Ian Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I certainly am treated that way here and at 40s and Ji was being Ji. There are definitely people who go overboard. And you know Ji. He bashes JB but still reads JB religiously. If JB were in the room Ji would act like a starstruck teenage girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 To be honest, I'm not even sure whether or not this statement has any validity or not. "Flip-flopping" model solutions can be a good thing (particularly in the medium range), so long as the guidance is showing the possibility of realistic/plausible scenarios [and then therefore needs to be used in portraying confidence/probability, etc.]. We get some of this notion with the ensembles, but they have their flaws too (reduced resolution, different physics, under representation of model error, sub-part initial perturbations). Also, we have seen plenty of cases where a particular model has been remarkably consistent (consistently wrong), lulling people into a false sense of confidence. Lastly, as an aside, I will say that going forward this has the potential to be occurring more frequently (variable model solutions, flip-flopping, etc.), IMO, as we continue to attempt to run numerical models at higher and higher resolution. I am sometimes amazed at how the large ensemble means in the globals (ECMWF/GFS) can have strong agreement and a close cluster overall and still completely bomb a forecast. It is a great example of the small subset of the atmosphere the models are assimilating and what they can therefore simulate as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winter_warlock Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 i have all the respect in the world for the METS, and i appriciate the mets giving thier analysis on this forum. ive been studying meteorlogy for over 20 yrs and they certainly know more than i do, my only problem with certain mets( ie.... JB LC and HM, is their arrogance and the hype they give storms well in advance. thats my prob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Please forgive me if my question is horrid but here goes; I get the impression that each model run is a fresh start and fresh slate initialized based on the most current objective data. If true, this approach, itself, can lead to big swings in solutions because the quality of the initialization data can vary. Would solutions have more continuity and accuracy if the previous solutions were given some appropriate weight? The atmosphere is a fluid and doesn't jump around the way the models jump. The run to run vacillations are a measure of our imperfect data and imperfect algorythms, not a true model of atmosphere behavior. This isn't true actually, since any given initial condition is a combination of observations (raobs, surface obs, aircraft, satellite radiances, gps, etc.) and some background information (which is always a previous model short term forecast). For example for the GFS, a 12z initial condition is created by taking the 06hr forecast from 06z and combining it with all of the available observations that fall "near" 12z (for us, this is +/- 3 hours). These are combined using assumed statistics about the errors associated with the observations and 6 hour forecast (think of it as a simple least squares problem, where you try to minimize the distance between the initial condition and the short term forecast/obs respectively, normalized by their errors). You see swings in continuity in situations where small changes to those initial conditions project onto areas/components with large growth. It's true that this type of behavior is indicative of imperfections in the model, observations, etc., but it's also true we will never have perfect models of the atmosphere (well, earth system in general). Even if we could solve the equations explicitly as we understand them without discretization/modeling them, we STILL would get this kind of behavior since the atmosphere is in fact chaotic (and we don't have equations for every process at every scale). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinsnut Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 still plenty of time, but.. if winters over , i hope it ends for good and gets warm, time to fire up my grill I hear ya. But if I was being modeled with a crippling storm right now, I wouldn't trust it at all. So why should I trust this either. I feel strongly that what we are being shown is not what will happen 4-5 days from now. What it will be, I won't speculate, but I can't wait to see what actually happens. To be quite truthful, I'm ready for this to end. The sun today, which by the way is getting brighter and stronger, is making wish I could see my grass, get outside and start working. LOL. Hilarious that "Jack Frost" and "Winter Weather Lover" are ready for the spring on February Freaking 6th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 There are definitely people who go overboard. And you know Ji. He bashes JB but still reads JB religiously. If JB were in the room Ji would act like a starstruck teenage girl. I think there are quite a few who would be starstruck, not just Ji. I remember when JB dropped in on the Philly event . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Please forgive me if my question is horrid but here goes; I get the impression that each model run is a fresh start and fresh slate initialized based on the most current objective data. If true, this approach, itself, can lead to big swings in solutions because the quality of the initialization data can vary. Would solutions have more continuity and accuracy if the previous solutions were given some appropriate weight? The atmosphere is a fluid and doesn't jump around the way the models jump. The run to run vacillations are a measure of our imperfect data and imperfect algorythms, not a true model of atmosphere behavior. From what I can recall I think that some of the past data/forecast is used when running the next set of updates (for some models, anyway), but I could be wrong. I'll let dtk clarify that for sure. Just because I said bashing was wrong doesn't mean I want the exact opposite (no criticisms or complete loyalty/respect) to be true. I for one welcome criticism so long as people have a reasonable counterpoint. I had said multiple times on Eastern that I do not expect to have anything given to me just because I have a red tag. Instead I prefer to earn the respect of others through my forecasts and realistic approach to the weather. I am not the dtk model mastermind--but I did a little in college. Yes--that is true. Models analysis fields are partially based on the previous forecast field. The goal is for the observations and data to "nudge" the previous field closer to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 i have all the respect in the world for the METS, and i appriciate the mets giving thier analysis on this forum. ive been studying meteorlogy for over 