Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,600
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

WOOF

Guest someguy

By Guest someguy,
in Weather Forecasting and Discussion

Recommended Posts

Guest someguy

Guest someguy

Posted
Posted

With the performance of these models, it seems that no credence can be given to them until we're within five days of an event.

yes and NO.... its both and neither

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 282
  • Created
  • Last Reply
winter_warlock

winter_warlock

Posted
Posted

You can cleary see the threat on many of the 18Z GFS 12/12/2010 Ensemble members. Seems like the op is one of the more flatter solutions shown.

well at least some of the ensembke members are leaning the euro way, but like ive said many times... wayyyy too early to get excited or dissapointed, a week away
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WinterWxLuvr

WinterWxLuvr

Posted
Posted

06Z GFS has the storm...robust and delicious :-)

One thing to note, the HPC disco puts about as big of a smackdown on the GFS this morning as any I think I've ever seen them write. Their opinion is supported by the EC, its ensemble, the GGEM, and the the GFS ensemble. All are weaker and flatter. BUT, many of the mets here believe the pattern has possibilities, so we can hope for the best. Yesterday, several people put up model runs 5 to 7 days before last years storms, and they were weaker and flatter as well. I still feel good about this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ender

Ender

Posted
Posted

One thing to note, the HPC disco puts about as big of a smackdown on the GFS this morning as any I think I've ever seen them write. Their opinion is supported by the EC, its ensemble, the GGEM, and the the GFS ensemble. All are weaker and flatter. BUT, many of the mets here believe the pattern has possibilities, so we can hope for the best. Yesterday, several people put up model runs 5 to 7 days before last years storms, and they were weaker and flatter as well. I still feel good about this one.

"So you're telling me there's a chance....YEAH!!!"

(multi quote doesn't seem to work on my iPhone. Pretend that the HPC 5% chance comment was included up there as well, works better that way...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NaoPos

NaoPos

Posted
Posted

One thing to note, the HPC disco puts about as big of a smackdown on the GFS this morning as any I think I've ever seen them write. Their opinion is supported by the EC, its ensemble, the GGEM, and the the GFS ensemble. All are weaker and flatter. BUT, many of the mets here believe the pattern has possibilities, so we can hope for the best. Yesterday, several people put up model runs 5 to 7 days before last years storms, and they were weaker and flatter as well. I still feel good about this one.

Not too many storms last year were weak and/or flat....

Maybe i am mis reading this statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RobbTC

RobbTC

Posted
Posted

Not too many storms last year were weak and/or flat....

Maybe i am mis reading this statement?

I took it as the HPC saying the models looked weak/flat and people were posting models from last year also showing models before the big storms as being weak/flat so its not a bad sign since they didn't end up that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Typhoon Tip

Typhoon Tip

Posted
Posted

The ECM has been on and off with this though …it may come right back on the 12z based on that recent pattern of behavior.

One aspect most guidance agree upon is that the NAO block is repositioning from D-Straight to central/northern Canada, a circumstance that in the past has resulted in phasing in the OV/MA/NE states many times – so the synoptic overview of the period generally still supports at least something on the EC during this time frame. This has a bit more zeal then anything up to this date so far this cold season, and at D7-9, of course there may be some coherence issues as this scope gradually comes into better focus - probably about 60 or 72 hours from now.

It would be maddening to the winter weather enthusiasts if this were yet another tease, I know, but we must remain objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
famartin

famartin

Posted
Posted

I know everyone likes to point out all the great hits last year, but lets not forget those storms that were duds for many:

New Years

January 30th

February 15th-16th

March 3rd

No throwing caution to the wind now... I believe all these were modeled to be big ones at some point and ended up being a dud for many (if not most).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Analog96

Analog96

Posted
Posted

A couple of thoughts,

a) The GFS being West of the Euro (at least for now) should throw some caution flag that the EURO is too far East. So Should the UKMET being West of the Euro.

B) I am much more happy seeing the GFS showing a big snowstorm and the EURO being out to sea, than I would be if the GFS showed a big snowstorm and the EURO showed a rainstorm.

c) It's one run. Even the EURO hiccups sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
famartin

famartin

Posted
Posted
I am much more happy seeing the GFS showing a big snowstorm and the EURO being out to sea, than I would be if the GFS showed a big snowstorm and the EURO showed a rainstorm.
Why? I'd feel the reverse, actually...

EDIT: Never mind, I misread your post. Still not as good a feeling as having the EC show a snowstorm and the GFS show suppressed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Analog96

Analog96

Posted
Posted

Why? I'd feel the reverse, actually...

EDIT: Never mind, I misread your post. Still not as good a feeling as having the EC show a snowstorm and the GFS show suppressed...

No, it's not as good of a feeling. But the EURO moved offshore. I would rather have a compromise solution and get a nice little 6-8" event, than to have the EURO show rain. If the EC showed rain, this thing would be over, and you know it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weathermanchild

weathermanchild

Posted
Posted

I read the GFS cold bias has largely been corrected, so a suppressed system at f120 - f180 in the GFS is not necessarily good. In my experience with using the GFS at this range, (for what its worth, maybe others feel the same) there are time periods where it performs best and i think they are f036-72, f120-144 (though not so much) and f 168-f180. When the GFS shows a big storm in these periods and then something else out of these periods but not too far off, the mid atlantic gets the big storm.

I am loving the 60kt LLJ on the GFS runs too, makes sense given the strong cyclogenesis, and would easily yield blizzard conditions widespread from DCA to BOS. AND, its COLD through the run, so how does 14:1 to 18:1 ratios sound?? (10-12:1 on the coast though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpickett79

cpickett79

Posted
Posted

what am i missing?

12z gfs ensembles look very promising for cyclogenesis over E coast.

12z euro looks much better than 0z .....and when combined with it's "bias" keeping energy too long in the SW this looks like it could phase a tad earlier (instead of the late phase Enew england hit) this run. + interested to see ensembles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kaner587

Kaner587

Posted
Posted

what am i missing?

12z gfs ensembles look very promising for cyclogenesis over E coast.

12z euro looks much better than 0z .....and when combined with it's "bias" keeping energy too long in the SW this looks like it could phase a tad earlier (instead of the late phase Eneg england hit) this run. + interested to see ensembles.

I was actually thinking this same thing about holding energy over the SW and I agree we are sitting in a nice spot right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
usedtobe

usedtobe

Posted
Posted

I know everyone likes to point out all the great hits last year, but lets not forget those storms that were duds for many:

New Years

January 30th

February 15th-16th

March 3rd

No throwing caution to the wind now... I believe all these were modeled to be big ones at some point and ended up being a dud for many (if not most).

You forgot the infamous tracker storm that the GFS forecast around MLK day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ender

Ender

Posted
Posted

I'll start here.

Also, I'm happy to address any/all NCEP related questions (as best I can, particularly if they're related to the GFS), but it's going to be difficult to have a dialogue if people are going to continue to just blindly bash things or maintain a negative, nasty, sarcastic tone.

my $.02

I apologize if my tone towards NCEP was perceived as negative, nasty or sarcastic. It wasn't, however, blind. I attempted to correct for any negative tone, that I realized might have come across, via my edit when tried to express my opinion that our deficiency weren't the result of NCEP or its people. As far as my overall sarcastic tone, I'm willing to be equally sarcastic. In this very thread I managed to refer to the GGEM, sarcastically, as, "the 0Z perfect prog of the God's", in reaction to the sudden blind devotion it'd gained just by virtue of being the model that had one run earlier shown a bit of the promise people had hoped to see. Likewise, I later cautioned our newly mended love affair with the ECMWF seemed a little too forgiving in the context of its recent "broken promises".

The real target of my sarcasm has nothing to do with the GGEM, EC, GFS, or even, God love it, the DGEX. It's the posters, myself included. Invariably one of these 168 hour miracles falls apart and then the rants about, "none of these models are any da-n good outside of 120 hours!" I read that one one here earlier today. It was 6:08am and I posted something along the lines of, "even the GGEM has abandoned the devoted..." my real thought was, 'WHAT THE F--- is wrong with you people??? You're basically, inadvertently, saying that you're confident of the models inside one hundred and twenty hours! One hundred and twenty HOURS. Are you serious? I mean really, you're bit--ing that they're only reliable out to one hundred and twenty HOURS???' I'm stunned by the reliability that we see out to 120hrs. Literally, it's pretty much nothing short of amazing, to me, given where we were in the 1990's and early 2000s that we even speak of 120hr with confidence. Honestly, it's ruined some of the fun to tell you the truth. Less than a decade ago we'd get an occasional surprise inside 36hrs. Now it's quite rare to see a surprise inside 84hrs. Surprises, after all, go both ways...good and bad.

