Winter Model Discussion 18Z 3/2/13 onwards.

[LomondSnowstorm]

The GFS has shown lots of consistency. It refuses to go with the ECM solution & brings us back into a more westerly regime. It also seems to have broad support from the METO models. Just because it's not showing what people want it's rubbished, as is any model that dares not show cold & snow.

It has steadily corrected westwards and amplified the pattern though over the last 48 hours, that is indisputable:

compared to:

It may seem minor on a hemispheric basis but if it adjusts similarly over the next 48 hours we'll be seeing a negatively tilted trough with energy going under the block a la either the UKMO or the ECM (though again both are far from perfect and I don't claim either have been 'rock solid' either other than with the general undercut idea).

[Weathizard]

The GFS has shown lots of consistency. It refuses to go with the ECM solution & brings us back into a more westerly regime. It also seems to have broad support from the METO models. Just because it's not showing what people want it's rubbished, as is any model that dares not show cold & snow.

Ah but we heard this last month and I and many other have highlighted how badly the GFS deals with situations like this, the January debacle a clear example of how badly the GFS deals with complex movements of systems and has a general hatred and refusal to move systems south. As for the METO, that is a worry for me I would admit but during december I remember them saying how MOGREPS and the MetO were going for severe cold and the like and look how that turned out, zonal. Pinch of salt

Its very similar broadly to what happened a month ago as we have the ECM/UKMO and lots of the minor models vs GFS, fair play if its right I will take my harsh words back but given how poorly its dealt with this situation before and this winter, I'll go with the ECM and the UKM, especially the ECM as it has been by FAR the most consistent model in the past 3-4 days.

[Snowman.]

The GFS has shown lots of consistency. It refuses to go with the ECM solution & brings us back into a more westerly regime. It also seems to have broad support from the METO models. Just because it's not showing what people want it's rubbished, as is any model that dares not show cold & snow.

Sorry this post may sound rude but your completely wrong. Consistent doesnt mean cold and snow it means in model and in anyother terms it and constant pattern or trend. Gfs doesnt show that never the same after a reasonable time frame and doesnt mean because it goes against the ecm thats just fish. On tablet so hard to type

[Snowman.]

Ah but we heard this last month and I and many other have highlighted how badly the GFS deals with situations like this, the January debacle a clear example of how badly the GFS deals with complex movements of systems and has a general hatred and refusal to move systems south. As for the METO, that is a worry for me I would admit but during december I remember them saying how MOGREPS and the MetO were going for severe cold and the like and look how that turned out, zonal. Pinch of salt

Its very similar broadly to what happened a month ago as we have the ECM/UKMO and lots of the minor models vs GFS, fair play if its right I will take my harsh words back but given how poorly its dealt with this situation before and this winter, I'll go with the ECM and the UKM, especially the ECM as it has been by FAR the most consistent model in the past 3-4 days.

im sure a shortwave ruined that spawned so quick it was horrible to see

[Weathizard]

im sure a shortwave ruined that spawned so quick it was horrible to see

True and that is always the case with Easterlies, there is a lot of phantom Easterlies in the archives due to silly little complications like a random shortwave deciding to spawn on the Scandinavian coast and many others. My point mainly being, the MOGREPS and MetO can be just as wrong as any other models. They are certainly not infallible and that is no detriment to them just stating facts.

[weather eater]

I think if you go and take a look at all 4 GFS runs today consistency is certainly a word i wouldn't use!

It’s as consistent with its self at 120hrs as the ECM is, if you go onto meteociel you can view the achieve of earlier runs. In reality this is not a competition between the GFS and the ECM, personally I rate the ECM over the GFS, however, that does not mean the ECM is always right, consistent or not. frankly when people talk about how poor the GFS was in run up to the cold in January, they are forgetting that the ECM wasn’t a great deal better, it was the UKMO that was the pick of the three and remember the big Easterly the ECM went for in December, the one that certain respected members got very excited about, great big GH etc, the one that imploded after arguably the best run ever seen on the model thread.

http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/gfse_cartes.php?&ech=120&mode=0

Edited February 5, 2013 by weather eater

[davehsug]

Sorry this post may sound rude but your completely wrong. Consistent doesnt mean cold and snow it means in model and in anyother terms it and constant pattern or trend. Gfs doesnt show that never the same after a reasonable time frame and doesnt mean because it goes against the ecm thats just fish. On tablet so hard to type

If you're talking about fi then of course not, but up until around t120 it has remained pretty constant. Small adjustments & movement as with every model & anybody who denies that the ECM has moved in small amounts is also not looking properly. As always with these things, we start with one or all of the models showing the most extreme outcome & as we get closer to the event, they gradually water down & come closer together. Of course the GFS was lousy during the last cold spell but that doesn't mean it's wrong this time. It did seem a week or 10 days ago as though some sense was finally dawning into the thread, but normal service has been resumed the last few days.

[allenar]

I'm slightly confused. Reading on here tonight I'm none the wiser what the week ahead holds.

