Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

The Mystical Month of February--Long Range Discussion


Ji
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, BaltimoreWxGuy said:

Seems like it often over models northeastern confluence and wintry weather east of low pressure systems. Not sure it’s look makes sense given the players on the field. This is really what’s taking over for the GFS soon? We’re in trouble. 

It gives Southern VA/Northern NC  2 feet of snow.  I'm pretty sure it's going to be right.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JB in his premium video on Weather Bell admits the next two weeks look like a disaster and he was wrong......no crescendo of cold in sight.  Interesting part about it is that no one can explain why.  If the MJO has been the driver this winter, perhaps the models will respond in a week or so to the move into Phase 8 and perhaps 1......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

That is your official American model in a month!!!  RESPECT

Does the old GFS just go away entirely when that happens? Sometimes it has been nice to have as a data point with its known biases. 

I've seen comments to the effect that the FV3 has a bias towards keeping heights lower than they should be, which can make it tend to favor snow. Last thing we need for the MA is more fantasy digital snow in the med/long range. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Weather Will said:

JB in his premium video on Weather Bell admits the next two weeks look like a disaster and he was wrong......no crescendo of cold in sight.  Interesting part about it is that no one can explain why.  If the MJO has been the driver this winter, perhaps the models will respond in a week or so to the move into Phase 8 and perhaps 1......

And that has been the most frustrating part of this winter up to this point: everybody is baffled and it absolutely sucks. How can we have even reasonable confidence in LR forecasting (even 2 weeks or sooner) going forward? Been absolutely useless this year--I want some answers (even if they come later after the season is over)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

And that has been the most frustrating part of this winter up to this point: everybody is baffled and it absolutely sucks. How we have confidence in LR forecasting (even 2 weeks or sooner) going forward? Been absolutely useless this year--I want some answers (even if they come later after the season is over)

Yeah, it would be interesting to see why the LR guidance consistently got it wrong this year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MountainGeek said:

Does the old GFS just go away entirely when that happens? Sometimes it has been nice to have as a data point with its known biases. 

I've seen comments to the effect that the FV3 has a bias towards keeping heights lower than they should be, which can make it tend to favor snow. Last thing we need for the MA is more fantasy digital snow in the med/long range. 

So, basically a higher resolution version of the DGEX.  That's great for digital snow, not so much for actual snow.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maestrobjwa said:

That's the whole problem...we ain't got nothin' to beat it back with! I mean...are we already out of time for a save, here? (since it already looks this bad with the se ridge)

140+ hrs is an eternity.  I wouldn't could it or anything out yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Maestrobjwa said:

And that has been the most frustrating part of this winter up to this point: everybody is baffled and it absolutely sucks. How can we have even reasonable confidence in LR forecasting (even 2 weeks or sooner) going forward? Been absolutely useless this year--I want some answers (even if they come later after the season is over)

It's only frustrating because for our area the winter didn't live up to expectations.  I didn't hear anyone complaining in 2014 when most expected a mediocre at best winter and it was snowing constantly from early December to April.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psuhoffman said:

It's only frustrating because for our area the winter didn't live up to expectations.  I didn't hear anyone complaining in 2014 when most expected a mediocre at best winter and it was snowing constantly from early December to April.  

Was the LR constantly wrong (except in the positive direction) back then too? It's not the early winter calls that bother me most...but the weeklies, and even patterns two weeks out that mostly flopped. And again...was the met community in general as baffled by that winter as they seem to be by this one?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mdecoy said:

Yeah, it would be interesting to see why the LR guidance consistently got it wrong this year.

My best guess is for the same reasons the humans got it wrong.  90% of seasonal forecasts made assumptions about the winter pattern that weighted the modoki nino pretty heavily.  Usually that is a good bet as enso is a major pattern driver.  However, and in hindsight maybe this wasn't given enough attention, when the nino is weak there is a higher instance of other pattern influences overriding and not getting the typical nino pattern.  That is what seems to have happened this year.  We spent the majority of winter in MJO phases that are more typical of a nina than a nino and so we ended up with some weird hybrid pattern with some components of both mixed in.   It appears to me that the numerical guidance continuously tried to get the pattern to what the classic modoki nino analogs looked like.  So probably they were making the same mistake.  At range...as the current pattern "wore off" and the guidance struggled to see whatever OTHER factors were affecting the pattern...the guidance would over weight the enso and go right to the modoki nino look.  Then would constantly adjust around day 10 when it became apparent and they could see the affect of those other influences.  But as for why the guidance was unable to see those other factors and weight them correct I have no idea.  But the humans weren't any better so it seems petty to be too critical of the NWP when it's only as good as the people who program it!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

It's only frustrating because for our area the winter didn't live up to expectations.  I didn't hear anyone complaining in 2014 when most expected a mediocre at best winter and it was snowing constantly from early December to April.  

Yep. This winter, if nothing really changes over the next month, would typically be like a C grade, but I would give it an F because of how much it failed compared to hype/expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stormtracker said:

The um...ICON pummels us, followed by a deluge.   

 

I'm talking about the ICON.   Desperation level: 11

It's actually ZR signal past the initial snow. Temps in the 20's to near 30 when the rain hits :yikes:

I hate the precip algorithm on TT for the Icon. I also just hate the Icon

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

It's only frustrating because for our area the winter didn't live up to expectations.  I didn't hear anyone complaining in 2014 when most expected a mediocre at best winter and it was snowing constantly from early December to April.  

True enough...and it's not only our area that has been frustrated or disappointed this year.  While nobody was complaining in 2013-14 of course, what was the guidance like then?  Not the signals that long-rangers looked at early on which may have indicated that year would be mediocre...but as time went on through the winter.  I honestly don't recall how the models did then in either the short or medium range then.

I think perhaps the most frustrating thing this year is that the guidance consistently has shown very good looks in the medium range, only to gradually fall apart.  And other signals such as the MJO even were indicated to go into favorable phases, but the response has been less than desirable, apparently.  And it wasn't just one model going wild with good looks, it was mostly across the board.  Very difficult year in that regard, it almost makes one want to throw up your hands in even attempting to estimate the week 2 period.  As you were asking the other day (don't know if anyone had an answer yet?), what the heck is causing the inconsistent response to what should be highly favorable MJO phases in the east?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something not getting any attention but its hurting us is the trend towards a slower system.  That is a big deal when the cold is weak and retreating.  There are other problems, the failure of any of the systems this weekend to bomb and create suppressive flow behind it, the trend of the 50/50 to end up further northeast in how it is oriented, more ridging...but equally a problem is this is now a full day slower than it was 72 hours ago.  

Latest run for 6z Wednesday

precip hasn't even moved in yet

gfs1.thumb.png.e44fd1fdfc5e2d1b038fcedcb05aa9f1.png

a day ago

storm is well underway at the same time

gfs2.thumb.png.6d78441f3ae7f51a23c733dbbd4fdab4.png

3 days ago

storm is over and already off the map lol

gfs3.thumb.png.548a4e3d1373015f0e8b12ac33317011.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MillvilleWx said:

It's actually ZR signal past the initial snow. Temps in the 20's to near 30 when the rain hits :yikes:

I hate the precip algorithm on TT for the Icon. I also just hate the Icon

I think the ICON overdoes cold surface temps. The overall track and progression of the storm doesn't look like hours and hours of 28 degree zr to me, especially with the high moving off the coast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...