• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Pattern Januworry

mrdaddyman said:
Seriously, no offense to anyone on here but why do the Control runs keep getting pulled out? I know they are really fun to look at sometimes, but I have never seen a single snowy Control run verify. I would genuinely like to know if there is some benefit to what they show versus the other Ensemble members.
Click to expand...
In addition to what Fro and CR stated, I like to view the Control as an extension of the Euro Op run, to just see what it shows past day 10. As with any Op or ensemble member, you don't take it to the bank, you just look at the overall features. I like to look at what it is showing with the Pac Jet, etc., as it has more definition / detail than you are going to see on an Ensemble Mean out at range.

But here's something interesting too...there probably have been more recent papers written on ensembles (I'm sure), but there is a paper from 2005 that showed how the Op run is more accurate in days 0-5, but the Control run is more accurate from days 5-10 (again, I don't know if that has changed, but that's what is stated in the paper).

Source: http://www.iapjournals.ac.cn/fileDQKXJZ/journal/article/dqkxjz/2005/6/PDF/226zyj.pdf

Here is a chart and select text from that paper:

cRqcBYY.png


..."For the short lead-time (0–96 hours), the high resolution GFS is the best, and the individual ensemble perturbation forecasts are far behind either the GFS (due to the resolution and initial error) or CTL (due to the initial error). After a short lead-time (120 hours), the model resolution is not as important as the first 96 hours to improve the model forecast skills; as unexpected, CTL is slightly better than GFS from 144 hours to 264 hours lead-time in this experiment period."

..."Interestingly, both GFS and CTL are still better than any of the individual ensemble members."

..."The resolution plays a key role in the success of the short-range forecasts while the influence of the resolution is much smaller than that of the initial conditions for medium-range forecasts."
 
Good read/ post in MA tonight. Dissected the GFS,CAN,EURO 12z ops. Guy showed the seperation of thursdays coastal and influence it had on our NS and SW shortwaves for the weekend. Interesting take.
 
griteater said:
In addition to what Fro and CR stated, I like to view the Control as an extension of the Euro Op run, to just see what it shows past day 10. As with any Op or ensemble member, you don't take it to the bank, you just look at the overall features. I like to look at what it is showing with the Pac Jet, etc., as it has more definition / detail than you are going to see on an Ensemble Mean out at range.

But here's something interesting too...there probably have been more recent papers written on ensembles (I'm sure), but there is a paper from 2005 that showed how the Op run is more accurate in days 0-5, but the Control run is more accurate from days 5-10 (again, I don't know if that has changed, but that's what is stated in the paper).

Source: http://www.iapjournals.ac.cn/fileDQKXJZ/journal/article/dqkxjz/2005/6/PDF/226zyj.pdf

Here is a chart and select text from that paper:

cRqcBYY.png


..."For the short lead-time (0–96 hours), the high resolution GFS is the best, and the individual ensemble perturbation forecasts are far behind either the GFS (due to the resolution and initial error) or CTL (due to the initial error). After a short lead-time (120 hours), the model resolution is not as important as the first 96 hours to improve the model forecast skills; as unexpected, CTL is slightly better than GFS from 144 hours to 264 hours lead-time in this experiment period."

..."Interestingly, both GFS and CTL are still better than any of the individual ensemble members."

..."The resolution plays a key role in the success of the short-range forecasts while the influence of the resolution is much smaller than that of the initial conditions for medium-range forecasts."
Click to expand...
I'v always wondered if there was any individual member that stood out as an over performer vs the rest at X range.
 
BIG FROSTY said:
I don't think much of Euro or GFS yet! because it's coming from the NW that usually don't work out here. Unless it digs more SW than shown, I will not fall for it.
Click to expand...
That’s actually how many of our Miller A setups have occurred, from northern stream energy diving southeast and tilting favorably
 
Can we get this to trend further south? Those of us here in the "armpit of Hell", aka The Midlands, say hello! Lol. Seriously though, it's all about getting the players on the field right now. Hopefully we can bring something good to fruition, that will impact us all boardwide in the coming weeks.
 
Myfrotho704_ said:
That’s actually how many of our Miller A setups have occurred, from northern stream energy diving southeast and tilting favorably
Click to expand...
That’s actually the storm mode that screws areas back west as well, we need the 12z euro solution with a hybrid Miller B/A setup
 
Myfrotho704_ said:
That’s actually how many of our Miller A setups have occurred, from northern stream energy diving southeast and tilting favorably
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct! I mean the way it is modeled as of now it’s not digging far enough west, as of now. JMO which ain’t much!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BIG FROSTY said:
I don't think much of Euro or GFS yet! because it's coming from the NW that usually don't work out here. Unless it digs more SW than shown, I will not fall for it.
Click to expand...
We had a decent one in 2017 during a La Niña with energy diving out of the north. Few and far between but doable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top