i prefer using the rock...it never fails

A paper published in the February Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society concluded that when a percentage is used to describe the chance of precipitation, a sizable number of people see it as the percent of the local area that will get rain, or the percent of time in the day during which it will rain.

I cannot even begin to try and follow the logic that would lead to that conclusion.

a.] Virtually all get most of their raw data from the same source.
b.] Virtually all lowball their "predictions" out of fear tehy'll get caught with their pants down.

FTFA

"If such deep-seated misunderstanding is evident among this college-educated sample in the rain-experienced Pacific Northwest, we can assume that it exists in similar or larger proportions among the general public," the paper said.


Or it could mean that the people attending that college are not getting what they paid for...

On a side note maybe it is a regional thing, here in the midwest when so many of our community members need the rain you kinda have an understanding about the predictions...

/Farmer's Almanac FTW

Don't wear a green tie if you're a weatherman.



/dumbass

The confusion extends further than that - the TV meteorologists in Dallas suddenly switched from "Percent Chance" to "Percent Coverage" and when challenged as to why and what it meant, they defended by saying "It can be measured, so we know how good we did" but of course they never report how accurate they were. And NOAA, when asked, says "Percent Coverage is Percent Chance times the area the meteorologist thinks will be covered by the weather" so it is just hiding the percent chance.
Percent Chance is not percentage of people hit, but "Under conditions like this, in the past, X% of the time it rained." But people want apparent guarantees.

I always thought it meant the percent chance of rain existing on other planets. huh

Step 1: Wake up
Step 2: Check outside window
Step 3: Go to bed again

"I got this degree in meteorology so I can read someone else's weather forecasts on TV. But I really wish had gotten a degree in journalism so I could read someone else's news reports on TV."

If you go to places like Wunderground and the like...You can see percentage by hour for your area. If you do not understand the weatherman than get on the computer and educate yourself.

I've always wanted to build a weather machine to terrorize mankind and hold the world hostage.

Then NO weather prediction would be safe.

It seems to boil down to: it might rain/it might not rain.
/The Weather Rock totally, er, rocks...

Weatherman/meteorologist: The only job where you can be right 50% of the time and still get a pat on the back...

Some people tend to get headaches with severe weather changes. It can be offsetting to hear someone to say "we'll get serious rain in 4 hours" when it's sunny out but by nightfall they're exactly right.

Nakito: "I got this degree in meteorology so I can read someone else's weather forecasts on TV. But I really wish had gotten a degree in journalism so I could read someone else's news reports on TV."

Huh... Palin had an journalism degree?

/ All of them!

or how about when the weather man says it will be sunny and 50 tomorrow and then I wake up and it's farking snowing.

/lives in the D.C. area
/Weather reporters are idiots

Or it could mean the dumbass weatherman really is a dumbass...

Very long, but entertaining study- How Valid Are T.V. Weather Forecasts? (new window)

For the farkers that don't want to read the whole thing- It basically comes down to:

"We have no idea what's going to happen [in the weather] beyond three days out."

"There's not an evaluation of accuracy in hiring meteorologists. Presentation takes precedence over accuracy."

"All that viewers care about is the next day. Accuracy is not a big deal to viewers."

dipdunk: Some people tend to get headaches with severe weather changes. It can be offsetting to hear someone to say "we'll get serious rain in 4 hours" when it's sunny out but by nightfall they're exactly right.

That's a long story but I've seen it done often - Usually an presence of excessive scar tissue can cause that. Typically, People with surgeries in the past has this capability.

/ No it's not a good thing, you get pain whenever weather goes bad.

The percentage, by the way, refers to the percent of days that experience precipitation when the expected weather conditions are in place.

... Wow, what a shiatty way to explain it. Could be interpreted almost recursively: The expected weather condition is x% chance of rain; the percent of days the experience precipitation given that weather condition is x%.

/I need a drink.

ZEZ:

Dig that....

To me IF a weather man say there is a 20% chance of rain today, I've always heard it as it will rain 20% of the day today, the other 80% of the day it will be either cloudy or sunny.

/NOT

Back when I was a TV reporter the weatherman -- not meteorologist, as he'd proudly tell anyone -- imparted some wisdom at the bar after the 11pm show one night.

"These days people want 7-day, 10-day, 14-day forecasts. Let me assure you: after two days just flip a farking coin."

He used to laugh at the meteorologists who'd get their degree then just copy Accu-Weather's forecast word-for-word.

I used to forecast weather for the Air Force, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

/Anything past a 48-hour forecast is climate and computer model data.

The report is using such an odd set of individuals to survey. NW'ers would of course be predisposed more than others to think "well, it's gonna rain somewhere, so this number must mean the area/day-portion."

And undergrads are largely just a collection of assholes who haven't managed to find a job yet.

RavinDave: b.] Virtually all lowball their "predictions" out of fear tehy'll get caught with their pants down.

Actual meteorologists tend to lowball precipitation predictions because models have a hard time with it, and often over-predict.

TV weathermen tend to highball precipitation predictions because people are idiots, and gravitate to the station that has the more exciting weather.

only because it kinda fits the thread

u sound lyk a fag and ur shiatz all retrded

Mr. Coffee Nerves: He used to laugh at the meteorologists who'd get their degree then just copy Accu-Weather's forecast word-for-word.

That is stupid, considering Accu-Weather pretty much copies the National Weather Service forecast word-for-word.

Then they splash in some original "content", like pictures showing where the worst hurricane threat is for the whole season even before it starts.

Partly sunny with a 20% chance of sex.

