Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,583
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    23Yankee
    Newest Member
    23Yankee
    Joined

January 10th-12th OV/MW/GL Winter Storm prospects


Madmaxweather

Recommended Posts

jeeze you sound like you have a degree in meteorology or something. pfft. lol. jk. IMO it kinda varies from year to year. Some years it is the king and then other years it isnt much better than the gfs.

Verification wise it is the King, and it has a pretty kick-butt ensemble. The model is more "advanced" and runs more advanced forms of the dynamical equations, more advanced parametrizations, has a better data assimilation and statistical analysis, and runs on a higher resolution spectral wave "grid" (all global models are spectral wave instead of grid point). However, it should be better because it has much more funding from its member states, and of course it requires a paid membership from others. The GFS, on the other hand, is free to everyone. Considering it is relatively "inferior" in a lot of ways, it is amazing that it is as good as it is. It is also getting a lot better verification wise, and they (NCEP) still have plans to implement a lot of new features including a more advanced data assimilation (hybrid variational analysis of some sort) system that will improve on the current 3DVAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

here is my question and it may sound dumb, but is it maybe just the people who input the data could be, not necessarily smarter, but maybe different input methods? I don't know a lot about how all that is done to be honest. I know that humans input the data and that is about as much as I know. May sound stupid, but hey im not afraid to admit when I have no clue about something. Part of the reason I have posted here for nearly 4 years. To learn and take part in the animosity that takes place during a storm lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is my question and it may sound dumb, but is it maybe just the people who input the data could be, not necessarily smarter, but maybe different input methods? I don't know a lot about how all that is done to be honest. I know that humans input the data and that is about as much as I know. May sound stupid, but hey im not afraid to admit when I have no clue about something. Part of the reason I have posted here for nearly 4 years. To learn and take part in the animosity that takes place during a storm lol

I don't fully know what you are asking here (in bold). I will say numerical models are 100% computational with no human interaction. In the simplest and most basic form, numerical models ingest weather observations and data, perform a statistical analysis on the data, form an analysis field, and then use that analysis field to integrate the discretized "primitive equations" (http://en.wikipedia....tokes_equations) through time which include variations of the "Navier-Stokes equations for fluid flow. That is the simple and most basic explanation of a numerical model. They are so much more complex, however, it is hard to believe. Numerical models are so amazing and most folks really have no idea. The strides made within the last 50 years since meteorologists started modeling is spectacular.

As for ECMWF, they have a very singular goal, and that is global modeling/medium-long range forecasting. The entire staff and the computational resources to run the models are dedicated fully to the ECMWF model and ensemble suite. NCEP, on the other hand, runs the GFS four times per day, the 21 member SREF 4 times per day, the NAM 4 times per day, high resolution variants of the WRF-NMM/ARW, and more. Computational resources are limited, and all money and funding is capped by the government. They get no outside funding.

Don't worry about your understanding of models. Most meteorologists don't even have a clue how they work. I was lucky and fortunate enough to do research in numerical modeling and data assimilation as an undergrad, and it was amazingly humbling. The mathematics, numerical programming, statistics, etc. are mind-blowing, and it is an amazing feat of human ingenuity that they work as well as they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I had read on here a while back where someone was speaking of the data being input by people. some models are and other aren't? But thanks for the explanation. Gotta say this, it seems like you may possibly be the most knowledgable met on this forum. A+ on all of your analysis you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I had read on here a while back where someone was speaking of the data being input by people. some models are and other aren't? But thanks for the explanation. Gotta say this, it seems like you may possibly be the most knowledgable met on this forum. A+ on all of your analysis you do.

No problem. And I wish I was the most knowledgeable, but there are a ton of amazing mets on here who have taught me a lot. I have learned a lot since I joined American. We all can learn, right?

Final OT post, but some decent information in this thread if you want to learn more about modeling. Also check out the link I posed in the last post.

http://www.americanw...emble-guidance/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem. And I wish I was the most knowledgeable, but there are a ton of amazing mets on here who have taught me a lot. I have learned a lot since I joined American. We all can learn, right?

Final OT post, but some decent information in this thread if you want to learn more about modeling. Also check out the link I posed in the last post.

http://www.americanw...emble-guidance/

No doubt there is a ton. I like nearly all that post on this side. Anyways ill check those links. Back to the weather.. 6z nam looks like its going to bring a good swath through OH.. qpf increases with every run of the models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out to 96 so far.

HR 24: LT precip in most of Neb.

HR 30: LT-MOD precip in C/SW Neb. LT precip in rest of Neb.

HR 36: LT-MOD precip in same areas as 30. LT precip in SE Neb.

HR 42: LT-MOD precip in E. Neb. LT precip in IA/MN/S. MO.

HR 48: LT-MOD precip in S. Neb, most of Kansas. LT precip in IA/MN/most of Kansas/Neb, and W. MO.

HR 54: LT-MOD precip in E. Neb., E. Kansas, W. IA. LT precip in MN/IA//KA/W and NW MO.

HR 60: LT-MOD precip in W. IA. Extreme NW Mizz. and extreme E. Neb. LT precip in MN/IA/W. WI/MO.

HR 66: LT-MOD precip in W. MO. LT precip in MN/IA/WI/IL/E. NEB/E. KS

HR 72: LT-MOD precip in NE/E MO (near STL due NE from there) LT precip in MN/IA/WI/IL/IN/TN/OH.

HR 78: LT-MOD precip in E. IND/S and SW Ohio, N. Kentucky. LT precip in MN/IA/WI/ILL/MO/SW MI.

HR 84: LT-MOD precip in most of Ohio. LT precip in E. MN/E. IA/WI/IL/IN/MI/Ken.

HR 90: LT-MOD precip in NE Ohio. LT precip in E. WI/MI/E. IND/OH/Ken.

HR 96: LT precip in OH. Big east coast storm. Sub 990 about 50 miles off shore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...