AUGUST

AUGUST

OHIO WEATHER OBSERVERS NETWORK

http://sheridan.geog.kent.edu/owon

E-Mail: ssherid1@kent.edu

    

           

Kent 2W (Eric Wertz) -  December 2005 was characterized by below normal temperatures and below normal liquid equivalent precipitation.  A persistent trough in the jet stream kept temperatures below normal for the first three weeks of the month.  Liquid equivalent precipitation was measured on 18 days with measurable snowfall occuring on 15 days.  Despite the above normal number of days with measurable snowfall, overall amounts were not excessive with the greatest 24 hour amount being 2.1" of snow on the 4th.  Total monthly snowfall was near normal at 9.8".  Morning low temperatures were in the single digits on 7 days.  Five watches/advisories were issued during the month.

Kidron 1N (Ronald Hahn) December 2005 finished more than 3.5 degrees colder than normal in temperature and 1.59 inches below normal in precipitation. Snowfall was barely above normal. There was lightning and thunder on Christmas Day as a low pressure area moved through Ohio.
For the year, liquid precipitation totaled 44.65 inches - 5.31 inches above normal. Temperatures were more than a degree above normal for the year.

Munroe Falls 1SW () - Beautiful ring around the moon on the 20th.

Ottawa 4E (Phil & Bonnie Higley) Colder & wet Dec.  Alot more snow/precip then normal.

Perrysville 4W (Katie Gerwig) -  December was slightly drier than normal and several degrees colder than normal.  24 days had at least a trace of snow cover.  Heavy fog Christmas day.  Thunderstorm on the 28th.  Last 10 days of month warmer.

Ravenna 1E (Rich Rabatin) - December was relatively uneventful with only minimal precipitation, eventhough there were 21 days in month where precipitation was observed.  Most of this was in the form of drizzle or snow flurries.  Total snowfall for the season is 12.5".

Rockbridge 4W () - Freezing rain on the 3rd, 4th and 15th; sleet on the 14th; fog on the 11th, 15th and 29th; heavy fog on the 25th; and thunderstorms on the 28th.

Springfield 2 (Dick Groeber) Locally, month saw high variability in temperature, precipitation, and barometric pressure.  The temperature was low enough for the first three weeks to receive mostly ice and snow. Snow was on the ground for 17 dates from the 8th through the 24th. The month total of 10.6 in. was well above the month average of 3 inches here.  The barometric extremes of 30.68 inches on theb 6th and 7th and 29.34 inches on the 28th were both near the station record high and low.

Thompson 5SW (Vance Lunn) - The first 22 days of December were solid winter with only one high temperature above freezing at 32.6 on the 15th, and at least a trace of snowfall each day (all but 4 days saw a measurable amount).  Two days saw double digit snowfall:  the 2nd with 12.0 inches, and the 7th with 13.9 inches.  The 23rd-31st saw a sudden shift to milder conditions with low temperatures struggling to reach the freezing mark on only 5 of those nights.  Light snowfall occurred on several of those days, but were interwoven with fog and one thunderstorm.  Maximum snow depth was 21 inches on the 8th, and minimum snow depth was a trace on the 1st.

Van Wert 1E () - Heavy snow warning on the 8th and again on the 15th.   All schools cancelled on 9th and 15th.  There was also a snow advisory on the 7th and a  freezing rain/winter weather advisory on the 14th.

Wooster 7N (Jack Sisler) December was a cold month. Mean temperatures were more than four degrees below normal with the warmest temperatures occuring during the last half of the month. I established three new low temperature records all of which occurred the first half of the month. Precipitation was almost 70% below normal but I think the water content of the snow that fell the first half of the month was so low. Precipitation for the year was more than six inches above normal. I had snow on the ground (one inch or more) the first 26 days of the month which is kind of impressive for this location and time of year.

Zanesville 6N (Tom Ruggles) -
Winter arrived on December 1st and lasted 22 days with below to well below normal temperatures each day and measurable snow on 3 days.  Then on the 23rd, the January thaw arrived with temps above normal for the balance of the month.  The warmer temperatures were associated with rain on 5 days including a T-storm on the 28th and several deep lows passing close by.  For the month, temperatures averaged below normal with below normal precipitation.

 

      

OWON # Station Mean Max Temp Mean Min Temp Mean Temp High Temp Date Low Temp Date Total Prec Max 24hr Prec Date

