Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

Active mid December with multiple event potential


Typhoon Tip
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, weathafella said:

In what way was gfs better vs euro.  And if you tell me one was better at d7 it doesn’t count.

The Euro had the eastern daks, western MA and VT getting significant snow for the 12/5 storm within 72 hours. If you recall we discussed frequently in that thread that the euro (and icon) has an amped bias and that the more progressive gfs was leading the way often in the regime flow the last year or so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WxWatcher007 said:

Usual caveats come with this given how far out it is, but it’s “reassuring” given how ugly the GFS suite was tonight. 

Main takeaway to me is things continue to look steady. No major shifts by the multi-model 00z suite together in one direction. GFS broke from the fold, but plenty of time for it to come back. I’m intentional with that language because nothing else really broke its way. 

When an advisory to solid warning snowfall across CT is an ugly run, you know you're tracking something serious.

Anything above 4" would destroy any storm last season here.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Snowcrazed71 said:

Who.. You can argue that the GFS didn't nail that system either. Like I said.. They both have there weaknesses and strengths. Best to combine the two.

It’s better to know the biases and weaknesses of each.   Gfs has always had trouble with east coast cyclogenesis.   Euro has amp bias and holding energy in the SW USA.   But a basic rule of thumb is don’t lean on the outlier model.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, greenmtnwx said:

The Euro had the eastern daks, western MA and VT getting significant snow for the 12/5 storm within 72 hours. If you recall we discussed frequently in that thread that the euro (and icon) has an amped bias and that the more progressive gfs was leading the way often in the regime flow the last year or so. 

It was an amplified system.  What was wrong were the snow maps and those are vendor driven.  I bet if you ran surface and H5 you’d be surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, greenmtnwx said:

The Euro had the eastern daks, western MA and VT getting significant snow for the 12/5 storm within 72 hours. If you recall we discussed frequently in that thread that the euro (and icon) has an amped bias and that the more progressive gfs was leading the way often in the regime flow the last year or so. 

Also, as you pointed out, GFS does well in a progressive pattern.  However with a system that has blocking, you’d probably lean further away from it.    But in the 0Z suite with the GFS being most suppressed one is reminded of countless storms over the years when the model shat in itself.  By the way the GFS para which will be gfs soon is way way different at 0z.  12-18+ for SNE and cne.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, weathafella said:

Also, as you pointed out, GFS does well in a progressive pattern.  However with a system that has blocking, you’d probably lean further away from it.    But in the 0Z suite with the GFS being most suppressed one is reminded of countless storms over the years when the model shat in itself.  By the way the GFS para which will be gfs soon is way way different at 0z.  12-18+ for SNE and cne.

I'm actually very interested in the parallel GFS this year vs last year. This will actually include some physics updates vs just changing the computing core of the model. So v16 may bring actual changes to model accuracy. 

I'm also not going to evaluate one model vs another based on clown maps. They were all pretty poor in that regard for the 5th/6th. If I remember correctly the Euro was first to move towards a more amplified and juicy system then which ultimately was correct. Unfortunately the antecedent air mass was too crap to support widespread accumulating snow.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

I'm actually very interested in the parallel GFS this year vs last year. This will actually include some physics updates vs just changing the computing core of the model. So v16 may bring actual changes to model accuracy. 

I'm also not going to evaluate one model vs another based on clown maps. They were all pretty poor in that regard for the 5th/6th. If I remember correctly the Euro was first to move towards a more amplified and juicy system then which ultimately was correct. Unfortunately the antecedent air mass was too crap to support widespread accumulating snow.

Do you know when the new GFS v16 will be released?

And, in your opinion, since the old (current) GFS is going away, should we even be looking at it? Focusing more on the new GFS vs. the old (current one)? I'm always torn when a new version of the same model is coming out and we have access to both. Especially when they are showing vastly differently soln. This happened a few years ago with the ECMWF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The 4 Seasons said:

Do you know when the new GFS v16 will be released?

And, in your opinion, since the old (current) GFS is going away, should we even be looking at it? Focusing more on the new GFS vs. the old (current one)? I'm always torn when a new version of the same model is coming out and we have access to both. Especially when they are showing vastly differently soln. This happened a few years ago with the ECMWF.

Last I saw was Feb 2021. I haven't seen any evaluation suggesting that testing is not going well and I don't foresee any slippage due to that (though red tape could always cause a delay). 

Evaluation also suggests that it performs as well if not better than the operational GFS for most parameters. The most consistent complaints are regarding TCs and low CAPE biases, so not really relevant to cool season cyclogenesis. 

I view it as the operational GFS is still a useful data source, but I maybe weight v16 a little more given it's had a pretty successful year+ of testing.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Last I saw was Feb 2021. I haven't seen any evaluation suggesting that testing is not going well and I don't foresee any slippage due to that (though red tape could always cause a delay). 

Evaluation also suggests that it performs as well if not better than the operational GFS for most parameters. The most consistent complaints are regarding TCs and low CAPE biases, so not really relevant to cool season cyclogenesis. 

I view it as the operational GFS is still a useful data source, but I maybe weight v16 a little more given it's had a pretty successful year+ of testing.

so you'd value gfs-para runs at this point more than gfs operationals? Intriguing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GFS on its own. Not to mention the GFSv16 was a monster hit along with every other piece of 00z guidance.Not sure if it was mentioned i didn't have a chance to read everything. And after what OceanSt said, ill be looking at the beta version more than current op now anyways. GFS Ignored.

Re: that AFD. I'd take my chances with a more northerly track than banking on ratios from "colder air" from a more southerly track. That's an over simplification of how ratios work in my opinion. We can get good or bad ratios regardless of the track. It isn't a direct coorelation that colder profile temps = higher ratios. It can happen but it all has to do with good lift in the DGZ. 

Either way, the 00Z and 6Z GFS scraper scenario is very unlikely atm so its all moot. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damage In Tolland said:

Pretty straightforward forecast 

1-3” Monday afternoon 

1-2’ Wednesday pm into Thursday 

Locked and loaded ( although the one for tomorrow I do think wrong surpass 1" in most areas in CT ). Checked out at the flakes of the air will be fun and gets us ready for Thursday

  • Like 1
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...