GeneratorPower wrote:I think the takeaway from Matthew and the models is that in general the Euro and GFS did a good job showing us up to day 4 approximately what would happen. Not exactly but very useable. Day 5 and beyond not so much.
I think it's natural for weather geeks like me to really WANT to know what's gonna happen so we look at the long ranges. We hope that somehow the long range runs beyond say 4 days are going to tell us something meaningful. In fact they don't. Just look at the evolution of the steering pattern for Matthew and the sizes of the ridges and cutoff lows. Some features were modeled but never appeared. At least nothing close to the shape and size indicated at day 6.
For the next storm, I'm going to try and really ignore the longer ranges. It causes only disappointment, stress, unfounded excitement, unfounded concern. You've gotta wait until day 3 to really know where a storm is going when you have a recurve potential and or coast hugging situation.
I just wish that the TV promets and even some of the better internet mets would take a step back and stop acting at day 6 like they really know the answer. It isn't helpful. And the TV mets with their desperate need to be first on the story are incessantly declaring all clears when they should be more patient. A lot of pride there. One day it will go before a fall.
I kept saying that longer ranges were difficult to predict. Indeed, this storm - in its entire lifetime - had so much uncertainty beyond about day 3. The fact that it hit a different ridge or trough every few days made it so challenging. This wasn't a slam dunk forecast like, say, Irene or Sandy.