#

Prec Days

Total Snow Max 24hr Snow Date #  1"+ Snow Days Max Wind Gust Date
119 Akron 1W 32.9 22.7 27.8 51 28th 7 20th 1.13 0.24 14-15 14 8.2 1.8 4th 3 31 9th
A Akron-Canton 31.8 20.9 26.4 51 28th 5 20th 1.35 0.23 14-15 17 11.9 1.6 4th 6 46 9th
003 Aurora 3S 32.0 20.2 26.1 50 29th 0 8th 0.95 0.19 4th 20 11.9 2.6 4th 4    
82 Centerville 1W                                  
A Cincinnati 36.7 23.6 30.2 60 28th 5 20th 1.81 0.53 15th 10 7.3 5.1 8th 2 40 9th
13 Cincinnati 5NW                                  
A Cleveland 32.6 22.1 27.4 51 28th 1 8th 2.04 0.29 1-2 16 21.0 4.4 12th 6 46 9th
55 Cleves 3NW                                  
A Columbus 32.5 20.3 26.4 58 28th -3 20th 1.88 0.64 15th 14 12.9 5.5 8th 3 51 9th
A Dayton 35.3 23.8 29.6 59 28th 5 20th 1.67 0.53 25-26 15 6.2 2.2 8th 2 41 9th
22 Kent 2E 32.9 21.4 27.1 51 28th 0 8th 1.25 0.20 15th 15 10.4 2.0 4th 5 20 2,9
430 Kent 2W 32.4 26.2 20.0 49 28th 1 8th 1.20 0.21 15,21 18 9.8 2.1 4th 2 32 9th
2 Kidron 1N 33.5 20.7 27.1 53 28th 3 8th 1.20 0.30 15th 14 7.9 1.8 4th 2 37 9th
87 Lagrange 2SW 33.0 19.6 26.3 52 28th -2 8th                 47 8th
030 Lancaster 2S 34.2 21.0 27.6 58 28th 4 19th 3.19 0.62 15th   6.7 2.7 8th      
A Mansfield 31.4 19.7 25.5 53 28th 1 8th 1.35 0.30 25-26 16 11.3 3.2 15th 4 45 9th
51 Middleburg Heights  2N               1.59 0.29 4th 12 16.0 4.0 4,12 8    
  Millersburg                                  
25 Munroe Falls 1SW 31.7 20.4 26.1 50 29th 3 8th 1.18 0.23 16th 18 7.2 1.9 4th 2    
32 North Ridgeville 1N 33.9 21.5 27.7 52 28th 1 8th 2.29 0.50 25th 16 15.9 4.0 4th 7 36 9th
106 Newcomerstown 1S                                  
15 Ottawa 4E 31.5 19.5 28.5 50 28th -2 8th 3.22 0.69 25th 20 15.1 6.2 15th 4 42 10th
79 Perrysville 4W 33.3 21.8 27.6 49 28th 5 19th 1.53 0.55 15th 11 9.8 3.5 15th 4    
101 Ravenna 1E 34.5 23.6 29.1 52 28th 6 8th 1.19 0.15 2nd 25 6.7 1.8 4th 4 30 9th
121 Ravenna 1SE 33.1 17.9 25.5 51 28th -2 8th 1.26 0.25 28th 21 7.0 2.0 3rd 3    
33 Rockbridge 4W 34.2 21.3 27.7 60 28th 3 19,20 2.13 0.59 25th 17 6.8 3.2 8th 1    
04 Sandusky 1N 31.9 21.9 26.9 52 28th 5 8th 2.87 0.85 25th 19 10.7 2.8 15th 4 40 9th
  Shawnee Township                                  
1 Springfield 2 34.0 22.0 28.0 58 28th 4 19,20 2.07 0.63 14th 14 10.6 4.0 9th 4 35 9th
112 Sugarcreek 2SW 34.3 21.3 27.8 55 28th 6 20th 1.67 0.41 15th 15 6.1 2.2 11th 2 35 9th
98 Thompson 5SW 31.0 20.5 25.7 49 28th -1 8th 3.06 0.72 2nd 24 61.2 13.9 7th 12 19 9th
117 Tiltonsville                                  
A Toledo 30.3 20.0 25.1 45 28th -1 8th 3.17 0.74 28-29 13 21.5 6.2 8th 7 40 9th
86 Van Wert 1E 29.0 20.0 25.0 51 28th 2 6,19 2.86 0.54 25th 12 18.1 7.5 8th 4 43 9th
16 Wooster 7N 32.0 18.6 25.3 52 28th -3 8th 1.62 0.40 15th 19 7.8 1.4 15th 5 40 9th
A Youngstown 32.4 21.2 26.8 52 28th 1 8th 1.41 0.21 3-4 21 17.1 3.3 4th 7 46 9th
04S Zanesville 6N 35.5 23.2 28.3 59 28th 6 20th 1.75 0.42 15th 16 4.0 2.2 8th      
OWON # Station Mean Max Temp Mean Min Temp Mean Temp High Temp Date Low Temp Date Total Prec Max 24hr Prec Date

#

Prec Days

Total Snow Max 24hr Snow Date #  1"+ Snow Days Max Wind Gust Date

 = Airport

                         


Date: Thu Dec 1, 2005 9:37 pm
Subject: New E-Mail Group Regarding Historical New England Weather
 

Hello Everyone;
I wanted to write and let you know about a new weather e-mail community that is open for membership. It was
started by a good friend of mine who lives in the Boston, MA region. It is called historical weather of new england
and I'm enclosing a link to take you right to the home page for the group.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historicalweatherofnewengland/
Below is a brief description of the group...

Our mission statement is to provide a theatre of discussion for weather events that have impacted the Americas from
1492 through the 21st Century. Historical Weather of New England is a forum that is dedicated primarily to
researching recorded historical meteorological events and extremes that have impacted New England from antiquity
to the present. These events include hurricanes, tropical storms, blizzards, Nor'easters, severe thunderstorms, hail,
microbursts, thundersnow, gales, cold snaps, dust storms, fog, heatwaves, tornados, dark days, great tides, storm
surge, waterspouts, drought, floods and freshets. We also will discuss significant astronomical and atmospheric
events such as lunar and solar eclipses, global warming, blue moons, fish falls, odd aerial fusillades, space junk re-
entry, comet appearances, meteor showers and solar flares. Digression about historical weather anomalies and
events across the United States and the Americas is certainly encouraged. Topical discussion on historical natural
phenomena and disasters such as tsunami, avalanche, volcanic eruption, earthquake, famine, shipwrecks, great fires
and explosions, plague and pestilence is tolerated. Conversation strings about historical weather and natural
phenomena in Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, Central and South America are permitted.
/end/
So please feel free to join. I was member #2. Hope to have you on board soon!
Don Keating
Newcomerstown, Ohio

Date: Fri Dec 2, 2005 7:23 am
Subject: MORE--NWS VS. PRIVATE FORECASTS
 

There were some legitimate criticisms of private forecasters this
year during hurricane season. However, I continue to contend that
the NWS forecasts, especially in winter, are so vague as to be
unuseable. See the forecasts below and compare.

Ron Rothhaas
Cincinnati

NWS CINCINNATI...
MILFORD
409 AM EST FRI DEC 2 2005

.TODAY...MOSTLY CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF FLURRIES EARLY...THEN
PARTLY CLOUDY THIS AFTERNOON. HIGHS IN THE LOWER 30S. WEST WINDS
10 TO 15 MPH.
.TONIGHT...MOSTLY CLOUDY. LOWS NEAR 20. NORTHWEST WINDS 5 TO
10 MPH...BECOMING NORTH AFTER MIDNIGHT.
.SATURDAY...MOSTLY CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF RAIN AND SNOW IN THE
AFTERNOON. HIGHS IN THE UPPER 30S. SOUTHEAST WINDS 5 TO 10 MPH.
CHANCE OF PRECIPITATION 50 PERCENT.
.SATURDAY NIGHT...CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF RAIN IN THE EVENING...THEN A
CHANCE OF SNOW. LOWS IN THE UPPER 20S. EAST WINDS 5 TO 10 MPH...
BECOMING NORTHEAST AFTER MIDNIGHT. CHANCE OF PRECIPITATION 50
PERCENT.
.SUNDAY...MOSTLY CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF SNOW IN THE MORNING. HIGHS
IN THE MID 30S. NORTH WINDS 5 TO 10 MPH. CHANCE OF SNOW
40 PERCENT.
.SUNDAY NIGHT AND MONDAY...MOSTLY CLOUDY WITH A 30 PERCENT CHANCE
OF SNOW. LOWS IN THE MID 20S. HIGHS IN THE LOWER 30S.
.MONDAY NIGHT...MOSTLY CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF SNOW IN THE EVENING...
THEN A SLIGHT CHANCE OF SNOW AFTER MIDNIGHT. LOWS NEAR 20. CHANCE
OF SNOW 30 PERCENT.
.TUESDAY AND TUESDAY NIGHT...PARTLY CLOUDY WITH A 20 PERCENT
CHANCE OF SNOW. HIGHS IN THE UPPER 20S. LOWS 15 TO 20.
.WEDNESDAY...PARTLY CLOUDY WITH A 20 PERCENT CHANCE OF SNOW
SHOWERS. HIGHS IN THE LOWER 30S.
.WEDNESDAY NIGHT AND THURSDAY...PARTLY CLOUDY. LOWS 15 TO 20.
HIGHS IN THE MID 30S.


