BTCG doesn't have a personal statement currently.
Joined: 11-January 08
Profile Views: 805*
Last Seen: 13th February 2013 - 08:14 AM
Local Time: Apr 24 2014, 09:49 AM
37 posts (0 per day)
* Profile views updated each hour
30 Dec 2012
Actually, I have a weather model question and a rant.
In this thread and countless others, we read about 'biases' in the models. What I want to know is this: Why don't the various owners of these models fix the darn things?
I know they have ensembles, where the physics is tweaked and then they're run with the new physics - I think the GFS has 14 of these variants. Doesn't any one of them verify better than the others? Why not promote that one to the operational model and demote the op to a mere ensemble one? It's almost as if the model programs are cast in Lucite and can never be changed.
A better analogy is the original astigmatic Hubble. If it belonged to the various Met model guys like NOAA or the Euro guys, they'd be giving out chin-tugging guidance on the biases instead of figuring out a mission to fix the darn thing.
Another think that makes me nuts is how the NCEP guys will hug 'continuity' as if it were Linus's blanket. When the models deviate, and they make great sense, why not go with them? No no no, the NCEP forecasts have to blend it in, like it's some kind of special ingredient, to trend the forecasts slowly to the new model. I understand they don't want to be seen as hopping on every passing bandwagon, but sometimes they end up way behind the trend and irrelevant.
Rant over. But the question remains: why aren't the models undergoing continuous recalibration?
2 Jan 2011 - 22:28
Other users have left no comments for BTCG.
There are no friends to display.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 09:49 AM|