Ben Bailey cannot forecast worth a shit!!!

[Rate This]

It’ll be interesting to see what happens with the weather this weekend and early next week, as the next polar vortex has been predicted. Some models show lows in the -9° range early next week.

A few weeks back, the Weather Channel predicted February to be above normal in temps, and March to be much above normal in temps (for MI). Now NOAA and AccuWeather are predicting below average temps here until well into mid-February.

It looks like the bottom is gonna fall out after Friday. Down here in Wayne I’m seeing NWS say:
32 Friday rain/snow
16 Friday night
24 Saturday
10 Saturday night
17 Sunday
3 Sunday night
14 Monday

That downward trend looks pretty darn grim...

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

It’ll be interesting to see what happens with the weather this weekend and early next week, as the next polar vortex has been predicted. Some models show lows in the -9° range early next week.

A few weeks back, the Weather Channel predicted February to be above normal in temps, and March to be much above normal in temps (for MI). Now NOAA and AccuWeather are predicting below average temps here until well into mid-February.

Only count on the Weather Channel to deliver on fake reality snow trucker TV shows.

My beef is with Andrew Humphrey. He said 1-2 inches of snow today due to lake effect. Had a few flurries late this morning, but they didn't even stick. Bone dry here in Warren.

[G G]

The left has politicized meteorology to the point the models selected by these ham-and-eggers are based on Goreist ideas and not what they should have learned in class.

To hell with them!

I'll do better with my Farmer's Almanac and a look out the window. I own salt, shovels, and sweaters so whatever happens, I'll be prepared.

[MWmetalhead]

The Farmer's Almanac should be in the fiction section!

A few weeks back, the Weather Channel predicted February to be above normal in temps, and March to be much above normal in temps (for MI). Now NOAA and AccuWeather are predicting below average temps here until well into mid-February.

True! Those long range NOAA models are garbage, generally speaking.

[Rate This]

The Farmer's Almanac should be in the fiction section!

A few weeks back, the Weather Channel predicted February to be above normal in temps, and March to be much above normal in temps (for MI). Now NOAA and AccuWeather are predicting below average temps here until well into mid-February.

True! Those long range NOAA models are garbage, generally speaking.

GFS is the problem. The European is usually more accurate.

[km1125]

Brendan Roux was trying to make the case today that he's more accurate than Punxsutawney Phil, stating the the groundhog is only about 40% accurate.

He did not state how much more accurate he is though, so I'm guessing 41%.

[MWmetalhead]

The Euro model did not do a very good job with these past couple storms in our neck of the woods, IIRC.

[Rate This]

The Euro model did not do a very good job with these past couple storms in our neck of the woods, IIRC.

That statement about the European model is a couple years old. I forget exactly where I read it but the gist of the article was “do weather forecasts seem less accurate? You’re right and the governments GFS model is to blame”... it went on to say that there were needs to upgrade and improve the technology associated with it which requires an investment nobody seemed interested in.

[jadednihilist]

The left has politicized meteorology to the point the models selected by these ham-and-eggers are based on Goreist ideas and not what they should have learned in class.

To hell with them!

I'll do better with my Farmer's Almanac and a look out the window. I own salt, shovels, and sweaters so whatever happens, I'll be prepared.

That's patently false. Each weather model is based purely on solving physics equations. The reason there are errors in the models is based on sparse inputs (observations) into the models, especially over the oceans, and limitations within computational ability. Global weather models operate on horizontal grids of ~10x10 km^2, with varying densities from the surface to the upper atmosphere. Regional models run at higher horizontal resolutions of 1-3 km (1-9 km^2), but depend on global models for conditions outside the model domain. In any case, the atmospheric dynamics that occur at sub-grid levels (1-100 km^2) happens to be quite consequential and need to be represented in the models in some form. Each model uses different ways to estimate sub-grid processes - and also use different methods for quality controlling the data they input into the model. There's also some differences in how each model divides the atmosphere into grids, which makes important numerical differences in their computations. These are all highly justifiable scientific, not political decisions, based on how to operate under finite resources.

Bad forecasting revolves around using these models as gospel truth, rather than guidance. You have analyze how well models are capturing current weather features, as well as how consistent the forecasts are in between models and model runs. It's not an easy task, even amongst the most knowledgeable atmospheric scientists. Everyone is susceptible to a bad assumption leading to a bad forecast. Although as a rule of thumb, forecasters who live by the models, also die by the models, too.

[jadednihilist]

The Euro model did not do a very good job with these past couple storms in our neck of the woods, IIRC.

Correct. The Euro has had a poor handle on the current pattern lately. The GFS is actually doing a pretty decent job with verification.

Here's a look at how the 0-144h 500 mb forecasts have panned out recently:
Euro: https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/html/ecmw ... op500.html
GFS: https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/html/gfs0012loop500.html

[MWmetalhead]

Outstanding insight; thank you for posting.

I recall hearing recently that the GFS's equations recently (within the last year, let's say) received a major update. Is that correct, do you know?

[jadednihilist]

Outstanding insight; thank you for posting.

I recall hearing recently that the GFS's equations recently (within the last year, let's say) received a major update. Is that correct, do you know?

Thank you!

I am not a model developer, nor am I actively participating in model development, so I can't speak to well to the specifics, but I'll try my best.

You are correct, the GFS did a major change in its computational methods. Prior to 2019, the GFS used spectral methods to solve the basic physical equations. Spectral methods typically use Fourier transforms, which fit a series of sinusoidal equations to estimate a solution (to visualize this, think if you were to model the ocean surface, you'd see a series of small waves embedded within larger waves extending to diurnal and monthly lunar tidal patterns). This method has worked reasonably well over the years and requires fewer individual computations to run, but there is a limitation to its accuracy.