Doppler 12 Weather Center Forecast
For the latest severe weather information including up-to-date
warnings, tune into LOCAL 12.
Today:
A few flurries then clearing this morning, sunshine for awhile then
clouding up this afternoon.
High: 32

Tonight:
Cloud cover thickens, cold.
Low: 25
Saturday:
Cloudy with a wintry mix of precipitation developing during the
afternoon. Temperatures abouve freezing means wet roads into
evening. Mix changing to all snow by evening with accumulations of
1 -2"
High: 38
Sunday:
Mostly cloudy with snow flurries, breezy.
Low: 29 High: 33
Forecast By: Steve Horstmeyer


Date: Fri Dec 2, 2005 4:22 pm
Subject: Re: MORE--NWS VS. PRIVATE FORECASTS
 

Ron, I guess my response would be like asking, "Do you want to eat a
snack or a complete meal?. I think for many a layperson the normal
straightforward NWS forecast will do just fine. For us weather
junkies there is never enough weather detail to satisfy our
appetite. This is one reason I always read the NWS discussions as to
the why, what, where, and when. Don't mean to make this a play on
words but to me the discussions are kind of like the "meat and
potatoes".

Jack Sisler
Wooster 7N


Date: Fri Dec 2, 2005 4:26 pm
Subject: 2005 Hurricane Season
 

I guess to get some more discussion going I would like to pose this
question. Do you think the record-breaking 2005 hurricane season
should be attributed to global warming or do you think this is just a
cycle?

Jack Sisler
Wooster 7N


From: "E. Stapleton"  
Date: Fri Dec 2, 2005 5:14 pm
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] 2005 Hurricane Season
 

I think it's both. Global warming probably adds energy to an already
high point in the cycle. We can expect difficult hurricane seasons for
the next five years or so. It seems to come around every 35 years; yet
we had a very sudden increase in the number of storms this year,
instead of a gradual upswing.


Date: Fri Dec 2, 2005 9:25 pm
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] 2005 Hurricane Season
 

Jack;

I'd say it's just a cycle. I don't buy the Global
Warming theory, idea, whatever they call it. If we're
into Global Warming, why's it so cold right now? :-)

Speaking of cold, welcome to December. I'm already
tired of below normal cold weather. YUK!

Don Keating
Newcomerstown 1S


Date: Fri Dec 2, 2005 10:12 pm
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] 2005 Hurricane Season
 

Jack and group;
I am with Don on this one. I think it's cyclical. I don't buy the popular "global warming" theory either. While the
date do seem to indicate the climate is warmer now than it was, say 200 years ago, I think that is also cyclical and
not caused by us (humans). From everything I've read, the climate was significantly warmer about 1000 years ago
than it is now. I have yet to hear any "scientist" claim that was caused by human activity. I am also sure that at some
point in the earth's future, another ice age will occur. I am sure that if any global warming enthusiasts are around for
that ice age, they will doubtless blame it on global warming as well. Everything is cyclical. What, specifically, is the
cause of these climatic cycles and how long they last is beyond the state of the art of modern science.
Doug Brady
Hambden Twp.

Date: Sat Dec 3, 2005 1:28 am
Subject: storm report
 

Today (12mid.-12mid.), we had 11.5" snowfall for a storm total of
12.6" and 12" on the ground at Mid. We've tallied up 36.8" for the
season so far. I was at work today,but when I glanced at the radar I
saw a brief period of yellow echos cross over our area. With snow
that must have been something! Also, liquid precip. for the day was
0.72".

Vance
Thompson 5 SW (northern Geauga Co.)


From: "Phillip Higley"  
Date: Sat Dec 3, 2005 2:19 pm
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] MORE--NWS VS. PRIVATE FORECASTS
 

Here's my 2 cents about this forecast;
Each person has there own way of looking at the maps & how the Jet Stream is
moving..Try to get a local forecast right & have everyone say the same
forecast is very very hard to do..
Just like telling one person something & that person tells someone else an
so fourth, by the time it gets back to the person that said it would be
completey turn around. Think about it...


Date: Sat Dec 3, 2005 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: MORE--NWS VS. PRIVATE FORECASTS
 

I am looling at this more from a practical standpoint than that of
a "weather junkie". As a weather junkie I can consider multiple
forecast sources and figure things out. However, I have worked in
weather-sensitive industries all my life. I depend on useable
forecasts and what the NWS offers, especially in winter, are not
useable. Furthermore, the point and click forecasts and the text
forecasts from NWS Wilmington often don't match. What sense does
that make?

Point and click Sat. late Hamilton Co.:

Late Afternoon: A slight chance of snow. Mostly cloudy, with a high
near 33. East wind around 6 mph. Chance of precipitation is 20%.

Tonight: Periods of snow and freezing rain, becoming all snow after
midnight. Low around 28. East wind around 6 mph becoming northwest.
Chance of precipitation is 100%. New snow accumulation of 1 to 2
inches possible.

Sunday: A slight chance of snow before 9am. Mostly cloudy, with a
high around 35. West wind between 7 and 10 mph. Chance of
precipitation is 20%.

Sunday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low near 19. Light north wind.

Text forecast same time Hamilton Co:

TODAY...MOSTLY CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF RAIN...SNOW AND LIGHT SLEET
THIS AFTERNOON. HIGHS IN THE UPPER 30S. SOUTHEAST WINDS 5 TO
10 MPH. CHANCE OF PRECIPITATION 50 PERCENT.
.TONIGHT...RAIN...MIXING WITH SNOW...SLEET AND FREEZING RAIN. SNOW
AND SLEET ACCUMULATION LESS THAN AN INCH. LOWS AROUND 30. EAST
WINDS 5 TO 10 MPH...BECOMING NORTH AFTER MIDNIGHT. CHANCE OF
PRECIPITATION 100 PERCENT.
.SUNDAY...MOSTLY CLOUDY IN THE MORNING...THEN BECOMING PARTLY
CLOUDY. HIGHS IN THE MID 30S. NORTHWEST WINDS 5 TO 10 MPH.
.SUNDAY NIGHT...PARTLY CLOUDY. LOWS IN THE LOWER 20S. NORTH WINDS
5 TO 10 MPH.

