Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,609
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

WOOF


Guest someguy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 282
  • Created
  • Last Reply

OSU I dont wnat to get into this debate between you and greg too much ... and I know EMC says the bias is gone

but its performance wasnt great with the current GL low

something is still wrong with GFS past say 84 hrs....

the 12z wed run dec 8 run at 96 hrs valid for dec 12 had the Low over western / central NC

the 00 and 12z thursday dec 9 runs .... the GFS had the Low in nw OHIO

I believe the upgrade was more to please the tropical folks with wave and TC tracking. I don't debate nor doubt that the GFS still isn't great in the medium range. It wasn't good with the GL low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what do you think about tkaing out the 6z and 18z run and using the computing power to run the GFS hat high resolution all the way through to 384 hrs?

Just curious

I agree it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think it's pretty conclusive that the GFS's issues continue to lie in its initialization. 4DVAR is the way of the future. There's a study around from a few years back that showed the GFS actually performed slightly better than the ECMWF when it used the ECMWF initialization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that the euro on it's initial idea for a storm and pushed it back to day 10 while its ensembles still like it and hate the day 10 idea. The 168 hr 500 euro ensemble mean anomaly pattern from the 00Z run is a pretty good one for getting a storm so the event or non event is worth monitoring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think it's pretty conclusive that the GFS's issues continue to lie in its initialization. 4DVAR is the way of the future. There's a study around from a few years back that showed the GFS actually performed slightly better than the ECMWF when it used the ECMWF initialization.

If only there were some way to get even more support for this 4DVAR idea...hm...it seems as though there's another European agency that now has a medium range model that outperforms ours. A model that didn't used to quite so good. If only we knew what they did to make those improvements? One factor is clearly that super, duper, ultra fast IBM thingy they've got going on, but I wonder if there are any other factors...? Someone should call them and find out, but then that'd require dialing all those weird numbers to get to an international line. Well, that is unless they have some sort of secret "bat phone" that hooks all the international met offices together, kind'a like Washington and Moscow have? Alas, that'd likely require some super high-up kinda guy to make the call and he's probably on the Gee F' Us bandwagon.

EDIT: I should add...I realize there are a bunch of amazingly talented people that work to bring us the suite of FREE models that we enjoy. Talented enough that I seriously doubt that the Europeans have any purely intellectual advantage over us. Thus, our deficiencies are the result of some other factor, something other than our understanding of physics, mathematics and highly complicated projections in curved, bumpy, rotating frames of reference. We've made decisions in this country, starting back in the '90s, that have cost us the lead. We saved money, but at the cost of future financial rewards. Whether those rewards are the result of speculative edge or transportation and infrastructure efficiencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EUro Ensemble spaghetti plots of SLP, show much more support for a storm in the day 7-8 range.

That is more believable than say, the coastal at 240 hours. Can someone explain to me though how we're going to have a system coming up the coast (i.e. Dec. 16-17th) with such extreme blocking and poor placement of the 50/50?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EUro Ensemble spaghetti plots of SLP, show much more support for a storm in the day 7-8 range.

The ensemble mean really has a nice look at 168 hrs. It compares pretty favorable to the 500 composites for DC snowstorms. Of course, the gfs ensembles show something much different.

post-70-0-39993600-1292167972.gif

Now compare it to the dc composite.

post-70-0-52508400-1292168031.gif

If it had a little more support from the operational euro and GFS ensembles, I'd be getting excited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ensemble mean really has a nice look at 168 hrs. It compares pretty favorable to the 500 composites for DC snowstorms. Of course, the gfs ensembles show something much different.

post-70-0-39993600-1292167972.gif

Now compare it to the dc composite.

post-70-0-52508400-1292168031.gif

If it had a little more support from the operational euro and GFS ensembles, I'd be getting excited.

Wes, the operational Euro is almost by itself with the timing of the storm being so late. Most all of the Euro members have a storm just more of a day7-9 time frame from southeast to northeast. They are also all pretty strong with the storm with a good number sub 995mb.

It looks like several of the 6z GFS Ens members have a storm just differ with the timing with it being more of a day 6-8 event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ensemble mean really has a nice look at 168 hrs. It compares pretty favorable to the 500 composites for DC snowstorms. Of course, the gfs ensembles show something much different.

Now compare it to the dc composite.

If it had a little more support from the operational euro and GFS ensembles, I'd be getting excited.

Well, at least we have a few of the D8 analog composites on our side.

That "best" one, IMO, would be 12/22/66 which was preceded, 9 days, by 6.7" and followed by 7" on 12/24.

Then the 12/08/03 analog has a couple inches a few days before and 3.6" six days after.

The 12/31/79 analog didn't have anything just prior, but 6.9" just five days later.

12/7/50 saw 3.2" just three days later, but nada just prior to the target date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bd1.jpg

Wow that's a big dog!

I am a skeptical at this point regarding any deterministic attempt by respective models to hone in on an event -...even in an intuitive conceptual sense of it for general risk assessing I'm a tad spooked. Moreover, there isn't any clearly intriguing modalities in the teleconnector forecasts by either agency, the CDC or the CPC (and I am aware they have different methods for computing their respective values). In fact, I am seeing a lot of "dischord" more than anything else, with the CPC and CDC at odds with the NAO, and the CDC indicating more of a N/S with nearly neutral PNA at D10. It's just too incoherent in the background canvas to vest any confidence at all. That is not always true - btw - in that some times the pattern is better well behaved, intrinsically easier for the models, and teleconnector also at times having a clearly tendency then all leads to some pretty fantastic extended lead outlooks - now is not one of those times, however.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest someguy

12z GFS at h5 is horrible and radically different from 6z

in other news

snow is cold

spending money is not the same thing as saving Money

and JI is still annoying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...