In 2019, the GFS now adopts a Finite Volume Cubic-sphere (FV3) grid. That is, it assumes the Earth's atmosphere is of finite volume (a fair assumption, since we're neither gaining nor losing atmosphere to any reasonable approximation; unlike Mars, which is losing atmosphere due to a weaker magnetic field leaving the planet more exposed to the impacts of solar wind). It then partitions the Earth into a cubed sphere, pictured below (image from NASA, but the cubed sphere grid was developed at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton.

It's a strange shape, but dividing a sphere into roughly equal parts at high spatial resolution, yet maintaining lower computational costs and mitigating numerical instabilities is a complex problem. The promise of the FV3 grid is that it is supposed to resolve larger scale features better than spectral methods over longer forecasting periods. I don't have the specifics in how much this has improved the GFS's forecast over time, but the modeling community seems happy.

As a brief interesting aside, the big motivation for American forecasting model improvements was Hurricane Sandy. The ECMWF was the first global model to predict a leftward turn, making landfall over the eastern US, whereas the GFS predicted the storm would eject out to see over the North Atlantic. Both models at the time used spectral methods to solve the basic equations, and the ECMWF still uses spectral methods operationally today in their forecast models. However, post Sandy model analysis revealed that the key difference happened to be the data ingested. NOAA tends to be pretty aggressive with quality controlling observations that go into their models; but the ECMWF group tends to be more inclusive with what data they used. When using the same observational data that the ECMWF used, a rerun of the GFS also showed a leftward turn into the east coast.

Given that, it would seem that the FV3 fix seems questionable, but the goal was to create better modeling techniques than the ECMWF group, rather than merely copy them. Other fixes in the future include increasing vertical resolution (adding more model layers in the atmosphere, since vertical processes are extremely important for resolving weather features), better representation of aerosols (important for clouds and heating/cooling), among others.

[ChrisWL1980]

The left has politicized meteorology to the point the models selected by these ham-and-eggers are based on Goreist ideas and not what they should have learned in class.

To hell with them!

I'll do better with my Farmer's Almanac and a look out the window. I own salt, shovels, and sweaters so whatever happens, I'll be prepared.

That's patently false. Each weather model is based purely on solving physics equations. The reason there are errors in the models is based on sparse inputs (observations) into the models, especially over the oceans, and limitations within computational ability. Global weather models operate on horizontal grids of ~10x10 km^2, with varying densities from the surface to the upper atmosphere. Regional models run at higher horizontal resolutions of 1-3 km (1-9 km^2), but depend on global models for conditions outside the model domain. In any case, the atmospheric dynamics that occur at sub-grid levels (1-100 km^2) happens to be quite consequential and need to be represented in the models in some form. Each model uses different ways to estimate sub-grid processes - and also use different methods for quality controlling the data they input into the model. There's also some differences in how each model divides the atmosphere into grids, which makes important numerical differences in their computations. These are all highly justifiable scientific, not political decisions, based on how to operate under finite resources.

Bad forecasting revolves around using these models as gospel truth, rather than guidance. You have analyze how well models are capturing current weather features, as well as how consistent the forecasts are in between models and model runs. It's not an easy task, even amongst the most knowledgeable atmospheric scientists. Everyone is susceptible to a bad assumption leading to a bad forecast. Although as a rule of thumb, forecasters who live by the models, also die by the models, too.

Well said.
However, if you hang around here long enough, you'll learn that there's no reasoning with these trolls who mistake this board for Parler and feel any topic ranging from health care to fast food menus is an invitation to inject politics.

[jadednihilist]

I appreciate the warning. I try to limit myself to what I feel confident speaking about -- and to ask questions when it feels like the conversation can be productive. My hope, is at least with atmospheric science, I can help address common misconceptions, so that they don't go unchecked. That said, I'm not the penultimate authority here, so I welcome any corrections - or questions as well.

[thatonedude]

The left has politicized meteorology to the point the models selected by these ham-and-eggers are based on Goreist ideas and not what they should have learned in class.

To hell with them!

I'll do better with my Farmer's Almanac and a look out the window. I own salt, shovels, and sweaters so whatever happens, I'll be prepared.

The FARMER'S ALMANAC??? That bird cage liner has been proven to be inaccurate numerous times. I'll cite Mr. Tom Skilling's post here: https://www.chicagotribune.com/weather/ ... olumn.html

Several analyses of the accuracy of weather forecasts in the Old Farmer's Almanac have indicated their predictions are about 52 percent correct in their day-to-day forecasts. Their seasonal forecasts score better. In general, National Weather Service forecasts, both short and long term, are much more accurate.

52 PERCENT. It's only somewhat better than a coin toss. The NWS is at least mostly accurate (as a whole; individual offices have their own weaknesses. I'll bitch about the Detroit NWS another time).

And a heads-up: politics has NOTHING to do with weather and climate; never has, never will. I'm so fucking tired of people politicizing everything in existence, from proven science to whatever brand of shit tickets someone buys. It's gotten old.

/endrant

jadednihilist -- you don't happen to be an operational meteorologist by any chance, do you? I rarely see people delve into the actual science and overall work that goes into making the models "tick", so to speak. Nice to see that for a change. I'm not in the field -- as much as I am a weather enthusiast -- but it's always been tempting to head that direction...