What do I as a user of these forecasts do to reconcile these,
especially Sat. night? It's more than just a weather junkie's
dilemna. How does a snow plowing contractor plan with this?

I do agree I get the most from the discussions and from what I have
heard the NWS discussions are very popular.

Ron
Cincinnati


From: "Phillip Higley"  
Date: Sun Dec 4, 2005 9:21 am
Subject: commets
 

Everyone has a comment on the weather. The fact is,
the weather is changing so fast we just now seeing it.
You folks there in N.E. Ohio getting heavy snowfall
while we here in N.W.O. just getting less amount.
We pick up 2.00" of snowfall within the last 24 hours.
With lt. snow a falling now. Weather forecasting is a
art. We are have our way of showing what the weather
might be & sometime we hit it. As a amature weather
watcher I take the weather one day at a time. Whatever
might happen I keep my eyes open for this changed.
An what does happen I record it..We all have our own
way of forecasting the weather...I just read the
WxAmerica weather newsletter this morning & I feel
that this system that just come in will be with us for
about a week a we will be back in warmer weather.
Myself I feel there isn't NO great outbrakes of heavy
snowfall or cold in the forecast for us yet..
But we haven't even got into winter yet. Winter doesn't
really begin till Dec. 21..I still feel that we just might
see a cold & wet spring..

Date: Sun Dec 4, 2005 9:31 am
Subject: WINTER WEATHER
 

Freezing rainshowers and freezing drizzle here Sat. evening 1800 to
2400 hours. Ppt total less than 0.10 but that was enough to cause
considerable icing and many wrecks as well as fatalities. Many paved
surfaces just wet but all elevated surfaces and a few other shaded
areas had a thick glaze. Very dangerous, especially considering the
patchy nature on pavement. Cars encased in ice. 10 inches of snow
would have been easier to deal with.

Ron Rothhaas
Cincinnati


Date: Sun Dec 4, 2005 8:31 pm
Subject: weekly snowpack pics
 

In the photos section, I've up;oaded some pics to track the
developement and progression of this winter's snowpack here at
Thompson 5 SW. I'll try to upload a couple each week to show how the
appearance of the snowpack has changed over the week. This is in the
Vance folder, winter snowpack 2005-06 subfolder.

Vance
Thompson 5 SW


Date: Mon Dec 5, 2005 1:54 am
Subject: Re: MORE--NWS VS. PRIVATE FORECASTS
 

The NWS point (and click) forecast is created by automated text
generation software which uses a 5 km resolution grid that your local
NWS WFO meteorologists have created from NCEP gridded guidance while the
county forecast is an average forecast of all the 5 km grid points in or
near the county. As the NWS is downscaling its forecast with its NDFD
product suite (http://www.weather.gov/ndfd/background.htm), you should
expect the "digital" forecasts (e.g. point and click) to be more percise
and accurate for "point" or local applications than large area
forecasts, such as county or state forecast "summaries". Necessarily,
these types of forecasts will be "different" because they are produced
for different time and space scales.

Have you looked at these type of NWS forecasts for the localities you
are concerned with?
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ifps/MapClick.php?FcstType=graphical&map.x=122&map.y=
183\
&site=iln&Radius=0&CiTemplate=0
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ifps/MapClick.php?FcstType=digital&map.x=122&map.y=18
3&s\
ite=iln&Radius=0&CiTemplate=0

I am guessing you are most interested in the ambient air temperature,
precip type, and rate of fall info, yes?

Dave


Date: Mon Dec 5, 2005 5:03 pm
Subject: Re: MORE--NWS VS. PRIVATE FORECASTS
 

Thank you for your response, Dave. I understand how all these are
generated. In fact, being a "weather junkie", I can decipher what I
consider to be a contradictary mess. My point is that the average
layman doesn't want 2 contradictary forecasts for the same county
from the same source. The private sources are giving us a useable
end-product. You have 2 choices: a user friendly end-product which
is subject to hype and exageration from private sources or
increasingly unuseable gibberish from the NWS. The technical info
and forecast discussions available at the NWS website are
unsurpassed but the end products often stink. It does seem to vary
from WSFO to WSFO sometimes.

Ron
Cincinnati


Date: Thu Dec 8, 2005 3:56 am
Subject: NWS snowfall forecast wording
 

Ohio Wx Group,
Hello from St. Cloud, Minnesota.
I want to voice my opinion about the wording of National Weather Service snowfall forecasts. I've noticed this
winter that the word "possible" is used in the forecast when accumulating snow is mentioned. The latest
(Wednesday evening) forecast for Sandusky, OH: Thursday Night: Periods of snow. Low around 20. East wind 11
to 16 mph becoming west. Chance of precipitation is 100%. New snow accumulation of 3 to 5 inches possible.
I've noticed the same wording used by the Twin Cities NWS in Minnesota.
Who's the person who decided to have offices start using this word? I get the feeling that there is not too much
confidence in the forecast when I see "possible." There is already a range used (3-5 inches). Isn't this enough
uncertainty?
Furthermore, the text forecast for Sandusky differs when I click on Sandusky on the map versus when I read the
zone forecast for Erie County. Wasn't this Ron Rothhaas' complaint the other day about the forecast for the same
location from the same source being different?
Shawn Trueman

Date: Thu Dec 8, 2005 8:10 am
Subject: Observation Data Form
 

Group,

FYI I uploaded a blank observation data form in PDF format for anyone
to use to record their daily observation data a month at a time. This
form was put out by Larry Huff several years ago when he was still
doing the Ohio Weather Observer Network and journal.

I've used this form for years and thought it might be convenient for
others to use especially since you don't have to find a copy machine
to make extras. It's in the Files section under OWON Data Form.

Jack Sisler
OhioWx Group Moderator

Date: Fri Dec 9, 2005 1:52 pm
Subject: Cold Start for December
 

Mean temperatures for the first eight days of December have been
almost 14 degrees below normal. The average high thus far has only
been 2 degrees above the NORMAL LOWS! A couple low temperature records
have attributed to this including a record low of -3 set yesterday
morning.

As for last night's snowfall, we didn't receive much (1.1 inches) but
I've had snow cover of an inch or more since the first of the month.

