Attachments:

NWS says...

Wednesday -- Mostly cloudy, with a high near 38.
Wednesday Night -- Mostly cloudy, with a low around 19.
Thursday -- Mostly sunny, with a high near 35.

Crock of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NWS says...
>
> Wednesday -- Mostly cloudy, with a high near 38.
> Wednesday Night -- Mostly cloudy, with a low
> around 19.
> Thursday -- Mostly sunny, with a high near 35.


My weather channel is extremely accurate. NWS is not reliable...

Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My weather channel is extremely accurate. NWS is not reliable...

Your asswipe Weather Channel gets all its data and information from NWS, you stupid little pussy-shit.

Imagine that! FOX NEWS is completely uninformed. How could THAT have happened. He's almost as dumb as True-the-Vote! What a hoot.

7 degrees tonight, my plants are hardy to about 0, going to be a close one.

Your plants should have a insulating layer of snow protecting them now.

Apparently, it's going to snow more Wednesday AND 1-3 inches Thursday night. The Weather Channel's prediction.
Attachments:

Parson Brown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Imagine that! FOX NEWS is completely uninformed.
> How could THAT have happened. He's almost as dumb
> as True-the-Vote! What a hoot.


The poster known as Fox News on FFXU is a Democrat. Still, not as dumb as the Vienna Asshole. He's the dipshit who was thoroughly humiliated in every thread he's posted.

Crock of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fox News Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > My weather channel is extremely accurate. NWS is
> not reliable...
>
> Your asswipe Weather Channel gets all its data and
> information from NWS, you stupid little
> pussy-shit.


Two different sets of eyes can analyze and interpret the same data set in a different manner leading to different forecasts.

I'm underwater on my Vienna home, one day I hope to sell it and move to the City of Falls Church... one day.

Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently, it's going to snow more Wednesday AND 1-3
> inches Thursday night. The Weather Channel's prediction.

Actual forecast: Slight chance for brief periods of "wintry mix".

Crock of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fox News Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > My weather channel is extremely accurate. NWS is
> not reliable...
>
> Your asswipe Weather Channel gets all its data and
> information from NWS, you stupid little
> pussy-shit.

Rightard Trumpublicantard can't accept any role for Gov't. They're the first ones to ask for federal help when they get fucked though.

pay attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two different sets of eyes can analyze and
> interpret the same data set in a different manner
> leading to different forecasts.

And assholes can simply make shit up, which is all you did. Everybody downstream from NWS is apt to be just a dancing, prancing sideshow barker. Only fools and dumbasses fall for such tawdry lines of crap.

Crock of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pay attention Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Two different sets of eyes can analyze and
> > interpret the same data set in a different
> manner
> > leading to different forecasts.
>
> And assholes can simply make shit up, which is all
> you did.

No, it is actually a known fact that the Weather Channel, Accuweather, and local meteorologists receive the raw data from NWS and draw their forecasts from that data. Often, they don't arrive at the same forecast.



> Everybody downstream from NWS is apt to
> be just a dancing, prancing sideshow barker. Only
> fools and dumbasses fall for such tawdry lines of
> crap.

You appear to be the only uninformed buffoon around here.

Go troll another thread. You lost this one.

I'd a thunk it! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Parson Brown Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Imagine that! FOX NEWS is completely
> uninformed.
> > How could THAT have happened. He's almost as
> dumb
> > as True-the-Vote! What a hoot.
>
>
> The poster known as Fox News on FFXU is a
> Democrat. Still, not as dumb as the Vienna
> Asshole. He's the dipshit who was thoroughly
> humiliated in every thread he's posted.


I am of the republican tribe.


I was right abiut schools closed Thursday Friday. I was right about snowzilla.


You just jealousy

Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd a thunk it! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Parson Brown Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Imagine that! FOX NEWS is completely
> > uninformed.
> > > How could THAT have happened. He's almost as
> > dumb
> > > as True-the-Vote! What a hoot.
> >
> >
> > The poster known as Fox News on FFXU is a
> > Democrat. Still, not as dumb as the Vienna
> > Asshole. He's the dipshit who was thoroughly
> > humiliated in every thread he's posted.
>
>
> I am of the republican tribe.

No, you're not. Your shtick is tired, old, and uninspired. Just like everything about the Democrat party.

>>Your asswipe Weather Channel gets all its data and information from NWS, you stupid little pussy-shit.

