[Dr David Thork]

Weather forecasts are based on 'THE SCIENCE'. 

Now, whilst no one expects them to be deadly accurate, you'd expect some kind of prediction. You aren't expecting a wild stab in the dark. After all, the weather scientists have the most powerful computers on earth. They model complex algorithms using millions of data points. You'd expect, therefore, for their forecast to be a little more accurate than if they had slaughtered a goat to see how the entrails lie, when arriving at a forecast. And yet, here is the forecast for next week from two different providers, both offering me a tile of their prediction.



So which is it? Am I expecting the coldest weather in living memory, or the hottest? I mean this is only a prediction for next week. Its not like I'm asking them to tell me what is going to happen in April. That would be a prediction on climate and I have zero confidence they can predict the future climate ... let alone to 1.5 degrees or whatever they fear, but I digress.

When something as fundamental as weather prediction, a science with so much money poured into it can't tell me with any degree of accuracy whatsoever whether I'll be freezing my nuts off next week or breaking out my shorts, why would I trust other scientific predictions also foisted upon me by the mainstream media such as coronavirus spread, climate change or inflation models? These models are untrustworthy. I'm just being lied to over and over and told to 'trust the science'. But the science is bunk.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Both agencies, and others, are actually forecasting a mild New Years Eve, and lower temperatures the following week. 

Congratulations, you have exposed something quite sensational. 

[Iceman]

You make it seem like it should be 100% correct all the time if you just throw enough computing power at the problem, which is obviously not the issue.

Weather forecasting also suffered during the earlier parts of the pandemic because there were fewer flights and observations reported by commercial pilots.

It does drive me crazy hearing cop-out forecasts in the summer that are basically just admissions of defeat, loaded with catch-all phrases that mean they really can’t tell us what it’s going to do. And note they always report 40 or 60% chance of precipitation… if they said 50, they’d basically be admitting it’s a coin flip! That doesn’t mean we don’t have a good sense of what’s coming down the pipe though. We understand many of the the feedbacks and climate responses, there just isn’t enough detail yet to fully capture the details.

[Tom Bishop]

Weather prediction has always been a scam, right up there with gravitational physics. If they can't predict three bodies what makes you think they can predict a quintillion bodies? Here is a documentary about how anything beyond the simplest Newtonian equations is unpredictable:



Three Body Problem is discussed at 9:40
Weather is discussed at 13:20

[GoldCashew]

Weather prediction has always been a scam, right up there with gravitational physics. If they can't predict three bodies what makes you think they can predict a quintillion bodies? Here is a documentary about how anything beyond the simplest Newtonian equations are unpredictable:



Three Body Problem is discussed at 9:40
Weather is discussed at 13:20

Tom - declaring that forecasting the weather has always been a scam is taking conspiratorial theory thinking to a whole new level. Besides pulling down YouTube videos, do you have any direct evidence and facts that support your conspiracy theory that predicting weather is a scam? Are Meteorologists now all liars and scammers that work in a coordinated fashion with each another on a daily basis to create fictitious weather predictions?

To say that forecasting weather has always been a scam implies that the ability for Meteorologists to help predict and track the movement of snow-storm patterns, the movement of storms, hot and cold fronts is also a big lie and meaningless.... which it isn't.

I live in tornado alley in the US and can't begin to tell you the positive impact of Meteorologists coordinating closely with on-the ground fire and rescue to help predict and ready areas for possibly devastating tornado paths hitting towns. The same with snow-storms when I lived in Michigan. I am sure the same with Hurricanes for the many folks that live in and around the Gulf States or East Coast.

[Iceman]

Yep, as fun as it is to shit on them for missing the odd isolated shower in their forecast that ruins your picnic, accurate forecasting has saved countless lives and trillions of dollars in property damage by providing reliable advanced warning for major events.

[Dr David Thork]

Tom - declaring that forecasting the weather has always been a scam is taking conspiratorial theory thinking to a whole new level.

