weatherwiz Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, MetHerb said: I thought that the GFS moved to better hardware as part of an upgrade a couple of years ago? https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-kicks-off-2018-with-massive-supercomputer-upgrade If only they could improve the physics too... This. I always wonder with so much emphasis now into higher resolutions if that is playing a roll into some of the model chaos we've encountered these past few years. There have been a tremendous amount of wavering between forecast models...even inside 24-36 hours. I don't have much knowledge with model physics or a background, however, from my understanding to incorporate higher resolutions and incorporate some mesoscale features there needs to be different sets of equations added into the model parameterization? Anyways, while it's great to be able to do things at such high resolution if the physics are being adjusted accordingly or improvements being made I would think doing things at higher resolutions could hurt more than help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torch Tiger Posted January 21, 2020 Author Share Posted January 21, 2020 metfan frustrated on the NYC beat this weekend 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazey Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 36 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: Making the gem, reggie and herpes great again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 37 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said: 31 minutes ago, dendrite said: I assume there's no changes to the model physics though? Just faster processing? Right...yay for getting a faster shit 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 10 minutes ago, weatherwiz said: This. I always wonder with so much emphasis now into higher resolutions if that is playing a roll into some of the model chaos we've encountered these past few years. There have been a tremendous amount of wavering between forecast models...even inside 24-36 hours. I don't have much knowledge with model physics or a background, however, from my understanding to incorporate higher resolutions and incorporate some mesoscale features there needs to be different sets of equations added into the model parameterization? Anyways, while it's great to be able to do things at such high resolution if the physics are being adjusted accordingly or improvements being made I would think doing things at higher resolutions could hurt more than help? It's why we have/use Ensembles. With the increased resolutions, you need to have the different permutations to smooth out a mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typhoon Tip Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 21 minutes ago, weatherwiz said: This. I always wonder with so much emphasis now into higher resolutions if that is playing a roll into some of the model chaos we've encountered these past few years. There have been a tremendous amount of wavering between forecast models...even inside 24-36 hours. I don't have much knowledge with model physics or a background, however, from my understanding to incorporate higher resolutions and incorporate some mesoscale features there needs to be different sets of equations added into the model parameterization? Anyways, while it's great to be able to do things at such high resolution if the physics are being adjusted accordingly or improvements being made I would think doing things at higher resolutions could hurt more than help? Something like this... It's about 'fractal logistics' ... when to tamp down emergent forcing -vs- when to keep them. I had this discussion with Ekster years ago at the SNE conference, pre - NAM years... wrt to that meso model, and we were surmising that as the grid got more and more discrete, there seemed to be a correlation to that erratic noise, and continuity distraction .. where the model seemed to be doing worse. There was a time back in the mid 1990s during the ETA years, where if one was privy to the ETA's dependable biases, you could correct for those on the fly and it was actually a pretty darn good model when doing so.. It seems the grandfather of the present day child was a bit better, doesn't it - This could be happening with these large numerical model clusters, too, as their grids - in some cases ...- are getting close to competing with meso's and then yes, different convection sequencing and hydrostatic balancing ...all that factors in. I mean the Euro is not the NAM considering these latter physical make-ups. But as scales shrink ... think of it this way - above a certain threshold of finite processing ... you are advantage by the 'natural smoothing' of noise. Like letting the nature of the physical equations take care of the deviance, and then what falls out ( no pun intended ) has that normalization baked in. However, if you get 'too discrete' ..that actually exposes the physical equations to actual empirical assumptions, and then they have to conserve those assumptions out in time. You end up blowing up falsities in some case...when you're lucky, you don't - that's when the NAM scores that coup that it does ever 20th storm. Heh. I'm starting to sense or wonder if we are getting the Global numerical model technology ( in general) operating to a state where it too 'considers too much' ? The Euro is supposedly ahead of the tech curve on this with there '4-d variable' system - which is basically ( as I have read ...), not the same thing as managing chaos down at the fundamental emergence, more so what to do with