dtk Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 This is a awesome response and i do thank you. Quick question? Will we have both the GFS ( In current form ) and the new 13 km GFS? I think you guys have been doing a good job with the GFS. There will be some data made available in near real-time in the run up to implementation, once the package is finally frozen and the thing is up and running. I do not think that NCO will be generating a parallel MAG type page with the standard graphics, but the developers at EMC will likely be making some in-house stuff available for public consumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 One last question? Is this here to stay? From GRR I see them often mentioning that FIM model? Any score keeping on this? What do you mean "here to stay"? The FIM is a global model developed at NOAA/OAR/ESRL, the same folks responsible for the HRRR. It is not an operational model, nor is it likely to become one, at least anytime soon. It should be noted that they actually use the GFS model physical parameterizations (convection, boundary layer, etc.). They (ESRL) do keep track of verification, see here: http://fim.noaa.gov/fim_ac_stats/ Most of the versions that they integrate run from GFS initial conditions and are basically similar in skill to the GFS itself. In the table that appears on the bottom of the webpage previously noted, the runs that use the GFS ICs are labelled as having GFS/GSI Init Conditions. One example of skill over the last 30 days of 500 hPa AC at 5 days for 00/12Z here: http://fim.noaa.gov/fim_ac_stats/bin_plots/HGT_500_120_AllHours_match:complete_latest.png It should be noted that running a model in such a manner is a really good way to mask issues/biases/etc. I cannot comment on what management has planned in the long term for the FIM model. One possibility will be to include it as part of a multi-model ensemble within the GEFS. I do not think there is a pathway for it to replace the GFS itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted December 30, 2013 Author Share Posted December 30, 2013 There will be some data made available in near real-time in the run up to implementation, once the package is finally frozen and the thing is up and running. I do not think that NCO will be generating a parallel MAG type page with the standard graphics, but the developers at EMC will likely be making some in-house stuff available for public consumption. Thanks! What do you mean "here to stay"? The FIM is a global model developed at NOAA/OAR/ESRL, the same folks responsible for the HRRR. It is not an operational model, nor is it likely to become one, at least anytime soon. It should be noted that they actually use the GFS model physical parameterizations (convection, boundary layer, etc.). They (ESRL) do keep track of verification, see here: http://fim.noaa.gov/fim_ac_stats/ Most of the versions that they integrate run from GFS initial conditions and are basically similar in skill to the GFS itself. In the table that appears on the bottom of the webpage previously noted, the runs that use the GFS ICs are labelled as having GFS/GSI Init Conditions. One example of skill over the last 30 days of 500 hPa AC at 5 days for 00/12Z here: http://fim.noaa.gov/fim_ac_stats/bin_plots/HGT_500_120_AllHours_match:complete_latest.png It should be noted that running a model in such a manner is a really good way to mask issues/biases/etc. I cannot comment on what management has planned in the long term for the FIM model. One possibility will be to include it as part of a multi-model ensemble within the GEFS. I do not think there is a pathway for it to replace the GFS itself. Again thanks. I looked at it a few years back but that was it. Have not seen this office mention it in a while either ( till the last few weeks ) and thus my curiosity about it. It still says experimental so yeah i know stuff like that can vanish at a moments notice and thus why i asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 This statement is flat out false. Models today, even the NAM, are so much better than their counterparts from 5, 10, 20 years ago .... and it's not even close. The NAM is likely better than the old ETA but is it really better than the NAM was 5-6-7 years ago? I'm not so sure, it seems to regularly get owned these days inside 48 hours when back then it occasionally was the only model to get a storm right on, I cannot remember when it last did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The NAM is likely better than the old ETA but is it really better than the NAM was 5-6-7 years ago? I'm not so sure, it seems to regularly get owned these days inside 48 hours when back then it occasionally was the only model to get a storm right on, I cannot remember when it last did that. Let me preface what I'm about to say with the fact that I don't work on the NAM, and I am usually not one to defend it. I'll try to dig out some long term statistics to justify the claim, but I am pretty confident in stating that the NAM in its current incarnation is in fact better than it was several years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 There is a claim on the 15 km FIM page is that it is superior to the GFS in longer range TC modelling, and uses the ens-KF initialization scheme, http://fim.noaa.gov/ ETA: been a while, several months, but I could never seem to find the FIM ensembles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohleary Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 The NAM is likely better than the old ETA but is it really better than the NAM was 5-6-7 years ago? I'm not so sure, it seems to regularly get owned these days inside 48 hours when back then it occasionally was the only model to get a storm right on, I cannot remember when it last did that. Did you consider this may be due to the fact that the globals have improved so much as to regularly out-forecast the NAM at short ranges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.