Model output discussion - late November

[feb1991blizzard]

2 minutes ago, frosty ground said:

You could easily make it up because both runs at that time frame sit within the envelope of outcomes.
 

But the distribution of energy and the models assimilation of it varies so early in the run that it makes it laughable on an operational run.

[frosty ground]

1 minute ago, Steve Murr said:

Yep. Its a shower of s*it post 144.

Its been proving it since 2009.

Feb 1 2009 Actual V Jan 25 06z run to 162.

Could post up the same old trash runs from every year but cant be bothered.

But why dont you take a picture of todays 168 & 192 GFS & compare it 7 days down the line....

 

But that's the same for every model post day 5 Steve and its clear as day that both outputs sit withing the envelope of outcomes which again is not surprising because the envelope of solutions get bigger the further into the future you get.

The solution is not an outlier, it has support just as this morning output did.


 

[Methuselah]

And, as per usual (when things don't go to plan) the same old silliness abounds: if a run says it's going to snow, it's the bee's knees; should it say the opposite, however, it's cannon fodder...Well, if that's true, the cannon-fodders won last-year's 'competition' hands-down!

   

FWIW, I fully expect this run to be on the warm side of the ensemble...? The ops are flapping.

PS: Or, more correctly, to move toward the warm side...the 00Z operational is the one that looks dubious:

Edited November 22, 2019 by Ed Stone

[Seasonality]

3 minutes ago, Steve Murr said:

Yep. Its a shower of s*it post 144.

Its been proving it since 2009.

Feb 1 2009 Actual V Jan 25 06z run to 162.

Could post up the same old trash runs from every year but cant be bothered.

But why dont you take a picture of todays 168 & 192 GFS & compare it 7 days down the line....

 

But it's the new GFS Steve. Is it a good idea to make the same assumptions?

[Mizzle]

Ever the optimist, I can see the angel fish reforming in FI. 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Mizzle

[Weathizard]

This run is actually very well represented and the most prominent trend on the GFS 0z ensembles if you look at them closely. Let’s be honest if you’re betting you’re house on it you aren’t betting on the ECM outcome are you.

[swfc]

It would seem the hoops needed to be jumped threw these days to get a cold snap-spell have increased.beyond my Payscale.Anyway I'd give it 7 days and see how any ridging builds towards the north.id be looking know further than that on any model

Edited November 22, 2019 by swfc

[Winter Hill]

My question for IDO is why not comment on any of the 0z’s models but a soon as the GFS 6z backtracks, you are all over the MOD thread like a rash? 
not a dig, but a general question why you vanish when this often happens. ?

[feb1991blizzard]

I wonder if the 6z output @Steve Murr is as a result of this much more aggressive and earlier push of the SPV back over to the Canadian sector  has done it, wonder whether this run actually would be better longer term, almost certainly a destroyed SPV and SSW from this run.

Edited November 22, 2019 by feb1991blizzard

[Skullzrulerz]

18 minutes ago, Weathizard said:

Awaiting the 6z is unreliable cannon fodder posts unfortunately what this shows is very plausible we’ve seen this many times over the years with lows phasing together over the Atlantic. Not saying it will happen but I’d lean more towards that than a massive Greeny ridge.

Seen a lot of "bin" posts as of late 

I do think however more runs are needed as never know this could be right ?

[Mizzle]

4 minutes ago, Mizzle said:

Ever the optimist, I can see the angel fish reforming in FI. 

Then again...

[IDO]

1 minute ago, Winter Hill said:

My question for IDO is why not comment on any of the 0z’s models but a soon as the GFS 6z backtracks, you are all over the MOD thread like a rash? 
not a dig, but a general question why you vanish when this often happens. ?

I have commented about the 0z and 12z, so not sure why you say that?

I think we are seeing opposite ends of the spectrum, the 0z the best case scenario and the 06z the worse:

The GFS still unable to get a grip on where we are going after D7.

My point was more that the subtlety of the current setup means small changes can make big changes in the world of algorithms.

[kushty snows best]

GFS run is like lot of the 0z ensembles ! Very worrying. 

[StretfordEnd1996]

14 minutes ago, IDO said:

I have commented about the 0z and 12z, so not sure why you say that?

I think we are seeing opposite ends of the spectrum, the 0z the best case scenario and the 06z the worse:

The GFS still unable to get a grip on where we are going after D7.

