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

So here is an "interesting to me question" for ya:

Is this particular pattern relatively easy or relatively difficult for a model such as the GFS to

generate consistent solutions?

My less than informed oninion is that it should be easy--non-challenging--because the pattern

seems to be in stasis--equilibrium--it continues to set up nearly the same with each system.

Sure, each system is unique but they all seem to intensify and weaken in the same regions throughout

the season.

I don't have much experience in assessing forecasts during certain patterns. It would be interesting to see if there have been studies (wrt to verification scores) that have looked at relative model performance during different ENSO cycles, for example. Although, its hard to separate improvement (degradation) when operational centers are constantly updating model physics or assimilating new satellite observations...maybe someone else is familiar with any studies that have looked at this?

Finally, as far as I can remember the ECMWF has been the best model, when considering H5 anomaly correlation (although you could have a pretty good debate that H5 AC is used to show improvement and carries a lot of weight but at this point, when all models are between 0.85 and 0.90 (most of the time), the statistical differences between models is no longer statistically significant).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing better than a run with a better track and less precip.

If people only knew some of the assumptions that are made in cloud microphysics schemes used in models, you would understand why QPF forecasts aren't very good.

Not to fault researchers (believe me)...it just is a really hard process to parameterize and too computationally expensive to do explicitly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people only knew some of the assumptions that are made in microphysics schemes used in models, you would understand why QPF forecasts aren't very good.

Not to fault researchers (believe me)...it just is a really hard process to parameterize and too computationally expensive to do explicitly.

No doubt. It is probably the piece I have the least amount of faith in, followed by temps at any real range. Amazing we can even get close considering the complexities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly a hold, I think. More QPF than GFS, at least.

yeah more or less. i had to run earlier but just to be clear im not hugging the gfs but im not throwing it out. i think it's off a bit still.

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...