Posted by Cezar Mart on October 15, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I am really sick with Weather.com. They are totally wrong all the time!
All I need to know is in the evening when I am going to sleep what sunrise it's going to be in the morning. If all overcast then I can sleep in, but if it's going to be clear then I can set my alarm clock. And they are always wrong! How many times I slept in because it was going to be cloudy, only to see gorgeous sky when I got up. Or vice versa - clear sunrise in the forecast, I get up and go to Woodburn, Estacada or Government Camp, only to see gray heavy clouds. While I could be sleeping...
Sometimes I get up in the morning when it is still pitch dark, check the Weather.com to see the condition at the exact moment, not the forecast - the condition at the current moment, and see the cloudy picture on the computer. Then I check through the window and see stars and clear sky!
They don't even know what the weather is at the current moment!
Forget the forecast - the weather at the moment! Ridiculous!
Is there a better service anywhere?
Posted by Jim Jirka on October 15, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Sunrises are over rated. Get out and shoot anyway, you may be surprised in what you can find in the way of images, when the weather is cloudy and rainy.
Posted by Mark Windom on October 15, 2007 at 6:20 PM
www.noaa.com
Posted by Cezar Mart on October 15, 2007 at 6:24 PM
> Sunrises are over rated. Get out and shoot anyway,
> you may be surprised in what you can find in the way of images,
> when the weather is cloudy and rainy.
Well, I am not looking for an absolutely clear sunrise, just one with some variety in light. There are several beautiful places along the way from Barton to Estacada, or beyond Estacada, I already envisioned those comps, I just need some sunlight on the top of things to make it stand out. It can more or less diffused, just a bit of it...
Or maybe you are right, maybe I should forget the light and find some creativity in the gray...:)
Posted by Tomas Kaspar on October 15, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Don't even go there with weather.com and all the other idiots !!! I wish I would get paid as much as they do when I'm wrong.
Mark noaa.com is only good for one day at the best, but better than anything else out there.
> Sunrises are over rated. Get out and shoot anyway,
Posted by Cezar Mart on October 15, 2007 at 7:05 PM
> Mark noaa.com is only good for one day at the best, but better than anything else out there.
One day is what I need. Even less - 8 hrs is perfect for me.
I just checked that site and so far I have trouble understanding it. A simple cloud coverage is all I need, but most of info there is some precipitation codes. Good for somebody who knows how to read those graphs. Can they do it simple - 40% overcast, or 10% or 100%?
Well, I will keep studying that site...
Posted by Rick Lundh on October 15, 2007 at 7:15 PM
No weatherman can predict an opening in the sky just big enough for some light to come through...no way, never. Not even a whole horizon being open at the proper time. The weather just changes too fast around the NW.
Although I like sunrises and sunsets, Jim speaks gold when he says get out there and shoot anyway. It took me 15 tries of a 3 hour round trip within 16 months to get the sunset I was going after up at Trillium Lake...but many of my images that have been decent have been from these bunk sunrises where I am forced to look for other shots.
I'll recommend that you do study the types of clouds coming into an area though. Simple geometry dictates that you'll have better luck with sunrises if the clouds in the area are Cirrus clouds, as they form above 20,000 feet...and would be less likely to block your view of the light.
I look at wunderground to see the elevation of the clouds coming into an area I'm going to shoot.
Posted by Stan Rose on October 15, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Well, i lurk on this forum (as a former and hopefully one day again resident of the pnw), but cannot restrain myself on this one, being one of those 'idiots'--a forecaster for the NWS. A couple things:
weather.com is based in Atlanta, so dont expect local knowlege from their forecasts. The best source for specific info IMO is in the noaa forecast discussions, if you take a little time to start to understand some of the common technical phrases (most offices now have links to a glossary). There are also point click and graphical forecasts available from each noaa office, that would give you far more specific info.
Understand that weather forecasting is not a perfect science, if it were i wouldn't have a job. There are differences in accuracy from day to day, forecaster to forecaster. I and most forecasters have to forecast for a tremendous number of variables, for a broad area in time and space: winds, temps, humidity, precipitation etc for 7 days, for various agencies and purposes; fire figthers, airports, search and rescue, hazmat, etc etc. It's not at all a trivial thing especially with the overwhelming amount of data. So, i don't feel guilty about being paid when i'm 'wrong'.
