"Mentally Bogused"-Meteorological Term?

[duris]

Love this from the New Orleans AFD this morning. Is this some scientific term I'm not familiar with? And the last sentence says a lot about the reality of relying on models and forecasting in general.

GFS HAS SHOWN TOTALLY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS. AND THIS MORNING IS NO EXCEPTION. IT IS STILL NOT INITIALIZING WELL WITH MASS FIELDS OVER THE ATLANTIC WHERE THE RIDGE IS LOCATED BUT TEMPORAL AND SPACIAL RESOLUTION IS QUITE GOOD. EVENTHOUGH THE SOULUTION FROM THE LATEST GFS SHOWS QPF AROUND THE AREA THROUGH THE WEEKEND...WILL SIMPLY NOT SHOW THIS TREND IN THE CURRENT PACKAGE. WE HAVE MENTA LLY BOGUSED THE LARGE AREA OF DRY AIR INTO THE GFS SOLUTION AND LET THE MODELS' TIMING PLACE THIS AREA OF DRY AIR OVER US STARTING FRIDAY. THIS WILL OFCOURSE DEPEND ON THE UPPER LOW MOVING WEST AND HOW LONG IT TAKES TO DO SO. REALITY CAN BE A LOT DIFFERENT.

[Frank2]

No, as far I as I know, it's not a term found in any NOAA or WMO meteorological handbook - me thinks that this person will probably get a note in his mailbox from the Supervisory Meteorologist, concerning his unique writing style.

The problem is that many outside the U.S. also read these discussions (aviation, marine, agriculture), and, a term like that, while it may make sense to someone in the U.S. who is under 40, will not make any sense at all to someone outside our culture, and, could cause a misunderstanding when it comes to how the discussion is interpreted, and is why NOAA follows the WMO terminology, since it is used world-wide.

Frank

[duris]

Yeah, guess there could be real world consequences, but in the abstract, still amuses me. Hopefully, the author's boss can heed the mantra "if we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane." (With the caveat, don't joke in the airport security line).

[clfenwi]

'Bogusing' is a technical term related to forecast models...

See this article for example "Better bogusing brings better tropical cyclone forecasts" -

http://www.metoffice.com/research/nwp/p ... tte/dec94/

As I understand it, bogusing is artificially inserting something into the model... most (but not all) global forecast models have a bogusing scheme that inserts the hurricane vortex into their large scale analysis.

So, in this instance the forecasters are (mentally) inserting dry air into the GFS to reduce its precipitation forecast.

The term is not unprofessional, it is jargon.

[duris]

Interesting. Had no idea it was a real term. Sounds like something that I can easily insert into my job.

[Frank2]

Yes, it is jargon that has come to be used in the past few years or so, but, it cannot be interpreted into other languages as far as something that makes sense, and that's the problem, so while it's accepted here, it's really not something that can be understood outside our culture.

Frank

[caneflyer]

"Bogus" is a common meteorological term and should cause no difficulties to the intended users of this product.

[clfenwi]

Yes, it is jargon that has come to be used in the past few years or so, but, it cannot be interpreted into other languages as far as something that makes sense, and that's the problem, so while it's accepted here, it's really not something that can be understood outside our culture.

Frank

Here's a WMO document (from Korea) using the term:

http://www.wmo.int/web/www/DPS/Annual-T ... ep-of.html

Plenty of journal articles out there (not written by Americans,Brits, etc.) that use the term. It is internationally understood.

[Recurve]

"Bogusing" is not ideal for "inserting an actual system into a synoptic setup" cause bogus means totally unreal, spurious. Maybe "vortex actualization scheme"? But it has a certain zing to it and it's well established now.

[wxmann_91]

There's always a great debate about these AFD's, but I think that the tone and mood of the AFD's depends on the writer. They don't have to be all fancy weather terms. Some funny, and scary, AFD's have been written this year.

Here's an ominous AFD from early June:

AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NORMAN OK
1037 AM CDT TUE JUN 7 2005

.UPDATE...
A FEW LIGHT ECHOES LINGERING AT THIS TIME OVER N CENTRAL OK...BUT
THEY SHOULD DISSIPATE OR AT LEAST MOVE OUT OF THE CWA BY NOON.
WILL DROP MENTION OF PRECIP FOR THIS AFTERNOON...EXCEPT FOR THE
EXTREME W AS DRYLINE WILL BE QUITE A BIT CLOSER TO OUR W BORDER BY
EARLY EVENING. CAP EXPECTED TO BE STRONGER THIS AFTERNOON...SO
PROSPECTS FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN ISOLATED CONVECTION APPEAR SMALL.
CURRENT TEMPS RUNNING A FEW DEGREES WARMER THAN 24 H AGO...THUS
HAVE RAISED AFTERNOON HIGHS SLIGHTLY WHICH MESHES BETTER WITH
NEIGHBORING GRIDS.

