As urged by Lois in a previous post this a.m., would also be interested with any MET's thoughts on 94L as well. Perhaps even moreso, would be curious to their "take" or interpretation on what I have noticed to be an unusually lesser degree of short to mid term model consistancy with regards to steering patterns. Seems that in some past years, perhaps years where the Atlantic has displayed more pronounced meridianal troughing, forecasts of 72hr's-120hr's tended to be more "spot on". This year, it is my observation that not only does the Eastern U.S. appear much more zonal, but the overall Atlantic as well. Of course this would lessen the extent of poleward steering influences, but because of this perhaps, there also seems to be less defined steering, with 500mb flow variances and heights seemingly less extreme. Then you take weaker systems in the early stages of cyclongenisis, and even greater conflict of model guidance seems to exist given the lower level steering influences that always exist.

It might be noted to, that as we watch for development of 94L or other future invests, that perhaps contrary to other years, certain models typically less relied on may be actually more reliable this year given the specifity of dynamical data deceminated by them. Right now for instance, as another post already made reference to the GFDL now having backed off development of 94L, suddenly NOGAPS ( in the last couple of runs ) out of nowhere really develops the system north of Hispanola/Cuba. What is most odd to me about this, is that I have noticed some years ago, that the NOGAPS model had somehow become "neutered" ( obviously tweaked ), and seemingly rarely forecasting future cyclogenisis, especially less so as an outlyer to the many other models not forecasting the same. :?: