franksingleton
Well-Known Member
Thats all good, just don't tar all programmes with the same brush.
At no point does squid give a forecast in the same way.
Data is presented for interpretation by the user.
That's why these navigators get paid so we'll - until they get it wrong of course
Fair enough. I gues it is that I have seen NWP at first hand, and played a small part at the modeller/user interface, over many years. I know, now more correctly, knew personally many of the leading lights at ECMWF and the U.K. Met Office. These were experts in modelling, data collection, quality control and assimilation. The latter is as big a problem as the prediction.
What always strikes me when I look at output, say, from COSMO-DE, HARMONIE, HIRLAM is how little variation there is spatially and temporally in the model output. It is quite unrealistic and emphasises that there is far more variability in the real atmosphere compared to models. Hence, my distrust of claims that models, especially with no detailed data input, are “accurate.”