Jack Sisler
Wooster 7N
Wayne County


Date: Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:00 am
Subject: November's Weather Data for Centerville 1W
 

Weather statistics for the month of November for Centerville 1W.
High Temp (Date) ... 72 / 5th
Low Temp (Date) ... 11 / 25th
Mean High .. 54.7
Mean Low .. 34.3
Monthly Mean ... 44.5
Total Precipitation ... 4.09"
Max 24 hr Precipitation (Date) ... 1.64" / 15th
Number of Precipitation Days... 9
Total Snowfall... 1.0"
Max 24 hr Snowfall (Date) ... 1.0" / 23rd
Max Snow Depth at time of observation ... 1"
High Wind Gust (Date) ... 44 MPH / 28th
Thunderstorm Days ... 4
Highest Barometer (Date) ... 30.63" / 18th
Lowest Barometer (Date) ... 29.36" / 23rd
Average High Wind Gust... 22.7 MPH
Year To Date Precipitation . 39.61"
Robert Flory - KA5RUC
Centerville 1W
Southeast Montgomery County
Ohio Weather Observer Network #82
Wilmington NWS Skywarn ID OMT405

Date: Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:23 pm
Subject: WHAT?
 

GROUP:

Please tell me, as a user of data and not a weather geek---a business
owner who plows snow, for example---what do I do with the forecast
below? How do I use it to plan plowing, salting, crew schedules,
etc? What on earth does all this mean? Snow and rain. HOW MUCH?
Rain, snow and freezing rain. HOW MUCH and, for heavens sake, which
is it? This garbage is useless.

At least the private forecasters give an idea of what their best guess
is. While they do often leave me with the thought that every storm
could be the storm of the century, they also give me the useable
details I need to make decisions. Yes, I could wade through the point
forecasts which probably contradict this and I could go to the
discussions, but this is the wording that goes to the public over NOAA
weather radio. Again, for the user who needs to know this is garbage.

Am I passionate about this? Yes, because if advocates of the NWS are
serious they'd better clean this mess up or they'll get left.

.WEDNESDAY...MOSTLY CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF SNOW AND RAIN...MAINLY IN
THE AFTERNOON. HIGHS IN THE UPPER 30S. SOUTHEAST WINDS 10 TO 15
MPH. CHANCE OF PRECIPITATION 50 PERCENT.
.WEDNESDAY NIGHT...CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF RAIN AND SNOW IN THE
EVENING...THEN RAIN...SNOW AND FREEZING RAIN LIKELY AFTER
MIDNIGHT. LOWS IN THE LOWER 30S. SOUTH WINDS 5 TO 10 MPH. CHANCE
OF PRECIPITATION 70 PERCENT.
.THURSDAY...RAIN AND SNOW LIKELY...CHANGING TO ALL SNOW LATE. HIGHS
IN THE UPPER 30S. SOUTHWEST WINDS 5 TO 10 MPH. CHANCE OF
PRECIPITATION 70 PERCENT.

Any thoughts?

Ron
Cincinnati


Date: Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] WHAT?
 

I'll bite. Hypothetically, I run a salting and plowing service.

> .WEDNESDAY...MOSTLY CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF SNOW AND RAIN...MAINLY IN
> THE AFTERNOON. HIGHS IN THE UPPER 30S. SOUTHEAST WINDS 10 TO 15
> MPH. CHANCE OF PRECIPITATION 50 PERCENT.

Go out and salt by mid-afternoon.

> .WEDNESDAY NIGHT...CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF RAIN AND SNOW IN THE
> EVENING...THEN RAIN...SNOW AND FREEZING RAIN LIKELY AFTER
> MIDNIGHT. LOWS IN THE LOWER 30S. SOUTH WINDS 5 TO 10 MPH. CHANCE
> OF PRECIPITATION 70 PERCENT.

Make sure I've salted if I haven't already. Good chance it will be
needed.

> .THURSDAY...RAIN AND SNOW LIKELY...CHANGING TO ALL SNOW LATE. HIGHS
> IN THE UPPER 30S. SOUTHWEST WINDS 5 TO 10 MPH. CHANCE OF
> PRECIPITATION 70 PERCENT.

Recheck for icy spots, make sure plow is in good condition. Be ready
to plow if snow accumulates.

Elizabeth Stapleton

Date: Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:53 pm
Subject: Beating a dead horse--is it dead yet?
 

BEHIND DOOR NUMBER 1

Doppler 12 Weather Center Forecast
For the latest severe weather information including up-to-date
warnings, tune into LOCAL 12.
Tonight:
Becoming cloudy.
Low: 24

Wednesday:
Light snow developing, changing to a light wintery mix, then to
light rain by late day.
High: 37
Wednesday Night:
Light rain changing back to a light wintery mix by morning.
Low: 32
Thursday:
A light wintery mix changing to light snow. Light accumulations
possible.
High: 35
Forecast By: Michelle Boutillette

BEHIND DOOR NUMBER 2

WEDNESDAY...MOSTLY CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF SNOW AND RAIN...MAINLY IN
THE AFTERNOON. HIGHS IN THE UPPER 30S. SOUTHEAST WINDS 10 TO 15
MPH. CHANCE OF PRECIPITATION 50 PERCENT.
.WEDNESDAY NIGHT...CLOUDY. A CHANCE OF RAIN AND SNOW IN THE
EVENING...THEN RAIN...SNOW AND FREEZING RAIN LIKELY AFTER
MIDNIGHT. LOWS IN THE LOWER 30S. SOUTH WINDS 5 TO 10 MPH. CHANCE
OF PRECIPITATION 70 PERCENT.
.THURSDAY...RAIN AND SNOW LIKELY...CHANGING TO ALL SNOW LATE. HIGHS
IN THE UPPER 30S. SOUTHWEST WINDS 5 TO 10 MPH. CHANCE OF
PRECIPITATION 70 PERCENT.

I'll stick with door number 1.

Ron
Cincinnati


Date: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:22 am
Subject: Re: Beating a dead horse--is it dead yet?
 

Ron and Group,

I think a lot depends on each of the WFO's also. Here is what
Cleveland NWS has out for Wooster (Wayne County)(See below).
Comparing this to what you're getting down there I would consider
this more to what you're wanting to look at. I think if they all
were more in line with their wording it would help.

As for private forecasters you're still going to have the same
problems as well and even worse depending on who you would want to
listen to. Do you think AccuWeather located in Pennsylvania, which
is how all this discussion came about, is going to give a better
forecast for areas in Ohio than the NWS offices in Ohio and having
everyone paying for this service at the same time? If you go ahead
and contract with lets say a half dozen private forecasters do you
think you're going to get the same forecast from each of them? NO.
Is this going to put you in a better position than when you first
started? I don't think so. Do you want to put your confidence in a
forecast service that's going to stick their neck out by putting out
so much detail in their forecast to try and make themselves look
good only to discredit themselves by being wrong most of the time?

