Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,838
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    WichitaChiefSam
    Newest Member
    WichitaChiefSam
    Joined

March Medium/ Long Range


Weather Will
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, dallen7908 said:

This might come as a surprise to us weather weenies as we want 14 day forecasts to be quite accurate but April 1st snow storms are very rare.  Thus, there are two competing forces here, and since the rareness of a 12” snowfall in late March / early April is greater than the accuracy of a 13-day forecast, there is still good chance that we may not get that 12” snow fall a fortnight hence.  

So you’re saying the chances of late March snow are almost nil?   Damn, this is something we hadn’t anticipated. Storm cancel? 

  • Haha 5
  • Sad 1
  • sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jewell2188 said:

Anyone wishing for snow at this point, you have to seriously re-evaluate your life hahahahaha

Reevaluating…

Yup, think my life priorities are properly tuned!

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

Gfs smoked the same funky stuff 

IMG_7643.thumb.png.3d596a219a661482a8d364fcb673f282.png

Man it’s depressing to see shit like this over and over 

Some   day when  people stop paying money to be lied to things might  change. If 2025-26 follows  course expect a 20% accuracy confirmation on east coast snow storm predictions Once Again  

  • Like 1
  • Crap 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said:

Man it’s depressing to see shit like this over and over 

Some   day when  people stop paying money to be lied to things might  change. If 2025-26 follows  course expect a 20% accuracy confirmation on east coast snow storm predictions Once Again  

You really don't understand how NWP works, and how to utilize model guidance as a tool for forecasting. Or maybe you do and just have an agenda. Probably the latter. Either way these posts are super fucking boring and dumb.

  • 100% 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WEATHER53 said:

Man it’s depressing to see shit like this over and over 

Some   day when  people stop paying money to be lied to things might  change. If 2025-26 follows  course expect a 20% accuracy confirmation on east coast snow storm predictions Once Again  

we're just joking around
we know it's not going to snow in april so when guidance shows some whacky shit then we have fun with it 
it's nothin serious

  • 100% 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe frequent episodes of cold frontal passages for the next 4 to 12 weeks. 

Looks like the "dripping" from large #polarvortex disruption will begin last week of March and continue for multiple weeks afterwards. First drip is predicted to have low impact but we need the caboose to get from upper stratosphere to surface for big impacts, probably in July.
  • Like 1
  • saywhat? 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, WEATHER53 said:

Man it’s depressing to see shit like this over and over 

Some   day when  people stop paying money to be lied to things might  change. If 2025-26 follows  course expect a 20% accuracy confirmation on east coast snow storm predictions Once Again  

We had 2 busts in February which were legitimate modelling errors.  This though, doesn't seem to me to be a good example.  If you know how to use the tool this is fine.  That blizzard solution is NOT the majority solution across guidance.  It's a fluke that it showed up for a couple runs on the Op GFS and one run of the Op Euro.  But across the full spread of guidance, operationals and ensembles, it was a 10% minority solution at best!  But 10% is not 0.  It is a pretty extreme pattern.  There is a non zero chance some fluke snow does happen.  Its most definitely a long shot and not likely to happen...but given its not zero chance...that solution will show up on an odd run of the models here or there.  And if all someone does is take that one run as if its a forecast yea thats BAD.  But if you look at the guidance holistically every day, you see that is NOT the most likely outcome and was just a fluke run.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DOGE must've known.  We don't need any of that NOAA overhead apparently.  Hopefully the new AI will forecast at least 60" storms for us perennially at d10.  That would be cool. 

 

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-breakthrough-offers-weather-forecast-161544914.html

Tests of the Aardvark model revealed that it is able to outperform the United States national GFS forecasting system using just 10 per cent of the input data, leading researchers to say it could offer a “revolution in forecasting”.

  • Like 1
  • Crap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, IronTy said:

DOGE must've known.  We don't need any of that NOAA overhead apparently.  Hopefully the new AI will forecast at least 60" storms for us perennially at d10.  That would be cool. 

 

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-breakthrough-offers-weather-forecast-161544914.html

Tests of the Aardvark model revealed that it is able to outperform the United States national GFS forecasting system using just 10 per cent of the input data, leading researchers to say it could offer a “revolution in forecasting”.

Not trying to be mean here but that article is trash. "10 times better?" Over what time scale? what variables? wtf does better even mean in this context? nothing is explained. That's an AI hype piece masked as a "the revolution is here!" feel good story

Their "revolutionary" model has slightly lower RMSE values when compared to the GFS in most areas. It also runs at a 1.5 degree (~110 miles) horizontal resolution compared to the GFS's 0.25 (17.4 miles) or the ECMWF HRES's 0.1 (5.5 miles). Vertically it's also nothing close. The GFS divides the surface to the mesopause into 127 layers. The ECMWF has 137 layers. This AI model has 5.  It's providing orders of magnitude less information about the atmosphere, and it's only slightly more accurate at the points it does forecast.

Actual Study: https://cdn.roxhillmedia.com/production/email/attachment/1700001_1710000/865aa96b274c128474186cf6f77b2556fe008b92.pdf

image.thumb.png.01d2f9d4afaa260371f2c3f88ca0dc65.png

 

  • Like 5
  • 100% 3
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

×
×
  • Create New...