I guess I remain stunned at how some people view long range guidance. I would have thought we were all on board that from 5-7 days out the long range models in winter are useful for getting a general idea of big features - upper air patterns, the possibility of storminess, the availability of cold.
From 5-7 days ahead of today at least the Euro was advertising the possibility of a storm along the east coast, and that it might pack a punch. It is beyond strange to me that anyone would say that was a failure because the blob of insane snow ended up 150 miles from our area. The fact that it nailed that there was a storm in this window AND that the storm would have an impact is really quite a feat. Even from 3-4 days out when the GFS and CMC began to catch on the blob moved around - which makes sense given the complexity of the set-up.
But for people to spend time in the main thread being mad online and claiming that one model blows or another model blows because it didn't exactly put the conditions of a complex system over their neighborhood five days out is crazy to me. Especially if they carry a certain color tag.
If this was summer and one model showed a week out highs for the area at 107, I would assume that people would raise an eyebrow and note that big heat looks like a possibility. Then, when a week passes and the high is "only" 101, I don't recall people dunking on the model for being insanely wrong.
Maybe this same kind of craziness arises around tropical systems, I don't follow those as closely, But I would presume that a week out if a model is able to successfully show a storm in a general area and there ends up actually being a storm in the general area a week later, that's a pretty good heads up.
In any event, congrats to our mets on this board who work on modeling the atmosphere. It is pretty damn impressive work.