Battle of the forecast models...

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
  • This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
  • Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
  • Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
  • Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
ScottLovesRMNP
Posts: 75
Joined: 3/11/2016
14ers: 58  7 
13ers: 327 4
Trip Reports (1)
 

Re: Battle of the forecast models...

Post by ScottLovesRMNP »

I stayed home today because the forecasts said it would be rainy/stormy early and just about everywhere. Well, none of that happened, but I'm nonetheless glad I stayed home because the smoke and haze today in northern Colorado is about as bad as it's been. Very poor visibility today.
User avatar
supranihilest
Posts: 719
Joined: 6/29/2015
14ers: 58  42 
13ers: 709 1 8
Trip Reports (112)
 
Contact:

Re: Battle of the forecast models...

Post by supranihilest »

I've been in Ridgway since Wednesday and every day NOAA has forecasted rain starting in the morning, then thunderstorms starting at 9 or 10, sometimes a bit later, through the rest of the day. It has yet to rain in the mornings, and rained heavily Wednesday and Friday nights. Plenty of lightning both of those days. Some rain the remaining days in the afternoons, usually no more than a drizzle, and lots of dark clouds and thunder without much visible lightning. At least for this current cycle I've been ignoring the forecast after it never happened the way they said. Mornings have all been good for getting out and most of the afternoons as well.
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 2387
Joined: 6/14/2010
Trip Reports (9)
 

Re: Battle of the forecast models...

Post by Dave B »

My guess, at least with today, is that all the smoke is really keeping the ground from warming up and creating the needed convection to fuel thunderstorm formation. Not sure what it's like in the SJs smoke-wise, but it's definitely been a mellow day in NoCo despite an otherwise stormy forecast (I also delayed plans to tomorrow due to NOAA forecast).
Make wilderness less accessible.
DaveLanders
Posts: 531
Joined: 3/7/2009
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Battle of the forecast models...

Post by DaveLanders »

Dave B wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 5:54 pm My guess, at least with today, is that all the smoke is really keeping the ground from warming up and creating the needed convection to fuel thunderstorm formation. Not sure what it's like in the SJs smoke-wise, but it's definitely been a mellow day in NoCo despite an otherwise stormy forecast (I also delayed plans to tomorrow due to NOAA forecast).
This seems plausible to me. You would think that good forecasters would have taken that into account. It's not like the big fire in Oregon just started
Every village has at least one idiot. Successful villages choose someone else to be their leader.
User avatar
Chicago Transplant
Posts: 4008
Joined: 9/7/2004
14ers: 58  12  24 
13ers: 697 39 34
Trip Reports (66)
 

Re: Battle of the forecast models...

Post by Chicago Transplant »

DaveLanders wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 8:34 pm
Dave B wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 5:54 pm My guess, at least with today, is that all the smoke is really keeping the ground from warming up and creating the needed convection to fuel thunderstorm formation. Not sure what it's like in the SJs smoke-wise, but it's definitely been a mellow day in NoCo despite an otherwise stormy forecast (I also delayed plans to tomorrow due to NOAA forecast).
This seems plausible to me. You would think that good forecasters would have taken that into account. It's not like the big fire in Oregon just started
In my experience this has been the case. Not sure if it's lack of convection or just winds blowing form a different direction but the smoky days have less storms than the clear ones. We got hammered Thursday and Friday in Eagle/Summit counties and I had no reason to believe we wouldn't again today, but the smoke rolled in and we got nothing in town.

Luckily the smoke held off until closer to noon, but it's been nasty and low visibility since then.
"We want the unpopular challenge. We want to test our intellect!" - Snapcase
"You are not what you own" - Fugazi
"Life's a mountain not a beach" - Fortune Cookie I got at lunch the other day
ltlFish99
Posts: 619
Joined: 5/21/2019
14ers: 49  3  2 
13ers: 51
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Battle of the forecast models...

Post by ltlFish99 »

Mountain forcast was quite accurate for me last summer and fall.
It was spot on yesterday and today on shavano and tabeguache.
User avatar
daway8
Posts: 1314
Joined: 8/24/2017
14ers: 58  24 
13ers: 155 29
Trip Reports (70)
 

Re: Battle of the forecast models...

