00z Tropical model suite=Are these with jet data?

#1 Postby **cycloneye** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:43 pm

http://twister.sbs.ohio-state.edu/text/ ... s/03091400

The pros can answer the question I am asking but LBAR makes landfall in virginia and BAMD more north but again are these with the data from the gulfstream jet?

Derek Ortt · #2 Postby **Derek Ortt** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:47 pm

No

These are based off of the 18Z GFS run

#3 Postby **cycloneye** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:48 pm

Ok Derek thanks still waiting for the globals.

#4 Postby **Steve Cosby** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:55 pm

Derek Ortt wrote:No

These are based off of the 18Z GFS run

So, the GFS is the base for the hurricane models? I knew the GFDL was but wasn't really sure about the others.

One of the pro mets said the hurricane models are not any good at sub-tropical levels.

You have to wonder if the use of a model which itself is based on a model would have any reliability. The error term would have to be huge by the time you get to that point. In my business, that would be like me doing a multiple regression of a multiple regression. The second regression would be useless.

Derek Ortt · #5 Postby **Derek Ortt** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 8:24 pm

it is the source of many of the errors.

Also, due to the nature of my job in the research field, I have had some vry negative experience in using a model as the basis of another, such as the Georges simulation, which still hasnt been corrected due to awful GFS initial conditions

#6 Postby **Steve Cosby** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 8:27 pm

Derek Ortt wrote:Also, due to the nature of my job in the research field, I have had some vry negative experience in using a model as the basis of another, such as the Georges simulation, which still hasnt been corrected due to awful GFS initial conditions

I don't remember what happened there but I take it that it was something like: the GFS inputs were off for some reason and the resulting track / intensity was way off? A classic example of "garbage in / garbage out" then.

Derek Ortt · #7 Postby **Derek Ortt** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 8:29 pm

yeah, GFS was more than 500km off with tis initialization, causing horrible and possibly unresolvable problems in terms of wind flow and moisture distribution

#8 Postby **Steve Cosby** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 8:32 pm

Derek Ortt wrote:GFS was more than 500km off with tis initialization, causing horrible and possibly unresolvable problems in terms of wind flow and moisture distribution

Heavens! Such an error would be nearly criminal given the apparent reliance on models by the NWS in general.

Was there ever any reason found?

Steve H. · #9 Postby **Steve H.** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 8:32 pm

Kinda odd that the tropical models ain't no good for hurricanes like this...what the hell they for they for then :o Think the LBAR is about right....but its too early to know much of anything right now. WHat's the first model to get the jet data???? experts?? WHo's gonna call Stewart??

Rainband · #10 Postby **Rainband** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 8:42 pm

Steve Cosby wrote:
Derek Ortt wrote:GFS was more than 500km off with tis initialization, causing horrible and possibly unresolvable problems in terms of wind flow and moisture distribution

Heavens! Such an error would be nearly criminal given the apparent reliance on models by the NWS in general.

Was there ever any reason found?

And you experts Question why we don't think we are safe till Isabel passes us...Give me a break :roll:

#11 Postby **Steve Cosby** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 8:44 pm

Rainband wrote:And you experts Question why we don't think we are safe till Isabel passes us...Give me a break

Good point.

In this case, though, good 'ole fashioned tea leaf reading seems to be doing as good as the high and mighty models (i.e. pattern observation).

00z Tropical model suite=Are these with jet data?

00z Tropical model suite=Are these with jet data?

GFS as base for these?

Georges?

Heavens!

Re: Heavens!

Re: Heavens!

Who is online