<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[common error waves]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I have been in Anse Mitan for a while and you are reporting 1.2m waves... there has never been this kind of wave in the bay of Fort de France for 6 months. You really should correct this kind of information.</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.windy.com/topic/37331/common-error-waves</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 10:26:50 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://community.windy.com/topic/37331.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2024 22:29:00 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to common error waves on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:27:32 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/user/uvdba" aria-label="Profile: uvdba">@<bdi>uvdba</bdi></a><br />
Windy cannot correct weather models which are developed and run by ECMWF, NOAA and DWD. These models have a 13 to 22km resolution and consequently they may be inaccurate in local conditions.<br />
The data provided by IFREMER seem more in line with your observations :</p>
<p dir="auto"><img src="/assets/uploads/files/1729844516092-3e363cf8-7be3-47f4-ad4e-7aee58ce7150.jpeg" alt="3E363CF8-7BE3-47F4-AD4E-7AEE58CE7150.jpeg" class=" img-fluid img-markdown" /></p>
<p dir="auto">It seems to be run with a better resolution (about 5 km) even being based on the WWW3 model now called GFS waves.</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.windy.com/post/202273</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.windy.com/post/202273</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[idefix37]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:27:32 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>