EasternUSWX Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 12 GGEM still has a suppressed track but does get light precip into the area. Slow gradual improvement each run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisy Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 The GGEM and PGFS are either going to be the new kings this winter or are going to look like fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 To make matters worse soon we won't even have the old gfs to compare it to. So if it is indeed wrong and this were January it would actually be making the forecast confidence worse right now. Some "upgrade". Of course if it's right then... Good grief. The new system was run for over two simulated years and is demonstrably better than the current operational GFS. Here is a large sample covering 2013: http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/wd20rt/vsdb/prhs13/allmodel/daily/dieoff/cordieoff_HGT_P500_G2NHX.png and a large sample covering 2014: http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/wd20rt/vsdb/prhw14/allmodel/daily/dieoff/cordieoff_HGT_P500_G2NHX.png While only 500 mb AC, this is representative of many metrics. While it may end up crapping the bed on this event (still TBD), the new system is better than the current operational GFS. No upgrade is perfect. For what it's worth, I have no vested interest as I no longer work for NWS and had nothing to do with this upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nj2va Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 we're below on both the whole time, but still closer than we would like It's close but verbatim, we're snow (rain to start?). 1000/850 thickness is 131 at onset and then 130 for the event, which supports a snow profile. Not much wiggle room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deck Pic Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Weird, I wish I could post it, but that is not what mine shows? I know what it shows and you're wrong...you have no sense where people live here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deck Pic Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 The GGEM and PGFS are either going to be the new kings this winter or are going to look like fools. It's one storm and it is November...stop with the hyperbole...Canadian was valuable last winter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Current GFS is OK but not a flush hit heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTRWx Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Good grief. The new system was run for over two simulated years and is demonstrably better than the current operational GFS. Here is a large sample covering 2013: http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/wd20rt/vsdb/prhs13/allmodel/daily/dieoff/cordieoff_HGT_P500_G2NHX.png and a large sample covering 2014: http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/wd20rt/vsdb/prhw14/allmodel/daily/dieoff/cordieoff_HGT_P500_G2NHX.png While only 500 mb AC, this is representative of many metrics. While it may end up crapping the bed on this event (still TBD), the new system is better than the current operational GFS. No upgrade is perfect. For what it's worth, I have no vested interest as I no longer work for NWS and had nothing to do with this upgrade. Thinking about it, with about 10 runs left before first precip, the para GFS would eventually brush the coast with the few miles west with each run. Even with a 15 mile shift or so, that's 150 miles more inland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 12 GGEM still has a suppressed track but does get light precip into the area. looks pretty meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Is this GFS run the last time we should look at the ensembles? Or 00z tonight? I remember WxUSAF (I think) said something along that line once we get inside 72 hrs. If i am wrong, I apologize Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 geEz. Capt Buzzkill Sent from my iPhone it's much too early in the year for your ****ty posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deck Pic Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Good grief. The new system was run for over two simulated years and is demonstrably better than the current operational GFS. Here is a large sample covering 2013: http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/wd20rt/vsdb/prhs13/allmodel/daily/dieoff/cordieoff_HGT_P500_G2NHX.png and a large sample covering 2014: http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/wd20rt/vsdb/prhw14/allmodel/daily/dieoff/cordieoff_HGT_P500_G2NHX.png While only 500 mb AC, this is representative of many metrics. While it may end up crapping the bed on this event (still TBD), the new system is better than the current operational GFS. No upgrade is perfect. For what it's worth, I have no vested interest as I no longer work for NWS and had nothing to do with this upgrade. I think that has always been the problem with the GFS and our mission here...We use it almost exclusively for east coast winter storms...and while it may be very good at many things as it is a sophisticated global model, east coast winter storms is not one of them...particularly coastals....looking forward to the upgrade though, and the improved results that will come with it...It may be right with this storm (though I doubt it). Obligatory storm talk - I think things are looking good for a small, messy event for the city and bigger of course north and west,..getting specific with totals will be tough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deck Pic Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Slow gradual improvement each run. or not, since it actually didn't improve at all from last night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisy Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I know what it shows and you're wrong...you have no sense where people live here... My geography is likely off a bit lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 12z UKIE looks great to me... zwyts you see same or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCAlexandria Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Ukie looks like like last night to me Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternUSWX Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 12z UKIE looks great to me... zwyts you see same or no? Euroish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 FWIW, 12z UKIE SLP at 96 is 988mb right on ME extreme eastern coast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 The GGEM and PGFS are either going to be the new kings this winter or are going to look like fools.Ggem did have a few moments last winter so I'd feel a little better if it was on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deck Pic Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 It's close but verbatim, we're snow (rain to start?). 1000/850 thickness is 131 at onset and then 130 for the event, which supports a snow profile. Not much wiggle room. i think briefly rain or white rain...though 36 and snow isn't that exciting....it will be a battle here at lower elevations...34 is the cutoff...I've never really seen a good pasting at 35...fortunately, if it is +SN, 33-34 seems reasonable and that would stick...I don't think anyone below 300' and east of 95 should get too excited...though any accumulating snow in November is cool.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Good grief. The new system was run for over two simulated years and is demonstrably better than the current operational GFS. Here is a large sample covering 2013: http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/wd20rt/vsdb/prhs13/allmodel/daily/dieoff/cordieoff_HGT_P500_G2NHX.png and a large sample covering 2014: http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/wd20rt/vsdb/prhw14/allmodel/daily/dieoff/cordieoff_HGT_P500_G2NHX.png While only 500 mb AC, this is representative of many metrics. While it may end up crapping the bed on this event (still TBD), the new system is better than the current operational GFS. No upgrade is perfect. For what it's worth, I have no vested interest as I no longer work for NWS and had nothing to do with this upgrade. I don't pick on the gfs as much as most as I find it very useful in many ways, however you can't deny it has a major issue resolving coastal systems. Weather due to feedback or not it struggles with the systems that are our big ticket items so it looks worse then it is I guess. Again I'm not talking about verification scores but specific details of a synoptic event. I will wait to see if the new gfs is better at resolving these coastal systems over time but if the old gfs/euro solution is right it's not off to a great start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I think that has always been the problem with the GFS and our mission here...We use it almost exclusively for east coast winter storms...and while it may be very good at many things as it is a sophisticated global model, east coast winter storms is not one of them...particularly coastals....looking forward to the upgrade though, and the improved results that will come with it...It may be right with this storm (though I doubt it). Obligatory storm talk - I think things are looking good for a small, messy event for the city and bigger of course north and west,..getting specific with totals will be tough... I'm always a little hesistant to jump with the new model on theblock even when it's been tested until I learn its biases. My guess is that the parallel is too far east for this storm but that is no guarantee. I like that the UKEMT, GFS and Euro are in one grouping as I think outside of the parallel, they are the three best medium range models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I think that has always been the problem with the GFS and our mission here...We use it almost exclusively for east coast winter storms...and while it may be very good at many things as it is a sophisticated global model, east coast winter storms is not one of them...particularly coastals....looking forward to the upgrade though, and the improved results that will come with it...It may be right with this storm (though I doubt it). Obligatory storm talk - I think things are looking good for a small, messy event for the city and bigger of course north and west,..getting specific with totals will be tough... Well, my expectation is that the new system *should* be better for Miller A systems where diabatic, nonlinear effects are critical. THe new system has an increase in spatial resolution, improved (higher resolution) SST product used, and other physics-related changes....all of which should improve the predictions of this type of development. However, the new package doesn't include a significant overhaul in the convective parameterization and I worry that the new Semi-Lagrangian dynamic core damps things a bit too much. So perhaps my expectations are too high.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 12z UKIE shows us okay on 850s, including metro areas at 72... is that an 850 low in E SC on the 850 maps at 72 hrs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Well, my expectation is that the new system *should* be better for Miller A systems where diabatic, nonlinear effects are critical. THe new system has an increase in spatial resolution, improved (higher resolution) SST product used, and other physics-related changes....all of which should improve the predictions of this type of development. However, the new package doesn't include a significant overhaul in the convective parameterization and I worry that the new Semi-Lagrangian dynamic core damps things a bit too much. So perhaps my expectations are too high....The part about not upgrading the convective parameterization worries me that perhaps the same old issues with feedback will persist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winter_warlock Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Slow gradual improvement each run. slow is better than none I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I don't pick on the gfs as much as most as I find it very useful in many ways, however you can't deny it has a major issue resolving coastal systems. Weather due to feedback or not it struggles with the systems that are our big ticket items so it looks worse then it is I guess. Again I'm not talking about verification scores but specific details of a synoptic event. I will wait to see if the new gfs is better at resolving these coastal systems over time but if the old gfs/euro solution is right it's not off to a great start. What do you mean by "weather due to feedback"? Are you talking about the generation of diabatic heating through the convective scheme? Is your comment meant to imply that this "feedback" is too strong or too weak? How do you think this impacts coastal development? I ask because the narrative is always that the "convective feedback" is too strong. For a coastal, this would result in systems that are too wound up, since the convective scheme produces heating, which if you think about in terms of PV would enhance the development, etc.... Unless of course the feedback is strong *and* in the wrong location, which can result in the spin up of multiple vortices, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 The part about not upgrading the convective parameterization worries me that perhaps the same old issues with feedback will persist. No disagreement in principle in terms of the need to focus on developing/improving physics for the NCEP models. I do have issues regarding the use of the phrase "convective feedback", however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psuhoffman Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 What do you mean by "weather due to feedback"? Are you talking about the generation of diabatic heating through the convective scheme? Is your comment meant to imply that this "feedback" is too strong or too weak? How do you think this impacts coastal development? I ask because the narrative is always that the "convective feedback" is too strong. For a coastal, this would result in systems that are too wound up, since the convective scheme produces heating, which if you think about in terms of PV would enhance the development, etc.... Unless of course the feedback is strong *and* in the wrong location, which can result in the spin up of multiple vortices, etc. without being able to get into the physics of why it seems to me just observing over the years that often times during the critical development period of a coastal storm the gfs will jump the slp off in the wrong direction and that throws everything after out of whack. On several occasions it seems it may have been feedback related where the gfs shifted towards an overdone region of convection. Again I don't have the ability to say for sure if that's the culprit it's just an observation I've had and sometimes those can be biased or misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTRWx Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 A sprinkle here or there for D.C., but otherwise frozen. http://coolwx.com/cgi-bin/getbufr.cgi?region=VA&stn=KDCA&model=gfs&time=2014112312&field=prec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.