Short-Term Forecast

County warning map for today from the NWS

After a mostly clear night across the area, temperatures have dropped into the mid-20's for most of the area. Even so, mostly clear conditions this morning should begin to give way to partly to mostly cloudy skies by the afternoon as the cold front passes through the area in the vicinity of an upper-level vorticity lobe [which, if it "deepens" correctly, could provide slightly more forcing for snow showers along and behind the front later this afternoon and evening]. Cold air advection behind the front will be strong enough to keep temperatures from rising much past the lower 30's and upper 20's today, with temperatures likely in the low to mid 20's by the late afternoon and evening. Behind the front, we will see a brief period of snow showers, which could produce a brief accumulation of up to a half inch or an inch in some areas, but generally, accumulations should range between a dusting and an inch. Later tonight, extremely large delta-T's across Lake Michigan [between the surface and 850 MB, as well as the surface and 700 MB] will produce several convective snow-bands across the main lake effect areas; this time in North-Central Indiana, and SW. Michigan, which is why the NWS has issued a Lake Effect Snow Watch with the possibility of 3-7 inches of snow or more in these areas. Farther east and south, although we are not likely to see much in the way of lake-effect snow, we could still see periods of snow showers in the overnight hours, possibly with some additional light accumulations, if anything.

However, by Sunday, snow showers should be tapering off, and giving way to a bitterly cold day [bitterly cold by November's standards], with highs only reaching the mid-20's across the area. With warm-air advection and rising upper-level heights, expect conditions to begin warming by Monday, with highs back into the low-mid 30's. On Tuesday and Wednesday, yet another system will be approaching the area [which will influence the development of a possibly strong "coastal-runner", or a low that will track along the East Coast and produce a heavy snowstorm in the Interior Northeast], allowing for the possibility of snowfall and cloud-cover once again. Although models are still in disagreement over whether we will see any precipitation, I believe moisture profiles and dynamics will be strong enough to produce at least light snow across the area, especially Tuesday into Tuesday night. However, I will continue to monitor this system. By Thanksgiving, temperatures will be dropping back into the upper 20's and lower 30's for highs, making it one of the colder Thanksgiving days that we've seen since perhaps 2007. However, by next weekend, temperatures should be rebounding once again as another flattening ridge builds into the region. BUT, this "warm-up" [into the upper 30's and lower 40's at the warmest] will not last long, as a series of storm-systems will be approaching from the North American West Coast, which will cause another cold-front to dive into the region by the end of the 10-day period. But like I have said before, things are still uncertain on what exactly will happen, so I will keep you updated.

Current Wx Analysis; Short Term Forecast

After yesterday's, and this morning's chilly, rainy weather, conditions are finally beginning to change, with clearing cloud-cover and much colder conditions on the way. The cold-frontal passage today will cause temperatures to drop into the upper 20's tonight, with a secondary cold front passing through tomorrow which should drop temperatures even further. By Sunday, high temperatures will likely not even breach 25 across most of the area, with only a few places west of the area reaching the upper 20's. Even so, some lake-effect snow showers will also reach parts of the area from Lake Michigan, with the possibility of a few brief flurries in the afternoon Saturday and Saturday night. For next week, below-normal temperatures and dry conditions are expected for the entire week. In fact, temperatures are not even expected to exceed 36 this week, quite possibly making it one of the coldest Thanksgiving weeks that we've seen in a while.

At the same time, the weather pattern over the next few weeks does bring up some concern for the overall winter pattern; with a generally normal to below normal pattern for most of November, and the most recent examples of cold air flooding southward from Canada, I believe that this will be a foretaste of what is to come. Although I expect December to be a "roller-coaster" ride overall [possibly warmer than normal in the middle of the month when storm activity revamps], I believe that we will see a fairly wintry month compared to the last two winter seasons. It appears that the area will see at least a few clipper systems during the month, with the possibility of one or two major Ohio Valley storms [as evidenced from the major storm systems we've seen this fall in the Midwest]. This will allow for at least a normal December in regards to snowfall, precipitation and temperatures. As for the rest of the winter, it remains to be seen what will happen; at this time, it appears that December does appear to give us a gradual shift into winter [unless something drastic happens on model forecasts which convinces me that there will be a pattern-shift into a majorly cold winter season].

**The Problem With Modern-Forecasting**

This was originally posted in a weather forum that I am, so please excuse specific references. Thanks. :)

**The Problem With Modern-Forecasting**

I don't know if this is a subject that will interest many of you, but recently, it has for me. I decided to back and look through my introductory forecasting books during the past few days, and I found some really disturbing things that I find lacking in today's meteorological world. Albeit I am not a professional in the least, and could barely be considered an amateur forecaster.

One thing that I find really great about many in this group is that we don't have consistent "modelology". Most people here are aware that models do not constitute the completeness of what it means to forecast; in fact, if anything, models are just guides; not forecasts. The best that a model can do is SIMULATE how the assumed variables will change through a specific period of time [and remember, simulations can be FAR from reality], not forecast. There is a big difference. However, I still feel as if something is missing.

