Jump to content
Problems logging in? ×
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?

pistolpetes11

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ireland , Newbridge 91MT ASL
  • Weather Preferences
    Cold and lots of Snow

Contact Methods

pistolpetes11's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Reacting Well

Recent Badges

10

Reputation

  1. For People saying to Bin the 18Z or even the 6z , what do you make of this : http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/32149-gfs-12z-and-0z-runs-compared-to-6z-and-18z-runs/ I debated whether or not to try and go through all this again, but I'll try. First, in terms of total volume of observations, you're first statement is dead wrong. The radiosonde network only forms a very tiny portion of the global observing system (though it is hugely important). I have no idea what you mean when you say that the radiosonde data is "out of date" for 6z and 18z. At NCEP, we (currently) use a 3D analysis scheme with a 6 hour time window. If you use 12z as an example, we only assimilate observations that are taken between 09z and 15z, for that given analysis. There are ways to use observations within a longer time window, and actually take their time information (and propagation) into account (4DVAR), but we'll save that subject for thread. In terms of aircraft data, your comment is sort of true if you focus only on a small portion of the globe (i.e. CONUS). I took the liberty to get a rough estimate for the number of aircraft observations that we assimilated, by cycle, from 00z-18z today, and here are the approximate numbers: 67610, 52744, 53490, and 72177.....not as much disparity as people think. This is partly because these are global numbers. However, we actually get a lot of observations from package carriers that operate aircraft (think Fedex and UPS). Here is an example of a distribution from 06z on the 24th: This is only for the cruise altitude (150-300 mb) observations that were taken;, nor have I shown the obs for type 231 (that's why the numbers don't match up with what I provided above). Keep in mind that for any given 06h window, we basically have global observation coverage (tons and tons of multi-channel IR, MW and visible satellite data, GPS radio occultations from space, satellite derived atmospheric motion vectors [satellite winds], surface observations, ships/buoys, aircraft, wind profiler, radar, in addition to the radiosonde network). Because of hyperspectral satellites, the number of observations we have access to for any given cycle is on the order of hundreds of millions (though there is a lot of redundant information)....and the number assimilated is on the order of several million (I'm too lazy and tired to get the exact counts right now). Back on topic....now, I feel that the biggest differences between 06z/18z and 00z/12z can be seen for individual, high impact events....where better in-situ sampling can make a difference [example: some critical shortwave that is important for some downstream development or something entering the North American Raob network]. I personally don't think that in a time mean sense the skill between any of the cycles is statistically significant (mind you, this certainly wasn't always the case). However, every time I try to put together evidence to make my case, I can always find metrics, levels, or periods that seem to suggest one thing is better than the other. We use AC scores too much, so bear with me. Here is a long time series showing the GFS AC at 500 hPa for all four cycles (the top panel is a three month moving average, and bottom panel shows the difference relative to 00z): Notice how before 2008 that the red and blue curves are almost exclusively below the 0 line, but within the past few years the red/blue do poke above the zero difference line (and the spread has shrunk somewhat). I can assure you that the differences (at least from the middle of 2007 and beyond) are not statistically significant. Also note that for the last year that 12z seems to be doing a little better than the other cycles. However, to argue against myself.....and as the above plot would suggest, you can find individual periods that would seem to suggest some cycles are better than others (here is one recent example....a small sample size where the differences are not statistically significant): I don't have time to do an extremely thorough evaluation using other metrics/levels, etc., but the bottom line (in my opinion) is this notion of 06/18z versus 00/12z is more myth than fact (at least in the recent NWP era, and in a time-mean sense). Another thing to keep in mind, these metrics are looking at forecasts of the same length (120h forecasts in this case). In the short range, an updated forecast is always going to be more skillful than an older forecast valid at the same time because of the assimilation of observations. I'll use a 2 day forecast as an example: The 42h forecast initialized at 6z is going to be better than the 48h forecast initialized at 0z (regardless of what you think of 6/18z in general). In fact, if no observations were assimilated at all at 6z, the two forecasts would be identical (since the assimilation scheme is an update to a short term guess, or 06hr NWP forecast)
  2. They use a blend of ECMWF, UKMO, GME, Hirlam, Harmonie for there forecasts Its always spouted the Irish met only use one which is rubish , dont use the GFS Il give you that
  3. On an Irish site I use , nearly the exact same , but with the disappointment so what more muted
  4. More than likely down to myslef , I hope you dont mind ? Find your posting very insightful and not many of the folks on the forum would have an indepth knowledge or analysis like some of the stuff you guys are posting over here.
×
×
  • Create New...