And, from today's 12Z runs.

 

 

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 3:39 PM Jack Settelmaier <VLab.Notifications@noaa.gov> wrote:

Started.....

 

I've got ONE interesting find already, and it has nothing to do with the forecast, but how the text bulletin referred to from NBM shows 100 at proj=185, whereas graph from NBM display of same shows 99.  The graph shows the GMOS MaxT as 88, which equals MEXMOS forecast that was questioned.

 

Now, I need to move a forecast or two into the future.

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:05 AM

Seems right to me.

 

========================================================

 

 

 

How about just forecasting 5% or less POPs thru Sunday, a max T of 99 and a min T of 79!

#persistence

 

 

Yeah...I disagree. This is where the blends excel in the extended and the forecaster doesn't understand what models are going into the blend and how they are made. If you would like to see the input models, take a look at this spreadsheet and choose the appropriate version tab at the bottom.

 

NBM has 100 F next Monday (v3.1 has 98) and while this forecaster has gone away from the cooler GFS solution, the blends should not have been discounted or strayed away from.

 

 

 

 

....notice where the forecaster tossed out the "extended blends" for this upcoming weekend, based on the GFS being a major outlier with an Alberta Clipper type northwest flow event.  Seems reasonable to me.  Check out the latest ECMWF MEXMOS for DFW for next Monday.  100 vs. 88.  

 

 

The GFS is anomalously strong with an Alberta Clipper this weekend 
and an associated frontal surge into the Southern Plains with the 
resulting northwest flow. While this would be a delight during the
dog days, this solution is both an outlier among extended 
operational guidance and within the minority of GFS ensemble 
members (a plurality of which favor seasonal ridging). This has
corrupted the extended blends, from which we removed the frontal
wind shift and associated precip chances.