Models Discussion about Possible BOC low thread #2

CHRISTY · #21 Postby **CHRISTY** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:02 pm

Extremeweatherguy wrote:
SouthFloridawx wrote:18Z Nam at 84 Hours

18Z NAM Experimental at 84 Hours

Both show systems forming, the difference is the Experimental shows a hurricane and the actual NAM shows a borderline TD/TS.

i wouldn't say a td more like a 40 mph TS.if all this fantasy finally actually turns into reality.

Aquawind · #22 Postby **Aquawind** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:02 pm

Crack.. THey just got a new shipment at the data input center.. :eek:

johngaltfla · #23 Postby **johngaltfla** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:22 pm

All I can say gang is that if we get 10 threads with 199 replies each on just a model, God help the server if we get a Cat 1 or 2 in the Gulf this summer.
:blowup:

jaxfladude · #24 Postby **jaxfladude** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:41 pm

johngaltfla wrote:All I can say gang is that if we get 10 threads with 199 replies each on just a model, God help the server if we get a Cat 1 or 2 in the Gulf this summer.

Okay here is the Notice that will used in the case of a sever overload:(Just a little humor)
Due to Hurricane "*******" in the Gulf.
The Severs Are Currently Overloaded.
Sorry For The Inconvenience.
Please Check Back Later.

SWFLA_CANE · #25 Postby **SWFLA_CANE** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:54 pm

Hello all...I'm new here and find this topic interesting. I follow the models but of course do not live by them. I think as time goes by and elements of what the model is forecasting begin to come true, then you may be in store for something. With the NAM model, when the low moves over from EPAC or even when convection begins to form in the area noted by NAM then its time to really pay attention, until then they are just giving you an idea of what part of the waters you should look at.

#26 Postby **feederband** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:59 pm

SWFLA_CANE wrote:Hello all...I'm new here and find this topic interesting. I follow the models but of course do not live by them. I think as time goes by and elements of what the model is forecasting begin to come true, then you may be in store for something. With the NAM model, when the low moves over from EPAC or even when convection begins to form in the area noted by NAM then its time to really pay attention, until then they are just giving you an idea of what part of the waters you should look at.

Welcome to S2K...Wow a bunch of newbies this season...Cool.....

SWFLA_CANE · #27 Postby **SWFLA_CANE** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:03 pm

After last season, it's no wonder a lot of people are jumping on board (including me). I've been reading this forum for a couple of months and figured even though my knowledge is limited I may be able to contribute, especially after going through Wilma.

Aquawind · #28 Postby **Aquawind** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:04 pm

I hear ya! Welcome to the board SWFL_CANE ! 8-)

#29 Postby **feederband** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:04 pm

jaxfladude wrote:
johngaltfla wrote:All I can say gang is that if we get 10 threads with 199 replies each on just a model, God help the server if we get a Cat 1 or 2 in the Gulf this summer.

Okay here is the Notice that will used in the case of a sever overload:(Just a little humor)
Due to Hurricane "*******" in the Gulf.
The Severs Are Currently Overloaded.
Sorry For The Inconvenience.
Please Check Back Later.

Or maybe it will look like the one I got...

General Error

Could not obtain topic information

DEBUG MODE

SQL Error : 1054 Unknown column 't.topic_type_active' in 'where clause'

SELECT t.*, u.username, u.user_id, u2.username as user2, u2.user_id as id2, p.post_username, p2.post_username AS post_username2, p2.post_time FROM phpbb_topics t, phpbb_users u, phpbb_posts p, phpbb_posts p2, phpbb_users u2 WHERE t.forum_id = 31 AND t.topic_poster = u.user_id AND p.post_id = t.topic_first_post_id AND p2.post_id = t.topic_last_post_id AND u2.user_id = p2.poster_id AND t.topic_type > 3 AND t.topic_type_active = 1 ORDER BY t.topic_type DESC, t.topic_last_post_id DESC LIMIT 0, 50

Line : 358
File : viewforum.php
:roll:

#30 Postby **feederband** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:05 pm

SWFLA_CANE wrote:After last season, it's no wonder a lot of people are jumping on board (including me). I've been reading this forum for a couple of months and figured even though my knowledge is limited I may be able to contribute, especially after going through Wilma.

No such thing as limited knowledge here... :lol:

#31 Postby **skysummit** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:06 pm

I think something was going on with that though because look at the Stickys...they're yellow and the Announcements are red now. Maybe it was quick maintenance?

#32 Postby **MBismyPlayground** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:14 pm

skysummit wrote:I think something was going on with that though because look at the Stickys...they're yellow and the Announcements are red now. Maybe it was quick maintenance?

geez, I hope so.....don't want to encounter any problems this season...
I will be paying even more attention this year since Myrtle Beach has closed several of its shelters.... which means I will hit the road on a moments notice.

Rainband · #33 Postby **Rainband** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:17 pm

No problems just testing

#34 Postby **feederband** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:27 pm

Rainband wrote:No problems just testing

Should be a law againt that... :lol:

Scott_inVA · #35 Postby **Scott_inVA** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:39 pm

Again, the NAM (Eta) is an inferior forecast tool for tropical intensity and track. The model is far less accurate with TC's when contrasted to the GFS (which gets mercilessly bashed...often times to prove it verifies).

As a rule, discard the NAM with virtually all warm-core systems.

Sidenote: while not tropical, the pending Nor'easter (interesting for June) is, IMO, grossly underdone by the NAM. Think the GFS verifies.

Scott
Mid-Atlantic WX.com
Lexington, VA

#36 Postby **deltadog03** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:18 pm

well, the nam is usually the one NOT to look...I agree...but, to say the GFS is a much better model is :lol:

Derek Ortt · #37 Postby **Derek Ortt** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:20 pm

the experimental NAM looks very much like a WRF simulation. If it is a WRF, it SHOULD be used for TC activity

Jim Cantore · #38 Postby **Jim Cantore** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:38 pm

AZS wrote:i don´t like NAM, but i just can´t ignore this :

I'm going to get hung out to dry for saying this but...

AINT GONNA HAPPEN!

boca · #39 Postby **boca** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:42 pm

I'm weighing both models the GFS and the NAM. Nah throw them both out.

wxmann_91 · #40 Postby **wxmann_91** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:46 pm

Derek Ortt wrote:the experimental NAM looks very much like a WRF simulation. If it is a WRF, it SHOULD be used for TC activity

I do believe that the experimental NAM is the WRF-nmm/NAM (which will be made official next week), while the old NAM/ETA is the old one.

The new WRF/NAM does have its flaws-- see here.

Models Discussion about Possible BOC low thread #2

Who is online