The Tim and Phil thread

[Phil]

You are wrong now and you were wrong then. You did not apply specific climate knowledge to what the models were showing.

Nope, you were wrong. Here are the modeled temperatures in reference for that day.

 

Checkmate, b**tch:

 

 

Dewey did that day... and he was right. Deal with it nut job.

Just posted the modeled temperatures above.

 

So, you were wrong.

[TT-SEA]

Nope, you were wrong. Here are the modeled temperatures in reference for that day.

Checkmate, b**tch:

image.jpeg

 

Just posted the modeled temperatures above.

Sucker.

No idea what you are talking about.

 

I think you are just being a d*ck to be a d*ck right now.

 

You were wrong that day and now.

[Phil]

Here are the next two model runs, 7/17 & 7/18. Again, the model was forecasting a strong marine layer, because it got the pattern wrong.

 

So, my interpretation was right, yours was wrong.

 

[TT-SEA]

Here were the next two model runs. Again, overemphasizing the marine layer because it got the pattern wrong.

So, my interpretation was right, yours was wrong.

image.jpegimage.png

We knew that on that day. You did not.

[Phil]

No idea what you are talking about.

I think you are just being a d*ck to be a d*ck right now.

You were wrong that day and now.

Dude, I just proved that the model was depicting a slightly cooler than average pattern, because it was forecasting a marine layer to persist.

 

My interpretation of the model was correct.

[TT-SEA]

Dude, I just proved that the model was depicting a slightly cooler than average pattern, because it was forecasting a marine layer to persist.

My interpretation of the model was correct.

We knew to apply our knowledge of the local climate. You did not.

[Phil]

We knew that on that day. You did not.

No, you were claiming the model was warm verbatim, when it wasn't.

 

That's what I called you out on. I never said agreed with the model.

[Phil]

We knew to apply our knowledge of the local climate. You did not.

Read your own quotes. You were fighting me on the specific details of what the model showed.

 

Verbatim. Give it the f**k up.

[Phil]

I said this last night, Tim. Pay attention:

 

Also, my posts describing model runs are not forecasts.

 

Just in case you attempt to spin things again.

I never said I agreed with the modeled solution. I said you were interpreting it wrong.

[TT-SEA]

Read your own quotes! You were fighting me on the specific details of what the model showed!

Verbatim! Give it the f**k up.

 

 

We looked at the same models... applied knowledge of our climate and its tendencies and we were right. You should have just shut up but you wanted to quickly shoot me down for saying it would be warm.

[Phil]

Checkmate, dude. I archive everything here. You read the model wrong. It's not a big deal, so denying it is pointless.

 

You're in a hole already, you can quit digging.

[Phil]

We looked at the same models... applied knowledge of our climate and its tendencies and we were right. You should have just shut up but you wanted to quickly shoot me down for saying it would be warm.

I shot down your misinterpretation(s) of the temperature output on the model. Our entire argument was on the specific temperature output on the ECMWF run. Again, verbatim.

 

Read your own quotes. You lose.

[Phil]

You're really making a fool of yourself here, Tim,

 

Yet you're still trying to spin.

[TT-SEA]

Checkmate, dude. I archive everything here. You read the model wrong. It's not a big deal, so denying it is pointless.

You're in a hole already, you can quit digging.

We knew it was a warm pattern and not to take the surface details verbatim. Dewey told you that at the time. We knew it was a warm pattern. I even said that day that its a warm pattern despite what the model surface details showed.

 

Local climate knowledge.

 

You were wrong then and now.

[Phil]

We knew it was a warm pattern and not to take the surface details verbatim. Dewey told you that at the time. We knew it was a warm pattern. I even said that day that its a warm pattern despite what the model surface details showed.

 

Local climate knowledge.

 

You were wrong then and now.

Bullcrap. That had nothing to do with the discussion you quoted.

 

I never agreed with the model. I was correcting your interpretation of the model, verbatim. You were/are just too stupid to read it properly.

[TT-SEA]

Bullcrap. That had nothing to do with the discussion you quoted.

I never agreed with the model. I was correcting your interpretation of the model, verbatim. You were/are just too stupid to properly interpret it.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

Has everything to do with it.

 

You were too dense to understand... then and now.

 

We knew it was a warm pattern. You get lost in the weeds and argue so much so

you never learn.

[Phil]

I'll wager you $5000 that you'll never find a quote where I supported/forecasted the modeled solution.

 

You're done. Go home.

[TT-SEA]

I'll wager you $5000 that you'll never find a quote where I supported/forecasted the modeled solution.

You're done. Go home.

Nope.

 

You argued with us that it was not a warm pattern in the models. It was. Have to know which parts are important.

 

Nobody was making a forecast that day.

 

But you were still wrong.

[Phil]

Has everything to do with it.

You were too dense to understand... then and now.

We knew it was a warm pattern. You get lost in the weeds and argue so much so

you never learn.

You posted a map claiming the model showed above normal temperatures. Do I have to re-quote you again?

 

Man, you're a stupid little bugger.

[TT-SEA]

You posted a map claiming the model showed above normal temperatures.

