Frankly, pushback (without the snark factor) from the scientific and user community is valuable because it keeps the pressure on everybody to improve the models. Some will whine that third place is not good enough. I also like that unlike the Euro model, it will remain freely available to the public rather than behind paywalls. I look forward to seeing where the new GFS model goes. He also highlights weaknesses in the "new GFS" such as a dry bias for high-impact precipitation events and a tendency to be too cold with nocturnal temperatures. from fourth to third place. Improvements were observed in how GFS intensifies tropical cyclones and represents track within the first five days, according to Berger. I highly recommend Berger's article because he provides details on the metrics used in the comparison. For the entire globe, the FV3 model would still rank behind the best-in-class European model (0.910) and the United Kingdom Met Office (0.887).īerger pointed out that the upgrade brings the U.S. it is nice to see some modest improvement from the FV3, but it still is not the best in the world. The top-line finding is that yes, the FV3 core generally performs a bit better than the GFS model. Eric Berger wrote this in ArsTechnica last November: NOAAĮven though the model is going operational in March, NOAA has actually been running the "old" and "new" models for the past year or so. Resolution improvements in the new GFS model. I discuss their methodology at this link and why the Euro model has generally performed better. The more relevant point that I am trying to make is that there is collaboration, not animosity, between the modeling centers. and other weather-climate satellite assets. That integration very much depends upon U.S. The European model has an different way of integrating data into its model. is concerning the "Euro" vs "GFS." He even pointed out that the GFS beats the European model often. He literally chuckled at how animated the debate in the U.S. I take a more objective view of "the model wars" because I understand that the best forecasters consider all of the available models and are not locked in a "Numerical Weather Predication Arms Race." While President of the American Meteorological Society, I had dinner with the Director of ECMWF while visiting Reading, U.K. People call out the misses of one but go silent on the other. I often wonder when I missed the invitation to join a model fan club. It is borderline comical to watch the banter about weather models. I wrote a piece several years ago in Forbes comparing the performance of the European and American models. The reality is that all models have their strengths and weaknesses in certain situations. The weather community, particularly its most vocal components, loves to debate. The GFS and ECMWF models are, by far, the most heavily relied on by meteorologists around the world for forecasting. Last year, criticism began to emerge concerning the inferior accuracy of the NWS’s Global Forecast System (GFS) model – run on earlier versions of the supercomputers – compared to the model run at the European Centre for Medium Range Forecasting (ECMWF) based in the United Kingdom. In 2013, Jason Samenow wrote this in the Washington Post after Hurricane Sandy: It is well documented that the European model (run by the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts or ECMWF) has historically performed better than the American model, Global Forecast System (GFS), run by NOAA. If you follow the meteorological community or weather enthusiasts on Twitter, there is a level of hyperventilation (and vitriol) at times when it comes to the debate about what weather model is better: European "Euro" or American.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |