CFS anomalies

[chrisbell-nottheweatherman]

Having viewed the latest longer-range Youtube video from Weatherweb (video embedded below), in which the CFS anomaly output was apparently swaying that company's thoughts regarding February's weather towards a flatter, zonal pattern), I posted the link (complete with an attempt at model-related discussion) in the relevant Model Output thread.  More than one poster remarked that, in their opinion, this model was generally inaccurate and not to be trusted.  I know that several senior posters use anomalies as a means of smoothing-out inter-run variations, so I was wondering if the CFS anomaly output is produced in a similar manner to others, and why it appears to be perceived as less useful?

 

Thanks.

 

Edited January 16, 2016 by chrisbell-nottheweatherman

[Paul]

Personally I don't think the CFS is as poor as some suggest. Like any model it has it's up and downs, and when it comes to long range modelling it's always going to be trickier. But I think it gets a bit more of a kicking than it deserves because some people view the raw output or the daily stuff and take what it's showing 2 months down the line as gospel. In reality the outputs need averaging over many days and runs (the NCEP only show an average of the last 7 days runs), that smooths it out and gives a much better indication of what may happen.

No model is infallible, and long range modelling is never going to be 100% regardless of whether it's the CFS or whatever else, but it's a useful tool to use in the mix when looking at longer range. 

[chrisbell-nottheweatherman]

7 hours ago, Paul said:

Personally I don't think the CFS is as poor as some suggest. Like any model it has it's up and downs, and when it comes to long range modelling it's always going to be trickier. But I think it gets a bit more of a kicking than it deserves because some people view the raw output or the daily stuff and take what it's showing 2 months down the line as gospel. In reality the outputs need averaging over many days and runs (the NCEP only show an average of the last 7 days runs), that smooths it out and gives a much better indication of what may happen.

No model is infallible, and long range modelling is never going to be 100% regardless of whether it's the CFS or whatever else, but it's a useful tool to use in the mix when looking at longer range. 

Thanks Paul.  That seems reasonable.