Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,608
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    NH8550
    Newest Member
    NH8550
    Joined

November 26-28 Coastal Storm Discussion and Obs

DCAlexandria

By DCAlexandria,
in Mid Atlantic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
dtk

dtk

Posted
Posted

Looks like the euro is ahead in every category, and every other one I click on....unless I am reading it wrong...nonetheless it is close, and I don't really think we need the track outside of 3 days anyway....the threat is there....it is mostly just for us...both models are fine in terms of informing the public....there are times the euro catches on late..I agree with you....this "argument" is getting tired...they are both good models....

Indeed.  I was simply trying to make the point that if you dig deep enough, you can find something within the statistics to justify using one model or another.  Standard verification scores (500 hPa AC) are overused to justfiy using a particular model for an individual event.  It's important to have a statistical understanding of what the metrics are actually telling you.

 

As an example, ensemble means verify better than deterministic counterparts despite the degraded resolution.  Some of this is simply an artifact of averaging out the high amplitude portions of the fields (where the higher amplitude portions of the forecast an yield worse scores, be it through amplitude or phase errors).  However, this does not mean that the ensemble mean is more "useful" than the deterministic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
clskinsfan

clskinsfan

Posted
Posted

Indeed.  I was simply trying to make the point that if you dig deep enough, you can find something within the statistics to justify using one model or another.  Standard verification scores (500 hPa AC) are overused to justfiy using a particular model for an individual event.  It's important to have a statistical understanding of what the metrics are actually telling you.

 

As an example, ensemble means verify better than deterministic counterparts despite the degraded resolution.  Some of this is simply an artifact of averaging out the high amplitude portions of the fields (where the higher amplitude portions of the forecast an yield worse scores, be it through amplitude or phase errors).  However, this does not mean that the ensemble mean is more "useful" than the deterministic.

 

Thanks for this post. I always wonder about the process the models use to reach their solutions. But I am far to ignorant on the subject to know anything other than some basic bias that they tend to have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mitchnick

mitchnick

Posted
Posted

looks like the GGEM wants to bring us something from the trailing energy too, some of which would fail as snow

though I admit, it is hard to tell with the 12 yr intervals

 

EDIT: on 2nd look, this time with the larger black and white maps, not so great a chance as it looked with the color maps, so never mind for the most part....meh

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ravensrule

ravensrule

Posted
Posted

Lol... I wouldn't quit say dig vomit. The GFS seems more like the Billy Cundiff of models. Not bad on the close in /easy attempts. However, throw in some distance and complexity and it can be wide. And we always remember the wide results in big attempts.

MDstorm

Please dont remind me, you are giving me the violent sweats.

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...