Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,584
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

September Discusssion--winter bound or bust


moneypitmike

Recommended Posts

The hyped hot September will be laughed at on 10/1.

 

 

And unfortunately it is an exercise in subjective analysis when it comes time to look back... 

 

If the month finishes +5, an impressively large positive anomaly, it may not even "seem" that way if it were to be a humid month with elevated nocturnal means. 

 

Worst yet for morale, if there is a dry month with elevated heights...  normal nights go under the radar when afternoons are well above.  It ends up only +2 or so on the month but it "seems" like it blazed.  The row that results from that is hilarity.   

 

As usual ... knee jerk reactions and challenged analytic thinking rules the roost :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

A resource we really don't need? You talking about the NAM or the ECMWF?

 

Heh, being sort of half sarcastic there -- wouldn't read into that. 

 

I just find the whole ECMWF enterprise as a bit over the top, when there are free products available that can compare with their skil, when in aggregate/n depictions.

 

I find that without using the majority of paid products (at least for me) I can make some pretty outstanding weather calls without them, just by reading into the subtleties and trends, and smoothing in education, experience and native intuition.  Certainly that existentialism lends to the conclusion (also) that the Euro is completely full of crap - haha.

 

Seriously though, I don't have anything against free-enterprise in general ... but "weather for profit" strikes me as arrogant when I can correct for the Euro -- why pay for something that's flawed?  

 

I read of an experiment (reanalysis sort of deal..) where they took the Euro parameterization (input grid) and fed it to like ... 6 mo or something -worth of GFS runs, the GFS actually scored better than the Euro at points, and near neutral comparative skill otherwise.  ..Heh, 'garbage in garbage' out, but I find it annoying to pay for the Euro, when we already pay taxes for the GFS and they can't use that money to grid the f'er properly.  

ECM can go f its self. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, being sort of half sarcastic there -- wouldn't read into that. 

 

I just find the whole ECMWF enterprise as a bit over the top, when there are free products available that can compare with their skil, when in aggregate/n depictions.

 

I find that without using the majority of paid products (at least for me) I can make some pretty outstanding weather calls without them, just by reading into the subtleties and trends, and smoothing in education, experience and native intuition.  Certainly that existentialism lends to the conclusion (also) that the Euro is completely full of crap - haha.

 

Seriously though, I don't have anything against free-enterprise in general ... but "weather for profit" strikes me as arrogant when I can correct for the Euro -- why pay for something that's flawed?  

 

I read of an experiment (reanalysis sort of deal..) where they took the Euro parameterization (input grid) and fed it to like ... 6 mo or something -worth of GFS runs, the GFS actually scored better than the Euro at points, and near neutral comparative skill otherwise.  ..Heh, 'garbage in garbage' out, but I find it annoying to pay for the Euro, when we already pay taxes for the GFS and they can't use that money to grid the f'er properly.  

ECM can go f its self. 

 

 

There are plenty of folks in the field that believe we should be putting more money into developing the GFS inputs. I don't know what we pay for the ECMWF (across 120+ WFOs plus national centers), but we don't even get the highest quality resolution ("hi-res" Euro is only around 80 km in AWIPS when the real model is 13 km). We also don't get the ensembles at the WFO level either. So we're even being held hostage for incomplete or insufficient data.

 

But time and time again it proves more useful than the American counterparts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of folks in the field that believe we should be putting more money into developing the GFS inputs. I don't know what we pay for the ECMWF (across 120+ WFOs plus national centers), but we don't even get the highest quality resolution ("hi-res" Euro is only around 80 km in AWIPS when the real model is 13 km). We also don't get the ensembles at the WFO level either. So we're even being held hostage for incomplete or insufficient data.

 

But time and time again it proves more useful than the American counterparts.

 

And it pisses me off to no end that funds are allocated all twisted up in a fercockta collusion questionable policy.

 

Take the money back from the ECM, put it into the GFS....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of folks in the field that believe we should be putting more money into developing the GFS inputs. I don't know what we pay for the ECMWF (across 120+ WFOs plus national centers), but we don't even get the highest quality resolution ("hi-res" Euro is only around 80 km in AWIPS when the real model is 13 km). We also don't get the ensembles at the WFO level either. So we're even being held hostage for incomplete or insufficient data.

