It used to be we can rely on weather forecast accuracy for at least 2 days or so...
In recent years, it seems they have lost that skill.
The last few snow storms has been either over hyped as the storm of the century...
Or under rated...
Why can’t they predict rain or snow accurately?
A recent storm, as recent as a day earlier, was forecasted to be 1-3 inches. It turned out to be 6 inches. How can they be that far off?
First of all, 1-3 inches is already a large spread. That is over 200%. Then to be off in the final result was adding another 100% on top of that.
I can throw a dart on the wall and make better predictions.
Something is wrong with our weather services...with better satellite images and all sorts of sensors and advanced surveilance...we are worst off today than 20 years ago.
Meanwhile, the climate scientists tell us they can predict our climate 30 years from now with 90% confidence. Someone is shading the truth...
I'd say you need to watch a different forecaster. Our local talent seems pretty good, and hits it on the nose 99% of the time.
(Change the temperature of middle atmosphere just a degree or two, and snowfall could double or triple. Not necessarily the amount of water, but the depth of snow.)
You may be right. I was relying on the Weather Channel... It is owned by IBM...
It may be whoever it is you're watching who is not accurate. From what I see, our weather forecasters are pretty on point 99 percent of the time. Even my weather app on my iPhone is pretty darn accurate.
On top of that, our sanitation department seems to be unprepared for the smallest of storms. A 3-6 inches storm is common in previous winters. Now, everytime there is snow, the city grinds to a halt.
My husband and I use the same weather app. My app has a different forecast from his 50% of the time. Hedging their bets so they can claim 100% accuracy, I guess.
I have come up with this theory on the matter:
They have 10 people sitting in the room, to represent 100 people. Then they say, "How many think it is going to be sunny? How many think it is going to rain?"
They count hands, and use those numbers as percentages in their forecasts.
The general rule of thumb I have found works is this: They are correct if you need them to be wrong, and, conversely, wrong if you need them to be correct!
And that's how weather forecasting works these days!
Thank you Aime,
Weather and Climate are not at all the same thing.
With a PhD in fluid dynamics, I can say this: It is impoissible to accurately predict the weather because this requires the solution of the Navier Stokes equations and this is till date impossible. This is one of the 6 million dollar problems out there. If you solve it, you'd get a million dollars!
Secondly, due to our inability to solve this problem to the lowest scale (which is required for the accurate prediction of the weather), we have set up models. These models work well to a certain degree and therefore you get better predictions as the date draws closer (you have better initial conditions so to say). If I were to predict a wind speed of 10 km/hr tomorrow, but it is actually 9km/hr, this would put my next week prediction way off, because of the wrong initial conditions (relatively speaking).
Why do different weather channels predict it differently, yet to some extent have the same forecast? This is because they all have access to different satellite data, they would have started their simulations at different times with different data (had they used the same satellite data), they would be using different prediction models, and more.
Very importantly, you need massive supercomputers to predict the weather accurately. The most powerful supercomputer in the world today takes 1 year to model a one minute flow of wind around an airplane.
But on an airplane, you need to go to a very small scale 10^-6 m. They do atmospheric simulations on a scale of a few kilometers squared. You cannot expect accuracy.
Climate, on the other hand, is very easy to predict, because climate works with averages and is mainly statistics with some fluid dynamics whereas weather is second-second and not an average. When you average over a long time, you can get rid of the turbulent effects and the need of very accurate initial conditions goes away. This is why climate predictions are possible, but not accurate weather forecasts.
Not to be rude, but when you say: why can't they predict the next days weather but they say they know about climate change and can predict the climate 30 years from now, it's like saying: the Vikings could build amazing boats with such craftsmanship, but the airplane carrier ship they built sucked. (The example is stupid, right? That's just how stupid the comparison of the two is).
Spread this message to people you know, there's a HUGE difference and the lack of this knowledge is why people are not fighting climate change. Climate change is real and you see it in the increased cyclonic energy due to the increased energy entrapped in our atmosphere. That along with the El Ninos is a recipe for disaster. There are numerous other problems that come along with it as well.
Like everything else in life, weather and climate are more about probability than certainty.
Getting a 100% accurate weather forecast is impossible. Getting it closer to reality is more realistic.
Thanks for the long detail explanation. However, you didn’t answer my original question. How are they able to predict the weather years ago more accurate than today? We used to be able to do well within a few days.
The second part of my question relating to long range climate is related though as many have pointed out, climate and weather are two different items.
My question has to do with these 31 various models the scientists use. How come all of them seem to err on the high side?
Climate cannot be easy to predict since decades of climate predictions have been so massively wrong. It's stunning to look back at the predictions, making one blink in wonder at why they were believed. No one denies climate change, but the predictions disavow evolution theories taught as fact, creating more questions than answers.
Supposed experts predicted starvation of millions by the 1980s. By 1985 half the needed sunlight would not reach earth due to air pollution. By 2000ish lower Manhattan was to be headed to the bottom of the ocean. Metals were to be gone by 2000 and all of the oxygen in rivers would be used up, suffocating all the fish. The Smithsonian's Dr. Ripley reported that up to 80 percent of all living animal species would be extinct. An ice age was predicted by 2000 due to cooling temperatures. The list seems endlessly absurd.
Research on how well climate change predictions hold up are quite interesting. No one in their right mind disagrees with being good stewards of the earth but the how to involved must be based on truth. Many papers and articles as well as videos offer some thought-provoking balance to the picture and give opportunity for fact-checking. These include scientists speaking up and out on the idea that all scientists agree on climate change alarms, challenging senate hearings, Nobel Laureates, and other studied skeptics pointing out errors in the tidal wave of false science on climate change.
Jumping on a bandwagon before checking out the facts, following blindly because it suits some notion we have about big corporations, the wealthy, a political agenda, or social issues is dangerous business. So-called climate science is rife with illusion and the motives behind them are suspicious at best. Climate alarmists contradict themselves by their life-styles, their dismissal of facts, and distortions of truth. They undermine their own message and muster courage to dupe the public by supporting each other in spite of realities about the facts.
It is easy to predict. All the predictions are made on the notion that things will continue to be as they are today.
Evolution theory: It has theory in its name for a reason, it's not fact. Evolution did happen, but how it happened (natural selection) is still a theory.
If the agricultural revolution did not happen when it did, yes starvation was imminent. This is what the US looked like before pollution regulation https://www.businessinsider.de/photos-a … 17-10?op=1 had it not been regulated, yes, 50% of the sunlight would not reach the ground and if it did continue unabated, temperatures would be higher than they are today.
Like I said in my initial reply, the right intitial conditions are required and at best you can use the current trend to determine the future. When things change due to intervention by man, of course things are going to take a different turn. That's the whole reason the predictions are being made, to try and prevent them from unfolding.
All the changes that are being proposed and challenged are the initial conditions. Very recently, a paper that discussed the fact that the Earths oceans have absorbed 60% more heat than previous estimates was released. Due to this change, the climate model needs to be changed.
But, climate change is easily predictable, PROVIDED we have the right initial conditions. Weather with the current technology is NOT predictable, even if we have the right initial conditions.
Predictions are easy to make. Anyone can do it for any purpose using stories, pictures, and even graphs but predicting climate change with authority needs to be based on truth. The article referenced represents all of America in the condition of those pictures, which those of us who were alive at that time know was not the case at all. Certainly, it was a good thing people took action to right the wrongs and everyone acknowledges we have much to be thankful for in the efforts. The article also reminds that it is important to remember how addressing the problems was not just an American need. Other countries also needed to be and still need to be good stewards of their lands.
In infinite wisdom God designed a resilient earth and called for people to be good stewards of it. People's efforts to improve their behaviors are a good thing, but they do not get the credit alarmists claim for the efforts. Some great research validates the fact that true science agrees with the Bible's account of earth's history. Examples include evidence of a recent ice age, meaning alarmist's theories about global warming indicating a climate change emergency are unnecessary. Dismissiveness of creation scientist's findings colors climate change discussions a dismal hue. The questions of why alarmists do this are quite interesting by themselves.
On the other hand, researching creation science research is eye-opening and well worth working at studying out with a willingness to comprehend. Recently I came across comments from a man who said he observed certain glaciers. His alarmist response to their melting ended with "...and they are not coming back." He created serious questions about himself with his response. How does he know they are not coming back? How does he know they should remain there? Why does he think it would be a good thing for them to come back considering how they got there? Who is he to say he knows what happened prehistorically and what the future holds? How does he arrogantly claim omniscience?
Questions like this should always be asked when we are dealing with alarmists over any issue. When it comes to climate change it is stunning to see adamant statements published for the purpose of alarming people. As has been said many times over, the top people behind the alarmist movement are in it for power and money. Those they try to alarm with their manipulations need to step back, take a breath, and do some real research rather than trusting people with motives they are unaware of or do not understand.
Those who have pointed out that weather and climate are not the same are correct. That said, when it comes to forecasting probabilities, I believe the government is involved in the accuracy details. Why? National security, and as much of a groaner as that is, think about it. GPS doesn't work in Washington D.C.; they have it blacked out. I know this from some people who have been there.
Similarly, you'd better believe the military has really accurate weather forecasting ability (especially the Navy). Consider this: landing an airplane on an aircraft carrier is tricky enough; they'd better have a good handle on what the weather is going to be like when running sorties, or there would be a lot more crashes than there are!
Yes, the Government and the Navy have some of the most powerful supercomputers at their disposal, this is true for every country. They also have some of the brightest minds and therefore they do have better predictability and they would be using closer time intervals to do their calculations. So their data would not be accurate (it's impossible to be accurate), but it would be in the ballpark of what it actually is.
What's with DC and GPS? Why in the world don't they allow GPS, this is news to me.
Ah yes, all those climate change alarmists need to settle down and listen to God, who is certainly not an alarmist himself. Just threats of eternal damnation and whatnot.
All I can say is: God bless you with wisdom, understanding, and knowledge.
by Goody5 9 years ago
Is it possible to predict how hard a Winter will be?Can someone predict what a Winter will be like based on a wooly worm's color, or the size of acorns. It's been said that a black wooly worm means a hard Winter, and a brown wooly worm means that there will be a mild Winter, while the bigger the...
by Randy Godwin 5 years ago
Why do you not believe in Global Warming/Climate Change?I have no doubt our earth is warming at an alarming rate. One of the reasons I think this is because of the photo I included with the question. Otzi--the Iceman--was frozen over 5000 years ago and has remained that way through all sorts of...
by Jack Lee 6 weeks ago
Recently, Doc Snow and I decided to each create a hub on the topic of "How accurate are climate change predictions." Here are our opposing hubs - http://hubpages.com/education/Climate-C … e-Are-Theyhttp://hubpages.com/politics/Climate-Ch … hey-ReallyWe are asking people to...
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
According to the Washington Examiner, None of the Apocalyptic predictions about the climate and the environment have come true. These are predictions that are recent and some that are decades old.Why are they always wrong?“Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental...
by PeterStip 7 years ago
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate warming up..Why still argue ?There is a 99% Probability that Manmade Emissions Have Caused Climate ChangeWhy do we still debate if there is a climate change at all ?
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
Since the 1980s (I remember them well) environmental scientists have been predicting global devastation if the world does nothing to prevent the rise in global temperature. Why then? Because enough time had elapsed since the beginning of the industrial revolution for the damage it began...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|