REGARDING LATE WEEK...HAVE A VERY STRONG FEELING THAT SOMETHING
BIG IS BREWING. LOOKING AT PROGGED LONGWAVE PATTERN - WITHOUT
GETTING BOGGED DOWN IN DETAILS - THE SETUP LOOKS ABOUT AS POTENT
FOR WIDESPREAD/SIGNIFICANT SEVERE WX IN THE CENTRAL U.S. AS THIS
FORECASTER HAS SEEN IN NEARLY 25 YEARS OF OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE.
MODELS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH UNSEASONABLY STRONG HEIGHT FALLS
INTO THE SW LATE THIS WEEK. LATEST RUNS DEPICT NOSE OF A VERY
STRONG UPPER JET /140 KT AT 300MB/ BLASTING SE ONTO THE W COAST
BY SAT...WHICH SUPPORTS CONTINUING NEG HEIGHT ANOMALIES OUT W AND
THUS KEEPING A VERY DEEP LONGWAVE TROF OVER THE W FOR JUNE...MOST
LIKELY WITH A GENERAL NEGATIVE TILT AS DEPICTED BY A MAJORITY OF
THE MED-RANGE MODELS. UNSEASONABLY STRONG MID/UPPER LEVEL FLOW
THUS LIKELY AT LOW LATITUDES INTO S PLAINS. DETAILS...SUCH AS
EFFECTS OF PROBABLE MCS ACTIVITY OR EVEN A POSSIBLE TROPICAL
CYCLONE IN THE GULF AS SUGGESTED BY THE GFS...ARE MORE ELUSIVE AND
REALLY ARE NOT AS CRUCIAL AT THIS POINT. SCREAMING MESSAGE IS THAT
POTENTIAL WILL EXIST FOR 1 OR MORE SIGNIFICANT CENTRAL-U.S. SEVERE
WX OUTBREAKS...BEGINNING AS EARLY AS THU BUT MORE LIKELY IN THE
FRI-SAT-SUN PERIOD. PLAN TO HIT THIS HARD IN THE NOON HWO.

The outbreak never occurred, but nevertheless, some photogenic tornadoes occurred during the period mentioned. The dynamics were great, but some of the other mesoscale features just weren't there. One of the major things that prevented a major outbreak was the tendency for convection to fire early/too weak of a cap. Interesting how they said there was to be a TC and there was - Arlene. So yeah it was an overhype.

---

A funnier one:

AREA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO/ROMEOVILLE IL
315 PM CDT SAT JUL 9 2005

DISCUSSION FOR AFTERNOON ZONES/GRIDS

MAIN FORECAST CONCERN IS WITH HOW FAR NORTH TO TAKE PCPN ASSD WITH REMAINS OF HURRICANE DENNIS MOVING INTO LOWER OH VLY TUES-WED.

ATMOSPHERUM IN STATU QUO ANTE. ERGO...INFERNAE SOL ET TERRE EST, AD NAUSEAM. SO...LTL OR NO CHGS MADE TO PREVIOUS PKG. AREA TO RMN IN DOLDRUMS THRU MON (YOU KNOW YOU'RE IN A TRUE DROUGHT PATTERN WHEN THE MOST DEMANDING PART OF THE DAY IS TRYING TO COME UP WITH FRESH VERBAGE FOR THE AFD).

LOL ...do meterologists have to learn Latin?

[Recurve]

Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina.

[WeatherEmperor]

Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina.

....ok that means what?

<RICKY>

[Recurve]

"Everything sounds impressive, if said in Latin"

[Sanibel]

That is insider slang that should not be put into a public report...

[Recurve]

Yeah the discussions aren't like public advisories though. They use jargon and abbreviations, TUTTS and caps, lapse rates and divergence and CON and PWAT. They talk about whether they're going to make forecast changes. They indulge a little, KW discussion comments about lovely mornings sometimes.

[NorthGaWeather]

That is insider slang that should not be put into a public report...

How so? I enjoy reading an AFD where the forecaster shows some humor or wit. It doesn't take away from the validity of the AFD.

[Frank2]

Yes, it's true that the Bogus term is common in scientific terminology (I did forget), but, for the layman reading the discussion it would mean that the forecast is, well, "bogus", so I stand by my comment that this word should not be used in a public product.

Frank

[senorpepr]

First... this is not a public product. This is for meteorologists. Therefore they can get away with using meteorological jargon. It relays information from the NWSFO to other meteorologists.

As for "bogus," it is a very appropriate term. It refers to adding "bogus," or unoriginal, data into the model.

[Recurve]

Senorpepr, I defer to your knowledge and experience. Still, the meaning of the word is "completely made up, not true, spurious" -- so it isn't a great term to refer to inserting an actual vortex into a model which doesn't know the system is there.

It makes me wonder if, in the beginning, when models are being developed, they used bogus -- completely made up -- vortices to test the model output, and the term stuck, so now it applies to real model runs. That could be totally wrong, but it's counterintuitive to call a real developing cyclone "bogus," so I wonder what's behind the use of the term. I also don't about the math used in initializing a cyclone within a model, so maybe it's not as "bogus" as it sounds.

As I technical writer, there were many times when I found myself telling an engineer, "But that's not what the word means" and they'd say "well, that's what we call it."

[Aslkahuna]

In a sense, it is a made up situation as the model did not show the dry air so they added a spurious (to the model) situation. Or to put it another way, the model solution is bogus because it doesn't include the dry air so it's a made up situation not based upon the reality of the presence of dry air. What the forecaster is therefore saying is that " the model did not take into consideration the presence of the dry air therefore we are changing the model QPF to reflect this.".

Steve