Understand that as meteorologists we are personally concerned with probabilities, not deterministic events (sunny vs cloudy). The public is more interested in the latter, unfortunately weather forecasters are stuck between trying to give public info it wants, and at the same time providing the real value, which is probablistic forecasting, that helps agencies (such as the govt, private companies like electric, transportation etc) make solid decisions.
I personally find that my own experience helps enormously with my photography. For example, im about to post on ESS a series of shots i just took, where i pretty much exactly knew what sort of sky conditions to expect. I would love to teach this to other photographers, since although it helps to have years of experience, the basics can be learned fairly easily, and being your own forecaster is the most relaible and best method--since all the info you need is on the internet. If you have specific questions or comments, feel free to pm me.
Posted by Cezar Mart on October 15, 2007 at 7:31 PM
I know Rick that nobody can predict that, but it is all based on the probability.
When they say that the clouds are thick with 100% overcast, then the likehood of sudden opening is almost zero. However, when they predict 50% probability of 80% overcast based on a thin layer of clouds, then the likehood of an opening is way way higher. Worth settng the alarm clock three hours earlier than the usual time of going to work... :)
Question to Stan: is there an idiot guide to noaa.gov how to read the probability of a sky opening 8 hrs in advance in a specified area?
Posted by John Lehmkuhl on October 15, 2007 at 9:29 PM
http://wunderground.com gets my vote. Not sure how accurate they are, but the conditions come from local stations reporting to them. Make sure you hit the "Detail" link under the day to see hour-by-hour projections of cloud cover amount, chance of rain etc.....
Posted by Rick Lundh on October 15, 2007 at 9:50 PM
point in case. Take this eve...5 minutes ago. The weatherman said RAIN RAIN RAIN and thick thick clouds all week...but one little opening and the whole sky goes off like crazy. It was really nice out there tonight, from what I saw.
Just get out there and take the chances anyway...that's what I tell myself.
Posted by Zack Schnepf on October 15, 2007 at 10:23 PM
As much as I hate to agree with Jim, or Rick
Some of my best shots were taken on days that called for rain, even the epic sunrise from the enchantments. That morning was supposed to be socked in and snowing, thankfully the timing was about 12 late, good thing we took our chances. I could have easily slept in.
I find noaa to be the most accurate, but again, you never know.
Posted by Cezar Mart on October 15, 2007 at 11:05 PM
> Just get out there and take the chances anyway...that's what I tell myself.
I think you have the point, Rick. Good answer!
Posted by Arlen Fletcher on October 16, 2007 at 12:13 PM
You'll find "Sky Cover" about half-way down the left column. It may be of some use, though it doesn't predict what 'kind' of clouds are expected.
Posted by Jack Graham on October 16, 2007 at 12:15 PM
here's some tools I use:
1) http://weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_vis_nw.html --great visible satellite imagery
2) www.cleardarksky.com --an astronomy site for cloud cover forecasts and more--very interesting & great info
3) www.intellicast.com--radar imagery is as good as it gets.
4) the NOAA is probably the best for local information
Stan's post is right on!
JG
Posted by Erik Lundh on October 16, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Me being a long time weather buff, I know that Mark Nelson for Fox 12 is a true Meteorologist along with Drew Jackson. They are the best forecasting team in the state including NOAA. NOAA always errors on the side of caution but are usually pretty acurate. But Mark Nelson usually is by far the most accurate. You can go to KPTV.com and read the weather blog which is usually interesting.