In other news, people are stupid!

Oh yeah, that's not news.

WHO WEATHERS THE WEATHERMEN?

Allornone: In other news, people are stupid!

Oh yeah, that's not news.

My thoughts exactly, another "People Are Stupid" article.

we was told there would be no math

There's a meteorologist in my city who has been here (Cleveland, with notoriously changeable weather) forever.

One thing I know is that when he takes his winter vacation, we're gonna get clobbered.

What annoys me more are the freaking four-minute long, blueballs-inducing forecasts that have to show us all the pressure maps of the whole country. I understand that you are proud of your field and you love your job, but I don't need to see all of that crap. Cut to the chase. A weatherman could just post the forecast for the week and be done with it, if he wasn't whining to get more than ten seconds of airtime.

I find it ... funny... that they have not been able to improve on weather forecasts in the last 25 years or so. I mean look at the increase in computer processing power over that same time- from 286's to P4's in that time, yet weather forecasting hasn't improved. In fact, I'd say it's gotten worse. They've taken to covering up their bad forecasts, though, at least online. Take this for instance:




Notice how it says the High temp for today will be "60", but the current temp is "61"? It was worse, a few hours ago, it said the High would be "54" and the current temp was "60" - a difference of 6 degrees. I mean, how the hell can this happen? If they can't get the forecast right, they should,At the very least, have the software adjust the 'high' to match the 'current' temp if the Current exceeds the High.

I think what they need to do is hold a contest- gather up all the weather-predicting software, and run it thru it's paces using historical data (ie: give it last weeks data and see if it accurately predicts this week's weather). Pick the best 10 programs, Then 'mutate' the software by altering the variables and formulas slightly, and re-run the test. After a few (or a few hundred) iterations, you should have a program that accurately predicts the weather. A sort of 'Software evolution', if you will.

A few things I have heard about weather reporting. With that said, I cannot necessarily prove their validity. First any forecast outside of 3 days is complete guess work. Second, when forecasting a high/low, I have heard that is average +/- 3 degrees. Third, if you live in Texas and don't like the weather, just wait 24 hrs.

weatherman exist for the sole purpose of horribly juxtaposed or taken out of context comments by the anchors.

such as

"Jim where was that 10 inches you promised me last night."

good times

fredklein: I think what they need to do is hold a contest- gather up all the weather-predicting software, and run it thru it's paces using historical data (ie: give it last weeks data and see if it accurately predicts this week's weather). Pick the best 10 programs, Then 'mutate' the software by altering the variables and formulas slightly, and re-run the test. After a few (or a few hundred) iterations, you should have a program that accurately predicts the weather. A sort of 'Software evolution', if you will.

Yes, because no one has ever thought of doing that.

moondo: we was told there would be no math

A paper published in the February Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society concluded that when a percentage is used to describe the chance of precipitation, a sizable number of people see it as the percent of the local area that will get rain, or the percent of time in the day during which it will rain.

Seriously? Your parents put you through college and this is all you gave them in return, people?...

50% chance of rain means half my city will be rained on for half of the day. Wow.

fredklein: I think what they need to do is hold a contest- gather up all the weather-predicting software, and run it thru it's paces using historical data (ie: give it last weeks data and see if it accurately predicts this week's weather). Pick the best 10 programs, Then 'mutate' the software by altering the variables and formulas slightly, and re-run the test. After a few (or a few hundred) iterations, you should have a program that accurately predicts the weather. A sort of 'Software evolution', if you will.

It's definitely not as easy as that. A major misconception among people is that we will get better forecasts if we have faster/more powerful computers, if we use models with finer resolution (like 4-10 km grid boxes), etc. What people forget is that all of these numerical models require initial data. We can have the best computers spitting out forecasts within minutes, but if we have inaccurate observational data, those inaccuracies will show up as errors in the forecast within a few time-steps.

Also, a forecast isn't a "coin flip" after 36 hours, but if you're using it for a super accurate prediction instead of trying to get a good idea of a synoptic flow, then you're going to be one misinformed person. That's why they're called *guidance* models.

Ponzholio: Or it could mean the dumbass weatherman really is a dumbass...

Very long, but entertaining study- How Valid Are T.V. Weather Forecasts? (new window)

For the farkers that don't want to read the whole thing- It basically comes down to:

"We have no idea what's going to happen [in the weather] beyond three days out."

"There's not an evaluation of accuracy in hiring meteorologists. Presentation takes precedence over accuracy."

"All that viewers care about is the next day. Accuracy is not a big deal to viewers."

Yeah, we learned essentially the same thing back when I was doing pilot training about 1990. Something like 85% accruacy in weather predictions over 24 hours, dropping to about 40ish 24-48 hours, and down to 15% out to 72 hours.

I can live with it. I understand there's this giant fluid mass enveloping the Earth and it's got more variables than we can calculate precisely.

I'm good with 2 categories: crappy and decent.

i always thought 50% chance of rain/snow meant that about half the raindrops/snowflakes would actually hit the ground.

/just kidding
/are people really that stupid?
/looking outside always works best for me

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...

Cup_O_Jo: If you do not understand the weatherman doctor than get on the computer and educate yourself.

I like my version better.

_{/It's not Lupus}

aar0on: 50% chance of rain means half my city will be rained on for half of the day. Wow.

Well, DUH, here's your problem: Fifty percent of fifty percent results in a twenty five percent chance of rain.

If that random sampling of idiots is going to reflect on the brains of the rest of us, I would like to go ahead and file for divorce from the human race.

100% chance of Pac-Man.

Pray for rain