sponger wrote:TTARider wrote:tolakram wrote:I too have criticism of the NHC forecast track vs what I see, but the difference between questioning an organization and being insulting is thinking I know their intent or why they did something. That's dumb and frankly makes the poster look dumb. It's a fair question, it's even a fair criticism, but try harder not to use the typical word salad of insults as if one knows better.
Saved radar loop, well east of the track. My criticism is this. NHC continues to use 12 hour forecast points and curve fits in between. While each point might be accurate the curve is not, so people turning on the line will see an obvious track discrepancy, even though they've been encouraged not to look at the line for years. 12 hour forecast points is straight out of the 90's and I think it's time to improve the messaging.
Besides all of that, the current storm location IS well east of track.
It was a head-scratcher there with regards to the 'center' of the cone in the last 24 hours or so... Not really sure what they were seeing that was lending them to push it so far west, but I guess they get paid to do more than just read the models
For what it's worth, the climate is changing, forecasting may be chasing a moving target more than ever these days.
I too am amazed that we were looking at models of this system long before there was any storm or system to speak of.. Modeling really is getting crazy with predicting areas of formation and origination,
The climate is changing, just not the way you think. It's called a Grand Solar Minimum and it will last decades. Also you cannot blame the models, the Icon nailed this track yesterday. The was the NHC's error, not a failure of modeling.
Eh, this study from NASA states that, at most, the GSM will cause, on average, global temperatures to decline 0.3C. IMO, human-caused warming, will at most, enhance tropical cyclogenesis as long as conditions are already favorable. Otherwise, I agree that the models accurately predicted Helene's track.
