I must have missed the northerly component while sleeping. That is too bad, as I would have liked to see it go with the mets are saying. I'm still saying miss Cuba and end up much further west than projections.

I also wanted to reply to the long post on page 5 about the models. I don't remember all of my points, but I agreed with some of what you said. I personally like the 5-day forecast for scientific purposes, not public knowledge. 5-days is way too far out to get a good estimate, but a bad estimate (to me) is better than nothing. I think the cone is vital to those models, as it shows the uncertainty. So, when you're comparing shifts in model predictions, ask yourself.... is it still in the original cone? The the model is valid and the shift is reasonable. The reason the cone is so large at 5-days is the uncertainty increases dramatically. If you remove the cone, you will panic the public, who do not understand that the model predictions are only estimates and not the actual track. They will think that the actual model prediction is what is going to happen. People tend to overrestimate the knowledge and understanding of the general public.... We are not the general public! The cone at least shows the possibility of error. Anyway, I would try and deter the media from showing this forecast and often unnecessarity worrying the public.