Post by daway8 »

Based on the forecast I opted to just sleep in today (nice change from alpine starts!) and then do some late afternoon Flatirons scrambling.

Given the feedback here perhaps I'll take a risk if next weekend has a similar forecast (but knowing my luck that'll be the day that the thunderstorms really do start before 9am...)
User avatar
quinnwolf
Posts: 46
Joined: 8/12/2012
14ers: 58  3  2 
13ers: 55 1 1
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Battle of the forecast models...

Post by quinnwolf »

The Colorado mountains are one of the most difficult places in the country to forecast weather. It is what makes weather forecasting so interesting. If you go to Oklahoma, you know exactly what is going to happen down to the hour a week in advance. That's boring. Colorado is a weather nerd's dream.
There are just so many factors that play into the weather and they get exacerbated by the terrain here. Especially in the summer when there usually aren't large scale weather systems moving across the country most of the weather is micro-scale generated by individual mountains or ranges. This is impossible to forecast. In the winter, most of the weather comes from large-scale cold fronts that originate in Alaska/Canada/Pacific Ocean and move thousands of miles before impact CO, which makes winter easier to forecast (although exact snowfall amounts at each individual mountain are still very difficult).
I have been on the search for many years for a good weather forecaster and frankly, I have just given up. I use NOAA and OpenSummit to get a general idea for what kind of weather to expect and to compare sequential days (is Sat or Sun better). Then I rely on my knowledge of how weather works and some other tells to analyze what is happening on the mountain that I am on in real time as I am hiking.
To me, it is the same thing as avalanche forecasting. You look at CAIC to get a general idea of what you are dealing with, and then you have the responsibility of making local, real time decisions based on actual data that you gather. It is exactly the same with thunderstorms.
I also like NOAA because they discuss the weather in detailed text rather than just a % chance of rain. It's quite dense and full of weather-speak, but you can learn it if you read it everyday for a few weeks (just like the CAIC forecasts).
I'm not a meteorologist, but I have picked up some tricks and patterns over the years. Some things I look for in the weather discussion: cap (a strong cap in place means there is low chance for thunderstorms, even if there are clouds), CAPE and vorticity (this is the amount of energy available for making thunderstorms), preciptable water (this is the amount of water available to condense into rain), troughs, waves, and ridges (these are larger-scale patterns that can influence weather beyond orographics), wind shear (necessary for developing thunderstorms), diurnal (the weather is created by daytime heating).
I also look at the clouds. Here are some signs that I look for: tall clouds (indicate rising moist air that will condense into rain/hail), crisp edges of clouds (indicate thunderstorm development), clouds moving in different directions at different heights (this is wind shear, and often signifies thunderstorm development), dark clouds (this is just the shadow created by the upper portion of the could on the bottom of the cloud, so dark cloud implies tall cloud, but since it is a shadow, this becomes less useful nearing sunset).
I am curious if there are meteorologists on here that can tell me if I am wrong about any of these things.
Also, I've noticed that each range seems to have it's own weather signature that can also help inform a decision.
Anyway, I love talking about weather in the Colorado mountains and could go on and on. In short, I like to learn about weather to get an intuitive feel for how it works and then combine that with years of experience to make educated decisions to stay safe.
User avatar
greenonion
Posts: 1890
Joined: 10/3/2012
14ers: 50  1 
13ers: 2
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Battle of the forecast models...

