

Bill, in every single aspect I agree with you on that... As I have a true love for forecasting and storm chasing and love to post-analyze my own forecasts to match up how the event(s) actually matched up. However, we have "WeatherLab" for past weather events... So why bring them into the Maproom? I personally would love for this forum to be devoted to meteorological analysis of past events (especially in the off-season, such as we're going into) -- but I think "WeatherLab" should be used for it (and leave the Maproom for current discussions).

Ok..if MAPROOM is forward thinking - maybe then we should have another section for Post Analysis and comments based on date. That would make it easier to find events for lookup and review. I don't know that would be a subsection under Weatherlab or perhaps a new section apart from Weatherlab and Maproom. I do think however that the standard heading of subjects to include date and area of event would be ideal for past events as well as current and future events. We could leave Weatherlab for other non-date related weather / meteorological / chase subjects.
 
Sounds like a good idea. Not sure if we need a whole new category, but there is no reason you can't do it in Weather Lab. I like it because I don't get to chase often, and talking about what happened gets me more involved. Plus, its a great way to learn about mistakes, models, and everything else that happened.
 
Yep I'd have to agree with Bill here, again.

As someone who - when she has the time - truly wants to learn more and see other people learn more - I can't see why adding a post-event analysis function to Map Room could hurt. Right now it seems like a lot of people's posting bravado and energy goes into either forecasting, nowcasting or posting 2nd/3rd hand reports - I think to round-out the board's concentration by giving those so-inclined a place to iron-out "just what really DID happen?" type discussions would be very good.

I don't see why it couldn't be included in Map Room, either. It's educational, rather than generalized.

KR
 
Just thought of the idea of adding the thread type 'POST ANALYSIS' or something similar to MAPROOM. Currently we give a lot of attention to forecasting the event, but after it's happened we don't reanalyze and verify what occurred to see if it matched our forecasts. I think this could be a very useful area if people utilized it. Ideas to consider and discuss in this area would be 1) Did the models verify?; 2) What type of outbreak occurred?; 3) Why did certain areas that were expected to get severe not get severe?; 4) Did your forecast verify - why or why not?...Etc, etc.

I think it is important that we as chasers / forecasters go over our assessments and assumptions after the fact to see if they were realistic. IMO that is one of the only and best ways to learn and improve our forecasts. It also allows us to truly appreciate what meteorology event just took place.

Bill, in every single aspect I agree with you on that... As I have a true love for forecasting and storm chasing and love to post-analyze my own forecasts to match up how the event(s) actually matched up. However, we have "WeatherLab" for past weather events... So why bring them into the Maproom? I personally would love for this forum to be devoted to meteorological analysis of past events (especially in the off-season, such as we're going into) -- but I think "WeatherLab" should be used for it (and leave the Maproom for current discussions).

Ok..if MAPROOM is forward thinking - maybe then we should have another section for Post Analysis and comments based on date. That would make it easier to find events for lookup and review. I don't know that would be a subsection under Weatherlab or perhaps a new section apart from Weatherlab and Maproom. I do think however that the standard heading of subjects to include date and area of event would be ideal for past events as well as current and future events. We could leave Weatherlab for other non-date related weather / meteorological / chase subjects.

I'll tend to agree with that... And don't mind the idea one bit. I would really love to see another strict forum like the Maproom in a "post analysis" type form -- which would cut out a bunch of dumb posts that you'd see in a WeatherLab discussion. The only possible downside to it would be having to many forums on the board (although I doubt one more would do any harm).
 
I really like the idea of 'POST ANALYSIS'. In fact I would like to see it right in the Map Room. I understand there is a WeatherLab section but it would be nice for all of the forecast,now, and post-analysis to be in one section. Sure we can throw the 'POST ANALYSIS' into the WeatherLab but there is so much stuff that goes into that section that really has nothing to do with forecasting any chase date ( at least if you look at the ratio). It would just be nice to go to one section for any date and find/post what is needed.

Just my opinion though.

Great idea Bill... Thanks

Mick
 
I think it's a great idea to have a post-analysis/post-mortem section and think it should be part of the Map Room section. Chase reports are certainly "after" the fact so I don't see why it would be any different to have folks post thoughts on why a particular scenario either played out as expected, busted, or something in between. I'm all for learning as much as possible. Just my .02...
 