the noise once it's already effecting the run - which is good and better than not doing it. And it shows at < D4.5 or so. But even the Euro is seemingly prone at times to "giga motions" and running away with false emergence from time to time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torch Tiger Posted January 21, 2020 Author Share Posted January 21, 2020 The gem should be able to handle higher resolutions and/or more frequent cycles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Baroclinic Zone said: It's why we have/use Ensembles. With the increased resolutions, you need to have the different permutations to smooth out a mean. Absolutely... however, (an obviously) with that comes limitations and why of course sometimes ensembles are not always the best way to go...even in the medium range. If the mean is too smoothed then the ensemble may "eliminate" a key feature having significant ramifications of the forecast output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWolf Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 10 minutes ago, JC-CT said: Right...yay for getting a faster shit lol! But Maue is saying it's beating the American models. I don't believe any of those stats anyway....they're all skewed imo to try and prove each ones point. This model is better at this; this model is better at that etc etc....???? Twist it anyway you want is the name of the game with that stuff it seems. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterWolf Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 42 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said: It’s hard to believe people use those lol. The only thing that should ever be used is the AFD I agree with you completely. Those zone/P&C are total crap. I never look at that computer generated BS. AFD is the way to go if you're looking at NWS info. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, WinterWolf said: lol! But Maue is saying it's beating the American models. I don't believe any of those stats anyway....they're all skewed imo to try and prove each ones point. This model is better at this; this model is better at that etc etc....???? Twist it anyway you want is the name of the game with that stuff it seems. I don't believe EMC is is skewing stats. They wouldn't be showing the sub-par performance of the GFS model generally if they were. Maue is definitely agenda-driven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Typhoon Tip said: Something like this... It's about 'fractal logistics' ... when to tamp down emergent forcing -vs- when to keep them. I had this discussion with Ekster years ago at the SNE conference, pre - NAM years... wrt to that meso model, and we were surmising that as the grid got more and more discrete, there seemed to be a correlation to that erratic noise and continuity distraction. This could be happening with these large numerical model clusters, too, as their grids - in some cases ...- are getting close to competing with meso's and then yes, different convection sequencing and hydrostatic balancing ...all that factors in. I mean the Euro is not the NAM considering these latter physical make-ups. But as scales shrink ... think of it this way - above a certain threshold of finite processing ... you are advantage by the 'natural smoothing' of noise. Like letting the nature of the physical equations take care of the deviance and the what falls out ( no pun intended ) has that normalization baked in. However, if you get 'too discrete' ..that exposes the physical equations employed to actual empirical assumptions, and then they have to conserve those assumptions out in time. You end up blowing up falsities in some case...when you're lucky, you don't - that's when the NAM scores that coup that it does ever 20th storm. Heh. I'm starting to sense or wonder if we are getting the Global numerical model technology ( in general) operating to a state where it too 'considers too much' ? The Euro is supposedly ahead of the tech curve on this with there '4-d variable' system - which is basically ( as I have read ...), not the same thing as managing chaos down at the fundamental emergence, more so what to do with the noise once it's already effecting the run - which is good and better than not doing it. And it shows at < D4.5 or so. But even the Euro is seemingly prone at times to "giga motions" and running away with false emergence from time to time. This is a fantastic post! Obviously a significant aspect to model errors is now everything is initialized...but as you know just b/c an initialization is incorrect doesn't mean the entire model run should be tossed. But from what I've always understood is that the Euro's initialization scheme is far more advanced than ours and that makes a significant advantage in the accuracy of the model. I have thought if sometimes whether the models consider just too much...so in the end you're just including more variables and just relying on the mathematical equations to solve them and by running ensembles you derive numerous different outputs and just look for whatever the clustering is...good idea in sense but perhaps not as great as one would think. I would be interested in the scores but my wager is we've seen so much changes (even with large-scale) inside of 24-36 hours that even short-term forecasting has become rather erratic. Just think of how many storms (going beyond winter weather) have a high level of uncertainty until we're inside of 6-12 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 The Canadians run North American RMSE 500mb heights vs. radiosondes which is a slightly