Kelly Sugden
I'm done. You clearly don't understand how verification works.
2012 Long Range Model Discusssion (> 7 Days Out)
- Thread starter Mark Blue
- Start date
Brandon Jenkins
EF3
The models are in "agreement"
There will certainly be significant changes between now and next week but the only thing that really matters (especially for those forced to plan in advance) is that both the GFS and ECM agree that an active pattern will develop with an increase in severe probs around D7. Those of us who are afforded the luxury of making chase day decisions have a lot of time left before we start drooling on our keyboards, but for those who must plan ahead I can understand why there would be an elevated level of excitement.
Michael Snyder
EF3
Yep Im just not smart enough to comprehend it.
Or we just had a difference of definitions.
No reason for drama
Michael Snyder
EF3
The models are in "agreement"
There will certainly be significant changes between now and next week but the only thing that really matters (especially for those forced to plan in advance) is that both the GFS and ECM agree that an active pattern will develop with an increase in severe probs around D7. Those of us who are afforded the luxury of making chase day decisions have a lot of time left before we start drooling on our keyboards, but for those who must plan ahead I can understand why there would be an elevated level of excitement.
Well since one of the chaser partners has backed out for a second time today I think Ill have more time before we have to launch.
Jon Strebler
EF1
Kelly, I think he was simply saying that the model runs had some agreement. Can tell when we need some severe weather to talk about when single words cause drama.
Michael Snyder
EF3
Looking back I should have been more clear, I was kinda talking out loud.
Clarence Bennett
EF3
Michael, I think your whole point in the middle of all of the drama, was that for those of us that have to make a 1000 mile journey and aren't afforded the luxury of sitting in Dodge City, Kansas everyday of our life, we have to plan a little to make a trip happen. I get it, I am doing the same thing as we speak. Jeez, everyone is edgy...
*edit-mods, can we just delete the drama from this thread? I would much rather read discussion with some substance.
*edit-mods, can we just delete the drama from this thread? I would much rather read discussion with some substance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Eddie Natenberg
EF1
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the spring is pretty shot, IMO. This is because of the increasing index number of all the ENSO indexs indicates a lack of baroclinic instability in the SE part of the pacific off the coast of CA. All the energy seems to be farther north (up near Alaska and the Aleutian islands) leading to amplifying ridges and decaying troughs as they propagate eastward. That is why if any severe weather happens with will be with a decaying trough over Colorado (slow HP storms moving north) or a intensifying trough in in the Northern part of the OH valley through the eastern great lakes (southwest flow events) which occlude quickly over CN. I'm still hoping I'm wrong, but it seems like this is the current mode of the atm based on ENSO. I bet summer will yield some good NW flow events in the upper midwest if this mode continues. Anybody agree/disagree?
Kelly Sugden
Drama was never intended. What was intended was to clarify confusion in the scientific method associated with NWP and the verification process. I also don't blame you out of Plains people in trying to come up with some sort of chasing plan. Hell, that can happen when you live in the Plains.
brice.coffer
EF0
Last night's ECMWF and this morning's GFS are in good agreement with the UL pattern until about 100hrs out. At that point, the Euro slows down the flow and develops a cutoff low in the upper Tennessee valley, while the GFS continues the progressive trend. GFS has a classic east coast ridge/digging west coast trough setup on May 24th, but the ECMWF has been consistently keeping the UL flow near the Canadian border since the 12Z run on Tuesday, so I'd be more inclined to believe it's solution.
It could be a while before the next good setup.
It could be a while before the next good setup.
Last edited by a moderator:
Today's 12Z GFS ensemble really came into focus for the possible event next Wed-Thur. About 15 of the 20 members are in very close agreement on the placement of a trough in the Rockies.
The 12Z FIM agrees with the GFS, but the ECMWF has a much less amplified trough.
The 12Z FIM agrees with the GFS, but the ECMWF has a much less amplified trough.
Jesse Risley
Staff member
I did notice that thermodynamic profiles are progged to improve greatly next week, per the 00z/17 ECMWF showing a more pronounced, deeper moisture return in a poleward fashion. However, as others have opined, the upper-air pattern on the ECMWF is less favorable than it is on the 00z/17 and 12z/17 runs of the GFS, along with the antecedent ensembles. If better moisture return comes to fruition, then it may make for at least a few chaseable opportunities in the next ten days if other necessary parameters (e.g., lift/perturbation, surface trigger, ample shear, etc.) are able to materialize in a manner that poses a more formidable SVR WX risk and makes use of the deeper moisture.
CZandbergen
EF2
Michael,
You are posting in the advanced weather forum, so words matter. Verification has a very real and specific meaning to meteorologists and those that choose to study weather. Glossing this over is a bad thing for all the others that watch threads like these. Model runs do not "verify" each other. The only thing that verifies a model is the atmosphere doing what the model indicated at the time the model indicated. Therefore, there is no way that one run can verify the next a week out. This isn't a difference of opinion, this is a fact.
While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I suggest you study a bit more or differ to those that have a stronger background before you take a position. Stuff like this is why this forum is suffering these days...
Bob Hartig
EF5
Right now there's a bit of tension in this thread over a point of terminology. That point is important: the word verify has a specific meaning when applied to forecast models and ought to be used appropriately, as Casey has aptly explained. With that understanding now established, let's please move on and keep the tenor of this discussion positive and productive. Thank you!
Last edited by a moderator:
Seth Edge
EF0
He used one word and I am pretty sure everybody knew what he was trying to say. Yes he should have said "agreement". But its not a big deal or to me anyway. Just let it go and lets talk weather. This isn't English class. There is no need to get anal about it this is just a message board. You can kindly point out the mistakes so people can learn from them in the right way. Theres no reason to argue about this at all. As I sit and wait on this 0 z run to see when and where to head out from Georgia. Hoping for a good June set up. Mays not worth the drive as of yet could change. Gotta week to kill got to make sure I choose wisely.
Similar threads