That's true! The obvious difference is that the Weather Channel has a meteorologist that knows what to do with the data. Cantori can forecast. NWS has government employees that shuffle paper.

pay attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You appear to be the only uninformed buffoon around here.
> Go troll another thread. You lost this one.

Too fucking stupid. Observed frequency of rain is a bullshit category and NWS wins that most of the time anyway. The simple facts are that The Weather Channel is a ripoff, derivative, showboat operation. The only reason they exist at all is that NWS does not have its own TV channel.

FCPS will be closed all week at this point.

weather forecaster watcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The obvious difference is that the Weather Channel has a
> meteorologist that knows what to do with the data. Cantori
> can forecast. NWS has government employees that shuffle paper.

Moron. This isn't like tarot reading. Data, models, and algorithms do the forecasting, and nobody has more advanced or more sophisticated systems than NWS.

Crock of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pay attention Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You appear to be the only uninformed buffoon
> around here.
> > Go troll another thread. You lost this one.
>
> Too fucking stupid.

Yes, you would certainly be in that category.

> Observed frequency of rain is
> a bullshit category

It is observed frequency of rain vs. predicted probability of rain, dummy.

> and NWS wins that most of the
> time anyway.

But it's a bullshit category.

> The simple facts are that The
> Weather Channel is a ripoff, derivative, showboat
> operation. The only reason they exist at all is
> that NWS does not have its own TV channel.

The simple fact is that Two different sets of eyes can analyze and interpret the same data sets in different ways leading to different forecasts.

pay attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The simple fact is that Two different sets of eyes
> can analyze and interpret the same data sets in
> different ways leading to different forecasts.

Aside from access to your brain-dulling TV set, there is NOTHING that the Weather Channel can do better than NWS. They don't have better data, they don't have better models, and they don't have better meteorologists. It's all just an advertising-driven, eyeball-seeking ripoff, derivative, showboat operation.

I am certified weather website/app reader. Therefore, my posts are most authoritative.


Snow Wednesday. Schools closed. Fed government 2 hour delay.

Deal with it!

I heard that we might get snow on Friday, too. I am not sure how accurate this extended forecast prediction is.

Crock of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pay attention Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The simple fact is that Two different sets of
> eyes
> > can analyze and interpret the same data sets in
> > different ways leading to different forecasts.
>
> Aside from access to your brain-dulling TV set,
> there is NOTHING that the Weather Channel can do
> better than NWS. They don't have better data,
> they don't have better models, and they don't have
> better meteorologists. It's all just an
> advertising-driven, eyeball-seeking ripoff,
> derivative, showboat operation.

Faggots are going to fag and you've more than proven that. That's just that.

Crock of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pay attention Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The simple fact is that Two different sets of
> eyes
> > can analyze and interpret the same data sets in
> > different ways leading to different forecasts.
>
> Aside from access to your brain-dulling TV set,
> there is NOTHING that the Weather Channel can do
> better than NWS. They don't have better data,
> they don't have better models, and they don't have
> better meteorologists. It's all just an
> advertising-driven, eyeball-seeking ripoff,
> derivative, showboat operation.

You have no data sets to prove your assertion. All you have is your Whitney bluster.

pay attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crock of shit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > pay attention Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The simple fact is that Two different sets of
> > eyes
> > > can analyze and interpret the same data sets
> in
> > > different ways leading to different
> forecasts.
> >
> > Aside from access to your brain-dulling TV set,
> > there is NOTHING that the Weather Channel can
> do
> > better than NWS. They don't have better data,
> > they don't have better models, and they don't
> have
> > better meteorologists. It's all just an
> > advertising-driven, eyeball-seeking ripoff,
> > derivative, showboat operation.
>
> You have no data sets to prove your assertion.
> All you have is your Whitney bluster.


All you need is weather channel app

simple fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Faggots are going to fag and you've more than proven that.
> That's just that.

You've been trolled, moron. Advertisers thank you for being so dumb as to believe that spin and pizazz can be important parts of a weather forecast.

pay attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have no data sets to prove your assertion.
> All you have is your Whitney bluster.

There are only the data sets developed by NWS. The derivative second-tier phonies merely make use of what NWS makes freely available as a public service.

Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All you need is weather channel app

Go back to your suicidal right-to-life bullshit.

Update:

Snow has been postponed. Thursday is now snow. Not Wednesday.
Attachments:

Fox News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Update: Snow has been postponed. Thursday is now snow.
> Not Wednesday.

Actual Thursday forecast was already posted elsewhere...

Mostly sunny, with a high near 34.

