Lindaloo wrote:One question. If these models are inaccurate.. then why depend on them or even use them?
57's comments eloquently address your question.
Maybe just to add to it from a lay perspective... models are tools, each flawed with analytical bias and constant risk of poor initialization. The problem is models have become so prevalent in forecasts and with hobbyists, they substitute for human analysis. This is dangerous. It is especially irritating to see NWS mets simply hug a model (typically GFS) and flip-flop as the model does. When composing forecasts here, the *first* thing I do is examine SFC obs and satellite. Then comes a review of the models. Next I determine which mets have authored regional AFDs. Learning which ones are the "huggers" and which blend models into synoptic climo, one can validate ZFP accuracy before forecasts come out!
For those who solely watch TCs the same is true to an extent at TPC. Forecasters will analyze data...including models...differently and formulate different conclusions. It gets back to experience.
I worry people look at the model maps done here at WREL w/o knowing anything about the weather. I am going to link the model discussion in the hope others will read that when looking at graphic output of the models. It makes a huge difference knowing what the models are doing.
Models are extremely valuable when included in a more comprehensive analysis of what is happening, be it with a Short Wave crossing the Appalachians or an LLC in the Gulf.
Use them as tools, never depend on them.
Excellent discussion, BTW
Scott
