Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,592
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Manpower
    Newest Member
    Manpower
    Joined

Quick Hitter Coastal Threat, Feb 7-8th


The 4 Seasons
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Kbosch said:

Sure feels great to have such superb model consistency within 24 hours of an event.

Instead of dealing with data issues on the v16 and FV3, NCEP should commission a team to study why all of its models are so different so close in this winter.  It's not enough to say that each model has its own idiosyncrasies, because garbage in = garbage out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 78Blizzard said:

Instead of dealing with data issues on the v16 and FV3, NCEP should commission a team to study why all of its models are so different so close in this winter.  It's not enough to say that each model has its own idiosyncrasies, because garbage in = garbage out.

It feels like more than COVID, luck, and event type...right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 78Blizzard said:

Instead of dealing with data issues on the v16 and FV3, NCEP should commission a team to study why all of its models are so different so close in this winter.  It's not enough to say that each model has its own idiosyncrasies, because garbage in = garbage out.

The GFS outputs for the entire globe.  Why does NCEP care that much about a margin of error of 50 miles on a storm in such a small geographic area?  Not making excuses here, it's just that New England snowfall accuracy in the coastal plain is just one of millions of chaotic events going on at any given time that the models need to predict.

That being said, if the US put the same resources into weather modeling like the ECMWF does, we would be better for it.  We used to be the best at this, and we no longer are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bristolri_wx said:

The GFS outputs for the entire globe.  Why does NCEP care that much about a margin of error of 50 miles on a storm in such a small geographic area?  Not making excuses here, it's just that New England snowfall accuracy in the coastal plain is just one of millions of chaotic events going on at any given time that the models need to predict.

That being said, if the US put the same resources into weather modeling like the ECMWF does, we would be better for it.  We used to be the best at this, and we no longer are.

Unless you know the accuracy of it around the globe, you just can't say it's a local issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 78Blizzard said:

Instead of dealing with data issues on the v16 and FV3, NCEP should commission a team to study why all of its models are so different so close in this winter.  It's not enough to say that each model has its own idiosyncrasies, because garbage in = garbage out.

I don’t think it’s possible.  Math is math but resolution and meso vs global and other things.  Good Mets determine which set of parameters works best in each situation.  The models aren’t designed so that a bunch of weenies can feel confident.  Model biases are known and past performance creates certain expectations.   Garbage in garbage out is too easy and likely unfair.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bristolri_wx said:

The GFS outputs for the entire globe.  Why does NCEP care that much about a margin of error of 50 miles on a storm in such a small geographic area?  Not making excuses here, it's just that New England snowfall accuracy in the coastal plain is just one of millions of chaotic events going on at any given time that the models need to predict.

That being said, if the US put the same resources into weather modeling like the ECMWF does, we would be better for it.  We used to be the best at this, and we no longer are.

ECMWF is not a government entity as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, weathafella said:

I don’t think it’s possible.  Math is math but resolution and meso vs global and other things.  Good Mets determine which set of parameters works best in each situation.  The models aren’t designed so that a bunch of weenies can feel confident.  Model biases are known and past performance creates certain expectations.   Garbage in garbage out is too easy and likely unfair.

All I can say is that if the long-standing GFS has been so accurate, why are they replacing it?  It is not getting an upgrade as has been done in the past and has been done with the Euro.  It is being replaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve always found the NWS site and products to be reasonably good even back in the 2000s the site thoroughness and design sure as hell beats Canada! 
 

GFS yeah it’s so so 

But NWS and NOAA so streamlined and thorough and they work hard and they don’t just tell you the weather. They write a big blog... tell you why!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, weathafella said:

ECMWF is not a government entity as far as I know.

"The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts is an independent intergovernmental organization supported by most of the nations of Europe" -Wikipedia.

Yes, not a branch of the EU.  But we can still do better.  We know how the ebbs and flows of politics have affected NOAA the last 10-20 years... but you are 100% correct in your response.  The reason why humans interpret models and predict weather is because models aren't perfect, even as they improve and gain resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 78Blizzard said:

All I can say is that if the long-standing GFS has been so accurate, why are they replacing it?  It is not getting an upgrade as has been done in the past and has been done with the Euro.  It is being replaced.

We can’t compete with the euro-it’s much better funded.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of the NAM, it seems that most meso / major models have significantly pulled back on QPF output. Baring an overnight shift, looks like 2-4 is more likely for Boston, with points south in the 3-6 range, and 4-8 from Plymouth, MA down through upper Cape Cod. Unfortunate given the potential, but at least we have few additional clippers to monitor over the next few days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CCHurricane said:

Outside of the NAM, it seems that most meso / major models have significantly pulled back on QPF output. Baring an overnight shift, looks like 2-4 is more likely for Boston, with points south in the 3-6 range, and 4-8 from Plymouth, MA down through upper Cape Cod. Unfortunate given the potential, but at least we have few additional clippers to monitor over the next few days.

Clippers?   More like pacific west to East runs with us on the good side of the boundary.  Also, 6Z NAM crushes BOS pretty good and metro west as well.  I’ll be surprised if it isn’t 4-8+ in most of SNE.

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...