I also made my living working outdoors for more than 30 years and
had to make many decisions based upon the weather. However, I
preferred not listening to a forecast that was so much in detail and
ended up wrong the majority of the time. I don't know of any
forecast service, public or private, that can accurately tell you
how much and when precipitation will occur down to the nearest tenth
or hour.

Other opionions?

Jack
Wooster 7N


Date: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Re: Beating a dead horse--is it dead yet?
 

Jack and Group:

I've been reading some of the postings about this subject for some time
and I would agree with your last posting. I'm not real sure what people
expect from a forecast. The current one from the NWS in Cleveland
pretty much tells me that from late tonight through tomorrow night we
could see snow, rain, freezing rain or sleet. Accumulations are sketchy
but as most of us know, these kind of events can be hard to predict. I
don't expect anybody to tell me what exactly will happen at my address
or yours or anyone elses. Winter storms have so many variables to look
at that in many cases you don't know what you are going to get until you
get it. Reading the WFO's forecast discussions provides I think a lot
of insight to what the forecasters have to consider when looking at
these things. I don't care who it is, no one is going to be right all
the time, let alone with local accuracy. The public should be able to
figure out what I just described, that we are going to be into a mixed
weather event. Perhaps forecasts could be worded differently or more
succinctly but I am not one to put the rap on the NWS folks. Remember,
their staffs have been cut back due to funding cuts over the years and
regional offices have been closed.

When I subscribed to Accuweather, which I refuse to do now (even before
the Santorum bill was introduced), I used to listen to the video clips
of Joe Bastardi. He could be entertaining but I don't remember his
forecasts always being right. I'll give one last example. I work for
city government as some of you know. Back in the1980's our City use to
purchase the Accuweather winter forecasts for snow events. These would
give some advance notice of significant snow events so that we could be
ready for plowing, etc. As I recall, their forecasts for our City in
terms of accuracy were maybe close to right about half of the time. I
realize the technology was different back then but so was NWS. The only
thing worse than getting inaccurate free weather information is having
to pay for it.

Gary L
Ravenna 1SE


Date: Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:21 am
Subject: Re: Beating a dead horse--is it dead yet?
 

Jack and group:

I pretty much agree with everything in your post, and that is part
of the problem. I think you are getting better forecasts from
Cleveland right now. I check forecasts from various offices and
they vary. I'm not expecting a higher degree of detail than is
technologically feasable but I am looking for a forecast where I am
not left wondering what may happen. A 50% chance of rain and snow
with no allusion to time of day, intensity, or accumulation just
doesn't cut it. In the example I posted the Doppler 12 Weather
Center gives only slightly more detail but it is a lot more
understandable.

Ron
Cincinnati


Date: Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:50 am
Subject: Beating a dead horse
 

Group:

I will throw in a few comments from the perspective of the NWS
concerning the garbage weather forecasts.

We (the NWS) have been mandated to structure our entire forecast through
a graphical forecast database. This allows for software of private
companies and ourself to access the database to the nearest 5 km
gridpoint. This allows for software to format a forecast to the nearest
gridpoint so you get the so called "point and click forecast" on the web
pages. Software can be sued to essentially format any type forecast from
this sort of database so there is certainly utility to it all. I plan
on hosting an MAS meeting to display the technology some time in 2006.

Those that run the show (NWS) are convinced that this is the future. The
private companies which endlessly attack the NWS because they want to
provide the "nations weather" (with no responsibility for accuracy of
course) have attacked the database for interfering with their web
graphics but at the same time they will turn around and use the database
to format some of their products.

Many forecasters (private and government) use the MOS guidance so
extensively that forecasts are essentially becoming automated and all
from a similar source. In my humble opinion, this is more of a problem
than garbage forecasts. The automated guidance is correct most of the
time but is still very wrong some times.

I suggest you source the good old "zone forecast" for your weather. It
is one of the few products we still manually edit (to some extent, and
some more than others). It is available on our web site about halfway
down the page - click on an icon that says "text forecasts". Please feel
free to voice your displeasure to the NWS about the automated "point and
click" forecasts and give examples that support your case. Maybe someone
will listen. Contact them through the web pages.

Jim Kosarik, NWS Cleveland


Date: Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:37 am
Subject: Re: Kosarak post
 

Jim and group:

All good points which serve to expand upon and confirm most of my
concerns. I agree that the zone forecasts are often better, but in
the case of this last storm the zone forecasts issued by Wilmington
were too vague to be of much use and contradicted the point and
click forecasts. Hence the problem.

I have noticed for a couple years TWC has been using automated
forecasts which, in my opinion, are worthless. Sometimes they are
way off.

Local media in Cincinnati usually outperform all other sources.
Why? Because of the human touch. They all employ degreed
meteorologists who can tweak the computer generated info for users.
The latest gimmick at least around here is for news to be tailored
to "your neighborhood" which serves to encourage this tweaking even
more. Unfortunately, it also results in 30 seconds of each weather
segment being devoted to recitation of computer-generated
temperatures in multiple obscure local towns which often difer by
only a degree or 2. To the extent that NWS forecasts are edited by
humans they will be better and more useable.

The technology may be coming but it is not where it needs to be.
Forecast sources which use real people will outperform automation
for at least the near future.

Another question. Why has the NWS seemed to have decided to call
everything by such generic names? Instead of showers, light rain,
rain, heavy rain, flurries, light snow, snow, and heavy snow, we
seem to only get showers and snow. NWS showers can mean all day
rain or intermittent showers. Snow can mean a dusting or 10 inches.
These can be important distinctions for weather-sensitive
industries. Again, this lack of detail and meaning hurts the NWS
case. Most sources I can think of give more detail than local NWS
forecasts and are therefore more useable. Even accu-weather and TWC
terminology is more understandable even when they are wrong!

It may be that this is a problem peculiar to individual WSFO's but
it has been common here for years. I have had co-workers laugh at
forecasts of showers which turned out to be all-day deluges. In
such cases the forecast was actually pointing toward a deluge but
the wording didn't convey that. What good is all this technology
and knowledge if it is not disseminated with any effectiveness?

Ron
Cincinnati


From: "Phillip Higley"  
Date: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:49 am
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Re: Kosarak post(reply)
 

Ron;
I do beleive that you hit the nail RIGHT on the head.................
Humans are just humans............Sometimes it is HARD to hit a forecast
right on the money..
That is why they need computer's to help them along...
Over night low here was 5F


From: "Phillip Higley"  
Date: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:53 pm
Subject: question
 

I been seen snowfall total coming in like 85.7" Season total.
The question is this;
#1. Is this from the first snowfall of the season till NOW? (Which might be from Oct. till now)
#2. Or is it from Jan. of 05 till now?
#3. When they get the total snowfall for the season, does this run from the first snowfall say in 05 to the
last snowfall say in April of 06???
When I have a snowfall total, I go for year to year. Like Jan. to Dec., Like I was told my a Official weather
observer.........
How many of you go by the first snowfall to the last snowfall?
#15
Putnam, Co.

