eduggs Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Srefs are from 4:00pm and have no 0z data in them. Thanks for saying this. I was about to but don't like always being a downer. The idea that the SREFs almost always lead the NAM (in terms of trending) is a myth IMO. I've always observed the NAM to lead the subsequent SREF run. I do agree that the full ensemble mean is more important that an individual NAM run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbo81 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 great find about the balloon!!! Let the confusion about the nam and the storm cease for now. that is all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absolute Humidity Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 If one balloon caused this than wouldn't it effect the intire suite tonight? Also, anyone remember last week when the NAM cut everybodys QPF from .3 - .4 to like .1 - .2 right before the storm and every one freaked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Thanks for saying this. I was about to but don't like always being a downer. The idea that the SREFs almost always lead the NAM (in terms of trending) is a myth IMO. I've always observed the NAM to lead the subsequent SREF run. I do agree that the full ensemble mean is more important that an individual NAM run. Fair point, but the 18z NAM was drier than the 21z SREFs which ticked NW and wetter as well as more amplified by 4hpa at the surface..so something has to give Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 what are the errors exactly? I was under the impression this was going to have possible new data for this run? Most are saying convective feedback issues are causing the model to error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WintersGrasp Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Never said it wasn't a good model. It has its moments though. All Im saying is that it can be VERY volatile with QPF from even 6-12 hours out. Watch the 6z NAM at 6hours and compare it to the 00z run at 12 hours....Trust me It most likely Is wrong here..but, I think the model is very useful in spotting trends within 48 hours of an event....even the heavy banding as we get closer . While it is off many times, I've seen it come ridiculously close in predicting where the heaviest banding will set up, though not necessarily where the heaviest qpf will always show up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Typical NAM errors, we see this nearly every storm. Considering no other model shows this, I wouldnt be too worried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkrangers Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Typical NAM errors, we see this nearly every storm. Considering no other model shows this, I wouldnt be too worried Yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Typical 2010/2011 winter forecasting less than 24 hours and computer guidance cant remain consistent. Id expect this more from the gfs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The Tampa balloon probably would have been useless anyway launched in convection. I suspect it would have been tossed anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Turner Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Anybody have a link to the NOGAPS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The Tampa balloon probably would have been useless anyway launched in convection. I suspect it would have been tossed anyway. Yeah, it really has nothing to do with the model solution. The model is suffering from convective feedback, that's really it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduggs Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The 0z NAM is very similar to its 18z run in every respect except QPF. But even in this respect the idea is the same. It's just a little drier in the mid-atlantic and more pronounced with the relative minimum near SENY and WCT. If this run is wildly incorrect, that would implicate at least the previous run if not the past few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmagan Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Asking me for a password 1) Go to this website: http://meteocentre.com/home_e.html 2) Scroll down to: 'Vizaweb: Web access to CMC products". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grothar Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Yeah, the "feedback error" is from JB's NY subscribers. They're pissed! Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green tube Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 so the NAM took the air out of our balloon... but a balloon took the air out of the NAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduggs Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Yeah, the "feedback error" is from JB's NY subscribers. They're pissed! "Feedback error" is code for "that's ugly, I don't like it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaoPos Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Yeah, it really has nothing to do with the model solution. The model is suffering from convective feedback, that's really it. The NAM's higher resolution on an 84 scale really can be it;s own worst enemy sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 "Feedback error" is code for "that's ugly, I don't like it." It is not just JB, other meteorologists are saying similar. I am not naming names but either way I will not just discount what professionals are saying because the NAM came in drier more than 24 hours away from the main event and because the NAM has been good in this range every now and then in winters past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaner587 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 "Feedback error" is code for "that's ugly, I don't like it." it has 0 support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTrials Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The 0z NAM is very similar to its 18z run in every respect except QPF. But even in this respect the idea is the same. It's just a little drier in the mid-atlantic and more pronounced with the relative minimum near SENY and WCT. If this run is wildly incorrect, that would implicate at least the previous run if not the past few. This is just plain wrong. The surface low is def. placed to the s and e and misplaced at that. Between 12 and 15 hours the NAM send the surface low chasing a qpf bomb into the atlantic which is classic convective feedback and then tries to correct itself but its too late. All the best moisture is gone and its too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Well for what its worth QPF: NYC : 0.30 EWR: 0.39 MMU : 0.37 BLM: 0.67 LA : 0.29 JFK: 0.37 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 It is not just JB, other meteorologists are saying similar. I am not naming names but either way I will not just discount what professionals are saying because the NAM came in drier more than 24 hours away from the main event. A lot of mets are throwing this run out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTrials Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 "Feedback error" is code for "that's ugly, I don't like it." really? two days before the boxind day storm upton had an in depth discussion I believe by our very own BillG talking about convective feedback on the euro. Every model is subject to it. Its real and the nam does it more than any other model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmagan Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 RUC valid 01Z Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rygar Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 it has 0 support For now. Seriously, it wouldn't be outlandish for a model to back off precip by 1/2 inch. Happens all the time. Not saying it is right, just don't auto-toss it. See what the rest of 0z does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jm1220 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 This is just plain wrong. The surface low is def. placed to the s and e and misplaced at that. Between 12 and 15 hours the NAM send the surface low chasing a qpf bomb into the atlantic which is classic convective feedback and then tries to correct itself but its too late. All the best moisture is gone and its too late. Whenever you see some random QPF bomb out in the Atlantic and some spurious low develop there that robs from everything else, you know convective feedback has to be an issue. The NAM did this with the 12/26 storm as well as the 12/19 storm last year that developed from the Gulf. Each one of those, the NAM had weird runs like this that cut back way too much on the northern extent of the storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 it has 0 support Aside from earlier NAM runs the only other models close with this type of cutoff north of S-NJ were the 12/z18z gfs and the 12z RGEM but none nearly this weak with the qpf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 it has 0 support Its the first 00z model run. I would not be at all surprised to see the RGEM follow suit at least somewhat. But it will be wrong too. As long as the Euro holds serve, I think we're OK...not perfect this yr but still the way to go, by far at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduggs Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 It is not just JB, other meteorologists are saying similar. I am not naming names but either way I will not just discount what professionals are saying because the NAM came in drier more than 24 hours away from the main event. I've seen this kind of thing written about various model runs literally dozens of times, usually when there is an outlier solution or a sudden model change. And I have never observed a correlation between error identification and the relative likelihood of the solution verifying. Sometimes the supposed erroneous solution has the right idea, and sometimes it doesn't. And just in my opinion, meteorologists are not good at distinguishing these two cases. I think you would have to be well versed in numerical modeling to correctly spot an error that adversely impacted the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.