PhineasC Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 lol. Should have never been there from the start. That was the first time I've posted such a thing in recent history, just to remind everyone about it. While I haven't voiced my opinion about quoting large images, I do agree with the OP's viewpoints in that thread. No need to be snappy. Without you here to police us, where would we be? I am deeply sorry for leaving a quoted image visible for a few minutes. Hope your computer didn't explode or your OCD didn't flare up too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pojrzsho Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 you could just not read every model run as an actual solution to the eventual forecast. it's really not difficult to do. why so jaded all the time? Smile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 For everyone out there--the Pacific jet pattern is getting close to "transitoire" in this image. Ok not really--but the flow pattern out there is becoming close to higher order turbulent/non-laminar flow in the westerly pattern. Note the similarities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreWxGuy Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Exactly...but this does not imply that the models as they are currently configured are doing worse than they have in the past (I assure you they aren't). This is a type of situation that has inherit predictability issues (i.e. abnormally high error/perturbation growth rates). Maybe I am wrong, But I did post a qoute to support it, I guess you have your support too, but I was not just talking about THIS situation...They have not handled any phasing situation well, as I know all phasing situations have some sort of complication with them, but they have done poorly with all, That is what NWS is saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Exactly...but this does not imply that the models as they are currently configured are doing worse than they have in the past (I assure you they aren't). This is a type of situation that has inherit predictability issues (i.e. abnormally high error/perturbation growth rates). Right I was agreeing with you and saying that some folks need to realize the modeling is handling everything just fine given the situation and that no model will ever capture the chaotic nature "perfectly"--especially this pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Without you here to police us, where would we be? I am deeply sorry for leaving a quoted image visible for a few minutes. Hope your computer didn't explode or your OCD didn't flare up too bad. Wow. It seems you take my posts way too seriously, or you're just an overly-aggressive retaliator. FWIW, no OCD over hurr. No need to make insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreWxGuy Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Right I was agreeing with you and saying that some folks need to realize the modeling is handling everything just fine given the situation and that no model will ever capture the chaotic nature "perfectly"--especially this pattern. I dont think anyone is expecting or wants a near perfect model depiction, but some of the differences here in the last day have been laughable..I.E. 00z/6z GFS compared to other models Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Exactly...but this does not imply that the models as they are currently configured are doing worse than they have in the past (I assure you they aren't). This is a type of situation that has inherit predictability issues (i.e. abnormally high error/perturbation growth rates). Ah yes I still agree with you--I guess I should have worded it more carefully and added that models aren't doing more poorly than before--of course that is true. This weather pattern they will likely fall below typical error values--but that is just the nature of this specific pattern. But yeah, overall, models are definitely doing better statistically over the long haul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Wow. It seems you take my posts way too seriously, or you're just an overly-aggressive retaliator. FWIW, no OCD over hurr. No need to make insults. Sorry, I'll learn to take your petty browbeating over nothing more passively next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreWxGuy Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 ANyway 18z NAM looks like its a bit faster, but it also looks like itll be almost be just as amped again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pojrzsho Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 FWIW 66 18z NAM a bit colder than 72 12z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I dont think anyone is expecting or wants a near perfect model depiction, but some of the differences here in the last day have been laughable..I.E. 00z/6z GFS compared to other models Perhaps--but that is why ensembling is around, etc. It was pretty obvious using other techniques that the operational models were to be used as what a potential scenario would look like if that height field configuration actually panned out. PSU and I talked about this yesterday. WIth this pattern taking a operation run verbatim would be a bad idea. While some of the runs look silly--the nature of this chaotic and non-linear flow in the Pacific will result in wild swings in operational runs--no other way around it. Models aren't suddenly bad or anything. Using ensemble means--this system is not a surprise to me the way the global ops came out today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Exactly...but this does not imply that the models as they are currently configured are doing worse than they have in the past (I assure you they aren't). This is a type of situation that has inherit predictability issues (i.e. abnormally high error/perturbation growth rates). I think that 's where the perception is about the models being worse this year. Last year there was much more predictability of the major events. The Dec 19th event zoned in by 72 and the feb 5th was handled very similar by the models each day inside of day 4 or 5. I've got that maps and could check. The position of the blocking and ridge in the west made it easier on the models during those most visible events. This year, we've struggled to say anything about almost any event but part of the problem is also one of scale. Last years storms were larger scale than some of the miller b type storms we've been dealing with. At least that's my perception based on trying to forecast storms both years. To me this year has been tougher but that's a subjective thing based only on snowstorms that threaten the DC area. It's hard to argue with stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreWxGuy Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 18z doesnt look quite as amped and looks close to neutral compared to 12z at 72...So maybe itll be slightly better..but