different way to look at error. (The smaller the number the better) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 That is a poor trend on the GFS as of late to be the worst verifying model at 500mb at 24 hours over north america. It appears to be right around the upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, OSUmetstud said: That is a poor trend on the GFS as of late to be the worst verifying model at 500mb at 24 hours over north america. It appears to be right around the upgrade. That's a major problem...verification of 500 should not be that far off at 24-hours out. Is there a seasonal trend too within these graphs? Especially the first one....much more accurate scores up to 120-out during the summer and less accurate in the winter...which makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dendrite Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Yeah idk about those stats. The euro easily beating the pack at d5, but mingling with the pack at d1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, weatherwiz said: That's a major problem...verification of 500 should not be that far off at 24-hours out. Is there a seasonal trend too within these graphs? Especially the first one....much more accurate scores up to 120-out during the summer and less accurate in the winter...which makes sense Yeah, but RMSE is only one statistical measure. There's less variability in 500mb heights during the summer so thus RMSE is lower. But in terms of model skill, winter has more skill. Wavelengths are longer and disturbances are stronger and more trackable. Also, less convection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, dendrite said: Yeah idk about those stats. The euro easily beating the pack at d5, but mingling with the pack at d1? It's only looking at the sondes, maybe that's why? I wouldn't expect a huge model difference in verification at 24 hours with 500mb heights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwiz Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, OSUmetstud said: Yeah, but RMSE is only one statistical measure. There's less variability in 500mb heights during the summer so thus RMSE is lower. But in terms of model skill, winter has more skill. Wavelengths are longer and disturbances are stronger and more trackable. Also, less convection. I was actually just reading about that not long ago. Think it was within one of moduels on MetEd...was quite interesting to read about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dendrite Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, weatherwiz said: I was actually just reading about that not long ago. Think it was within one of moduels on MetEd...was quite interesting to read about it. Winter has always had more skill. Except for the KFS. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahk_webstah Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 59 minutes ago, OSUmetstud said: Latest 06z probs. I think those probs have lowered up here since yesterday but I still like the odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, mahk_webstah said: I think those probs have lowered up here since yesterday but I still like the odds. Yeah, there was a slight shift south from 00z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryslot Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, mahk_webstah said: I think those probs have lowered up here since yesterday but I still like the odds. 1 minute ago, OSUmetstud said: Yeah, there was a slight shift south from 00z. Not done yet moving in that direction either. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahk_webstah Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 I think we had 90% for 3 and similar for 6, but that was perhaps for a whole 10 or 15 day period. I feel optimistic about this storm, although that doesn't mean shite. Anything in the pipeline after this?/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisrotary12 Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Is it too early to talk about the D10 system from last nights 00z GFS? 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitzbuhel Craver Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 14 minutes ago, dryslot said: Not done yet moving in that direction either. Decreased a bit in NNE, increased a bit in SNE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 I'll defer to the masses but given how strong a storm signal this upcoming one is, I'd be fine with a separate thread at this point, even though we are 4-5 days out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderfreak Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 16 minutes ago, dryslot said: Not done yet moving in that direction either. 6z GEFS are a bit more favorable towards NNE than the EPS. Its still way out in la la land though for the next 2-3 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoarfrostHubb Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 13 minutes ago, mahk_webstah said: I think we had 90% for 3 and similar for 6, but that was perhaps for a whole 10 or 15 day period. I feel optimistic about this storm, although that doesn't mean shite. Anything in the pipeline after this?/ In the 10 days that I can see for the euro, this is it... there might be something forming around D12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreaves Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, powderfreak said: 6z GEFS are a bit more favorable towards NNE than the EPS. Its still way out in la la land though for the next 2-3 days. I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now