20 yrs and they certainly know more than i do, my only problem with certain mets( ie.... JB LC and HM, is their arrogance and the hype they give storms well in advance. thats my prob weather is big business these days. dt et al get a lot of views when they talk about every panel of the euro that shows a blizzard 5 days in advance. even snow weenies with little knowledge of what weather actually is are pretty arrogant. it's part of the forecasting biz.. we all think our ideas are the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtk Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I am sometimes amazed at how the large ensemble means in the globals (ECMWF/GFS) can have strong agreement and a close cluster overall and still completely bomb a forecast. It is a great example of the small subset of the atmosphere the models are assimilating and what they can therefore simulate as a result. Well, to be honest, this can mostly be explained by the under-representation of model error (for clues, it is sometimes helpful to look at the Canadian ensemble since they run a multi-physics ensemble). Both the EC and NCEP global ensemble tend to be under-dispersive because the schemes to handle the representation of model error need work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solution Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I think there are quite a few who would be starstruck, not just Ji. I remember when JB dropped in on the Philly event . You being here is good enough for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeoman Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 my only problem with certain mets( ie.... JB LC and HM, is their arrogance and the hype they give storms well in advance. thats my prob Then don't read them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I think there are quite a few who would be starstruck, not just Ji. I remember when JB dropped in on the Philly event . It is the emotional power of wishcasting for extreme events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 no post from JB today. get some balls and post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 This isn't true actually, since any given initial condition is a combination of observations (raobs, surface obs, aircraft, satellite radiances, gps, etc.) and some background information (which is always a previous model short term forecast). For example for the GFS, a 12z initial condition is created by taking the 06hr forecast from 06z and combining it with all of the available observations that fall "near" 12z (for us, this is +/- 3 hours). These are combined using assumed statistics about the errors associated with the observations and 6 hour forecast (think of it as a simple least squares problem, where you try to minimize the distance between the initial condition and the short term forecast/obs respectively, normalized by their errors). You see swings in continuity in situations where small changes to those initial conditions project onto areas/components with large growth. It's true that this type of behavior is indicative of imperfections in the model, observations, etc., but it's also true we will never have perfect models of the atmosphere (well, earth system in general). Even if we could solve the equations explicitly as we understand them without discretization/modeling them, we STILL would get this kind of behavior since the atmosphere is in fact chaotic (and we don't have equations for every process at every scale). Hopefully someday we will have infinite and continuous observations Joking of course. I love the spot we are at in current modeling--still getting better but it is quite clear the atmosphere will always have a certain amount of variability in it. A world where we could perfectly model weather would be boring. We will have multiple generations of folks working in weather as long as the models can not simulate weather perfectly. Unless the N-S equations are fully solved and can accurately model turbulence, we develop a better programming method which does not involve discretization of the dynamic/thermodynamic equations, we develop a system which simulates scales down to the micrometer level, and we have infinite and continuous obs--weather will always be chaotic to some degree. It makes it fun--IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winter_warlock Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 LOL. Hilarious that "Jack Frost" and "Winter Weather Lover" are ready for the spring on February Freaking 6th. read what i said ..,i said" IF" winters over im ready to fire up my grill . but id rather have a nice snow storm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I think there are quite a few who would be starstruck, not just Ji. I remember when JB dropped in on the Philly event . i havent read jb since he went pay many moons ago. i honestly don't care too much what he has to say, but i'll still check in on his tweets or what others are saying he said here and there. he is what he is... and honestly whether or not he is wrong more than right he is very successful in what he does. there is a reason people like DT strive to be the next JB. there is a lot of frustration this year coming mainly from people who like snow and nothing else in weather and have a hard time grasping climo around here. i think it's wrong that people lash out randomly at whichever met happens to be in the room. if/when that happens and i or others see it, it will be taken care of. i could also make a short list of mets that i think are wrong far more often than they are right but even at a much smaller venue i've seen there is not much to be gained from that. as with people like you who easily and quickly rise to the very top, those with bad track records are quite easy to spot. i and the vast majority of people here im sure consider myself lucky to have been able to learn as much as i have from people like you who are willing to take the time to teach. it is something eastern and now american has always tried to protect above all else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozz Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 LOL. Hilarious that "Jack Frost" and "Winter Weather Lover" are ready for the spring on February Freaking 6th. The warmistas here need to stop pretending to love winter. At least BALHurricane is honest about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 It's true that this type of behavior is indicative of imperfections in the model, observations, etc., but it's also true we will never have perfect models of the atmosphere (well, earth system in general). Thank you, dtk. I expected you would give an intellectual response. It seems to me that one goal of numerical modeling specialists would be to find a way for run to run solutions to be more sinusoidal and not to move surface lows large distances from run to run. I would call that a FAIL. To be zen-like for a moment, the atmosphere