Do I have to re-quote you?

I said it looks warm. No surface temps.

 

It did look warm... Dewey saw it too.

 

And it was!

[Phil]

You argued with us that it was not a warm pattern in the models.

Nope, I said the model (which got the pattern wrong), verbatim, was depicting cooler than average temperatures.

 

I never said I agreed with the model. It had the ridge too far offshore.

 

Understand?

[Phil]

I said it looks warm. No surface temps.

It did look warm... Dewey saw it too.

And it was!

That ECMWF run busted on the pattern! It had the ridge too far offshore.

 

It was showing a marine layer pattern, as its forecasted temperatures prove.

[TT-SEA]

Nope, I said the model (which got the pattern wrong), verbatim, was depicting cooler than average temperatures.

I never said I agreed with the model. It had the ridge too far offshore.

Understand?

Nope.

 

You just took surface stuff verbatim... we knew it was warm pattern regardless of what it showed at the surface.

 

That was a pretty easy call. We both saw it. You did not. Oh well.

[Phil]

More archived images here. Checkmate:

 

 

[Phil]

Nope.

You just took surface stuff verbatim... we knew it was warm pattern regardless of what it showed at the surface.

That was a pretty easy call. We both saw it. You did not. Oh well.

That's not what you were arguing.

 

Sorry dude, you're not gonna wiggle out of this one. I will make sure you waste the rest of your summer on this if you keep it up. I promise, you're not getting anywhere.

[Phil]

[TT-SEA]

That's not what you were arguing.

Sorry dude, you're not gonna wiggle out of this one. I will make sure you waste the rest of your summer on this if you keep it up. I promise, you're not getting anywhere.

Exactly what we said then and now. Deal with it.

[TT-SEA]

By the way... it was the morning runs on 7/17.

[Phil]

Exactly what we said then and now. Deal with it.

Last chance to concede, otherwise I'm posting the screenshots of your posts.

[Phil]

By the way... it was the morning runs on 7/17.

The morning runs were even colder. They warmed over time as they moved the ridge closer to the coast.

[TT-SEA]

The morning runs were even colder. They warmed over time as they moved the ridge closer to the coast.

Well magically... Dewey and I both knew it was a warm pattern shown. Amazing huh? Too bad you did not listen. It really was a warm pattern.

[Phil]

Here's what I wrote back on 7/17.

 

I never said I agreed with the model.

 

Looking at modeled soundings on the 12z ECMWF, there's definitely a marine inversion present under the height rises/warming aloft. Whether or not that pattern actually verifies is another question.

Turns out, the pattern (as depicted) did not verify. So, again, I wasn't wrong about anything.

 

Understand? I only corrected your misinterpretation of the depicted surface temperatures, verbatim.

[TT-SEA]

Here's what I wrote back on 7/17.

I never said I agreed with the model.

 

Turns out, the pattern (as depicted) did not verify. So, again, I wasn't wrong about anything.

Understand? I only corrected your misinterpretation of the depicted surface temperatures, verbatim.

You still don't get it. Not that hard to understand.

[Phil]

You still don't get it. Not that hard to understand.

You still don't get it. Not that hard to understand.

[TT-SEA]

You still don't get it. Not that hard to understand.

OK Phil.

[Phil]

Haha, I just realized something. The conversation Tim was referencing was focused on the July 21st to July 23rd timeframe, the week before last week.

 

That period was cooler than normal on 2/3 days at OLM, PDX, SEA, EUG, and the majority of the WA/OR lowlands, even put up multiple negative departures @ SEA.

CMC d5 - d7, no GFS-esque warmup. Whether it's right or not, that's another story.

You are worried too much about surface temp maps... that is a warm pattern. Do not need surface maps to tell me that. Those surface temp maps lead you astray sometimes.

Those are 850mb temperatures, not surface temperatures. The surface temperatures are colder relative to average than the 850mb temperatures. Do yourself a favor and look at the modeled soundings before making blanket statements. Using raw 500mb heights to forecast temperatures within the lower boundary layer isn't smart

Works very well with that 500mb pattern if it verifies. No question. Very easy.

That's what you said about this week, one week ago. Turns out, July 10-17 will average colder regionwide than July 1-10, except at SEA. Oops.

Considerably warmer for Wednesday in Seattle. Now shows mid to maybe upper 70s that day on the surface maps. It showed low 70s on the 12Z run. Thursday is about the same in Seattle... but definitely cooler down south. PDX to Eugene was in the 82-90 range and now in the 75-82 range. Trough is slower.

[TT-SEA]

No it wasn't... started 7/22 which was day 5.

 

You are running circles.

[Phil]

No it wasn't... started 7/22 which was day 5.

You are running circles.

The model images in your post refute this!

[TT-SEA]

In case you did not know... it was 80 on Wed 7/20 and 84 on Thurs 7/21 in Seattle. Warm days.

[Phil]

No it wasn't... started 7/22 which was day 5.

You are running circles.

See the time stamp on the model images, 7/21, 7/22, and 7/23.

 

Caught in another lie.