[london-snow]

It’s as consistent with its self at 120hrs as the ECM is, if you go onto you can view the achieve of earlier runs. In reality this is not a competition between the GFS and the ECM, personally I rate the ECM over the GFS, however, that does not mean the ECM is always right, consistent or not. frankly when people talk about how poor the GFS was in run up to the cold in January, they are forgetting that the ECM wasn’t a great deal better, it was the UKMO that was the pick of the three and remember the big Easterly the ECM went for in December, the one that certain respected members got very excited about, great big GH etc, the one that imploded after arguably the best run ever seen on the model thread.

meteocielhttp://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/gfse_cartes.php?&ech=120&mode=0

You're getting away from the point though WE.

Yes they may agree up to a certain point 120 as you point out.

However its after that point where i feel the need to disagree with the GFS campers & to simply put it ~

Past a certain time frame = Game Set & Match ECM over the GFS.

Why do i say this?

One word ~ CONSISTANCY ~

Until i see a ECM backtrack then i 99.9% believe in it.

[SE Blizzards]

Ok, let's put this consistency thing to bed!

Here is today's 4 GFS runs for 12th Feb....

Today's GFS 0Z... and remember, all these are for 12th Feb!

Today's GFS 6Z

Today's GFS 12Z

Today's GFS 18Z

As you can clearly see... Absolutely NO consistency from the GFS what so ever!! Easterlies / northerlies /south westerlies... Just about everything u could think of really!

Ok, now lets look at the ECM last 4 runs for 12th Feb...

Yesterdays ECM 0Z

Yesterdays ECM 12Z

Todays ECM 0Z

Todays ECM 12Z

As you can clearly see... much more of a consistency from the ECM with more or less an easterly flow on all 4 runs!

Hopefully that has put to bed any doubts about consistency!

Edited February 5, 2013 by SE Blizzards

[weather eater]

I'm slightly confused. Reading on here tonight I'm none the wiser what the week ahead holds.

Neither am I, it’s just you are getting two camps, one group who think the door is still open (The ECM may or may not be right) and another group who think the door is shut (The ECM is right), happens a lot on here and members often shift between camps, depending on the scenario.

[weather eater]

You're getting away from the point though WE.

Yes they may agree up to a certain point 120 as you point out.

However its after that point where i feel the need to disagree with the GFS campers & to simply put it ~

Past a certain time frame = Game Set & Match ECM over the GFS.

Why do i say this?

One word ~ CONSISTANCY ~

Until i see a ECM backtrack then i 99.9% believe in it.

When you view charts for a number of years you see hundreds of occasions of consistent charts run after run, that then fall over, the GFS produced 13 in a row during December and was wrong. If you want to believe that the ECM has this nailed, then good for you and I hope you are right, I really do, but stop putting down those who have doubts, we don’t have doubts for no reason at all even if you can’t see it or don’t understand it..

[london-snow]

When you view charts for a number of years you see hundreds of occasions of consistent charts run after run, that then fall over, the GFS produced 13 in a row during December and was wrong. If you want to believe that the ECM has this nailed, then good for you and I hope you are right, I really do, but stop putting down those who have doubts, we don’t have doubts for no reason at all even if you can’t see it or don’t understand it..

I am not putting those down who fail to believe the ECM.

I am simply asking why are they following the GFS when it shows a clear lack of consistency & has a bad habit of pushing the pattern to far east but then backing it west in time hence falling into line with other models.

I'm not putting peoples views down however i would like a reasoning to why they favour the GFS over the ECM currently.

You also state that we don't have doubts for no reason.

What are your doubts?

When it is evident when the GFS has no clue past a certain period yet the ECM has been rock solid.

Hope you understand that.

Edited February 5, 2013 by london-snow

[weather eater]

Ok, let's put this consistency thing to bed!

Here is today's 4 GFS runs for day 7 / 8....

Today's GFS 0Z... and remember, all these are for day 7 / 8!

As you can clearly see... much more of a consistency from the ECM with more or less an easterly flow on all 4 runs at day 7 / 8!

Hopefully that has put to bed any doubts about consistency!

That’s very good consistency at that range, but the 13 in a row that the GFS produced in December were at an equal range I was absolutely certain that the GFS had it nailed because of the consistency, yet it still fell over, personally I won’t make that mistake again, even if this consistent run from the ECM comes off. Now i'm off to bed and its snowing here.

[SE Blizzards]

That’s very good consistency at that range, but the 13 in a row that the GFS produced in December were at an equal range I was absolutely certain that the GFS had it nailed because of the consistency, yet it still fell over, personally I won’t make that mistake again, even if this consistent run from the ECM comes off. Now i'm off to bed and its snowing here.

Well, one of these models has got it very very wrong! But which one??

There's 1 thing for sure.... We haven't got long till we find out.

Edited February 5, 2013 by SE Blizzards

[weather eater]

I am not putting those down who fail to believe the ECM.

I am simply asking why are they following the GFS when it shows a clear lack of consistency & has a bad habit of pushing the pattern to far east but then backing it west in time hence falling into line with other models.