Have a little read of the link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_lore
^Now, are you going to stand by your assertion that weather forecasting hasn't always been a scam?

And you know what? Those old proverbs about red sky at night or moon halos still tend to be a lot more accurate than the supercomputers.

Besides pulling down YouTube videos, do you have any direct evidence and facts that support your conspiracy theory that predicting weather is a scam?

Weather prediction is sold. Sold to militaries, sold to airlines, sold to app makers and TV stations. Its big business. And yet, they can give a shitty prediction and there is no comeback. You can't sue them. They can tell you it won't rain, and yet your wedding dress can get soaked. Tell you the sea will be calm and yet you can get caught in a storm. You can lose your life because they sold you a shitty forecast and your family can't sue them for that. Think about that. You paid them for a service. They completely fucked it up, and you don't even get a refund. That, in any other line of work ... is a scam.

Are Meteorologists now all liars and scammers that work in a coordinated fashion with each another on a daily basis to create fictitious weather predictions?

Yes. Liars who will happily take money and tell you that the world is going to end in 20 years if that's what their pay masters ask for.

To say that forecasting weather has always been a scam implies that the ability for Meteorologists to help predict and track the movement of snow-storm patterns, the movement of storms, hot and cold fronts is also a big lie and meaningless.... which it isn't.

Actually, it kind of is. Any fool can say a cloud rained over London and headed north and rained over Birmingham and the future will be that it carries on heading north and will rain over Liverpool in roughly the time it takes the wind to push that cloud north. Especially when I can add a 60% probability to cover my arse. I don't need a supercomputer for that.

I live in tornado alley in the US and can't begin to tell you the positive impact of Meteorologists coordinating closely with on-the ground fire and rescue to help predict and ready areas for possibly devastating tornado paths hitting towns.

You live in tornado alley. It is possible that in tornado season a tornado might hit your house? Wow, easy money. As a newly appointed coprologist let me be the first to tell you that it is possible that bears might shit in the woods. I take all major credit cards and paypal. You are welcome.

The same with snow-storms when I lived in Michigan. I am sure the same with Hurricanes for the many folks that live in and around the Gulf States or East Coast.

Imagine thanking science that someone can tell you during hurricane season that a hurricane that is headed your way, might be headed your way. 
Now, if they could tell you a hurricane will form and go a particular direction, not just extrapolate where one has already been and draw a line on a map, then I'd think it a service worthy of respect.

Yep, as fun as it is to shit on them for missing the odd isolated shower in their forecast that ruins your picnic, accurate forecasting has saved countless lives and trillions of dollars in property damage by providing reliable advanced warning for major events.

Accurate forecasting? Really? I live in a changeable part of the world (United Kingdom). Its not like Spain where tomorrow will be hot just like yesterday. Our weather is more changeable than anywhere else on earth. And I can tell you that my lived experience is that the weather shysters have no Thrking clue at all.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom - declaring that forecasting the weather has always been a scam is taking conspiratorial theory thinking to a whole new level. Besides pulling down YouTube videos, do you have any direct evidence and facts that support your conspiracy theory that predicting weather is a scam? Are Meteorologists now all liars and scammers that work in a coordinated fashion with each another on a daily basis to create fictitious weather predictions?

No, they aren't fictitious. They just aren't very good. The scam came in when society convinced you that we were a super-advanced civilization who could model gravity and the weather. We are not and can not. This is all described in the NOVA documentary I embedded above.

[GoldCashew]

Tom - declaring that forecasting the weather has always been a scam is taking conspiratorial theory thinking to a whole new level. Besides pulling down YouTube videos, do you have any direct evidence and facts that support your conspiracy theory that predicting weather is a scam? Are Meteorologists now all liars and scammers that work in a coordinated fashion with each another on a daily basis to create fictitious weather predictions?

No, they aren't fictitious. They just aren't very good. The scam came in when society convinced you that we were a super-advanced civilization who could model gravity and the weather. We are not and can not. This is all described in the NOVA documentary I embedded above.

Weather can be modeled. Examples include modeling and predicting the paths of Hurricanes and the movements and paths of potentially destructive storms.

10 days ago, Meteorologists predicted record highs where I live, in the 70's where normally in the Christmas season we experience 30's and 40's. Guess what -- right now its 73 F and so they were correct.

The ability to predict weather accurately all the time is not perfect but it doesn't mean predicting weather is a scam.

Your getting quite wrapped up in conspiracies, from space travel to now weather.

[GoldCashew]

Tom - declaring that forecasting the weather has always been a scam is taking conspiratorial theory thinking to a whole new level.

Have a little read of the link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_lore
^Now, are you going to stand by your assertion that weather forecasting hasn't always been a scam?

And you know what? Those old proverbs about red sky at night or moon halos still tend to be a lot more accurate than the supercomputers.

Besides pulling down YouTube videos, do you have any direct evidence and facts that support your conspiracy theory that predicting weather is a scam?

Weather prediction is sold. Sold to militaries, sold to airlines, sold to app makers and TV stations. Its big business. And yet, they can give a shitty prediction and there is no comeback. You can't sue them. They can tell you it won't rain, and yet your wedding dress can get soaked. Tell you the sea will be calm and yet you can get caught in a storm. You can lose your life because they sold you a shitty forecast and your family can't sue them for that. Think about that. You paid them for a service. They completely fucked it up, and you don't even get a refund. That, in any other line of work ... is a scam.

Are Meteorologists now all liars and scammers that work in a coordinated fashion with each another on a daily basis to create fictitious weather predictions?

Yes. Liars who will happily take money and tell you that the world is going to end in 20 years if that's what their pay masters ask for.

To say that forecasting weather has always been a scam implies that the ability for Meteorologists to help predict and track the movement of snow-storm patterns, the movement of storms, hot and cold fronts is also a big lie and meaningless.... which it isn't.

Actually, it kind of is. Any fool can say a cloud rained over London and headed north and rained over Birmingham and the future will be that it carries on heading north and will rain over Liverpool in roughly the time it takes the wind to push that cloud north. Especially when I can add a 60% probability to cover my arse. I don't need a supercomputer for that.

I live in tornado alley in the US and can't begin to tell you the positive impact of Meteorologists coordinating closely with on-the ground fire and rescue to help predict and ready areas for possibly devastating tornado paths hitting towns.

You live in tornado alley. It is possible that in tornado season a tornado might hit your house? Wow, easy money. As a newly appointed coprologist let me be the first to tell you that it is possible that bears might shit in the woods. I take all major credit cards and paypal. You are welcome.

The same with snow-storms when I lived in Michigan. I am sure the same with Hurricanes for the many folks that live in and around the Gulf States or East Coast.

Imagine thanking science that someone can tell you during hurricane season that a hurricane that is headed your way, might be headed your way. 
Now, if they could tell you a hurricane will form and go a particular direction, not just extrapolate where one has already been and draw a line on a map, then I'd think it a service worthy of respect.

Yep, as fun as it is to shit on them for missing the odd isolated shower in their forecast that ruins your picnic, accurate forecasting has saved countless lives and trillions of dollars in property damage by providing reliable advanced warning for major events.

Accurate forecasting? Really? I live in a changeable part of the world (United Kingdom). Its not like Spain where tomorrow will be hot just like yesterday. Our weather is more changeable than anywhere else on earth. And I can tell you that my lived experience is that the weather shysters have no Thrking clue at all.

Thork,

Living in Tornado alley and saying that sometime during Tornado season a Tornado will happen somewhere in the mid-west region is very different than predicting that the right conditions are occurring for a potentially destructive Tornado to develop within the next 30 minutes and for potential tornadoes to develop and move through "these" specific towns. Such predictions have saved many lives.

Living in the Gulf State regions and saying that sometime this season a hurricane will likely hit is very different than tracking the movement of a hurricane in real time and having models that help to predict where hurricanes might hit landfall and even predict windspeed to help determine severity.

