Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,508
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

Mid to Long Range Threats


Rjay
 Share

Recommended Posts

Or just make it to show up  to 84 hr like the NAM.
Then to me it's useless. The only reason to look at the GFS is its long range. Maybe cut it down to 7 days. But if it only went to 84 it is kind of pointless.

Sent from my GM1925 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/29/2020 at 9:21 AM, Brian5671 said:

Good move-look at all the time you've saved lol.

Yep, I wasted so much time on those videos and reading his nonsense overhyped stuff lol.

I was thinking about something, outside of strong to super el ninos, when have we gotten less than 10 inches of snow?  I can only think of this season and 2001-02.  I forgot how much NYC got in 2011-12, but it must have been more than this since they started off the season with the Octosnowstorm.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jm1220 said:

I’ve moved on to just wanting spring weather (although with our luck it’ll be an awful backdoor season too). Winter’s been dead to me for a month now when the hope for any change to the AO, NAO, roaring Pacific Jet, MJO, Bueller, anything for the better ended. Nothing of any significance will happen here until that meaningfully changes and now we’re into March and the hill gets steeper every day. 

Those big storms last night were the first sign of spring I've seen....or has it been with us all along?!  It feels like fall skipped to spring a few months ago lol.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Barman49 said:

They need to stop running the GFS. It'll probably still be showing snow 7-10 days out in July.

Sent from my GM1925 using Tapatalk
 

10-7-18  may have been the best fantasy FV3 out of season snow so far. That would have been quite a feat with 80 degree temperatures.;)

Data for NY CITY CENTRAL PARK, NY
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.
Date
Max Temperature
Min Temperature
2018-10-06 68 63
2018-10-07 79 67
2018-10-08 74 64
2018-10-09 77 66
2018-10-10 80 71

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Barman49 said:

They need to stop running the GFS. It'll probably still be showing snow 7-10 days out in July.

Sent from my GM1925 using Tapatalk
 

That wouldn't be all bad would it? ;) 

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

please no April 1997 repeats.

we got 1-2 in that "storm"

Yeah yeah and that's one the top 3 storms of the last 25 years here for the sheer power it displayed and the destruction it wrought here. I rarely get scared by weather, that one did it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10-7-18  may have been the best fantasy FV3 out of season snow so far. That would have been quite a feat with 80 degree temperatures.
Data for NY CITY CENTRAL PARK, NY
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.
Date Max Temperature Min Temperature
2018-10-06 68 63
2018-10-07 79 67
2018-10-08 74 64
2018-10-09 77 66
2018-10-10 80 71
 
At least they have an excuse with that one technically it was still being tested hadn't replaced the old GFS yet. But yeah it looks like they made a mistake with which product they decided to go with at this point.

Sent from my GM1925 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

Nope.  No need, it's the same ol story-what ever it's showing will be a cutter or rain.   Pattern has not changed.

I guess we’re going to hype 3/12 - 3/13 into a fantasy snowstorm now. Broken record for the past 5 months now. Wash, rinse, repeat. I’m expecting Bill Murray to come out any minute to “I got you babe” playing on the radio. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, romba said:

He's unfortunately right. It's inevitable this year. The 'threat' for next week is slowly whittling to white rain or plain rain as well on the GFS.

Yep. It never was a “threat” to begin with and it’s not going to magically turn into one either. Just like tomorrow night into Saturday, another total non event....

  • Like 1
  • Weenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MJO812 said:

Nam keeps shifting west with the coastal low. Close but no cigar.

The surfers will love it. This is the first hurricane force low SE of the BM in a while.

Our confidence that the winds will increase to 
hurricane force over the northern outer NT2 zones remains above 
average, and we also have high confidence with widespread gale 
and storm warnings.

A98267BE-5BFD-4D77-9B6B-88039D18B793.thumb.gif.6555cca9a03deafd0e21ca9bda5c2a66.gif

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2020 at 11:59 AM, donsutherland1 said:

The 3/4/2020 run of the 12z showed what would be an unprecedented snowstorm. The model, using the more "conservative" 10:1 ratio, showed 20" or more snow in Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston.