I'm not putting peoples views down however i would like a reasoning to why they favour the GFS over the ECM currently.

Hope you understand that.

One more from me then, I think you are making the error of thinking if you don’t believe the ECM you must favour the GFS and it’s not a case of that, frankly the GFS may be nearer the mark or the ECM, maybe something between them, or something completely different. I want the ECM to be right, I hope it is, but I’ve seen all the models seemingly nailing an evolution only for it to implode, someone will tell me, 2007 I think, the easterly that never was, the GFS was bullish then it imploded with about 48hrs to go, a lot of people got their fingers burnt ask TEITS, sometimes models are consistently wrong.

[lorenzo]

sorry to sound ignorant... but in latmens terms is the GFS broken

No, GFS is not broken in respect of the bias tool, it looks like the feed of data into this page has not been working but is building up again now.

[SE Blizzards]

Obviously my theory of putting this consistency thing to bed has imploded! lol!

Night all.

[london-snow]

One more from me then, I think you are making the error of thinking if you don’t believe the ECM you must favour the GFS and it’s not a case of that, frankly the GFS may be nearer the mark or the ECM, maybe something between them, or something completely different. I want the ECM to be right, I hope it is, but I’ve seen all the models seemingly nailing an evolution only for it to implode, someone will tell me, 2007 I think, the easterly that never was, the GFS was bullish then it imploded with about 48hrs to go, a lot of people got their fingers burnt ask TEITS, sometimes models are consistently wrong.

I stated last night that we may well see a halfway house between the UKMO & ECM & Do recall the past epic fails which hurt us all.

Tomorrow is another big day & let's hope one way or another the pattern gets solved. At the moment its a case of agree & disagree.

[LomondSnowstorm]

One more from me then, I think you are making the error of thinking if you don’t believe the ECM you must favour the GFS and it’s not a case of that, frankly the GFS may be nearer the mark or the ECM, maybe something between them, or something completely different. I want the ECM to be right, I hope it is, but I’ve seen all the models seemingly nailing an evolution only for it to implode, someone will tell me, 2007 I think, the easterly that never was, the GFS was bullish then it imploded with about 48hrs to go, a lot of people got their fingers burnt ask TEITS, sometimes models are consistently wrong.

I agree entirely with this, in fact the evolution we actually see verifying will be at least somewhat different to what any of the models are or have shown. We can use the full range of models and ensembles to try and hone in on the correct solution but in terms of critical mesoscale details like shortwave placements or on which side of the jet our location is likely to be on it will often be the case that we don't really have a clear consensus and that's where human input with regards to common model biases, handling of certain setups, historical pattern development etc. come into play, but again this often just distorts things more and we end up even more confused than we did before!

Consistency in a model certainly doesn't guarantee it being right but inconsistency does guarantee that the model was not getting particularly close to the correct solution, although that may be better from a forecasting perspective than a model that is bullishly wrong.

[Timmytour]

If consistentcy consistently proved right I'd side with the ECM. But a scratched record can consistently play the same part of a song and yet be understood to be flawed.

one way we can all find out.....and that's to see what the days ahead bring

i just wonder......will just one relatively poor run of the ECM change everything? Or will its followers ignore that latest run in view of the fact it is not consistent with its previous consistency and bin it?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Timmytour

[Ryan Dutch Weatherman]

Very funny Britisch People they argue over each other.

Its like a match here.

Bom 12z.

I think the ECMWF will win en nail this time the pattern.

Very high confident in ECMWF this time.

ECMWF statistisch winn alway over GFS especially in the month s februari s.

Ok lets sleep little bit en we wait for the 00z runs.

Watch carefully towards the ECMWF.

[Richie V]

GFS is very stable in general up to 96 hrs, a little longer in stormy situations. I can bet my life if it started to show a 1050 mb scandi high at 180 hrs people in here would suddenly say it is perfoming better than ECM and the meto are wrong!

The moment gfs drops the 1050 scandi high at 120 hrs suddenly the gfs is a joke dispite the ECM dropping the idea more slowly than gfs later on which it often does.

[Sussex snowstorm]

I personally can see in my eyes that the ECM is showing cold easterlies whilst gfs is bringing in altanic fronts , I can see half way house here as the ukmo is basically trying to say , sliding lows means more snow so atm I'm happy with the outcome, that if it pays of money is on ukmo but that's my view , I can see the same setup as mid January coming on board but its to early to say anything so far lol

Edited February 5, 2013 by Rare

[Ryan Dutch Weatherman]

GFS is very stable in general up to 96 hrs, a little longer in stormy situations. I can bet my life if it started to show a 1050 mb scandi high at 180 hrs people in here would suddenly say it is perfoming better than ECM and the meto are wrong!

The moment gfs drops the 1050 scandi high at 120 hrs suddenly the gfs is a joke dispite the ECM dropping the idea more slowly than gfs later on which it often does.

It doenst matter wat people are saying or thinking ! Just look at the numebr , just look at the statistieken.

It s very very simple answer for your self. Why making it so difficult ?