[Dr David Thork]

Living in the Gulf State regions and saying that sometime this season a hurricane will likely hit is very different than tracking the movement of a hurricane in real time and having models that help to predict where hurricanes might hit landfall and even predict windspeed to help determine severity.

It is different. And if they could do that, I'd be impressed.

[stack]

Ahhh, the 80's. I miss 'em.

In any case, things have progressed since Mr. Fish failed to look out the window to see the weather. Hurricane tracking, for example, has gotten a lot better since then. But, like most things, can always get better:

Hurricane path forecasts have much improved. Are they as good as they can get?

The first glimmers of the proto-Hurricane Laura showed up on forecasters’ radars on August 16, 2020, a large, loose splattering of clouds rolling off the edge of West Africa.

It grew quickly. By the time it got a name, on August 21, forecasters for the National Hurricane Center (NHC) were watching it obsessively, kneading in data from airplanes and models and their own decades of experience to forecast exactly where and how the storm would develop. By the 24th, the center’s three-day forecast predicted that Laura would make landfall at Cameron, Louisiana, at 2 a.m. on the 27th.

It arrived at 1 a.m., just one hour and 3,000 feet away...

The clearest success has come in forecasting the storm track. In 1990, the average three-day forecast was off by about 300 nautical miles, which is the distance from New Orleans to Houston. Today, that’s down to 100 miles. By the time a storm makes landfall, the difference between its predicted and real locations is less, on average, than 8 miles (and in Laura’s case, much less). The lead time has also grown: A five-day track forecast today is as accurate as a three-day one was in 2001.

And we also have had advancement in Presidential Hurricane Storm Tracking Technology, codename: 'SHARPIE':

[GoldCashew]

Living in the Gulf State regions and saying that sometime this season a hurricane will likely hit is very different than tracking the movement of a hurricane in real time and having models that help to predict where hurricanes might hit landfall and even predict windspeed to help determine severity.

It is different. And if they could do that, I'd be impressed.

"Michael Fish & the Hurricane video" from the 80's = an in-depth critical thought conclusion that weather prediction is a scam.

Got it and well done with the research.

[Dr David Thork]

Living in the Gulf State regions and saying that sometime this season a hurricane will likely hit is very different than tracking the movement of a hurricane in real time and having models that help to predict where hurricanes might hit landfall and even predict windspeed to help determine severity.

It is different. And if they could do that, I'd be impressed.

"Michael Fish & the Hurricane video" from the 80's = an in-depth critical thought conclusion that weather prediction is a scam.

Got it and well done with the research.

You gave an exact example of hurricane paths being utterly predicted by science and I showed the greatest hurricane failure to predict the path in living memory. I remember seeing all the trees flattened. It was utter devastation. What example would have been better?

[GoldCashew]

Living in the Gulf State regions and saying that sometime this season a hurricane will likely hit is very different than tracking the movement of a hurricane in real time and having models that help to predict where hurricanes might hit landfall and even predict windspeed to help determine severity.

It is different. And if they could do that, I'd be impressed.

"Michael Fish & the Hurricane video" from the 80's = an in-depth critical thought conclusion that weather prediction is a scam.

Got it and well done with the research.

You gave an exact example of hurricane paths being utterly predicted by science and I showed the greatest hurricane failure to predict the path in living memory. I remember seeing all the trees flattened. It was utter devastation. What example would have been better?

The shortcoming in your "critical thought" analysis is that you posted a video of a missed prediction, being a major memorable event. Yet, you aren't balancing your critical thought analysis with the hundreds and hundreds of daily weather forecasts that do predict weather to an accurate degree and I think you know that. Additionally, we know that predictive modelling isn't always 100% accurate (as you stated), although achieving 6-sigma is always the desired state. (over the years technology gets more and more advanced, however, am not so sure we will ever reach 100%). And so, you didn't state that.

