#3 Postby donsutherland1 » Sat Dec 13, 2003 8:37 pm
Chris,
It's not "idiotic" to not understand the computer models. Many don't understand them fully. What one needs to do is first understand what the models are depicting e.g., 500 mb heights (the heights at which the pressure is 500 millibars), 850 mb temperatures, etc. Once one has that familiarity, which is the easier part, then one has to understand various relationships between what the models are showing and synoptic patterns taking into consideration model biases.
Also, sometimes model guidance is reasonable and other times it isn't. Model initialization errors can also result (e.g., improper placement of systems, improper strength, etc.). Thus, an understanding of patterns is also important.
It is important that one not take a superficial look at the models and reach premature conclusions.
For example:
A rough--and I mean rough--approximation of the dividing line between snow and rain can be the 0C 850 mb isotherm or the 5400 meter 1000 mb-500 mb thickness.
However, if 5C air enters e.g., at 900mb to 975 mb, then one should not expect snow even if the placement of the 0C/5400 meter lines seems to justify snow.
Soundings are important in helping understand precipitation types.
All said, understanding the models is not a simple process. It takes time and effort--and, if possible, a good textbook or even course--to do so.
At this point in time, my suggestion is to carefully examine the model diagrams shown by such members as DT, RNS, and Erica (NEwxgirl) and their explanations. This can make a good starting point for the learning process.
If you have questions, I'm sure that they, not to mention many of us, will be glad to try to answer them.
Good luck.
0 likes