Snowy Weather/Human driving capacity

[Tonytone]

**Plot twist**

All the news stations in the Philly/Tri-state area use the same satellites. [emoji23][emoji23]


iPhone

[jakeroot]

So again. If there were a law requiring correct results of weather... who would go to jail?

God.  Put God in jail.  For not doing what the meteorologists said to.
How the heck can you even entertain the thought of mandating correct results for predicting the future?

Because meteorologists and news channels make it well known that they are the best, most informative source of weather information, with the Mega 50,000 watt satellites and weather forecasts that can predict the weather down to the blade of grass in your yard.  They're not telling you they were correct 37% of the time. They're telling you that they are the most reliable of all of them.  So yes, the public expects them to be correct, because they're advistising it in every which way except for the phrase "we are always correct".

...

you cannot be serious

At least in the Philadelphia area, this is seriously true. They advertise the ability to give forecasts down to your street.
In my time in the Rochester NY area, it was much much less so.
So maybe it's a regional thing?

It's not the forecasters. It's that people are actually so dimwitted as to actually believe a journalist with a meteorological degree could be accurate down the millimetre. Fucking ridiculous expectation. I don't give a shit how accurate they tell viewers they are. Anyone with even a modicum of common sense would know that the future isn't decided. Things change. No forecast is ever 100% accurate. They only say they're "super accurate" to gain viewers (since that's their actual job). Anyone who's doped into believing weathermen are a sentient Mother Nature should go back to living under a rock.

To anyone who says that weathermen should be super accurate: if they invented a way to accurately predict weather down the millimetre, they'd all be millionaires. But because they're only sometimes right, most are solidly middle class.

[MNHighwayMan]

I wouldn't say meteorologists don't care. But I wouldn't say they do.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Of course meteorologists care about what they do. They're human just like the rest of us: prone to mistakes, but also prideful in their hard work. But keep in mind, they don't do this on their own. They're also susceptible to the idiocy of their bosses, who probably do demand that their forecasts are attached to a pronouncement of "most accurate weather, all the time!", regardless of how realistic that is. Related to that is their unwillingness to admit to making mistakes.

I've always thought it would be a good idea to present forecasts in terms of degrees of certainty.  But how many people would actually understand it?

That is something I was trying to get at. Meteorologists could present it in multiple shades of gray, but then mouthbreathers would go "WELL IS IT GOING TO RAIN OR SNOW? MAKE UP YOUR GODDAMNED MIND!"

[ET21]

So again. If there were a law requiring correct results of weather... who would go to jail?

God.  Put God in jail.  For not doing what the meteorologists said to.
How the heck can you even entertain the thought of mandating correct results for predicting the future?

Because meteorologists and news channels make it well known that they are the best, most informative source of weather information, with the Mega 50,000 watt satellites and weather forecasts that can predict the weather down to the blade of grass in your yard.  They're not telling you they were correct 37% of the time. They're telling you that they are the most reliable of all of them.  So yes, the public expects them to be correct, because they're advistising it in every which way except for the phrase "we are always correct".

...

you cannot be serious

At least in the Philadelphia area, this is seriously true. They advertise the ability to give forecasts down to your street.
In my time in the Rochester NY area, it was much much less so.
So maybe it's a regional thing?

It's not the forecasters. It's that people are actually so dimwitted as to actually believe a journalist with a meteorological degree could be accurate down the millimetre. Fucking ridiculous expectation. I don't give a shit how accurate they tell viewers they are. Anyone with even a modicum of common sense would know that the future isn't decided. Things change. No forecast is ever 100% accurate. They only say they're "super accurate" to gain viewers (since that's their actual job). Anyone who's doped into believing weathermen are a sentient Mother Nature should go back to living under a rock.

To anyone who says that weathermen should be super accurate: if they invented a way to accurately predict weather down the millimetre, they'd all be millionaires. But because they're only sometimes right, most are solidly middle class.