its 18z nam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Ah yes I still agree with you--I guess I should have worded it more carefully and added that models aren't doing more poorly than before--of course that is true. This weather pattern they will likely fall below typical error values--but that is just the nature of this specific pattern. But yeah, overall, models are definitely doing better statistically over the long haul. My comment wasn't even directed at you....I just think people need some perspective. Calling differences between model runs "laughable" only shows a lack of understanding when it comes to weather, NWP, and chaos. I started looking more closely at verification because someone was making similar comments in another thread, and was asking about "models doing so poorly in a La Nina". I didn't go back and match up every year, but based on our frozen system (we run an old system in real time, and have data going back to 1984, to gauge predictability)....and it turns out the past two months have been MUCH easier to forecast than normal (in a mean sense). Of course, all that is out the window with event such as the one to come.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 the way things have been slowly changing, its almost like if the southern vort can now just wait a bit, the northern one might be able to drop south a phase in with some cold air Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 18z doesnt look quite as amped and looks close to neutral compared to 12z...So maybe itll be slightly better..but its 18z nam. Seems warm at 78HR. WIl have to see if the next panel the low sings out and temps drop a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pojrzsho Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Low at 78 is def more S than it was at 84 12Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 NAM is east for sure. Still warm, but a decent look for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pojrzsho Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Seems warm at 78HR. WIl have to see if the next panel the low sings out and temps drop a bit. It is warm, but a bit colder than 12z run at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlewis1111 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 High way out in the atlantic ocean. Rainstorm. Y even follow this anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Seems warm at 78HR. WIl have to see if the next panel the low sings out and temps drop a bit. I suspect that the 850 will start lowering when precip starts. It's a step in the right direction though it still may end up being too warm because of the high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaltimoreWxGuy Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 My comment wasn't even directed at you....I just think people need some perspective. Calling differences between model runs "laughable" only shows a lack of understanding when it comes to weather, NWP, and chaos. I started looking more closely at verification because someone was making similar comments in another thread, and was asking about "models doing so poorly in a La Nina". I didn't go back and match up every year, but based on our frozen system (we run an old system in real time, and have data going back to 1984, to gauge predictability)....and it turns out the past two months have been MUCH easier to forecast than normal (in a mean sense). Of course, all that is out the window with event such as the one to come.... I understand that you work at NCEP (at least I think someone said you did) But I dont think saying a model run looking laughable shows a lack of understanding..When all guidance is showing one thing and one model shows something totally different, its a major red flag...To me it was comical, sorry if you disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I think that 's where the perception is about the models being worse this year. Last year there was much more predictability of the major events. The Dec 19th event zoned in by 72 and the feb 5th was handled very similar by the models each day inside of day 4 or 5. I've got that maps and could check. The position of the blocking and ridge in the west made it easier on the models during those most visible events. This year, we've struggled to say anything about almost any event but part of the problem is also one of scale. Last years storms were larger scale than some of the miller b type storms we've been dealing with. At least that's my perception based on trying to forecast storms both years. To me this year has been tougher but that's a subjective thing based only on snowstorms that threaten the DC area. It's hard to argue with stats. I agree with you for the most part, but I think some of this perception is coming from the inability for the models to do well regionally (but I think they've been pretty good for other regions otherwise....say New England for example). Your comments about scale are an interesting one (it makes some sense), and something I'd have to think more about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlewis1111 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Maybe the other High can slide in and cool the surface temps down quickly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevWarReenactor Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 ban? Isn't he right though? Temps are marginal at best. If the storm comes west it's rain, if it goes east we get nothing. It's one thing to just have to worry about precip or temps. But when you have to worry about both............ it ain't happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richmondsnow Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 <br /><img src="http://raleighwx.americanwx.com/models/nam/18znam850mbTSLPp06084.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br />This is clearly looking like our best run yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I agree with you for the most part, but I think some of this perception is coming from the inability for the models to do well regionally (but I think they've been pretty good for other regions otherwise....say New England for example). Your comments about scale are an interesting one (it makes some sense), and something I'd have to think more about. Don't think too hard about it, I was just making a wild guess. On to the nam which looks like the 850 temps are starting to fall as evaporational cooling takes place at 84 hrs. It's not a bad look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchnick Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 the way things have been slowly changing, its almost like if the southern vort can now just wait a bit, the northern one might be able to drop south a phase in with some cold air this is what I was talking about not quite there, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.