ATL: JOSE - Models

[wxman57]

I’m wondering why the NHC chose to ignore the UK and Euro solutions, going with the GFS instead. I can maybe see why they’d ignore the UK but the Euro has been their model of choice with Jose and it shows a far different idea than their cone... maybe they’re waiting to see what the 12z runs show.

Probably because the forecasters at the NHC do not want to indicate a significant U.S. landfall for Jose unless they are more confident in that solution. I wouldn't, either. The Euro has been all over the place from run to run, which indicates it is a model that cannot be trusted for Jose.

[Happy Pelican]

I’m wondering why the NHC chose to ignore the UK and Euro solutions, going with the GFS instead. I can maybe see why they’d ignore the UK but the Euro has been their model of choice with Jose and it shows a far different idea than their cone... maybe they’re waiting to see what the 12z runs show.

Probably because the forecasters at the NHC do not want to indicate a significant U.S. landfall for Jose unless they are more confident in that solution. I wouldn't, either. The Euro has been all over the place from run to run, which indicates it is a model that cannot be trusted for Jose.

Could not agree more. The recovery from Sandy has been an absolute failure. Houses up on pilings, rampant contractor fraud and PTSD is off the charts for many. Honestly, I think the NHC is trying to keep everyone calm and only hit the buzzer if their hand is forced and models are locked in. Still too much back and forth.

[xironman]

Of course your right on the cone, it is just after hearing "don't focus on the line", maybe it should be "don't focus on the line or the cone". A smarter cone that takes into account the possibilities of track change would be nice. Interested in the 12z GFS as the NCEP models seem to converge over the shorter timeframes.

[txwatcher91]

I’m wondering why the NHC chose to ignore the UK and Euro solutions, going with the GFS instead. I can maybe see why they’d ignore the UK but the Euro has been their model of choice with Jose and it shows a far different idea than their cone... maybe they’re waiting to see what the 12z runs show.

Probably because the forecasters at the NHC do not want to indicate a significant U.S. landfall for Jose unless they are more confident in that solution. I wouldn't, either. The Euro has been all over the place from run to run, which indicates it is a model that cannot be trusted for Jose.

But their 5am discussion didn’t discuss the changes and their cone in no way reflected the possibility shown by the UK and Euro. They’ve been leaning heavily on the Euro this entire time with Jose based on previous discussions. I just find it odd their cone and 5am disco wouldn’t account for such a possibility.

[Bizzles]

I’m wondering why the NHC chose to ignore the UK and Euro solutions, going with the GFS instead. I can maybe see why they’d ignore the UK but the Euro has been their model of choice with Jose and it shows a far different idea than their cone... maybe they’re waiting to see what the 12z runs show.

Probably because the forecasters at the NHC do not want to indicate a significant U.S. landfall for Jose unless they are more confident in that solution. I wouldn't, either. The Euro has been all over the place from run to run, which indicates it is a model that cannot be trusted for Jose.

But their 5am discussion didn’t discuss the changes and their cone in no way reflected the possibility shown by the UK and Euro. They’ve been leaning heavily on the Euro this entire time with Jose based on previous discussions. I just find it odd their cone and 5am disco wouldn’t account for such a possibility.

IMO they are playing games...it IS a government agency after all...

[RL3AO]

Probably because the forecasters at the NHC do not want to indicate a significant U.S. landfall for Jose unless they are more confident in that solution. I wouldn't, either. The Euro has been all over the place from run to run, which indicates it is a model that cannot be trusted for Jose.

But their 5am discussion didn’t discuss the changes and their cone in no way reflected the possibility shown by the UK and Euro. They’ve been leaning heavily on the Euro this entire time with Jose based on previous discussions. I just find it odd their cone and 5am disco wouldn’t account for such a possibility.

IMO they are playing games...it IS a government agency after all...

What are you talking about? NHC is only about 60 miles from the ECMWF track.

[bg1]

A smarter cone that takes into account the possibilities of track change would be nice.

I've been wondering this for some time: why DON'T we have a dynamic cone that takes into account both past errors and current agreement/disagreement?

[RL3AO]

If you interpolate the NHC forecast track to 12z Wednesday (open black circle) and compare it to the ECMWF Forecast (red x), they aren't that far apart.

[RL3AO]

A smarter cone that takes into account the possibilities of track change would be nice.

I've been wondering this for some time: why DON'T we have a dynamic cone that takes into account both past errors and current agreement/disagreement?

How would you define it? What errors do you account for? How long of a period? Which models do you use? Whats the process to change the models you use? Which ensembles? It's easy to ask why don't we have it. It's much harder to actually come up with something scientific to replace the current cone.

[HurricaneBelle]

A smarter cone that takes into account the possibilities of track change would be nice.

I've been wondering this for some time: why DON'T we have a dynamic cone that takes into account both past errors and current agreement/disagreement?

How would you define it? What errors do you account for? How long of a period? Which models do you use? Whats the process to change the models you use? Which ensembles? It's easy to ask why don't we have it. It's much harder to actually come up with something scientific to replace the current cone.

We already have a "cone" of sorts that takes into account error, the models, and most importantly, the scope of the expected impacts rather than the track-based cone that the public (and a large # of posters on this board) constantly misinterprets. NHC issues it with every advisory. It's the wind-speed probability map and for Jose it can be found here:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphic ... 0#contents

[Bizzles]

[Alyono]

GFS once again unrealistically overintensifies this as it moves toward Cape Cod

Think we're seeing the high latitude high bias at play

[Digital-TC-Chaser]

http://meteocentre.com/numerical-weathe ... =en&hh=000

http://meteocentre.com/numerical-weathe ... =en&hh=000

[MJGarrison]

I've been wondering this for some time: why DON'T we have a dynamic cone that takes into account both past errors and current agreement/disagreement?

How would you define it? What errors do you account for? How long of a period? Which models do you use? Whats the process to change the models you use? Which ensembles? It's easy to ask why don't we have it. It's much harder to actually come up with something scientific to replace the current cone.

We already have a "cone" of sorts that takes into account error, the models, and most importantly, the scope of the expected impacts rather than the track-based cone that the public (and a large # of posters on this board) constantly misinterprets. NHC issues it with every advisory. It's the wind-speed probability map and for Jose it can be found here:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphic ... 0#contents

According to the website, this cone takes into account "error from previous years" which is similar wording to how the center forecast cone is created. Makes me think the error is not dynamic based on model guidance, just Monte Carlo simulations base on wind field size. Still a better impact cone though.

That being said, I think they could create a dynamic center forecast cone but it would need to be based on the models and statistics without manual changes. Until official NHC forecasts become worse than a computer generated forecast, the cone we have now is appropriate.

[RL3AO]

This is not happening.

[txwatcher91]

Whatever they did in the new GFS upgrade, they seriously need to fix it. The old GFS has problems but nothing like this... I expect Jose will rapidly weaken once he hits those cold waters off the NE coast.

[Hurricaneman]

Whatever they did in the new GFS upgrade, they seriously need to fix it. The old GFS has problems but nothing like this... I expect Jose will rapidly weaken once he hits those cold waters off the NE coast.

It already seems to be doing so so the models are all trash until they can resolve Jose correctly

[rog]

Once Jose transitions to a non tropical system could it re-intensify much like your typical nor'easter?

[Hogweed]

Models don't know their left from right!

[Sciencerocks]

Models don't know their left from right!

Based on the 8pm nhc advisory it is moving 2 mph westward. Steering currents aint that strong so it wouldn't totally surprise me if it did keep up.