Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,606
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ArlyDude
    Newest Member
    ArlyDude
    Joined

January Storm Term Threat Discussions (Day 3 - Day 7)


WxUSAF
 Share

Recommended Posts

So ICON went even more strung out....essentially a nothing burger. UKIE is a nothing burger. And Euro is in that camp? Euro needs to find better friends....it doesn't need that sort of negativity.
Icon has a good ull but it's crushed by a strong ull feature in Canada. Gfs had that feature way north

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ji said:

I've seen the gfs give us a big storm at 12z only to take it away at 18z....one of the many reasons I complain last so much

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
 

It is simply incredible when you look at the GFS and this morning's European even the GFS ensembles and the huge differences at 120 hours between them. Sometimes folks will mention to GFS has been consistent for 3 days in a row but even that means little.  consistency does not necessarily mean accuracy eventually the GFS flipped and went to the European solution I believe this was a few years ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, yoda said:

Seems really weird though... I politely disagree with that assessment

It’s not that simple as the above met posted, idk was just throwing it out there. Doesnt  mean the gfs is wrong would like to have the euro/Ukie on board very soon 

 

50 minutes ago, LeesburgWx said:

In December, GFS led the way, right? I am concerned seeing only the GFS and maybe Canadian giving us a big storm. Anyone extrapolating the NAM yet?

Idk up here it was atrocious. Was way too south. So was the euro though at times. There were runs like 3 days out that had Philly getting the max snow with Bgm sniffing virga 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is simply incredible when you look at the GFS and this morning's European even the GFS ensembles and the huge differences at 120 hours between them. Sometimes folks will mention to GFS has been consistent for 3 days in a row but even that means little.  consistency does not necessarily mean accuracy eventually the GFS flipped and went to the European solution I believe this was a few years ago
Yep being consistent means nothing when it doesn't agree with a superior model. It's heartbreaking but I think we all know what's going to happen

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

EPS members snow/sleet totals (inches) for the last 12 runs (College Park) through 00 UT Feb 3

90th percentile: 9 15 12 15 12 16 18 12 13 10 10 11

80th percentile: 6 10 11 9 10 12 13 9 11 7 6 8

70th percentile: 6 6 9 8 7 11 11 8 9 6 3 6

60th percentile: 4 5 8 6 6 7 9 7 7 4 2 5

50th percentile: 3 4 6 5 4 6 7 6 6 2 1 4 

40th percentile: 2 3 4 4 4 5 6 5 6 2 0.8 4

30th percentile: 2 1 4 3 3 4 5 4 5 0.9 0.6 3 

20th percentile: 0.7 0.6 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 0.5 0.4 2

10th percentile: 0.5 0.3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 0 0.1 1

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WxUSAF said:

I know it used to do that for the 6z and 18z runs.  Thats why back in the day, the 6z and 18z runs could burp out some real outlier solutions.  But I thought that changed long ago.  @high risk?

 

1 hour ago, LP08 said:

I’d bet dollar to donuts that the gfs doesn’t use it’s 6hr forecast for its next run.  It injests new data prior to every run.

       

     Both are true.    Yes, the GFS ingests new data for every cycle, but you have to use something as the first guess, and that is the 6-hr forecast from the previous GFS cycle.     You can't just insert obs onto a blank slate - there have to be initial values for all prognostic fields at all grid point at all levels, and you adjust those initial values based on the observations to get a solution that is balanced.    You can't just use blunt force with a data observation and try to just perform straight interpolation of its value in the horizontal and vertical.

    

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, high risk said:

 

       

     Both are true.    Yes, the GFS ingests new data for every cycle, but you have to use something as the first guess, and that is the 6-hr forecast from the previous GFS cycle.     You can't just insert obs onto a blank slate - there have to be initial values for all prognostic fields at all grid point at all levels, and you adjust those initial values based on the observations to get a solution that is balanced.    You can't just use blunt force with a data observation and try to just perform straight interpolation of its value in the horizontal and vertical.

    

 

 

But wouldn’t all models do that as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, high risk said:

 

       

     Both are true.    Yes, the GFS ingests new data for every cycle, but you have to use something as the first guess, and that is the 6-hr forecast from the previous GFS cycle.     You can't just insert obs onto a blank slate - there have to be initial values for all prognostic fields at all grid point at all levels, and you adjust those initial values based on the observations to get a solution that is balanced.    You can't just use blunt force with a data observation and try to just perform straight interpolation of its value in the horizontal and vertical.

    

 

 

Would this explain trends to a certain degree? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nam looks “diggy” toward the end of its run when comparing to gfs at 90. I’m tempering my expectations as I’m sure most are. Right now threat slightly better for areas to my north and east but I’m far from out of it with para and Canadian looking better region wide.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wentzadelphia said:

Would this explain trends to a certain degree? 

     Maybe?     If, say, the GFS badly initialized the wave off of the west coast at 18z yesterday, it *could* take a few cycles to undo the damage.     For the 00z cycle, it would start with the specification of the wave from the 18z 6h forecast (the first guess).    If there is new data where that feature resides at 00z, it will take that into account, but it will probably only adjust the first guess partially towards the new obs there.      Then the 06z cycle will adjust further.      It depends how much data is available where the feature is and how different it is from the first guess.

     A famous example is with the NWP failures with the 2000 blizzard.     On the morning before the blizzard, the Peachtree City, GA raob had big wind speeds up at jet level, as a huge jet streak rotated through the trough and helped it go negative tilt.       The first guess value of the jet level wind speed  over GA was about 40 (I can't remember the number) knots lower than the ob, and the models all treated the ob as garbage and pretty much didn't adjust the wind speed there at all.      

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nj2va said:

ICON is a weak POS wave that just slides off the coast. Some very light (less than an inch) snow to CVA.

It’s that ULL in Canada that doesn’t allow it to amplify.  At least in my eyes.

FDBAFA81-B14F-4D8A-9DA2-4B2FFE75991D.png

8ED426CE-06CF-43FF-A902-C4BBE5D2D6BF.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

For those saying the Euro doesn't usually fail inside 5 days. It failed miserably with the December storm inside 3 days. It is the best model for sure. But it isn't perfect.

It fails in New England all the time, FWIW. I have seen it cave to the GFS and even the GGEM twice now. It's not the same Euro as in the past.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, high risk said:

     Maybe?     If, say, the GFS badly initialized the wave off of the west coast at 18z yesterday, it *could* take a few cycles to undo the damage.     For the 00z cycle, it would start with the specification of the wave from the 18z 6h forecast (the first guess).    If there is new data where that feature resides at 00z, it will take that into account, but it will probably only adjust the first guess partially towards the new obs there.      Then the 06z cycle will adjust further.      It depends how much data is available where the feature is and how different it is from the first guess.

     A famous example is with the NWP failures with the 2000 blizzard.     On the morning before the blizzard, the Peachtree City, GA raob had big wind speeds up at jet level, as a huge jet streak rotated through the trough and helped it go negative tilt.       The first guess value of the jet level wind speed  over GA was about 40 (I can't remember the number) knots lower than the ob, and the models all treated the ob as garbage and pretty much didn't adjust the wind speed there at all.      

 

Thanks, to me it makes sense why we sometimes see the GFS kind of tick towards other models at times, and then it has one run where it completely caves  on th  overall progression of events. I’d  wager good money the 12z gfs ticks south again, but I suppose the big money will be on the 00z run. This also happens to other models though too so there’s just so many factors well see

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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