#5910 Postby Michele B » Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:14 pm
Soonercane wrote:SapphireSea wrote:Michele B wrote:
I had said this days ago. It also goes along with a lot of stuff Joe Bastardi believes, too. That the 'models' are based on data from just a few years ago, for instance, and don't take into account what storms were doing 40, 50 years ago, who "moved like" these. Of course, it isn't like we have a lot of reliable data about the "ridging" and exact positions of things like Atlantic highs, etc.
Again: "Garbage in, garbage out."
The complaint from JB on the models does not really hold that much water. Dynamical fluid modeling systems barely and generally do not directly use statistical data to plot courses. That's like complaining about the CLP5 performance. Ludicrous.
Think about the scale of what needs to be modeled. You know like a butterfly effect but with poor resolution of air data. The fact that some models can tell you today with a 200 mile error or so (in some cases less) what a small 16nm low center will do is astounding and a great sign of human progress on forecasting earth weather. Do they still error of course and what worries is that generally to the right of the envelope in many cases.
Well said... we are not talking about MOS or SHIPS here, while some empirical tuning is done on things like parameterization schemes dynamical models generally are not "trained" on historical data in the literal sense.
So do you all NOT think Joe B's theory that studying decadal trends has merit, rather than just analyzing current conditions?
0 likes
Cleo - 1964, Betsy - 1965, David - 1979, Andrew - 1992, Charlie (Francis, Ivan, Jeanne) - 2004, Irma - 2017, Ian - 2022