Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

SnowBallz

Members
  • Content Count

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

SnowBallz last won the day on December 21 2012

SnowBallz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,805

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Enfield | Reading
  • Interests
    Applied Physics; Computational Fluid Dynamics; Mathematical Data Modelling; and Radiography. And lately, Nuclear Physics.

    I choose all the easy stuff.
  • Weather Preferences
    Snow; Thunderstorms; Heat Waves

Recent Profile Visitors

14,785 profile views
  1. I could be wrong here, but doesn’t earth.nullschool just use the raw GFS data to produce wind vectors? I usually see it being used on various news channels whenever there are gale force winds, and they often mislead by presenting it as live data. The only live data I know of comes in from a network of monitoring stations.
  2. Early guidance forewarning of next weeks weather was issued earlier on, and this has been further enhanced with extended outlooks in bulletins. AFAIK (comms not being my area) public agencies and major private infrastructure will begin a daily briefing cycle as of tomorrow. To revisit previous post, latest MR output (MOG) resolving to further mute ‘breakdown’ scenario; with continental blocking signal reinforcing through well into March. Atlantic incursions are expected with southerly deflection; considerable potential for extensive and disruptive snowfall as these air masses interact. Short t
  3. I think BA is simply reinforcing the point that it’s not really worth attaching too much credence to current output, where there is clear inconsistencies being exhibited. It really is more about broader trend and the eventual path, whereas the journey to get there remains fluid and undecided. 12z EC could correspond with its peers or it could reinforce its 0z signal and advertise a more subtle path. What I would strongly disagree with, is NWP assertion of a quick return to mobility (or milder weather) That evolution doesn't correspond to mid range products at all, and can quite confidentl
  4. I obviously can't speak for Ian, but I'd suggest he's referring to the point in time where there is currently considerable divergence and the general thought is that this is due in part to the models acting upon SSW influence and increasing entropy values. Not certain, but it's a reasonable position. Naturally, as one progresses through time, you would expect convergence as depth of data influences the direction of travel with attentive entropy moderation. I'd still wager on a colder synoptic developing - I don't think the question is so much about that - it's more the degree and duration w
  5. And that is a key point which can be overlooked when SSW’s come into the mix. There isn’t so much a guarantee of colder weather, merely a statistically higher chance and which of course is still sensitive to many influences. To some extent, this explains why SSW events also broadly correlate with mid range NWP output displaying higher variance, or at the very least struggle to demonstrate consistency. As things stand, the house is very much in our favour. I wouldn’t necessarily pay too great attention to when a run defaults to benign or mobility, as the warming effect isn't really showing
  6. Indeed. Stark correlative response from stratospheric influence. This is an interesting one as GS usually ranges a warming signal circa >20 days, so immediacy is unusual which is influencing CF’s confidence re LR synoptic. What is without question is that there has been some quite remarkable perturbations, and strongly balanced towards a very much colder pattern. If downwelling is as rapid as is being considered, it is plausible to see large scale continental blocking patterns dominate for quite an extended period, and very conceivably into meteorological spring. Should see some intere
  7. Ha! They're booting Hall 1 up (fire was in Hall 2) so feeds should hopefully be back online by this evening, tomorrow morning at the very latest
  8. Which is a very fair assessment. I touched on a few days ago that various products were resolving towards colder outcomes and whilst this broadly remains the case (some moderation in parts, albeit not material) the key uncertainty remains around timing, which I believe is what Ian is also keen to emphasise. In my view, some products appear to accelerate transition towards mobility faster than others, and in a blocking synoptic such as we see it is often wise to take a step back and consider plausibility; is it really likely that there will be sufficient energy within the Atlantic to disp
  9. This. For me, it's a case of micro and macro analysis; I personally find trends are easier (ha!) to identify and analyse when considered within a wider gamut, otherwise I find that you can become lost within the noise and data scatter of intra-run variance - something which I pay little close attention to. There are various techniques which can be adopted and one of those is time benchmarking (comparing 12z to 12z, etc) Lastly, GFS gets a fair bashing on here, but what I would reinforce is that its output is absolutely considered within MO, albeit within the context of holistic NWP
  10. 2nd this Please keep posting, @DIS1970 I find this a very inclusive forum (I recall how members have supported a couple of other posters over the years, which was nice to see) Quantity does not always equal quality and a pithy comment can be of equal value to that of a thesis! As John says, best wishes with your continuing recovery.
  11. Most of the algorithms I’ve looked over keep it fairly simple: precipitation intensity over time period = rough depth calculation. I’m yet to see any model which introduces soil temperature feedback to calculate an accurate melt rate, and therefore a modifiable depth (assuming further snow was within the forecast) UKV has an experimental field [water_equiv_lapse] which tries to establish this but I wouldn’t say it’s conclusive, reliable or widely used within output. SB
  12. That isn't strictly true, John. Whilst you are correct in respect to how thermodynamics are considered primary drivers in NWP, various other factors and variables need to be introduced to account for regional variation and idiosyncrasies, in order to improve accuracy. The difficulty, is that the layering of variables increases error rate by an order of magnitude, and therefore models require tuning. It has been observed many times over that some NWP models are predisposed to resolving certain patterns or outputs more favorably than others, and there is no real explanation other than how the
  13. I think people are subconsciously managing their own expectations, as well as that of others. Many observers on here have years of experience and have literally analysed thousands of model runs, so it's an informed and reasonable position to take, in my view. The earlier GFS run was, as others have noted, quite exceptional. On the balance of sheer probability, it is more than likely that the outcome will at least be tempered in the 12z's - but the question really is, to what degree. But yes, I agree that there is some background signals which do - to more or less of an extent - support
  14. Very odd for me to be on here in summer!

  15. Hi Shotski, I don't know if the '10 days ago' refers to the last post I made, this one: https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/82300-model-output-discussion-16th-jan-12z-onwards-smile-while-you-post/?view=findpost&p=3135716? If you are, you'll note that - whilst I recognised that CFSv2 was advertising its now familar blocking nirvana - I also recognised that, at that point in time, no such signal had any such support from GS5. So, to answer your question: No, GS5 wasn't showing any strong blocked pattern 10 days ago. Broadly speaking, the signal was for average to slightly below tempe
×
×
  • Create New...