It's a classic example of confirmation bias and conspiratorial thinking, where you are "biased" towards believing only what you want to believe, rejecting science and resisting any falsification of your said belief. This was you saying "I'm just being lied to over and over and told to 'trust the science'. But the science is bunk." So you seem to be suggesting that you are being lied to or being scammed by Meteorologists... what's the benefit to a Meteorologist for lying to you? Are you suggesting that there is Weather Forecast Conspiracy?

[stack]

Living in the Gulf State regions and saying that sometime this season a hurricane will likely hit is very different than tracking the movement of a hurricane in real time and having models that help to predict where hurricanes might hit landfall and even predict windspeed to help determine severity.

It is different. And if they could do that, I'd be impressed.

"Michael Fish & the Hurricane video" from the 80's = an in-depth critical thought conclusion that weather prediction is a scam.

Got it and well done with the research.

You gave an exact example of hurricane paths being utterly predicted by science and I showed the greatest hurricane failure to predict the path in living memory. I remember seeing all the trees flattened. It was utter devastation. What example would have been better?

A better example might be something that is not 35 years old. I'm imagining that we've made some technological advances in the past 3 1/2 decades.

[Tom Bishop]

A better example might be something that is not 35 years old. I'm imagining that we've made some technological advances in the past 3 1/2 decades.

Actually the 1989 NOVA documentary I posted said that weather prediction would never significantly improve.

18:33
Lorenz was quite correct. We can never
know the initial conditions accurately
enough to prevent some tiny unnoticed
error - even the flapping wings of a
butterfly - amplifying itself and
destroying our predictions. That's why we
never will dramatically improve our
weather forecasting. Lorenz actually
calls it the butterfly effect.

[stack]

A better example might be something that is not 35 years old. I'm imagining that we've made some technological advances in the past 3 1/2 decades.

Actually the 1989 NOVA documentary I posted said that weather prediction would never significantly improve.

18:33
Lorenz was quite correct. We can never
know the initial conditions accurately
enough to prevent some tiny unnoticed
error - even the flapping wings of a
butterfly - amplifying itself and
destroying our predictions. That's why we
never will dramatically improve our
weather forecasting. Lorenz actually
calls it the butterfly effect.

I'm sure some aspects of weather we will never be able to accurately predict. But other aspects, like hurricanes, etc., have advanced quite well. And probably have saved many lives.

I guess 3 decades later Lorenz was wrong.

It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere.
— Thomas Edison, November 1895

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896

[DuncanDoenitz]

No one is disputing that predicting the upshot of chaos is a difficult one to call.  I don't make predictions (and I never will), but its quite likely that our ability to do so is unlikely to improve significantly, whatever science we throw at it. 

To claim that it is a complete sham, however, is disingenuous.  For some of us the consequence of failure means just leaving home inappropriate attired and equipped, but for many customers of the meteorological services its a matter of life or death, and sometimes even profit and loss. 

Thork's OP however, juxtaposing 2 conflicting prediction of what is happening "next week" is a farce.  Yes, its the UK, so its cold one day and warm the next. 

Of course, part of the problem is that however many dollars, how much technology and expertise we throw at a question, some of the population can only understand the answer if its provided on a hand-held as a 125x125 pixel tile from a pay-per-click tabloid site.

[Tom Bishop]

I'm sure some aspects of weather we will never be able to accurately predict. But other aspects, like hurricanes, etc., have advanced quite well. And probably have saved many lives.

I doubt that there has been much advancement. Here is an article from 2016:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201108135932/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/magazine/why-isnt-the-us-better-at-predicting-extreme-weather.html

At 11 o’clock on the night of Sept. 29, the National Hurricane Center in Miami posted an updated prediction for Hurricane Matthew. Using the latest data from a reconnaissance aircraft, the center’s computerized models led meteorologists there to conclude, in a post on the center’s website, that “only a slight strengthening is forecast during the next 12 to 24 hours.” Their prediction proved to be astonishingly amiss: The following day, Matthew exploded from a Category 1 into a Category 5 hurricane, with winds gusting to 160 miles per hour, strong enough to flatten even the sturdiest homes.

