Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,584
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    23Yankee
    Newest Member
    23Yankee
    Joined

18Z model runs


Recommended Posts

Elaborate on this for me if you could be so kind? If there were no observations assimilated at 18z, it would look effectively the same as 12z because of how data assimilation works (lagged six hours, so 120h from 18z would look like 126h from 12z). BTW, we STILL assimilate millions of observations during these cycles.

I am curious, if a model cycle begins at say 6z, shouldn't all the subsequent runs improve verification wise if at least some fresh data is assimilated at all runs? Why aren't the verification scores in the same order as the runs, meaning 12z verifies better than 6z, 18z verifies better than 12z etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Just my opinion here. Sorry if I came across strong on this.. Probably better if I had said I use them for trends.. That would be it.. Anyway, back to tracking the storm for tomorrow and next week.. <BR><BR>

Elaborate on this for me if you could be so kind? If there were no observations assimilated at 18z, it would look effectively the same as 12z because of how data assimilation works (lagged six hours, so 120h from 18z would look like 126h from 12z). BTW, we STILL assimilate <I><B>millions </B></I>of observations<I><B> </B></I>during these cycles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That 18Z GFS was an odd run. It has a better looking ridge axis ahead of the western trough yet the shortwave sails through like the ridge isn't there and even weakens things a bit. Something isn't making sense.

Yeah the troff won't dig into the southeast. You can see strong Negative vorticity zip into the southeast ahead of the storm on the PSU ewall sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elaborate on this for me if you could be so kind? If there were no observations assimilated at 18z, it would look effectively the same as 12z because of how data assimilation works (lagged six hours, so 120h from 18z would look like 126h from 12z). BTW, we STILL assimilate millions of observations during these cycles.

I wonder if anyone could answer this question I saw posed in the subforums-- why is it that the ensembles of a majority of the models are well to the NW of the OP runs? It isnt just the GFS, but the Euro and the GGEM that this is happening on. Looks like the s/w will be onshore by 0z so perhaps tonight or later tomorrow, things will fall more in line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious, if a model cycle begins at say 6z, shouldn't all the subsequent runs improve verification wise if at least some fresh data is assimilated at all runs? Why aren't the verification scores in the same order as the runs, meaning 12z verifies better than 6z, 18z verifies better than 12z etc.?

You have to also consider lead times...what's important is that in a time-mean sense, a 120 hour forecast from 18z will verify better than a 126hr forecast from 12z. Generally speaking, forecast verification (given the same forecast lead time) is not different in a statistically significant sense between the four run times.

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...