Crock of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fox News Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Update: Snow has been postponed. Thursday is
> now snow.
> > Not Wednesday.
>
> Actual Thursday forecast was already posted
> elsewhere...
>
> Mostly sunny, with a high near 34.


Weather channel app is 100% accuracy

Crock of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pay attention Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You have no data sets to prove your assertion.
> > All you have is your Whitney bluster.
>
> There are only the data sets developed by NWS.

Wrong, asswipe. As pointed out above, a data set was created assessing the accuracy of three weather forecasting services. Of course, you fucked up correctly identifying that data set, so it is understandable you'd want to ignore it.

> The derivative second-tier phonies merely make use
> of what NWS makes freely available as a public
> service.

When has it been disputed that TWC uses NWS data? Hint: it hasn't.

Look, in case it hasn't been made abundantly clear to you, you got your ass handed to you here. Everyone else can see it, it's about time you did too. It's time to pack up and head home, my little mental midget.

pay attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crock of shit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > pay attention Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Two different sets of eyes can analyze and
> > > interpret the same data set in a different
> > manner
> > > leading to different forecasts.
> >
> > And assholes can simply make shit up, which is
> all
> > you did.
>
> No, it is actually a known fact that the Weather
> Channel, Accuweather, and local meteorologists
> receive the raw data from NWS and draw their
> forecasts from that data. Often, they don't
> arrive at the same forecast.
>
> src=http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/
> weather-forecast-accuracy-flipped.png>
>
> > Everybody downstream from NWS is apt to
> > be just a dancing, prancing sideshow barker.
> Only
> > fools and dumbasses fall for such tawdry lines
> of
> > crap.
>
> You appear to be the only uninformed buffoon
> around here.
>
> Go troll another thread. You lost this one.


The NWS has a responsibility to exercise more of a precautionary forecast for obvious purposes. That also gives other news networks the ability to go for a more focused and detailed forecast while still warning people about warnings and watches issue by the NWS. Doing a comparison between the forecasts is not relevant because the private weather forecasters use the NWS as their basis.

The fact is the NWS nailed where this storm was going to be produce blizzard conditions way before anyone else had a clue or was willing to make that forecast.

No one compares to the expertise the NWS brings to the table. It's not even close.

pay attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong, asswipe. As pointed out above, a data set
> was created assessing the accuracy of three
> weather forecasting services.

That's not a meteorological data set, clown-boy. And it in any case fails to support the dumbshit claims you made about it. Actual data sets are the ones that NWS compiles and then freely makes available even to rank amateurs for whatever purposes they would like to see them put to. This is why there is only one expert in the field and why the Weather Channel is just a derivative and redundant waste of time.

< When has it been disputed that TWC uses NWS data? Hint: it hasn't.

So you now admit that your second-team dress-up all-stars are just copying off the kid next to them. Great!

> Look, in case it hasn't been made abundantly clear to
> you, you got your ass handed to you here. Everyone
> else can see it, it's about time you did too.

Declare victory and go home? Heard that same shit in Iraq and Vietnam. It didn't work there either. The Weather Channel is a bunch of nobodies. It's pointless to pay attention to them when there is a much better source readily available. But do continue to suit your second-rate self.

Crock of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pay attention Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wrong, asswipe. As pointed out above, a data
> set
> > was created assessing the accuracy of three
> > weather forecasting services.
>
> That's not a meteorological data set, clown-boy.

Who said it was? No claim that it was a meteorological data set was ever made.

> And it in any case fails to support the dumbshit
> claims you made about it.

> Actual data sets are
> the ones that NWS compiles and then freely makes
> available even to rank amateurs for whatever
> purposes they would like to see them put to.

Actually, a data set is just that - a set of datum. It can be data about anything.

> < When has it been disputed that TWC uses NWS
> data? Hint: it hasn't.
>
> So you now admit that your second-team dress-up
> all-stars are just copying off the kid next to
> them. Great!

Now? My contention now and all along has been the same thing - that two different sets of eyes can analyze and interpret the same data sets in different ways leading to different forecasts.

It's been made obvious three times now. Even a complete moron could comprehend it. I suppose that is why you are having such a hard time.

> > Look, in case it hasn't been made abundantly
> clear to
> > you, you got your ass handed to you here.
> Everyone
> > else can see it, it's about time you did too.
>
> Declare victory and go home? Heard that same shit
> in Iraq and Vietnam.

This ain't Vietnam or Iraq. This is a clear case of you having been thoroughly stomped and disemboweled.