southerngale wrote:I have seen several mets saying similar things, like the EURO and UKMET have been the most consistent and the ones with the least errors, etc. If that's the case, why wouldn't the NHC put more weight in them? I assume they see something to feel confident the GFS and its cousins are more accurate with a landfall further south. I do NOT want to evacuate, so the farther south the better (for me), but I don't want to find out too late that I should have. I am pretty sure there's a gazillion other people thinking similarly.
I certainly agree that the ECMWF has been the most consistent and had the least error, but I don't agree at all with the UKMET. It's certainly been consistent, but it has consistently underdone the ridging - it was one of the last to give up on a recurve in the atlantic.
In the 15Z discussion yesterday, NHC actually explicitly mentioned that they're shading the forecast to the ECMWF - they've definitely taken notice that it's been on top of this storm. However, past performance doesn't guarantee future success - you can't ignore the other guidance just because it doesn't agree with the one model you like more. NHC is doing the responsible thing forecast-wise by leaning towards the better model, but keeping in mind that there are other possibilities. I can only hope that they're also doing the responsible thing by letting those who make decisions know why they're doing what they're doing as well, so they can make more informed decisions.