GFS0304202012z.jpg

The closest storm to such a solution since regular recordkeeping began in the 19th century was the February 2003 President's Day snowstorm:

GFS0304202012z-2.jpg

The closest storm that includes the pre-National Weather Service era was the January 14-16, 1831 "Great Atlantic Snowstorm." That historic blizzard dumped 2 feet of snow in Philadelphia, 18"-20" in New York City, and around 2 feet in Boston.

Almost certainly, one can expect widespread chatter on Social Media, but such a solution is highly unlikely, if not all but improbable.


First, historic March snowstorms that brought 8" or more snow to all of the aforementioned cities typically had a much more expansive cold air mass and much colder air mass available to them.

Second, the cold associated with the February 2003 snowstorm was severe even for January.

Third, the GFS is alone in depicting what would be an almost unprecedented snowstorm. And a major caveat applies:

"Several individual case studies illustrate the model still exhibits a cold bias and may produce excessive snow in the medium range."

https://www.weather.gov/media/notification/pns19-09gfs_v15_1.pdf

Perhaps somewhat related: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/03/05/clickbait-weather-forecasts-social-media/?itid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_cwg-clickbait-410pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

From the story:

On Wednesday, for example, a number of Facebook pages shared a forecast from the American GFS model showing heavy snow from Washington to Boston next Thursday, eight days into the future, when such predictions are not reliable. Other, more accurate models showed no such snow threat.

But with that shaky forecast propagating through social media, several meteorologists felt compelled to confront it.

“I will not buy into the hype. I will not post a phantom map,” posted meteorologist Justin Berk, who provides forecasts for Maryland on Facebook.

Extreme ideas or solutions should be treated as unlikely to occur unless there is strong evidence for them. That applies to hype about stratospheric warming events, extreme GFS snowfall forecasts, and extreme analogs.

The pushback from the meteorological community is welcome. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

Perhaps somewhat related: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/03/05/clickbait-weather-forecasts-social-media/?itid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_cwg-clickbait-410pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

From the story:

On Wednesday, for example, a number of Facebook pages shared a forecast from the American GFS model showing heavy snow from Washington to Boston next Thursday, eight days into the future, when such predictions are not reliable. Other, more accurate models showed no such snow threat.

But with that shaky forecast propagating through social media, several meteorologists felt compelled to confront it.

“I will not buy into the hype. I will not post a phantom map,” posted meteorologist Justin Berk, who provides forecasts for Maryland on Facebook.

Extreme ideas or solutions should be treated as unlikely to occur unless there is strong evidence for them. That applies to hype about stratospheric warming events, extreme GFS snowfall forecasts, and extreme analogs.

The pushback from the meteorological community is welcome. 

Maybe they should halt the online availability of the longer range GFS and GEFS forecasts until they figure out a cold bias fix. We could probably do very well with the Euro, UKMET, NAM, and HRRR. The GFS MOS products within 120 hrs have haven’t been too bad. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Perhaps somewhat related: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/03/05/clickbait-weather-forecasts-social-media/?itid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_cwg-clickbait-410pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

From the story:

On Wednesday, for example, a number of Facebook pages shared a forecast from the American GFS model showing heavy snow from Washington to Boston next Thursday, eight days into the future, when such predictions are not reliable. Other, more accurate models showed no such snow threat.

But with that shaky forecast propagating through social media, several meteorologists felt compelled to confront it.

“I will not buy into the hype. I will not post a phantom map,” posted meteorologist Justin Berk, who provides forecasts for Maryland on Facebook.

Extreme ideas or solutions should be treated as unlikely to occur unless there is strong evidence for them. That applies to hype about stratospheric warming events, extreme GFS snowfall forecasts, and extreme analogs.

The pushback from the meteorological community is welcome. 

1831 Blizzard: Philadelphia 24 inches, NYC 18-20 inches, Boston 24 inches. Even in the early 19th century NYC appears to be under measured. I guess now it’s a tradition. As always .....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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