Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Rainshadow

2018-19 EPS/GEFS Snowfall Outlook Spread Sheet

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, tombo82685 said:

The wefs seem way to weenie with this. Though can’t toss a flip back to some flakes nw of the city before ending. Accumulating snow outside of the poconos seems like a long shot still to me. But we will see 

Sounds like we are starting another spread sheet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rainshadow said:

Sounds like we are starting another spread sheet.

Well eps are still nothing really for city

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tombo82685 said:

Well eps are still nothing really for city

But the WEFs does.  Only post something if the EPS has measurable.

BTW, this would be only the 32th time this year that the GFS predicted more than 24 hours of consecutive precipitation only so far to:

index.jpeg.907e94635bf79dd681c86b04ebd801e2.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rainshadow said:

But the WEFs does.  Only post something if the EPS has measurable.

BTW, this would be only the 32th time this year that the GFS predicted more than 24 hours of consecutive precipitation only so far to:

index.jpeg.907e94635bf79dd681c86b04ebd801e2.jpeg

Alright, I’m not posting eps till they get to .5. Think that’s how we should do it this year .5 or better on models. .1 is just to little and very rarely materializes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tombo82685 said:

Alright, I’m not posting eps till they get to .5. Think that’s how we should do it this year .5 or better on models. .1 is just to little and very rarely materializes 

There is no easy way to verify it (coming up with an average error/bias) that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rainshadow said:

There is no easy way to verify it (coming up with an average error/bias) that way. 

The only thing is all it takes is 1 member that has 4” or more out of 51 and you get .1. That doesn’t really signify any half way decent chance of getting snow.  Atleast with .5 there would be more than just one member and it would give the chance a little more merit. That’s all I’m saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 00z/7th GEFS predicted 0.2" for next week.  We don't verify the between sounding runs, but the 06z GEFS or WEFS bumped that up to 2".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tombo82685 said:

The only thing is all it takes is 1 member that has 4” or more out of 51 and you get .1. Atleast with .5 there would be more than just one member and it would give the chance a little more merit. That’s all I’m saying. .1 can happen very easily but doesn’t really signify any threat on a mean. 

In essence we do that with the short term spread sheet (no qpf events unless predicted/observed is 0.1 or greater).  I started the other thread to discuss it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rainshadow said:

In essence we do that with the short term spread sheet (no qpf events unless predicted/observed is 0.1 or greater).  I started the other thread to discuss it.

Let’s do this, let’s keep it at .1 but how about we do 5 days instead of 8 days. Then if you do get a .1 it would have a little more merit sincenit probably wouldn’t be just one rogue member. Just seems like .1 In winter 8 days out is the same as the gfs bootleg 90s in middle of summer always showing up at day 11 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are events where they forecast less 0.5" and we get measurable, there are events where less than 0.5" fall in that six hour period, do we ignore than snow?  Yeah I am getting stubborn as a mule on this.  We could just not do it.  I think we get the point whether we are talking about 0.3" mean or 4" mean, there is going to be that outlier member that is going to forecast 4" or 40" and erroneously up the average as there are no below zeroes in snowfall forecasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tombo82685 said:

Let’s do this, let’s keep it at .1 but how about we do 5 days instead of 8 days. Then if you do get a .1 it would have a little more merit sincenit probably wouldn’t be just one rogue member. Just seems like .1 In winter 8 days out is the same as the gfs bootleg 90s always showing up at day 11 

Ok, the stubborn mule agrees to this compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rainshadow said:

Ok, the stubborn mule agrees to this compromise.

Lol, do you get what I’m saying though? A lot of times at day 8 that .1 is a rogue jrodd run that never verified and makes the mean look worse than it should when 99% of members day no. Atleast within 5 days that rogue run would have a little more backing as spread shouldn’t be as bad as day 8 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tombo82685 said:

Lol, do you get what I’m saying though? A lot of times at day 8 that .1 is a rogue jrodd run that never verified and makes the mean look worse than it should when 99% of members day no. Atleast within 5 days that rogue run would have a little more backing as spread shouldn’t be as bad as day 8 

I know. I was talking more from a statistical point of view, it gets tougher to evaluate it objectively.  But how come you were going to ban yourself for the Jrodd snowfall map posted, but not my nextGFS snowfall map posted?  I think you are playing favorites.  ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rainshadow said:

I know. I was talking more from a statistical point of view, it gets tougher to evaluate it objectively.  But how come you were going to ban yourself for the Jrodd snowfall map posted, but not my nextGFS snowfall map posted?  I think you are playing favorites.  ;)

 

That’s because the jrodd map gives me more snow. I hate snow 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, tombo82685 said:

That’s because the jrodd map gives me more snow. I hate snow 

You know this is going to replace the nam was good on someone's signature.  ;)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2018 at 8:19 AM, tombo82685 said:

That’s because the jrodd map gives me more snow. I hate snow 

The WEFS has 0.2" thru 12z on the 14th, looks like we have lift-off. I will assume an EPS 0 unless you tell me otherwise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rainshadow said:

Maybe we should just go 12 hours out.

I’ll take the under on anything over a trace at philly right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EPS are going to be doomed on this one because I think believe weatherbell's snow maps are counting sleet as snow. Sure looks like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11/12 12z: 2" this is going to fail badly IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×