Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,585
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    23Yankee
    Newest Member
    23Yankee
    Joined

Jan 11-12 Model/Forecasting Discussion


Ji

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

it does, but so did the NAM at 30

some uvv's over us at 30

doing the same thing as the nam.. making the 500 low bigger -- vorts are in almost the same place as 12z tho.. not good 'trends' i guess

http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwprod/analysis/namer/gfs/18/images/gfs_500_030m.gif

http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwprod/analysis/namer/gfs/12/images/gfs_500_036m.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is not nearly as bad as dec 26. This was never suppose to be at max more than a 6 inch storm for us. We didnt lose a blizzard like we did on Dec 26.

On Dec 25, 6z GFS gave me 12-15 inches

I'll never forget that wretched tease on Christmas eve/day. First I cancelled the storm before my family then brought it back and had to eat crow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I was going to not post, I'll try to explain. One problem they have is over the years they ha and NHCand spun things when their potential storms have gone stray. That doesn't engender love within the met community. I've generally made it a practice to not criticize other mets as I'm very aware of how tough forecasting can be. I make an exception for a couple of mets at accuwx since they tend to slam others and I think some of their practices concerning forecasts are against the science. Dont get me wrong, there are guys there that I respect (Joe Lundberg is a prime example, Elliot Abrams is another) However, their corporate decision to make for specific snowfall forecasts days in advance really makes mets look bad as it gives the impression that there is skill at those time ranges when verification of the models indicate otherwise. . Chaos theory says that's not possible tp make specific forecast of snow on day 4 or 5 as small changes to the initial conditions can make a huge impact on what ends up occurring. Accuwx knows about chaos and its impact on forecasts but choose to pretend it does exist and the spin things when they are wrong. They do it for hits and to be able to say they were the first to forecast the event. They know the odds of them hitting the guess (and its a wild one) is not much more than random luck as none of the models have much skill at those time ranges even at the best of times and this pattern has been less well behaved than many. Snow often focused on the mesoscale (smaller scales) that the models have little skill forecasting much in advance of a day or two. Why shouldn't we criticize them when they are really putting out stuff that is not really credible and has no scientific backing.

This is my last post on the subject as it's a waste of time.

Everything Wes said plus one very important point...read up on Rick Santorum and his association with Accuwx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ji - When I said it's as bad as 12/26... I was referring to the hole.

@dale803 - You know, everyone wants to say that. And it is true that we were the jackpot last year. The thing people fail to mention is that we had years of snow drought prior to that. Additionally, I'm not really complaining... I expect that snow hole for this area. That said it doesn't make it any less hideous. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...