So...that leaves the 126hr - 186hr window to the meteorologist as the inside of 120hr window, certainly 96hr window, is being handled far, far better than the any human, yes even Dave, is likely to be able to "beat" on anything other than the most rare of events. That means people of my limited skills, which were actually once quite useful inside 84hrs, trying to find good reasons why I do/don't "like" the EC's Sunday 12Z solution for 168hrs. I didn't, by the way, "like it" because I didn't "like" it's orientation and strength of the block to my north, but...the EC certainly had a better command of the physics and math than I do, and it showed a decent storm. My reasons for "not liking" yesterday's 12Z EC solution would appear to have been incorrect in light of baro's comments on why the EC, then GFS and GGEM, lost the coastal development. Good thing I kept my mouth shut. I didn't like the EC's 8" snowfall here for 9 days ago because it was basically showing something, for four runs, that, well, I'd literally never seen verify and it was doing it all the way up to 132hr while the GFS steadfastly refused to play along. Thus I spoke up, because the EC's solution was a bit absurd...but, hey, it's a model solution for the "still gray" 120 - 186hr window. Thus I didn't jump to the conclusion that the EC now sucks and I, while arguing that the GFS made more sense, cautioned that simply blindly following the GFS for the rest of the cold season, as one poster suggested, seemed a bit foolish.

So, as for my sarcasm...it's a model. That's all they are. None, in spite of our French friend's claims over a decade ago, are perfect progs. They're not going to be. They're all, however, pretty darn close to it, at least as measured by sensible weather, inside some forecast hour. Some FHR that's likely further out than 72hr, and that is, in a word, staggering. At least from my point of view that's I guess getting a bit aged.

Also, to follow up on the point by Ender (sorry, i'm in NCEP-defending mode now)....I don't think people realize just how different NCEP is relative to the other worldwide centers. We have a responsibility to develop and manage many things outside of the global model (regional modeling, season/climate, air quality, rapid update/aviation, waves, etc.), with fewer resources, and we're required to get out our products MUCH faster, on a slower machine....

For those of you that follow verification, I believe that the GFS is nearing an all-time record for the past 30 days in the NH for days 5/6, still slightly behind the EC, but we've tied (or slightly passed) the UK and are ahead of the Canadians.

My comments about NCEP and veiled comments about the performance of our models...I had the opportunity to have corresponded with an individual who was once, extremely highly placed at NCEP. I'll say that he retired "somewhere between 1995 and 2007". I hope that doesn't narrow down the list at all. It was such a short conversation and, as I said, it was through a mutually trusted party, but I suggested just for fun tell former NCEP guy that Shane asks, "Why is it that you let the French beat us with their 'Perfect Prog'...how could you let something like that happen?". The response back was, um, pretty intense but it also confirmed some of my opinions.

Unless we're going to start getting far better sampling of huge sections of the planet we're going to have a tough time improving our performance outside the window that's covered by dense and accurate sampling (IOW, maybe out to 96hr or so). Back in the 90's the Europeans made it sound like they were out to build the elusive perfect prog by virtue of "just not compromising" and "building the model right". It sounded something like a creepy Euro ripoff of a Ford commercial. In the end they built a really darn good model of the initial state of the atmosphere. Not a bad idea...sure does beat using the 12hr ago run of yet another model's forecast for the initial state...

We, as a nation/people/Congress, need to decide if this matters to us. If it doesn't, as it appears was the decision in the 90's, then we should get out of the medium range atmospheric modeling business. That would at least allow us to devote "Deep Blue" to doing things like mesoscale modeling for Fourth of July parades and fireworks schedules.

GFS (AVN, MRF, etc) has shown steady improvements for many years now. Of course so have the UKMET, GGEM and EC. For the most part the improvements seem to mirror each other, at least the rate at which they push the 60% reliability target out past 3.5dy, 5dy, then 6dy and now to 6.5dy. The big stepwise improvements that people probably want require tons of research and tons of CPU for that research to eventually run on. Neither the intellectual talent (people) nor the CPU is cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...