Weather speculation resources

I get excited about the weather, like many skiers, but I am no meteorologist. However, I know that there is a lot of information, and misinformation, out there and I want to share the resources I use to make wildly speculative inferences about the weather. You can use them too.

Most of the information here comes from weather models. Weather models give us a decent idea of what the weather might be in the long term (i.e. whether it will be warm or cold in a week, or stormy or calm), and short term models help us to pinpoint smaller-scale weather features and timing. Here are models and model information, in a generally descending format from longest-range to shortest-notice. There are a bunch of different outputs from the models, especially in the long range (many having to do with aviation such), but we’re only interested in a few, namely:

  • 850 mb temperature. This is the temperature about 5000 feet up in the air. Above 0 C is bad. Below 0 C is better. This does not correlate necessarily with the temperature at the ground, however
  • Surface temperature. This is the temperature at the surface. Got it? 850 mb and surface temperatures sometimes come in to play when discussing precipitation type (i.e. rain, sleet, snow).
  • 1000-500mb thickness. This is a pretty good indicator of whether it will snow or rain (or be warm or cold). 540 is the magic number. Rain > 540, Snow < 540. With some but not too much variability. Cold air is denser, so the thickness is lower. Much more information here.
  • MSLP, or mean sea level pressure. This is an output showing highs and lows, which correlate to storms.
  • Period precipitation. Models usually show precipitation over three- or six-hour periods. Most models have a map showing thickness and precipitation overlaid (and usually MSLP, too) so you can see a) where there is moisture and b) where it’s cold enough to be snow.

A couple notes. Models have numerical output (tables) and graphical output (maps) and I’ll link to whatever I can. Models cycles are updated based on UTC or Zulu (Greenwich Mean) time (usually 00Z, 06Z, 12Z, 18Z), but that doesn’t necessarily correlate with their availability. I’ll mention that. Also, all the abbreviations mean something. No one really knows or cares. Oh, and beyond seven days models vary immensely from run to run, and whatever you can glean from them is, well, not that useful. But fun! On to them:

  • The GFS is the long-range US government model. (And, since it’s the work of the government, it is free! Your tax dollars at work.) It goes out 384 hours, or 16 days. The model itself is here, and a numerical output can be found here. (The link is for Hayward, but replacing KHYR with any other airport, like KMSP, will give data for there.) I usually look at the 100_500_thick link on the model page, and you can then select “loop all”. The GFS is updated at 5 and 11 a.m. and p.m. (all times Central Standard Time; models don’t go on daylight time in March, however).
  • The GGEM is the Canadian’s model. It’s updated twice a day around noon and midnight. The 00Z model run goes out 10 days, and the 12Z goes out seven. Maps can be found here. I generally look at the precipitation output (which includes the 540 thickness line) and the total accumulation. Remember, it’s Canadian. Everything is metric.
  • The ECMWF is the European model. You have to pay money to get that one, and I don’t. However, you can compare it with the GFS for free here (you want the surface pressure comparison), which is a good way to at least see if it’s showing something similar or if it is wildly different. Or, here’s another site I just found. Look at the North America images. The ECMWF updated a bit before 2 a.m. and p.m.
  • The DGEX is a US model which has some interesting outputs, like 6-hour snowfall and total snowfall, which are all available here. It runs from 84 hours (when the NAM, see below, ends) to 192 hours (3.5 to 8 days), and comes out on the 06Z and 18Z cycles, around 6 a.m. and p.m. I also look at the SLP/6 hour precip, which includes the 540 thickness.
  • The NAM runs to 84 hours and has similar attributes to the GFS, but is much finer in scale. Find it here.
  • The WRF model goes to 36 hours here, but I don’t check it often.
  • The HRRR is updated every hour and goes for 15 hours here. Before or during a storm event it is fantastic. It has really interesting attributes and outputs. I’ll mention it more if a miracle storm is upon us.
Now, here are some model-based resources which are not the models themselves, but use the model outputs. These are all based on the US models (GFS, NAM and HRRR)
  • I mentioned the GFS 16 day tables above. Here’s the link for Hayward, and you can put in nearly any airport code to get data for it.
  • A fellow down at Iowa State started something called the Bufkit Warehouse (Bufkit is a snowfall product developed by the … you know what, if you really care, Google it) which plots data for the GFS, NAM and HRRR models out to seven days. By data I mean temperature, precipitation, snowfall and such. It’s great, if a bit finicky. Here’s Hayward; if you want data for elsewhere click here and use the map. One note: the MOS (model output statistics) are viewable here and a better indicator of temperature than the models themselves, which can be important when the model says 33 and the MOS says 42. They only go out a couple of days.
  • Earl Barker’s website is also great. I have not gone through all his maps and data, but his radar site snowfall overlay maps for the GFS and NAM models are very useful. Find them here. Click on Duluth and you’ll see Hayward.
  • The Climate Prediction Center has a good-if-verbose discussion of the model runs for the longer term (6-10, 8-14 day) period which is a good read.
There are also a few non-model items I use. Commercial weather sites are generally worthless, as they repackage weather service products with a bunch of ads. Accuweather has a 15 day forecast which I am convinced does nothing more than grab an output from the GFS for days 8-15 and put up a little picture. Wunderground is decent when the NWS website is down (rare) as you can link to the forecast discussion. As for the National Weather Service, here’s how to use it:
  • Go to weather.gov (also nws.noaa.gov)
  • Click on the area you’re interested in and, on the zoomed in map, the location, or enter an address or ZIP code
  • Look at the forecast.
  • Click on the three day history link to the right of the current conditions (here it is for Hayward; this is where the Birkie pulls data from when the show the current weather)
  • Scroll down to find the radar map (here for Duluth); the only other radar map I use is from Intellicast, the local version is here (okay, so commercial sites aren’t all worthless)
  • And below that there’s a link to the area forecast discussion. Again here’s the one for the Duluth office. The AFD is written pretty cryptically but gives you a really good idea in to the forecaster’s thinking. You can find out if they have a high or low confidence in the forecast, if they’re leaning one way or another as far as different models go. Sometimes you’ll hear the local news meteorologists talking about a huge storm four days out and the forecast discussion will tell you it’s a “low confidence forecast” and that “variability in the track” will play a major role. It’s definitely worth a read. Click on any highlighted “word” for a (sometimes useful) glossary of what it means.
Why do I like the weather service? Because I’m a big government liberal. And because the weather service employs local, experienced meteorologists across the country who are not just getting a forecast ready for the teevee or for their blog. And because they have the discussion. And because they’re not out to make a buck.
I do, however, like some weather bloggers out there. Weather for skiers has some good resources, like John Dee‘s page. The Updraft Blog (from MPR) and Paul Douglas’s blog (Strib) are good too. And the Midwest Climate Watch has good information, too.
Oh, and pray for snow.

 

Comments are closed.