Posted by Stan Rose on October 16, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Cezar and others: Erik is right, NWS forecasters do tend to be on the cautious side (i dont ) TV meteorologists obviously vary quite a bit in their abilities/qualifications, but even the best will pay attention to what local NWS forecasters are saying, since we aren't bogged down all day with having to look good on camera! As to your specific question I would have trouble answering it concisely since it would be dependent on each situation, and exactly what you are looking for. Depending on how motivated you are to learn meteorology, the best method for what you want to achieve (IMO) would be to: 1) learn how to interpret a satellite image loop (rap.ucar.edu is one of my fav internet sources, local universities are others) since a good reading of satellite and local surface observations (how strong the winds are blowing and from what direction) is probably all you need to get a good idea of what it will look like in 8 hours. 2) find a local school or weather site that has a high resolution (at least 40km, preferably 12 or lower) computer forecast, and specifically look at the humidities for the time you are interested in. 700 mb (approx 9000ft) is a good level to start at, but so are the surface, 850 mb, 500, or even 300 (for cirrus clouds). As a (very) rough rule of thumb, 90+ percent humidity at a given level is going to give you good solid cloud cover, 70% will give you some clouds. If humidities are low (50% or less roughly) the odds of clouds are low. I could on all day on this topic (im tempted to write an ebook on forecasting for photographers) but if you email me any specific questions ill try my best to respond. If there is a specific geographic site your interested in, tell me and ill advise you on what the best internet site and model computer forecast to look at. A picture is generally worth a lot of words, so it would be very helpful to look at some 'raw' computer output.
Posted by Erik Lundh on October 16, 2007 at 6:50 PM
here is a link to one of the sites, computer models of raw weather data. The good old GFS model. http://wxweb.meteostar.com/sample/sample.shtml?text=KTTD
Posted by David Svilar on October 16, 2007 at 8:38 PM
I'm a weather dork and like to read the actual discussions by the guys who make the forecasts. Check it out here.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/data/disc_report.html
Cezar, I thought your question was right on...it's something I think about all the time, especially when trying to get to spots that take some time and thought to photograph. I'm a complete weather geek, but forecasts on some of the sites I've been reading have been waaaay off. Thanks to this post, I've found some new sites to help me better gauge the weather, so thank you! I have to admit - when I was growing up in Illinois' farmbelt, John Coleman, the weather forecaster from Chicago, had to get the weather right...or farmers would call in and complain to the station. This was serious business back there, but of course, they don't have all the convergence zones we have in the Pacific NW...or do they? Anyway, I really appreciated the question.
Nancy
Posted by Cezar Mart on October 17, 2007 at 12:42 PM
> Thanks to this post, I've found some new sites to help me better gauge the weather, so thank you!
You are welcome, Nancy
As to the local weather, this morning convinced me that Rick is 100% right. In the forecast for today it should be a gray dull day full of heavy clouds and with no features.
And at 8am when I was driving to work what did I see? A sudden opening - a gorgeous dramatic sky with all variety of colors and shadows in the clouds around fantastic lights of blue sky. And it took only 30 minutes and now it's back to dull gray.
The Northwest is a phenomenon in this matter...
Discussion
20 repliesAll I need to know is in the evening when I am going to sleep what sunrise it's going to be in the morning. If all overcast then I can sleep in, but if it's going to be clear then I can set my alarm clock. And they are always wrong! How many times I slept in because it was going to be cloudy, only to see gorgeous sky when I got up. Or vice versa - clear sunrise in the forecast, I get up and go to Woodburn, Estacada or Government Camp, only to see gray heavy clouds. While I could be sleeping...
Sometimes I get up in the morning when it is still pitch dark, check the Weather.com to see the condition at the exact moment, not the forecast - the condition at the current moment, and see the cloudy picture on the computer. Then I check through the window and see stars and clear sky!
They don't even know what the weather is at the current moment!
Forget the forecast - the weather at the moment! Ridiculous!
Is there a better service anywhere?
> you may be surprised in what you can find in the way of images,
> when the weather is cloudy and rainy.
Well, I am not looking for an absolutely clear sunrise, just one with some variety in light. There are several beautiful places along the way from Barton to Estacada, or beyond Estacada, I already envisioned those comps, I just need some sunlight on the top of things to make it stand out. It can more or less diffused, just a bit of it...
Or maybe you are right, maybe I should forget the light and find some creativity in the gray...:)
Mark noaa.com is only good for one day at the best, but better than anything else out there.
> Sunrises are over rated. Get out and shoot anyway,
One day is what I need. Even less - 8 hrs is perfect for me.
I just checked that site and so far I have trouble understanding it. A simple cloud coverage is all I need, but most of info there is some precipitation codes. Good for somebody who knows how to read those graphs. Can they do it simple - 40% overcast, or 10% or 100%?
Well, I will keep studying that site...
Although I like sunrises and sunsets, Jim speaks gold when he says get out there and shoot anyway. It took me 15 tries of a 3 hour round trip within 16 months to get the sunset I was going after up at Trillium Lake...but many of my images that have been decent have been from these bunk sunrises where I am forced to look for other shots.
I'll recommend that you do study the types of clouds coming into an area though. Simple geometry dictates that you'll have better luck with sunrises if the clouds in the area are Cirrus clouds, as they form above 20,000 feet...and would be less likely to block your view of the light.
I look at wunderground to see the elevation of the clouds coming into an area I'm going to shoot.
weather.com is based in Atlanta, so dont expect local knowlege from their forecasts. The best source for specific info IMO is in the noaa forecast discussions, if you take a little time to start to understand some of the common technical phrases (most offices now have links to a glossary). There are also point click and graphical forecasts available from each noaa office, that would give you far more specific info.
Understand that weather forecasting is not a perfect science, if it were i wouldn't have a job. There are differences in accuracy from day to day, forecaster to forecaster. I and most forecasters have to forecast for a tremendous number of variables, for a broad area in time and space: winds, temps, humidity, precipitation etc for 7 days, for various agencies and purposes; fire figthers, airports, search and rescue, hazmat, etc etc. It's not at all a trivial thing especially with the overwhelming amount of data. So, i don't feel guilty about being paid when i'm 'wrong'.
Understand that as meteorologists we are personally concerned with probabilities, not deterministic events (sunny vs cloudy). The public is more interested in the latter, unfortunately weather forecasters are stuck between trying to give public info it wants, and at the same time providing the real value, which is probablistic forecasting, that helps agencies (such as the govt, private companies like electric, transportation etc) make solid decisions.
I personally find that my own experience helps enormously with my photography. For example, im about to post on ESS a series of shots i just took, where i pretty much exactly knew what sort of sky conditions to expect. I would love to teach this to other photographers, since although it helps to have years of experience, the basics can be learned fairly easily, and being your own forecaster is the most relaible and best method--since all the info you need is on the internet. If you have specific questions or comments, feel free to pm me.
When they say that the clouds are thick with 100% overcast, then the likehood of sudden opening is almost zero. However, when they predict 50% probability of 80% overcast based on a thin layer of clouds, then the likehood of an opening is way way higher. Worth settng the alarm clock three hours earlier than the usual time of going to work... :)
Question to Stan: is there an idiot guide to noaa.gov how to read the probability of a sky opening 8 hrs in advance in a specified area?
Just get out there and take the chances anyway...that's what I tell myself.
Some of my best shots were taken on days that called for rain, even the epic sunrise from the enchantments. That morning was supposed to be socked in and snowing, thankfully the timing was about 12 late, good thing we took our chances. I could have easily slept in.
I find noaa to be the most accurate, but again, you never know.
I think you have the point, Rick. Good answer!
http://www.weather.gov/forecasts/graphical/sectors/pacnorthwest.php
You'll find "Sky Cover" about half-way down the left column. It may be of some use, though it doesn't predict what 'kind' of clouds are expected.
1) http://weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_vis_nw.html --great visible satellite imagery
2) www.cleardarksky.com --an astronomy site for cloud cover forecasts and more--very interesting & great info
3) www.intellicast.com--radar imagery is as good as it gets.
4) the NOAA is probably the best for local information
Stan's post is right on!
JG
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/data/disc_report.html
Nancy
You are welcome, Nancy
As to the local weather, this morning convinced me that Rick is 100% right. In the forecast for today it should be a gray dull day full of heavy clouds and with no features.
And at 8am when I was driving to work what did I see? A sudden opening - a gorgeous dramatic sky with all variety of colors and shadows in the clouds around fantastic lights of blue sky. And it took only 30 minutes and now it's back to dull gray.
The Northwest is a phenomenon in this matter...