I think a post-analysis section is the one thing of significance that ST is truly lacking. Maproom seems like the idea place to have it, grouped with the Forecast, Nowcast, and Report threads for that date. All of the information in one place, etc.


BC
 
These ideas have been brought up before - and the past consensus has always been that too few here are really interested in post-analysis to justify making the space for it. I don't think the area will be made if only a dozen or so want it. I'd love to see it as well - it is the only way to learn how to forecast better is to compare your pre-event forecast with what actually occurred, and figure out what you got right/wrong and how to avoid the same mistakes in the future (even a 'successful' chase often has elements that could have been done better). The downside is that a careful post-analysis takes a lot of time.

During the spring - nearly everyone is looking for the next chase opportunity and could care less what happened yesterday. My suggestion would be start a thread in wx lab 48 hrs after each significant event, as per the TOS, and see if you can get some interest in discussing what happened. If this is a success in generating meaningful content after a few events, then asking to have it kept with the maproom archives might carry some weight.

Glen
 
I agree with Glen in the respect that it's relatively rare that people want to discuss post-even stuff (other than a chase report). It doesn't matter either way to me, but I do think the 48 hour rule in the Weather Lab should be changed, since that gives us a 48 hour void where one cannot "legally" discuss an event...

Sure everyone says "I like the idea!", but are all those people REALLY going to contribute and make a post-analysis worth-while? Probably not. But again, it doesn't really matter to me, and my vote would go for either option (Weather Lab posts OR Map Room posts).

EDIT: Then again, maybe those types of posts could just go in the FCST threads after the event? That's where I used to put all my write-ups after the event, since those threads died off anyway.
 
I would love to see post-analysis discussion among the atm sci students and mets out there, where the rest of us might be able to ask some questions on why things happen the way they do sometimes. An excellent example is Jeff Snyder's terrific explanation of why things did not materialize over Missouri on Saturday in the NOW thread for 11/12. I personally needed some sort of explanation, even though we are still in the short-term, and when Darin B. pointed me to his post, it was just very helpful. Even if the post-analysis thread becomes highly technical and outside of my knowledge in most cases, I think that we would all benefit from seeing it.
 
I agree with Glen in the respect that it's relatively rare that people want to discuss post-even stuff (other than a chase report). It doesn't matter either way to me, but I do think the 48 hour rule in the Weather Lab should be changed, since that gives us a 48 hour void where one cannot "legally" discuss an event...

Sure everyone says "I like the idea!", but are all those people REALLY going to contribute and make a post-analysis worth-while? Probably not. But again, it doesn't really matter to me, and my vote would go for either option (Weather Lab posts OR Map Room posts).

EDIT: Then again, maybe those types of posts could just go in the FCST threads after the event? That's where I used to put all my write-ups after the event, since those threads died off anyway.

It does take more time to discuss post analysis. There will probably always be more limited participation because of this. But this is such a good area to learn from other chasers and forecasters. Personally when I have time I like to break chases, forecasts, and scenarios down and see what really happened. Here are some old posts I created or was into discussing post events on ST. Some of these had to do with storm positioning and what we saw / what we got hit with along with other observations and discussions such as 'staccato' lightning and tornadogenesis relations along with RFD / lightning discussions as it related to Mulvane & Spur tornadoes. I think different people would contribute and take the time - not always one person and that's how we would occasionally get some discussions about the more interesting events. Sometimes these might include official professional studies / white papers.
http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7442.
http://stormtrack.org/forum/viewtopic.php?...8&highlight=may
http://stormtrack.org/forum/viewtopic.php?...ghlight=mulvane
http://www.targetarea.net/MulvaneSESSS.pdf

Also I think the Sat Nov 12th event in IA would be a perfect case to review. I'd like to look at positioning of the 500mb low along with the sfc low and where the tornadoes took place. Also storm height, speed, intensity. Example: With instability so low what contributed to such a widespread outbreak of the intense tornadic storms. First off, I know where to get all the forecast data - but after the fact it seems it is always difficult to find the old model maps, sfc and upper air data then overlay tornado positions - then put the whole thing in motion to see what happened. What separated this from a linear event? Etc, etc. By doing this with others, sharing with others, and arguing / discussing the points perhaps we can find and learn some real answers.
 
Back
Top