Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,116
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    SCseminole
    Newest Member
    SCseminole
    Joined

November 28-29 Storm Threat


40/70 Benchmark
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

That’s great it scores well on the spread sheets at 500. But the results at the surface aren’t as sexy.

While the stats are true for 500 heights, I do think the continued drilling down of resolution is resulting in MSLP/QPF inconsistency that is not super desirable in an age when models also spit out clown maps. 

It's one thing when you have an 80 km NGM and you know its QPF is wrong, it's another when the 10 km Euro shows the deformation band over your house and it "looks" believable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OceanStWx said:

While the stats are true for 500 heights, I do think the continued drilling down of resolution is resulting in MSLP/QPF inconsistency that is not super desirable in an age when models also spit out clown maps. 

It's one thing when you have an 80 km NGM and you know its QPF is wrong, it's another when the 10 km Euro shows the deformation band over your house and it "looks" believable.

You sound like you've been talking to Mike Ekster ..though it's been quite awhile since we had this discussion. 

We noticed something similar with the ETA some 12 years ago, actually. It wasn't in conjunction with the psychology of the 'clown maps'.  It was an idea that as the model's grid and processing became "too discrete,"  it begins to perturb within its own processing, and then runs away with it.  Sort of like creating process fractals - kind of an interesting hypothesis. 

Maybe something like this fills the gap -explanation between "drilling down" and "resulting" there ( conjecture )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

While the stats are true for 500 heights, I do think the continued drilling down of resolution is resulting in MSLP/QPF inconsistency that is not super desirable in an age when models also spit out clown maps. 

It's one thing when you have an 80 km NGM and you know its QPF is wrong, it's another when the 10 km Euro shows the deformation band over your house and it "looks" believable.

With the Canadian, it’s just some of these exotic solutions it has. Look at 00z yesterday. It buried NYC with the inv trough and it’s gone/shifted east in less than 24hrs all valid for tonight and tomorrow. The trough at 500 that caused it changes a little I suppose, but end result is night and day. You and I both know that surface results incorporate so much more than what we see at 500mb, but just using this as an example. Ukie isn’t much better although it tends to be much more stable within 2-3 days of valid time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

It probably won’t be anything with that trough. But tonight will be a lot of nuisance stuff just away from the coast including maybe you.

Some narrow zone may score like 2-4”. I can definitely see that happening. From like maybe Ginx to you. Somewhere in there in a narrow zone 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, WinterWolf said:

Love how each model says this stuff…The Euro, the UKMET, now the Canadian.  I mean if you listen to each of them…they’re all the best, and beat everything/and always beat The GFS. 
 

It’s all a play on words/and twist on stats!  What a dam joke. 

The GGEM became noticeably better 2 years ago ... Nothing about that Tweet or the following commentary in stream - that I read with fairness .. - claims it to be the best.  I realize you're just speaking in jest.

The consensus of the enthusiasts and a lot of officiate ... not hard to imagine the consumers haven't been giving the GGEM much notice.  It's understandable - its had a hard earned neg-head reputation. It hasn't scored the big coup call to help meme new street cred. We do it in here in this social media, how 'old habits' and reputations die hard.  Be that as it may, I noticed that the GGEM was becoming more Euro like in the D4-6 range, about two years ago my self. I'm sure for those objective met efforts out there, they've been noticing this, too. 

 - keep in mind, "better" does not sell "good" in this context.  Just that within itself, it has improved. 

As to its "goodness" ..I haven't paid particularly close attention to its performance with the dailies/deterministic aspects, so won't comment either way.

Whether these upgrades improve it further or not, time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

Some areas maybe near BOS or just inland could have some slippery conditions this evening. Like Will said, we’ll have to see if and how that inv trough sets up.

How much for Lunenburg?

 

Between the coating on Friday (reminders of which are still visible) along with the traces yesterday and whatever we get today, i'ts feeling and looking a little like winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 ... I've seen this happen in the past, a lot.

Some model puts up an idea on some run along the way, and it is either ignored, laughed at, or just hm'ed.   Then, yup ..said depiction goes away, and the notion to dismiss is validated.  See?

Except ... two or three cycles later, some other model does the same thing. 

What this tells us is that the idea was physically possible, more so than should have been dismissed out of hand.  

In this case, GGEM that we just got done impugning from that run *( well, I wonder if I am thinking of the same run cycle ), and here this NAM solution isn't hugely different than that in concept-result.   Whether it is Berks, NYC or Logan aside...  RGEM kinda gets a pat on the back

"IF" these runs are in concert onto something.  That remains to be seen...

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...