Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

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

November 2019 discussion


weathafella
 Share

Recommended Posts

It does look absolutely frigid relative to normal going forward starting mid-week.

Over the next 16 days GFS 2-meter anomalies look to run roughly -4F or -5F from the Cape to -8F or -9F in NNE mtns.  

The more impressive stretch is seeing widespread 7-day departure progs from Thurs to the following Thurs of -8F to -16F.  

This is frigid for week long anomalies.

C6B61AFE-B4DB-418B-81D7-033E814F298D.thumb.png.eb012a33df92e2b7ceaa807a4e97a743.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does look absolutely frigid relative to normal going forward starting mid-week.

Over the next 16 days GFS 2-meter anomalies look to run roughly -4F or -5F from the Cape to -8F or -9F in NNE mtns.  

The more impressive stretch is seeing widespread 7-day departure progs from Thurs to the following Thurs of -8F to -16F.  

This is frigid for week long anomalies.

C6B61AFE-B4DB-418B-81D7-033E814F298D.thumb.png.eb012a33df92e2b7ceaa807a4e97a743.png

Lots of snowmaking days ahead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lava Rock said:
11 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

It does look absolutely frigid relative to normal going forward starting mid-week.

Over the next 16 days GFS 2-meter anomalies look to run roughly -4F or -5F from the Cape to -8F or -9F in NNE mtns.  

The more impressive stretch is seeing widespread 7-day departure progs from Thurs to the following Thurs of -8F to -16F.  

This is frigid for week long anomalies.

C6B61AFE-B4DB-418B-81D7-033E814F298D.thumb.png.eb012a33df92e2b7ceaa807a4e97a743.png

Lots of snowmaking days ahead

Maybe PF can start a snow-making thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Yeah it’s got a general cool bias, but loves to flood ORH with the marine layer. Go figure. :lol: 

Yeah, it's always been a progressive/northern stream dominant model.

Honestly I think the worst thing they did was release it with the bug in snow accumulation without realizing how much people view those snowfall maps. That spooked the majority of the field into thinking the model got worse. It's really more or less the same model, with only incremental improvements. The thing was it was never really meant to be a model performance upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Yeah, it's always been a progressive/northern stream dominant model.

Honestly I think the worst thing they did was release it with the bug in snow accumulation without realizing how much people view those snowfall maps. That spooked the majority of the field into thinking the model got worse. It's really more or less the same model, with only incremental improvements. The thing was it was never really meant to be a model performance upgrade.

It’s been pretty bad in the 3-7 day period. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said “oh look it’s moving towards the euro..” when looking ahead for risk outlooks etc. Maybe this time the GFS gets a win. From a met community standpoint, it really brings down the value of the meteorologist when you have one dominant medium range model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

It’s been pretty bad in the 3-7 day period. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said “oh look it’s moving towards the euro..” when looking ahead for risk outlooks etc. Maybe this time the GFS gets a win. From a met community standpoint, it really brings down the value of the meteorologist when you have one dominant medium range model. 

I realize it's expensive to move towards something like the Euro, but honestly given how much money can be saved/lost with weather I'm surprised that we try and pinch (relative) pennies for hybrid 4D EnVar on the FV3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OceanStWx said:

Yeah, it's always been a progressive/northern stream dominant model.

Honestly I think the worst thing they did was release it with the bug in snow accumulation without realizing how much people view those snowfall maps. That spooked the majority of the field into thinking the model got worse. It's really more or less the same model, with only incremental improvements. The thing was it was never really meant to be a model performance upgrade.

This is true ... I mean, not that I was questioning you or anything, just offering that I read the PDF prior to the release and that was clearly stated, that - perhaps beyond the one metric you mentioned - the model was supposed to at least 'not be worse' - which obviously means breaking even. 

It's interesting operational philosophy there in that ... why?  I suspect it's 'platform' -related?   As in, they do have improved versions but somehow need that one incrementally layered. Spit-ballin' there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said:

This is true ... I mean, not that I was questioning you or anything, just offering that I read the PDF prior to the release and that was clearly stated, that - perhaps beyond the one metric you mentioned - the model was supposed to at least 'not be worse' - which obviously means breaking even. 

It's interesting operational philosophy there in that ... why?  I suspect it's 'platform' -related?   As in, they do have improved versions but somehow need that one incrementally layered. Spit-ballin' there.

The major overhaul was the guts of the model. The idea being to make it easier to perform upgrades in the future. So aside from a few tweaks to schemes and parameterization nothing was fundamentally changed with how the GFS forecasts the weather.

I think the grand plan is to crowdsource GFS improvements. They are planning to make the code widely available publicly and allow people to try and make improvements that can then be shared back to NCEP. Color me skeptical about how that's going to work (definitely opens up a back door (front door?) into gov't computers, are programmers going to want some sort of credit for big breakthroughs, etc). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

The major overhaul was the guts of the model. The idea being to make it easier to perform upgrades in the future. So aside from a few tweaks to schemes and parameterization nothing was fundamentally changed with how the GFS forecasts the weather.

I think the grand plan is to crowdsource GFS improvements. They are planning to make the code widely available publicly and allow people to try and make improvements that can then be shared back to NCEP. Color me skeptical about how that's going to work (definitely opens up a back door (front door?) into gov't computers, are programmers going to want some sort of credit for big breakthroughs, etc). 

Yeah..that's exactly where I was going with the previous,  " As in, they do have improved versions but somehow need that one incrementally layered "... blah blah...  Well, it's progress. 

Hey, did you apply/test your algorithm during that WCB wind event the other day?  I was curious how that thing would work in a better mixed quasi barotropic air mass -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Hey, did you apply/test your algorithm during that WCB wind event the other day?  I was curious how that thing would work in a better mixed quasi barotropic air mass -

I did. We got two balloon launches that had the 45+ knot criteria at 925/850 from a direction other than NW.

With the 01.00z 4 hour launch window the regression was 0.5 knots off (27 obs at PWM, 26.5 forecast), and with the 01.12z 4 hour launch window the regression was 5 knots off (41 obs, 36 forecast).

I think the results are strong enough that I'm comfortable using it with model data for all parts of the forecast.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...