Post by greenonion »

quinnwolf wrote: Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:10 pm The Colorado mountains are one of the most difficult places in the country to forecast weather. It is what makes weather forecasting so interesting. If you go to Oklahoma, you know exactly what is going to happen down to the hour a week in advance. That's boring. Colorado is a weather nerd's dream.
There are just so many factors that play into the weather and they get exacerbated by the terrain here. Especially in the summer when there usually aren't large scale weather systems moving across the country most of the weather is micro-scale generated by individual mountains or ranges. This is impossible to forecast. In the winter, most of the weather comes from large-scale cold fronts that originate in Alaska/Canada/Pacific Ocean and move thousands of miles before impact CO, which makes winter easier to forecast (although exact snowfall amounts at each individual mountain are still very difficult).
I have been on the search for many years for a good weather forecaster and frankly, I have just given up. I use NOAA and OpenSummit to get a general idea for what kind of weather to expect and to compare sequential days (is Sat or Sun better). Then I rely on my knowledge of how weather works and some other tells to analyze what is happening on the mountain that I am on in real time as I am hiking.
To me, it is the same thing as avalanche forecasting. You look at CAIC to get a general idea of what you are dealing with, and then you have the responsibility of making local, real time decisions based on actual data that you gather. It is exactly the same with thunderstorms.
I also like NOAA because they discuss the weather in detailed text rather than just a % chance of rain. It's quite dense and full of weather-speak, but you can learn it if you read it everyday for a few weeks (just like the CAIC forecasts).
I'm not a meteorologist, but I have picked up some tricks and patterns over the years. Some things I look for in the weather discussion: cap (a strong cap in place means there is low chance for thunderstorms, even if there are clouds), CAPE and vorticity (this is the amount of energy available for making thunderstorms), preciptable water (this is the amount of water available to condense into rain), troughs, waves, and ridges (these are larger-scale patterns that can influence weather beyond orographics), wind shear (necessary for developing thunderstorms), diurnal (the weather is created by daytime heating).
I also look at the clouds. Here are some signs that I look for: tall clouds (indicate rising moist air that will condense into rain/hail), crisp edges of clouds (indicate thunderstorm development), clouds moving in different directions at different heights (this is wind shear, and often signifies thunderstorm development), dark clouds (this is just the shadow created by the upper portion of the could on the bottom of the cloud, so dark cloud implies tall cloud, but since it is a shadow, this becomes less useful nearing sunset).
I am curious if there are meteorologists on here that can tell me if I am wrong about any of these things.
Also, I've noticed that each range seems to have it's own weather signature that can also help inform a decision.
Anyway, I love talking about weather in the Colorado mountains and could go on and on. In short, I like to learn about weather to get an intuitive feel for how it works and then combine that with years of experience to make educated decisions to stay safe.
You pretty recently gave me excellent beta on El D, and now this great insight on weather. I too love understanding and observing weather. Took an intro meteorology course in college and LOVED IT. Hoping ekalina sees your post and gives additional feedback on your observations. Thanks again for the good stuff here!
User avatar
Alan Arnette
Posts: 188
Joined: 8/23/2005
14ers: 58 
13ers: 26
Trip Reports (0)
 
Contact:

Re: Battle of the forecast models...

Post by Alan Arnette »

These two are pretty good for big peaks around the world. Haven't used them for Colorado as NOAA seems to works just fine, or Chirs Tomer :)

https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/we ... ca_5435551


https://www.windy.com/39.403/-106.102?3 ... ,m:eKPadek
User avatar
montanahiker
Posts: 270
Joined: 8/30/2015
14ers: 38 
13ers: 185
Trip Reports (0)
 

Re: Battle of the forecast models...

Post by montanahiker »

To those of you that didn't go out because of the forecast: I've learned that if NOAA says the chance of precipitation is less than 50-60% before noon it's really about 10%.
There's more to life than 14ers. There are 13ers.
User avatar
Alpinefroggy
Posts: 151
Joined: 5/11/2020
14ers: 29  2 
13ers: 8
Trip Reports (3)
 

Re: Battle of the forecast models...

Post by Alpinefroggy »

Some of the general things I’ve noticed:

NOAA can often model precipitation chances to some extent. I have no idea why that’s the case but it is. Maybe a quirk with the model but who knows. It’s weird.

Mountain forecast is better I’ve found. They are a really good for forecasting above treeline. Those are just my general considerations.

My suggestions for the folks who look at NOAA, try to understand the discussion. It’s often much more informative than the little picture and stuff. They tell you all about the current conditions and some of the important thunderstorm making variables. That gives you a better sense of the ‘risk’ for precipitation because those little squares are not always informative or particularly accurate.
Post Reply