Date: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:33 pm
Subject: Re: question
meso1us
ymsgr:sendIM?meso1usOffline
/group/OhioWx/post?postID=CIV5XLC9fZwXIJIbtT
ZFP44dFsWB1BNj6iSjyRtKcf3GrL49QYCkFTNNF
pXi7tzNlrHWazwK3Eu9Ce-
y5A2gsxCsWArj7SkkeASend Email
Remove Author | Ban Author

Phil,

"Seasonal Snowfall" is generally considered to be from November thru
April even though we may get snow in October or May (or from the
time you receive your first snowflake to when you receive your
last). So any snow you received this past November, this December
2005 and any snow you receive next January, February, March, and
April 2006 will be considered the 2005/2006 Seasonal Snowfall.

"Yearly Snowfall" is what you get from January 1 thru December 31
which would be like having partial snowfall totals for two seasons.

I know there's been discussion on this before and technically I
think the time span for seasonal snowfall may be longer but for the
sake of argument I'll leave it at that since I don't think anyone
has measured snowfall in July or August or some stupid thing like
that.

Jack


Date: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Re: question
 

Then WHY do the N.W.S. want's YEARLY TOTAL'S instead of Seasonal Snowfall??
Then on HAIL fall, if you have it covering the ground say 1/4", do you
measure this with your snowstick or do you just say 1/4"..
I just don't understand....People around here want to know the yearly total
snowfall instead of seasonal snowfall, what the differents?? An there are
some people that want Seasonal Snowfall...That itself will throw the total
off for precip. totals too...I guess everyone has there own way of measuring
snowfall total's..
Phil


Date: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:59 pm
Subject: Re: Snow question
 

Phil:

Winter statistics, such as snow/frozen precipitation, heating degree
days etc are seasonal and run from July 1 to June 30 and not the
calendar year.

Melting continues!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!

Jim Kosarik, NWS Cleveland


Date: Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:28 pm
Subject: MORE UN-USEABLE FORECASTS FROM NWS
 

OK...ON WEDNESDAY I HAVE A BIG WEATHER-SENSITIVE PROJECT PLANNED.
LOOK AT THE NWS FORECASTS. I CANCEL, RIGHT? NOT SO FAST. LOOK AT
THE QPF. LESS THAN 1/10 INCH. WHAT DO I DO WITH THIS? IS THERE
GOING TO BE ALL-DAY RAIN AND THUNDERSTORMS OR NOT? IF IT IS GOING
TO BE SCATTERRED SHOWERS OR A FEW PERIODS OF LIGHT RAIN OR DRIZZLE,
I CAN STILL WORK. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE WORDING SAYS, BUT IT IS WHAT
THE QPF INDICATES. HOW DO I TELL? IF THOSE PRODUCING THIS STUFF
CAN'T TELL THERE IS A PROBLEM THEN THEY DESERVE THE LEGISLATION
WHICH PRIVATIZES THINGS.

WEDNESDAY...ISOLATED THUNDERSTORMS. RAIN LIKELY IN THE MORNING...
THEN RAIN IN THE AFTERNOON. HIGHS IN THE MID 50S. SOUTH WINDS
5 TO 10 MPH. CHANCE OF RAIN 80 PERCENT.

Wednesday: Rain likely, then periods of rain and possibly a
thunderstorm after 11am. High near 56. South wind around 8 mph.
Chance of precipitation is 80%. New rainfall amounts of less than a
tenth of an inch possible.

RON
CINCINNATI


From: "Phillip Higley"  
Date: Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:04 pm
Subject: reports
 

WOW!!! What a day. Started out very nice then we ended up with a thunderstorm. YES I said
THUNDERSTORM. In DEC.! Had lighten & thunder also in DEC.! Even had small hail with it. Didn't last
long. But cover the ground. Got up to 50F at 1:25 p.m.. As the even went on we had FOG row in..Just like
a carpet...Right now FOG is very thick. Less then 1/4 mile...Current outside temperature is 44F, at 8:01
p.m..So far we had 0.33". But that from the Davis..Which the rain gage is on top of the roof..The winds
are coming out of the E-4 M.P.H., at less the baro. is standly 29.82", with the rel. hum. at 78% & the dew
point at 38F..
4-E
Putnam, Co.

Date: Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:35 pm
Subject: Re: MORE UN-USEABLE FORECASTS FROM NWS
 

I guess those who are not satisfied with the NWS forecasts have one
or more alternatives. One is to support the piece of legislation
sponsored by Senator Rick Santorum and making political
contributions toward his reelection efforts to privatize the weather
forecasts through a private weather service (AccuWeather)which is
how all of this discussion originated. He didn't receive thousands
of dollars in political contributions from them for nothing. Or,you
can also write or email to your respective elected officials
expressing your dissatisfaction with NWS procedures that will
practically cost you nothing.

Are you wanting to pay an additional cost for a private weather
service that is already "free" information from the government? The
data that goes into the computer models already comes from
government sources in addition to data coming from other
international goverment sources, et. and is used in the making of
some of these same private forecasting services. It is not possible
for private forecast services to run the forecast models as they
cannot collect the data needed to drive the models. There are rules
that are governed by the World Meteorological Organization that
cannot be changed by a private entity.

Other questions to ask is are you going to want to pay for
additional services you don't need? Is there going to be anymore of
a "guarantee" in the accuracy of a forecast from a private weather
service than the Nationl Weather Service?

I, for one, have no desire in supporting anything or anyone at the
expense of bilking the public for their own political gain which is
how and why this all began. Again, anyone who feels the need to have
more detailed weather information than what's provided for free can
subscribe to such services for a fee. But just don't expect everyone
else to pay for those servies. Those that can find the "perfect"
forecast can let me know although I don't expect to be around by
that time.

Jack Sisler
Wooster 7N


Date: Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:38 pm
Subject: Re: MORE UN-USEABLE FORECASTS FROM NWS
 

Ron,

My thoughts on this are:

-If you have a BIG weather sensitive project planned, an 80% chance
of rain means you cancel, period, sorry, try for a fair weather day.

-If my $100,000 project was going to be ruined because of rain, I
would (and do) consult SEVERAL forecasting services for an opinion
on the weather (gee, sounds like privatization is ALREADY at work
here!!). It's nice to have the NWS as one of those options to turn
to.

-As you know, as Accuweather knows, as the Weather Channel knows,
and as the NWS knows, QPF forecasts are "science fiction" of sorts.
The QPFs should not even be placed in the NWS "point and click"
forecasts. However, the Weather Channel puts QPFs into their
forecasts and they are often wrong as well.