is always correct. It doesn't ponder for a moment and put a low over South Carolina and then six hours later put the low offshore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolineWx Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 12z GFS Ensemble members, some of these look more north than in past runs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 i and the vast majority of people here im sure consider myself lucky to have been able to learn as much as i have from people like you who are willing to take the time to teach That'l work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Thank you, dtk. I expected you would give an intellectual response. It seems to me that one goal of numerical modeling specialists would be to find a way for run to run solutions to be more sinusoidal and not to move surface lows large distances from run to run. I would call that a FAIL. To be zen-like for a moment, the atmosphere is always correct. It doesn't ponder for a moment and put a low over South Carolina and then six hours later put the low offshore. You bring up a good point--typically this is why I advocate the GFS/ECMWF operational over other "high scoring" global models like the UK/CMC. Typically the GFS/Euro have very consistent and trackable changes in the dynamic fields that a forecaster can track. The model verbatim solution means little--but the small and consistent changes mean a ton to a forecaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winter_warlock Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 12z GFS Ensemble members, some of these look more north than in past runs... hmm i saw that.. thats a glimmer of hope. still over 100 hrs out, lots of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 JMA offers some hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 hmm i saw that.. thats a glimmer of hope. still over 100 hrs out, lots of time At this pt of the game we are still far better off having a big mass of moisture just too far SE than on top or west of us. Tho it does seem the odds have grown of this not being much or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 the point I was trying to make was this. Lets say Wes writes up a 1400 word blog today about how the PV is going to crush the storms chances of amplifying and turning up the coast and most readers now believe they are not getting a snowstorm. And then tonight at 00z, the PV orientation is completely different and the models then all bring the storm back. Then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pojrzsho Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 NWS not budging w this for my area...about an hour due south of DC Wednesday Night: A chance of snow. Cloudy, with a low around 24. Chance of precipitation is 50%. Thursday: Snow likely. Cloudy, with a high near 28. Chance of precipitation is 60%. From 12:02 pm today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winter_warlock Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 At this pt of the game we are still fat better off having a big mass of moisture just too far SE than on top or west of us. Tho it does seem the odds have grown of this not being much or anything. I agree Ian, way too many times this winter models have shifted nw in the last 48 hrs, so with it being over 100 hrs out, still at least 2 more days before we can lose all hope. but... time is ticking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormpc Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 At this pt of the game we are still fat better off having a big mass of moisture just too far SE than on top or west of us. Tho it does seem the odds have grown of this not being much or anything. That's how my mindset is. If I can eek out another day or two of tracking (that's the fun of this, isn't it?) I will be content, either way. If it snows, then it's a bonus. Too many folks get way too emotional about this, however, understandably. I enjoy the banter, the ticking clock leading up to the next model runs and all of the mets input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 i havent read jb since he went pay many moons ago. i honestly don't care too much what he has to say, but i'll still check in on his tweets or what others are saying he said here and there. he is what he is... and honestly whether or not he is wrong more than right he is very successful in what he does. there is a reason people like DT strive to be the next JB. there is a lot of frustration this year coming mainly from people who like snow and nothing else in weather and have a hard time grasping climo around here. i think it's wrong that people lash out randomly at whichever met happens to be in the room. if/when that happens and i or others see it, it will be taken care of. i could also make a short list of mets that i think are wrong far more often than they are right but even at a much smaller venue i've seen there is not much to be gained from that. as with people like you who easily and quickly rise to the very top, those with bad track records are quite easy to spot. i and the vast majority of people here im sure consider myself lucky to have been able to learn as much as i have from people like you who are willing to take the time to teach. it is something eastern and now american has always tried to protect above all else. see, you guys do treat me like a god. katie actually called me one in another thread. One of the things I like about the CWG guys, is none hype events and we usually are pretty conservative iin jumping to conclusions. Overall, the people here are pretty protective of mets that post here. The exceptions are usually those that bring some of it on themselves. I'm happy to see young knowledgable guys like DTK around to answer model questions. There are also lots of knowledeable not mets like You, Don Sutherland and a number of others that make really good posts at times. I think weenies are fine too as most of us are weenies at heart and as kid I did get mad at the mets when a snow forecast busted and I had to go to school. Of course most of us like to play some with our comments too and sometimes it's hard to tell when people are playing or not. I think that sometimes gets all of us in trouble. I usually use a emoticon if I'm being playful but not always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pojrzsho Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 the point I was trying to make was this. Lets say Wes writes up a 1400 word blog today about how the PV is going to crush the storms chances of amplifying and turning up the coast and most readers now believe they are not getting a snowstorm. And then tonight at 00z, the PV orientation is completely different and the models then all bring the storm back. Then what? All winter it's been like this....Even DT past 48 hours back n forth....maybe reason NWS not budging for "snow likely" south of DC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.