ATL: CRISTOBAL - Models

[tolakram]

The 12Z ECMWF has this down to 968MB heading ENE over the North Atlantic, 96 hours from now

Heck, 982mb in 48 hours. What is it looking at?

[tolakram]

Saved images

[USTropics]

Here are some graphs I put together showing how some of the models have performed with Cristobal thus far (this data dates back to when Cristobal was designated 96L). The first graph is the average position error in nautical miles by forecast hour. The second graph is the average intensity error in regards to wind speed by forecast hour.

[artist]

Here are some graphs I put together showing how some of the models have performed with Cristobal thus far (this data dates back to when Cristobal was designated 96L). The first graph is the average position error in nautical miles by forecast hour. The second graph is the average intensity error in regards to wind speed by forecast hour. [/Quote]

Very interesting. Do you have it available for the ecmwf and its ensembles? I am wondering how it compares with the others.

[USTropics]

Here are some graphs I put together showing how some of the models have performed with Cristobal thus far (this data dates back to when Cristobal was designated 96L). The first graph is the average position error in nautical miles by forecast hour. The second graph is the average intensity error in regards to wind speed by forecast hour. [/Quote]

Very interesting. Do you have it available for the ecmwf and its ensembles? I am wondering how it compares with the others.

Unfortunately, the ECMWF model is proprietary and copyrighted; the public data set that is available is extremely limited. If anyone knows if they have a public data set for positional points per run, I would be able to average the errors but I have yet to locate that. The UKMET also has limited data available (or at least I can not find any data dumps per run).

[ronjon]

LOL - looks like the NAM did the best over the 72 hour period!

[artist]

http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/
Have you tried this link above?

Here are some graphs I put together showing how some of the models have performed with Cristobal thus far (this data dates back to when Cristobal was designated 96L). The first graph is the average position error in nautical miles by forecast hour. The second graph is the average intensity error in regards to wind speed by forecast hour. [/Quote]

Very interesting. Do you have it available for the ecmwf and its ensembles? I am wondering how it compares with the others.

Unfortunately, the ECMWF model is proprietary and copyrighted; the public data set that is available is extremely limited. If anyone knows if they have a public data set for positional points per run, I would be able to average the errors but I have yet to locate that. The UKMET also has limited data available (or at least I can not find any data dumps per run).

[USTropics]

http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/
Have you tried this link above?

Yes I have. Most of their public data appears to be oriented towards their climate variability reanalysis project and other past projects, and the data is just not current enough to include systems from this year (that I have found so far). I currently have access to their ftp database, and have found the .grib files for producing my own ECMWF forecasts in IDV, but nothing as far as positional points for active/past systems in regards to 2014. Short of manually looking at each run and verifying track positions, there doesn't appear to be any public data from ECMWF that will allow me to do this like the other models (which run from government entities with public domains, i.e. GFS and its components). I will contact them and see if this is included in their private data set, and if my applications for using their data would allow me to have a subscription with limited research privileges.

[supercane4867]

00z GFS deepens Cristobal to 943mb just after extratropical transition, which is incredibly low for a non-tropical system in August