-As far as the "privatization" deal is concerned, the weather
forecasting industry is already privatized (read the above comment
CAREFULLY). Why legislate it? The market is already doing its
thing. The NWS is just another option for people to turn to. What
are you looking for? To have no other option but to pay your hard
earned $$ on a service that can (and would) increase in cost
annually (like Accuweather or your Cable TV service for the Weather
Channel) and provide minimal additional value? Accuweather and the
Weather Channel do NOT provide forecasts with any more detail
ACCURATELY than does the NWS (including those NWS forecasts prepared
by the Wilmington, Ohio office).

In summary, I don't know why you are complaining. You ALREADY have
privatization. If you can offer, or can find, a better service than
the NWS then do it or use it! No, I don't think the NWS forecast
that you pasted into your post is useless. Actually, it was VERY
useful to me and provided more meaningful detail than the
Accuweather forecast printed in today's newspaper for southwest
Ohio. Any forecast, NWS or private company based, is subject to
differing interpretation. As Jim Kosarik stated in his earlier
post, the good, old NWS zone forecasts are still available. I
suggest using those if you are having issues with forecast
interpretation. The "point and click" forecasts (like the one you
posted) are not subject to as much forecaster interpretation and are
less accurate. But in essence, the "point and click" forecasts
provide still another "opinion" to use in a pinch.

Isn't one of the goals of privatization to give the consumer more
market options & "opinions"?

Matt Higgins
Lakewood, Ohio


Date: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:25 pm
Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Re: MORE UN-USEABLE FORECASTS FROM NWS
 

Group,
I have been reading with interest all the recent posts concerning the accuracy of NWS forecasts. Let me say up front
that I teach economics at a local university and, like most economists, I am libertarian and believe in as little
government as possible. In virtually all cases, privatization leads to higher quality products and services at a lower
cost. All that said, in my opinion, the NWS provides the best, most comprehensive, and most accurate weather
information available. I understand the point and click forecasts have some bugs to work out but, as Jim Kosarik
noted, the zone forecats are still available. By far the most useful product is the "area forecast discussion" in which
they discuss the thought behind the forecast. More information is contained in this product than all the others
combined.
The other providers (Weather Channel, et. al.) have their place. But it is important to note that even their forecasts
are based on the computer models provded by the NWS or other govenments (e.g. ECMWF, UKMET, GEM, GBL,
etc.). I understand that the NWS has a financing advantage compared to the other providers but that is irrelevant
here. I could go into my opinions as to the shortcomings of these other providers but I have other things to do! All
this, as always, is just my opinion.
Doug Brady
Hambden Twp.
Geauga County


Date: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:26 pm
Subject: Re: MORE UN-USEABLE FORECASTS FROM NWS
 

Matt and Jack:

I didn't cancel because the "80% chance of rain" was a bad forecast
not supported by anything. We did get rain...1 hour out of 12
amounting to 0.03. I finished and billed a $490.00 job after almost
cancelling. 1 hour of rain wasn't a big deal but 0.50 to 1.00 would
have meant un-used rented equipment and a loss.

Don't you guys get it? I don't like the senate bill either. I get
frustrated by half-assed products turned out in any industry. I
spent 2 weeks in China this summer. Believe me, they don't sleep
over there and they are eager to please if we aren't. The NWS
provided plenty of detail in 1970! They don't seem to be even
trying any more.

The QPF's may be "science fiction", but they were the only way to
deduce some fact from this NWS fantasy. Any more, I find the QPF's
are the only way to figure out anything in a NWS forecast. Yes,
that is sad.

As for privatization being already in place and the NWS being
another option...forecasts like this are so bad they only muddy the
waters.

I'm not mad, just passionate. I hate mediocrity, and these
forecasts aren't even that good.

Ron
Cincinnati


Date: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:41 pm
Subject: Passion
 

Why the passion on NWS forecasts? Easy. I'm a sole proprietor LLC.
I sure can't afford a consultant. I and many like me listen to the
NWS to schedule jobs, decide whether or not to schedule crews or call
them in for the day, continue or postpone work, etc. We call our
wives to check the radar for us. These bum forecasts hurt people,
namely small businesses. The big guys can hire accu-weather or
whoever. What does Joe's concrete or Pete's landscaping do? I'd
prefer to see the NWS forecasts cleaned up. It's easy. If they could
do it in 1970 they can do it now!

Ron
Cincinnati


Date: Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:49 am
Subject: Un-Useable Forecasts from the NWS
 

Ron:

Be careful what you wish for. The NWS could be legislated away tomorrow,
but the consequences could be more significant than your post would
indicate.

Now, the NWS forecast operates as a "baseline" forecast for many other
meteorologists. In other words, some forecasters will start with the NWS
forecast and then go in one direction or another, essentially tweaking
the forecast. Others will start with MOS guidance (an NWS product) and
then tweak. Very few start from scratch (although some do).

If you remove the baseline then the resulting product will likely become
much more variable, leading to more confusion as customers try to make
sense of a variety of forecasts. Also, taxpayers pay an average of $5 a
year per taxpayer to run the NWS. Without it, you may have to pay a
monthly fee for a weather site on line. Check out the cost of
AccuWeather.com per month.

The text forecast has never been specific enough to make critical
weather decisions. Rain is rain and 0.01 inch is critical to some and
0.10 is not too others. You were able to glean some decent information
from a pretty generic forecast - essentially there was an 80% chance of
rain, maybe some thunder, but not a lot of rain (less than a tenth of an
inch). I would say you answered your own questions.

Also, you can call your local NWS office (with some restrictions on
hours) for the cost of a phone call (local calls are free) and ask for
assistance making a weather decision. Companies like AccuWeather will
charge you a minimum fee for any live information.

Please pass on your examples to NWS Wilmington. They need to see some of
the junk that is out there. There are some things we can do internally
to make the forecast less wordy and more useful (which most of us try to
do). Maybe you can raise their level of awareness.

Happy New Year.
Jim Kosarik NWS Cleveland


Date: Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:10 am
Subject: Timeout
 

Group:

Although I've enjoyed our recent discussions I think we all need to
kind of chill (in another sense of the word)and take a "timeout" to
catch our breath and move on.

While we all tally up our data for 2005 I would like everyone to pick
their most memorable weather event for the year and tell us about it.
It doesn't need to be some kind of long essay but just a few
paragraphs or something in your own words.

Happy New Year 2006 everybody and hope to hear from all of you next
year!

Jack Sisler
OhioWx Group Moderator










 


Return to OWON Summaries