 

But time and time again it proves more useful than the American counterparts.

 

I always thought that's bullsh*t. I know for a fact the EC costs an arm and a leg. I mean this is the NWS who work in tandem with the Brits. I know there is some "competition" I guess....but that's a bit ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But time and time again it proves more useful than the American counterparts.

This is the take home message...may hate to pay for it, but it's a useful tool. I buy it during the winter months only. We all know we'd rather be in a ECM jackpot 72 hours out rather than the NAM, CMC or GFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that's bullsh*t. I know for a fact the EC costs an arm and a leg. I mean this is the NWS who work in tandem with the Brits. I know there is some "competition" I guess....but that's a bit ridiculous.

 

I guess it's annoying that we're shelling out a lot of money to get the data, but won't go the extra mile and get the full resolution. At the same time all of our money is going into shorter range, higher resolution modeling, not the long range stuff. The focus is shifting from forecasting to decision support. However, we forget that while the weather happens in the near term, decision support can begin days in advance with good modeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the take home message...may hate to pay for it, but it's a useful tool. I buy it during the winter months only. We all know we'd rather be in a ECM jackpot 72 hours out rather than the NAM, CMC or GFS.

 

No it's not ... the take home message is the central point of the discussion, that it is only that way BECAUSE the Americans refuse - for some stupid bureaucratic bullsh!t, to develop the GFS input grids...

 

The ECM is only better after the fact.  It would be no more useful if the technology we already had were funded, and not dumping tax-dollars into foreign private industry.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's annoying that we're shelling out a lot of money to get the data, but won't go the extra mile and get the full resolution. At the same time all of our money is going into shorter range, higher resolution modeling, not the long range stuff. The focus is shifting from forecasting to decision support. However, we forget that while the weather happens in the near term, decision support can begin days in advance with good modeling.

 

True, but I'm surprised we don't get some sort of bargain rate too. Maybe I'm naive to expect a discount, but the whole process is ridiculous. 

 

I see that in aviation too. More of a near term, decision support stuff. These guys want ensembles and probability too. :facepalm: I'm not a big fan of that since many do not understand probabilistic forecasting...and when and where we can "toss" solutions because they are just simply not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not ... the take home message is the central point of the discussion, that it is only that way BECAUSE the Americans refuse - for some stupid bureaucratic bullsh!t, to develop the GFS input grids...

The ECM is only better after the fact. It would be no more useful if the technology we already had were funded, and not dumping tax-dollars into foreign private industry.

Sorry I thought the initial claim was one didn't need the ECM data because of the free American models. I tend to think its enough of asuperior model that it's worth $20 per month.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but I'm surprised we don't get some sort of bargain rate too. Maybe I'm naive to expect a discount, but the whole process is ridiculous. 

 

I see that in aviation too. More of a near term, decision support stuff. These guys want ensembles and probability too. :facepalm: I'm not a big fan of that since many do not understand probabilistic forecasting...and when and where we can "toss" solutions because they are just simply not going to happen.

 

The discount isn't coming because they know they have us over a barrel. They celebrate our repeated failures in the computing department.

 

There is no reason we couldn't compete with them, but we choose not to invest the money because as a country we don't like to invest in preparedness (especially for something that may or may not happen like weather events).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always strangely appalled that after some of the most costly events have happened in the past 10 years, that not s ingle agency or government department wants to educate us or our children in emergency preparedness. Not only that, but they seem more gratified to make money of the large scale disasters that have struck us, and have done very little to enhance ways to see these types of events coming at a longer range, with less confusions. I agree, the GFS needs some major upgrades to compete on the same level at the ECMWF, However we seem to be more likely to sell someone property insurance than to upgrade something that could, in essence, help minimize these risks before hand. Lets face it, you cant just pick up a whole house and move it, but you can do things to make it more suitable for stronger weather events. Let's take all the money we save on those government FEMA handouts, and toss it into the computing power and upgrading of the GFS. It won't save everything, nor will it stop what is coming, but I would like to know my country is capable of relying on its own forecasting model, rather than outsourcing.

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...