ATL: MATTHEW - Models

[Ken711]

This is slightly off-topic but I'm always hearing about some of the really bad models from year-to-year, and if performance of these models is so bad(which I agree with by the way),why do they keep using them year after year?? why not either improve on them or just get rid of them completely. I just don't understand that.

Are there some predictive factors that some of those models do well enough to be used in the overall NHC analyses even though those models individual modeling assumptions may be be flawed?

[floridasun78]

ok se coast fl under cone their looking models shift to west

[wxmann_91]

This is slightly off-topic but I'm always hearing about some of the really bad models from year-to-year, and if performance of these models is so bad(which I agree with by the way),why do they keep using them year after year?? why not either improve on them or just get rid of them completely. I just don't understand that.

It's easy just to say "oh let's improve the models" but it's hard to actually implement that.

TC's are small on global scales. To accurately depict a TC you must first improve the resolution. But with global models you can only go so small because greater resolution means a greater amount of computing power/time to create the output.

After you improve the resolution, you have to figure out how to model thunderstorms. For the most part, thunderstorm development is random. You can't say thunderstorms will develop at exactly X location at Y time. Models have to approximate the randomness of thunderstorms, which is imprecise and are a big source of error for TC forecasting. Because TC-level thunderstorm development can alter the surrounding environment, and TC's themselves undergo fluctuations due to thunderstorms (think ERC).

[ConvergenceZone]

This is slightly off-topic but I'm always hearing about some of the really bad models from year-to-year, and if performance of these models is so bad(which I agree with by the way),why do they keep using them year after year?? why not either improve on them or just get rid of them completely. I just don't understand that.

It's easy just to say "oh let's improve the models" but it's hard to actually implement that.

TC's are small on global scales. To accurately depict a TC you must first improve the resolution. But with global models you can only go so small because greater resolution means a greater amount of computing power/time to create the output.

After you improve the resolution, you have to figure out how to model thunderstorms. For the most part, thunderstorm development is random. You can't say thunderstorms will develop at exactly X location at Y time. Models have to approximate the randomness of thunderstorms, which is imprecise and are a big source of error for TC forecasting. Because TC-level thunderstorm development can alter the surrounding environment, and TC's themselves undergo fluctuations due to thunderstorms (think ERC).

I understand what you are saying, but then why not get rid of the horribly performing models instead of using them at all. If they are that horrible and useless, why keep them?

[Alyono]

This is slightly off-topic but I'm always hearing about some of the really bad models from year-to-year, and if performance of these models is so bad(which I agree with by the way),why do they keep using them year after year?? why not either improve on them or just get rid of them completely. I just don't understand that.

It's easy just to say "oh let's improve the models" but it's hard to actually implement that.

TC's are small on global scales. To accurately depict a TC you must first improve the resolution. But with global models you can only go so small because greater resolution means a greater amount of computing power/time to create the output.

After you improve the resolution, you have to figure out how to model thunderstorms. For the most part, thunderstorm development is random. You can't say thunderstorms will develop at exactly X location at Y time. Models have to approximate the randomness of thunderstorms, which is imprecise and are a big source of error for TC forecasting. Because TC-level thunderstorm development can alter the surrounding environment, and TC's themselves undergo fluctuations due to thunderstorms (think ERC).

I think in 2-3 years, the ECMWF will be able to resolve storms explicitly. They need to drop their resolution to 5 km or less. At those high resolutions, the models can handle convection without any parameterization. That improvement is going to be the next breaktrhough in track and intensity forecasting

[SouthFLTropics]

Here we go...GFS is running.

[ConvergenceZone]

Alyono, interesting about the models and the future. Thanks all for your responses. Back to the topic at hand, it's crazy to think we have a Cat 5 in the Carib. Hammy can serve me a bowl of crow right now as I didn't think the Carib could generate a storm of that strength in 2016. Heck I didn't even think a Cat 2 was possible. He/She was right and I was definitely wrong.

[Digital-TC-Chaser]

[Kingarabian]

00z GFS 18hr:

[sponger]

Far to weak to start!

[floridasun78]

I will wait to see the evening runs tonight. They got a lot of data in them. Will know more by morning.
RE: models run
Setzer, Craig to you show details

[tolakram]

Looks to be starting the turn, and weakened since init. Must be the higher shear being forecast.

[HurricaneFrances04]

I'd say we're on track for the GFS to continue the trend of being even slower than the last run.

[tolakram]

Once again the ridge is just a little stronger than the previous run, which was a little stronger than the previous run .......

[Hurricaneman]

I'd say we're on track for the GFS to continue the trend of being even slower than the last run.

and a stronger ridge which means closer to the Florida coast, anxious times a coming

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

[Ken711]

I'd say we're on track for the GFS to continue the trend of being even slower than the last run.

and a stronger ridge which means closer to the Florida coast, anxious times a coming

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.

In the 11 NHC discussion they said this track is on the western edge of the ridge which is suppose to weaken. I sure hope it weakens.

[Kingarabian]

Unchanged @ 36hrs

[Hurricaneman]

Slightly weaker trough this run compared to 18z

[northjaxpro]

The upper trough in the Ohio Valley on that GFS run above is not digging south as it was shown in earlier runs. The Bermuda ridge is trying to build back a bit stronger that run.

[HurricaneFrances04]

GFS shows some weakening in the first 24 hours, then strengthens after...as it approaches Jamaica. This will potentially be a devastating storm for the island.