My point was more that the subtlety of the current setup means small changes can make big changes in the world of algorithms.

That's a great response to a comment I certainly don't share any views on. Keep at it IDO, I'm one of your fans

The disappointment I see regarding the GFS 6z is it doesn't really show anything in the way of colder uppers moving in at anytime - the HP just isn't in the right place for around D6-8

It gets close but any cold uppers immediately get closed off by the HP coming across

I'm guessing as Ed suggested it will be one of the more milder members in the suit, but who knows? 

Absolutely nothing set in stone at the moment

EDIT: A quick glance at the ensembles and I'm liking the fact that the op is one of the more milder (by a long way) runs at around the Day 6-8 timeframe.

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by StretfordEnd1996

[Frosty.]

Looking at the GEFS 6z there's plenty of potential for a cold end to autumn / start to winter!!!!!!!

Edited November 22, 2019 by JON SNOW

[JoeShmoe]

18 minutes ago, IDO said:

I have commented about the 0z and 12z, so not sure why you say that?

I think we are seeing opposite ends of the spectrum, the 0z the best case scenario and the 06z the worse:

The GFS still unable to get a grip on where we are going after D7.

My point was more that the subtlety of the current setup means small changes can make big changes in the world of algorithms.

This is a very good point, how often over the years have we seen the tiniest shortwave or energy disruption at T+96 scupper any cold spell. In meteorological terms the UK is a very small island at the end of a very large ocean and getting any deep cold to these shores id always on a knife edge. Hence why these days I just don't get any real hopes up until things are set in stone - its great to follow the ride though 

[Chesil View]

And so because  the GFS 06z is a bit pants we ignore the better performing ECM and UKMO........ mmmmmmm.

[feb1991blizzard]

The 6z GEFS are about as bad as it gets.

[Stuie]

53 minutes ago, Steve Murr said:

Yep. Its a shower of s*it post 144.

Its been proving it since 2009.

Feb 1 2009 Actual V Jan 25 06z run to 162.

Could post up the same old trash runs from every year but cant be bothered.

But why dont you take a picture of todays 168 & 192 GFS & compare it 7 days down the line....

 

Steve, do you have any data comparing this variant of the GFS compared to the previous? 

[SMU]

I cannot believe the total memory loss of the same old people here, thats the same ones posting the same replies as they do every year - defending the GFS when its going to be wrong.

When you have UKMO aligned to ECM & ECM mean at 120 they are NEVER trumped by an out of kilter GFS especially the 06z which is like comparing a pedigree with a stray.

So for all the neutrals who wonder if its just opinion or is it sound education over a few years lets take yesterday as a prime example of how bad the 06Z GFS is - 

UKMO 144 yest V 120 Today

That is a superb match across day 6 down to Day 5. Metronomic consistency with minimal adjustments all around the Globe.

Now look at the runt of the litter the GFS. Same timeline.

Yesterday at 144 No Greenland High, No decent arc of Cold coming through Scandi

UK in southerlies -- Look how much this model has changed in that short time span...

* So if yesterday was awful at 144 with  no clue of the pattern then the probability is todays 144>168 is the same bin fodder

How anyone who indicates they follow the models can put any credibility on such a pants model (06z) - means to me they are deliberate in their attempts to derail the thread.

Back to the original well proven point 

* If the 06z goes off on a tangent through 144 then scrap it *

Edited November 22, 2019 by Steve Murr

[feb1991blizzard]

But the 0z EPS are much better.

[frosty ground]

56 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

But the distribution of energy and the models assimilation of it varies so early in the run that it makes it laughable on an operational run.

Which happens in the ensembles right? 

[coldwinter]

Very poor GEFS. Pretty much only one goes with the 00z run, let's hope they are too fast with that low, the 6z can be too fast, let's see what the 12'z do! 

[feb1991blizzard]

1 minute ago, frosty ground said:

Which happens in the ensembles right? 

Yes, i don't think you are getting me here, i am criticising the lack of run to run consistency of the GFS, NOT stating that any outcome of the 2 or any other in between will be the right solution.

[Weathizard]

GFS Mean at day 6 fairly similar to the det ECM

 

 

Very noticable from day 6/7 onwards on the GEFS that Iberian heights are growing in strength rapidly, should we not grab this early oppourinty it could be a painful few weeks with that in situ, potentially drier than recent weeks though which is positive.