This was hardly the first time that United States government forecasters significantly underestimated a storm’s potential. Last year, 24 hours before Patricia reached Mexico’s Pacific Coast, it unexpectedly mushroomed from a tropical storm to a Category 5 hurricane, its winds topping 215 miles per hour. Luckily, Patricia — officially the strongest hurricane on record in the Western Hemisphere — made landfall over a sparsely populated region. Matthew behaved similarly, its intensification also unforeseen and sudden, occurring just two days before it overwhelmed Haiti. Residents there had little time to flee, and the death toll exceeded 1,000. (More than 30 died in the United States.) The failure to make timely, accurate predictions about these storms would have had far deadlier consequences had they made landfall near a major metropolitan area. In South Florida, for example — where the initial forecasts for a storm of modest size would not have prompted hurricane-weary residents to evacuate — Matthew’s rapid increase in power could have pinned down more than six million people in the region.

Multiple hurricanes have behaved unpredictably, have caused loss of life, and could have caused massive loss of life.

These are the sorts of deficiencies that can prompt forecasters to underestimate the severity of a hurricane, for instance — or overhype an end-of-the-world blizzard, like the one Gary Szatkowski anticipated on the last Sunday in January 2015. Szatkowski, now retired but then the head meteorologist for the National Weather Service office in Mount Holly, N.J., predicted that a cold front creeping westward toward the East Coast would evolve into an unprecedented nor’easter. The Weather Service issued an official warning: A “crippling and potentially historic blizzard” with “life-threatening conditions” and up to three feet of snow was coming.

Ten inches of snow fell. By late Monday night, Szatkowski, whose office forecasts the weather for more than 11 million people, accepted that he had made a huge blunder and said in two tweets: “My deepest apologies to many key decision makers and so many members of the general public. You made a lot of tough decisions expecting us to get it right, and we didn’t.”

~

One sunny spring morning last year, I sat in on an undergraduate course at the University of Washington called Weather Prediction and Advanced Synoptic Analysis. Mass, doe-eyed and gangly, with finger-thick eyebrows and a pronounced aquiline nose, arrived for the hourlong lecture perspiring heavily. “I just squeezed in a run,” he told the class, apologetically. On an overhead projector, he showed some past National Weather Service predictions; about one-third of them were wrong.

One third of the models are wrong.

Even though Lapenta got his new supercomputers in January, most of the system remains idle. “It’s extraordinary,” Mass says. “They are only using a small portion of it.” He also notes that the upgrades still aren’t enough to run high-resolution ensembles effectively. Lapenta, however, remains optimistic; he’s involved with NOAA’s Next Generation Global Prediction Initiative, and he formed an advisory committee to evaluate the National Weather Service’s numerous models and come up with a plan to build better ones. He invited Mass to join the 14-member team, which met for the first time in the summer of 2015.

“I came away very sobered,” Mass says. “It’s a real mess. They are running way too many models.” At last count, the centers managed at least a dozen models, some in development, others already operating. None work very well. (They recently spent eight years and more than $100 million trying to fix their main hurricane-forecasting model. But it still performs so poorly that meteorologists inside the agency want to scrap it altogether.)

~

In the summer of 2015, Mass visited Boulder to give a presentation at a conference on weather modeling. His 12-minute talk focused on the poor performance of regional models, which typically bring higher resolution to smaller geographical areas, and should, as a result, be better at predicting localized events, like flash floods and hurricanes. But they’re not — a fact Mass demonstrated with PowerPoint slides of statistics. He concluded his presentation with a photo of a man doing a face palm, above which he had typed, “Em-bar-rass-ment: the shame you feel when your inadequacy or guilt is made public.” The audience of 200 groaned.

Weather prediction is most accurately depicted by a man doing a face palm.