On Jul 28, 11:27*am, " wrote:
On Jul 28, 7:02*am, "Skip Gundlach" wrote:
... At this time weather, wind and currents all look very good for
our passage, but in the event that changes, or there are
equipment difficulties which suggest otherwise, we'll not
hesitate to come in from wherever we are at the time.

...

IMO, this is the best part of the plan. *I'm a big fan of the Navy and
NOAA wx products, but having used them for years I don't expect them
to be correct. *I know they are digital and look lovely, but remember
that the NOAA guys look at all of these same models and more and have
years of experience and still mess up the forecast as often as not.
At sea the forecasts are __much less reliable__ than they are near
shore or on land. *So, I suggest looking at the sky, the barometer,
the thermometer and the sea and if they don't agree with what the
computer or your router say then the router and models are wrong! *The
models often change radically run to run so if it isn't working to
plan get the newest run. *Also, remember that the meso scale models
piggy back on the GFS; if the GFS is wrong, so are they. So, it is a
good idea to do your macro scale checking against a different model
family (eg. NOGAPS) and, if you can, an IR sat picture.

-- Tom.

I find exactly the opposite to be true. The NOAA forecasts are much
more reliable off shore than they are on-shore where land effects can
significantly modify the wind patterns. I believe that they even
state that the forecasts are for 12+ miles off-shore.

-- Geoff