"Norman" wrote in message
...

snip

Len Wood wrote:


Looking at model output every six hours in order to get a better idea
of what might happen beyond 5 or 6 days has been shown to be
pointless.
Doing this is verging on suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder.
The six hourly model runs are there to try to put a better feel of how
things might be up to five days ahead.
Beyond that once a day is quite sufficient. Slavishly looking every
six hours at what might happen in 10 days time shows a lack of
understanding of how these models are constructed.

Len Wood
Wembury, SW Devon


Well said that man! I think it is often forgotten that NWP is a tool (and
a
very imperfect tool) intended to be used by experienced meteorologists.
It's
not something that's intended to give the "right" answer to Joe Public.
Nevertheless, it's a bit of harmless fun for enthusiasts on here to try to
pick
their way out to T+384 every 6 hours. Nobody really suffers any loss,
except
perhaps to their ego :-) What I find less acceptable is that raw numerical
model output is regularly sold to gullible end users without any sort of
"health warning" and is also presented to Joe Public as a "forecast". That
is
indefensible IMHO.

You mean like Metcheck, who base their forecasts on the GFS I believe,
and churn out impossibly detailed forecasts right out to 14 days?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl