mempho wrote:ALhurricane wrote:Wow, a thread I started 3 1/2 years ago while still in college has come back to life! What Derecho and Mike added since then are all good points. There are truly only a good few models out there that the NWS/NHC even bother looking at. On top of that, it is always dangerous to follow on deterministic model output, especially if it offers a radical solution. Ensemble models and model consesus is becoming more widely used and has great benefits.
As far as the GFS ensemble spread, it is important to see what the individual ensemble members are saying. If the individual member vary greatly, then the overall mean has to be looked upon with more caution.
The bottom line is that the best way to understand and use these models is to get first become educated in the subject of numerical weather prediction.
Didn't you live in Memphis last year?
Yes I did. I received a promotion to the NWS in Raleigh, so here I am! Much closer to the coast now!
To keep this on topic, I will comment a little on the model performance in regards to Barry. The ECMWF was superb during this event...forecasting a low pressure system in the Gulf days before the other models latched on. After that, the ECMWF was consistent in its track, while the NAM and GFS were erratic to say the least. The key thing to keep in mind is to watch model trends. One model run does not a forecast make. Comparing model to model, however, the ECMWF is simply taking our American models behind the woodshed as far as verification goes.