With the many advances in science and technology over the past decade or so, society has really begun to advance at an accelerating rate; however, I believe we are finally beginning to realize the worst fears of the dystopian sci-fi novels; progress ISN'T always good. And I believe something similar could be said of meteorology. Progress in model and computer development has progressed so much that it has almost removed the human-element from forecasting. At some NWS offices, they are now being told to go with the 24-hour MOS data instead of questioning it; at other offices, model-forecasts are taken at face value for medium-range forecasts. Among many meteorologists, looking at short-range model forecasts for mesoscale events has replaced real analysis [even though it would be almost always advisable to ignore any mesoscale-model within 12-hours of the event, which is the time period in which human-forecast skill exponentially increases over the short-term model forecast] of surface-maps and satellite imagery. Essentially, a lot of modern-meteorology has become an "interpret and regurgitate" mentality; i.e. "we can't have any possible idea of what the next seven-days will do, therefore, regurgitate what the medium-range model showed and hope to apologize when the system changes". I will be the first to admit that I have done this; and I know many of us have done it on here. But don't you realize that the human-element is completely gone? Even when we look at various models and compare various features, and then take a collective "total" so to speak of each forecast [or decide whether or not to throw out outliers], do not ensembles already do this? Isn't there a component of humanity that is needed here? I mean, we are the only self-aware beings on this planet [as far as we know], and we are the only organisms in this solar system attempting to understand our universe, shouldn't the human still be playing the higher part that a computer doesn't and can't ever play? And that directs me to the article I was going to post: http://www.flame.org/~cdoswell/forecasting/human_role/future_forecasters.html I urge anyone interested to read this article, because he first addresses issues in the NWS itself, and then goes on to critique private forecasting use of models. He then goes on to argue why human forecasters will always be essential.

What we are doing now is not forecasting; whether or not we have individuals who can forecast in an excellent way [which we do; I know many who can], its something that is affecting all meteorologists. The surge in technological capabilities has lead to an even greater reliance on computers in themselves to do the forecasting for us, and essentially, we leave without any understanding of what's going on.

This brings up another article that I wanted to post; a speech by Dr. Len Snellman on this problem from National Weather Digest in 1991. http://www.nwas.org/members/snellman.php

Of course, I think there are other problems with meteorology today, including observational limitations, knowledge of our atmosphere, technology, etc. But I also think that this is a hidden problem that we sometimes ignore. Not to say that all meteorologists do this [by no means!], its just that many meteorologists fall into this trap.

What I think is necessary for forecasting is this:

I mean, I think we do have a real problem; because the forecast process should be sort-of like any scientist. We must apply the scientific method in a way that is unique to meteorology. I wouldn't even doubt that using a practical way from mechanics or other field would work. What is needed, however, is one that is structured to include human reasoning, cognitive abilities and intuition into the forecast, rather than just interpreting model-charts and adding some insight every now and then.

Since the scientific method [in general] begins with a question, I believe that the forecasting process should begin with a question of "what is going on". In other words, all forecasts should begin with analysis. Analyzing includes looking at the atmosphere, whether through surface observations, satellite-imagery, radar, and even processed-data fields from super short-range models.

In the next step of the scientific method, we develop a possible answer to our problem/solution. This would be analogous to diagnosis in meteorology. We must first synthesize our analysis into something that can lead to other questions and/or be a possible explanation for what is going on through what we observed in the analysis. If we haven't done a sufficient analysis, we can't do a sufficient diagnosis. We must be able to explain what we see on the weather-map in terms of our own experience, knowledge, conceptual models, etc. This will be more difficult for the amateur with less atmospheric knowledge than the professional with experience and much more atmospheric knowledge.

In the next-step of the scientific method, a scientist will develop a test/experiment for the hypothesis. This is essentially a continued step of what is required of diagnosis in meteorology. We continually monitor what we are analyzing, and now we synthesize model-output with the observations to try to develop a coherent picture of what exactly is going on; since the atmosphere is a continuous fluid and in constant motion, we only get a brief snapshot of what is going on through our analysis. That is why diagnosis is necessary, to get the "dT/dt" [change in the temperature with respect to time] part of analyzing a surface temperature map or the "dV/dt" [change in the wind vector with respect to time] part of analyzing surface observations, and thus we can then at least approximate the change that will occur in a specific period of time. That is essentially what forecasting is all about; predicting what "x" is going to be by estimating the current "dx/dt" [with "x" standing for any scalar variable, or a vector].

This is going to be a lot harder with longer-range forecasts; especially after the 1-4 day period. This is when we have to rely upon ensemble and operational model forecasts for determining what will happen. But that doesn't give us the right to rely completely on models; that's why we have global satellite imagery! That's why we have conceptual models and correlations/experience! I believe that is good to use as well with our model-data. But like I said, in this period, I think its unavoidable that we use models if we are planning on forecasting for the 6+ day time-frame.

Of course, I don't have anything against models, and I would definitely have to say that without models, modern-forecasting would not have made near the advances that we have made. But on the other hand, misuse of model forecasts doesn't make us better forecasters.