WX forecasts

[Dan[_6_]]

We've had a pretty crummy soaring season this year in So Cal.
But has anyone else noted that the WX predictions from XC Skies and
Blipmaps seem to be too optimistic?

Sure seems that way to me.

Anyone else noticed that?

Dan
WO

[Grider Pirate]

On Aug 21, 12:46*pm, Dan > wrote:
> We've had a pretty crummy soaring season this year in So Cal.
> But has anyone else noted that the WX predictions from XC Skies and
> Blipmaps seem to be too optimistic?
>
> Sure seems that way to me.
>
> Anyone else noticed that?
>
> Dan
> WO

Yes, but I don't think it has been any MORE optimistic than last
year. It's just that when it predicts lift to 20k, and the lift only
goes to 18k, we don't get too worked up. When the forecast is for
lift to 14k, and we only get to 12k, it will make a significant
difference in your flight.

[[email protected]]

> Yes, but I don't think it has been any MORE optimistic than last
> year. *It's just that when it predicts lift to 20k, and the lift only
> goes to 18k, we don't get too worked up. *When the forecast is for
> lift to 14k, and we only get to 12k, it will make a significant
> difference in your flight.

I tend to agree. Actually, for the El Mirage area, the RUC forecast
seems to be right on, the NAM, as usual, is a little optomistic as
regards cu's.
Sometimes we get really good days in early Sept, so don't write off
the season yet...

aerodyne

[Mike the Strike]

On Aug 22, 6:29*am, wrote:
> > Yes, but I don't think it has been any MORE optimistic than last
> > year. *It's just that when it predicts lift to 20k, and the lift only
> > goes to 18k, we don't get too worked up. *When the forecast is for
> > lift to 14k, and we only get to 12k, it will make a significant
> > difference in your flight.
>
> I tend to agree. *Actually, for the El Mirage area, the RUC forecast
> seems to be right on, the NAM, as usual, is a little optomistic as
> regards cu's.
> Sometimes we get really good days in early Sept, so don't write off
> the season yet...
>
> aerodyne

The newer experimental Rapid Refresh model (soon to become the
operational RUC) is significantly better. I have been using it for
several months in Arizona and it consistently outperforms RUC, NAM and
GFS, at least in the short-term. It has sufficient spacial and time
resolution that it can forecast areas of individual storms and
convergence.

It is available (usually) on the NOAA soundings page, but loads slowly
as it is experimental.

When it differs significantly from RUC and NAM, I go with RR.

Mike

Mike