Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,619
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    RyRyB
    Newest Member
    RyRyB
    Joined

Upstate/Eastern New York


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
19 minutes ago, rochesterdave said:

Why are 6/18z models less reliable? Lower resolution? Less data input? I’ve always heard less reliable but I never know why? 

Im not going to die on a hill about this but 99.99 percent of the data in the models is not from balloons. So there's no reliability issues between 12z and 18z. In fact, model verification scores would tell you that an 18z 78 hr prog should have less error than the 12z 84 hr prog from 6 hours earlier. Occasionally you will see an abrupt change at 12z or 00z because a ballon happened to catch a poorly sampled shortwave out of the arctic. The cold temps and paralax error in the arctic make mid level shortwaves difficult to "see" via remote sensing from goes satellite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

Im not going to die on a hill about this but 99.99 percent of the data in the models is not from balloons. So there's no reliability issues between 12z and 18z. In fact, model verification scores would tell you that an 18z 78 hr prog should have less error than the 12z 84 hr prog from 6 hours earlier. Occasionally you will see an abrupt change at 12z or 00z because a ballon happened to catch a poorly sampled shortwave out of the arctic. The cold temps and paralax error in the arctic make mid level shortwaves difficult to "see" via remote sensing from goes satellite. 

Good post.  I was just going on the answer I was told many years ago.  The lack of balloons in off hour runs likely had much greater impact before the advent of recent models.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the quicker trend is important to make this bigger for ny. 18z ecmwf was quicker and better...same with the 18z gfs and fv3 gfs. The 18z ggem appears to be slightly faster than the 12z. I think the forum wants to see that trend continue. Even if the "B team" is 30 percent correct...that will help a great deal. 

Also, very anomalous pwats ahead of the system could cause some undermodeled convection pumping latent heat release into the downsteam ridge. 

P6_GZ_D5_PN_090_0000.gif

P6_GZ_D5_PN_084_0000.gif

ecmwf_pwat_std_conus2_15.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SouthBuffaloSteve said:

Just gonna leave this here...

That’s only through 240 hours. Shows 3 more synoptic and 3 more lake events after hour 240. This weekends event will be the kickoff to our winter finally getting started!


.

What model? FV3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said:

I think the quicker trend is important to make this bigger for ny. 18z ecmwf was quicker and better...same with the 18z gfs and fv3 gfs. The 18z ggem appears to be slightly faster than the 12z. I think the forum wants to see that trend continue. Even if the "B team" is 30 percent correct...that will help a great deal. 

Also, very anomalous pwats ahead of the system could cause some undermodeled convection pumping latent heat release into the downsteam ridge. 

 

 

 

Trying to wrap my head around this. So would that process enhance the downstream ridge causing a more NW track?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SouthBuffaloSteve said:

Just gonna leave this here...

5c2d413458935bd5336d6dff467c7ee7.jpg

That’s only through 240 hours. Shows 3 more synoptic and 3 more lake events after hour 240. This weekends event will be the kickoff to our winter finally getting started!


.

Man, if that verified it would be like January 1999 all over again in Toronto.

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...