Infared


Moderator: S2k Moderators
hurricaneCW wrote:I don't see how the ECMWF develops it. This morning's gfs does something with an African wave but that's about it. There's no sense in trying to track something that's over 10 days out.
hurricaneCW wrote:I don't see how the ECMWF develops it. This morning's gfs does something with an African wave but that's about it. There's no sense in trying to track something that's over 10 days out.
CourierPR wrote:You folks who continue to bash the future model trends might want to form your own site.
hurricaneCW wrote:I don't see how the ECMWF develops it. This morning's gfs does something with an African wave but that's about it. There's no sense in trying to track something that's over 10 days out.
Bocadude85 wrote:hurricaneCW wrote:I don't see how the ECMWF develops it. This morning's gfs does something with an African wave but that's about it. There's no sense in trying to track something that's over 10 days out.
In the other thread you were trusting models that showed no development 10 days from now, but now that a model does develop something 10 days from now you dont trust it? I am not sure I understand that logic.
cycloneye wrote:Look at the ridge that GFS despicts. It means this will not go to open waters.
MiamiHurricanes10 wrote:cycloneye wrote:Look at the ridge that GFS despicts. It means this will not go to open waters.
That's what I was thinking, but it did, as a category 5. Check out the entire run.
384 hours:
Users browsing this forum: Ulf and 87 guests