[kphoger]

But keep in mind, they don't do this on their own. They're also susceptible to the idiocy of their bosses, who probably do demand that their forecasts are attached to a pronouncement of "most accurate weather, all the time!", regardless of how realistic that is.

Question:  Is it actually the meteorologists themselves who boast about how accurate their forecasts are, or is that simply what some booming voice says on TV over the ad?

[paulthemapguy]

Most weather forecasters depend on a myriad of computer models that do a lot of complex spatial calculations.  So the ability to predict the weather, as it is, transcends what humans are capable of, anyway.  On the human side of things, meteorologists will probably either try to take an average of the computer models, take note of the most common result of the dozen or so models they look at, or draw upon past personal experience to decide which model looks the most realistic.  In short, it's all computer-based anyway. 

If there's a very narrow corridor of precipitation resulting from a storm whose track is difficult to predict, some people expecting snow because of the forecast won't get any, while certain spots expecting snow will get the brunt of the precipitation.  That might have been what happened in the Mid-Atlantic a few days ago.

[MNHighwayMan]

But keep in mind, they don't do this on their own. They're also susceptible to the idiocy of their bosses, who probably do demand that their forecasts are attached to a pronouncement of "most accurate weather, all the time!", regardless of how realistic that is.

Question:  Is it actually the meteorologists themselves who boast about how accurate their forecasts are, or is that simply what some booming voice says on TV over the ad?

It probably depends. To be honest, I don't really watch TV news so I have no idea.

[bzakharin]

Most weather forecasters depend on a myriad of computer models that do a lot of complex spatial calculations.  So the ability to predict the weather, as it is, transcends what humans are capable of, anyway.

I wouldn't discount the idea of near perfect forecasts some time in the future. If we get enough observational resolution to know exactly what the conditions are at every point on earth and every elevation in the atmosphere, and enough computer memory and processing power to run simulations based on that much data you could theoretically achieve 100% accuracy given the right programming / historical data.

On the human side of things, meteorologists will probably either try to take an average of the computer models, take note of the most common result of the dozen or so models they look at, or draw upon past personal experience to decide which model looks the most realistic.  In short, it's all computer-based anyway. 

They also look at model trends. If the current model has the storm further north than 6 hours ago, and that is further north than 12 hours ago, it is assumed that the models are probably still too far south. The local ones will also know the local quirks, not down to a block, but, for example the urban heat island effect will mean Philadelphia and its adjoining areas will be warmer than elsewhere. The pinelands in NJ will be colder at night under clear skies. Coastal areas will usually be affected by the ocean water temperature (warmer than elsewhere in winter, cooler in summer).

[kphoger]

So, people expect weather forecasting to be more like this...

...and less like Steve Martin in L.A. Story (if you don't get the reference, you seriously should watch the movie).

people are actually so dimwitted as to actually believe a journalist with a meteorological degree could be accurate down the millimetre. Fucking ridiculous expectation. I don't give a shit how accurate they tell viewers they are. Anyone with even a modicum of common sense would know that the future isn't decided. Things change. No forecast is ever 100% accurate. They only say they're "super accurate" to gain viewers (since that's their actual job). Anyone who's doped into believing weathermen are a sentient Mother Nature should go back to living under a rock.

To anyone who says that weathermen should be super accurate: if they invented a way to accurately predict weather down the millimetre, they'd all be millionaires. But because they're only sometimes right, most are solidly middle class.

If you're ever in Wichita, I'll buy you a beer.

[intelati49]

Most weather forecasters depend on a myriad of computer models that do a lot of complex spatial calculations.  So the ability to predict the weather, as it is, transcends what humans are capable of, anyway.

I wouldn't discount the idea of near perfect forecasts some time in the future. If we get enough observational resolution to know exactly what the conditions are at every point on earth and every elevation in the atmosphere, and enough computer memory and processing power to run simulations based on that much data you could theoretically achieve 100% accuracy given the right programming / historical data.

On the human side of things, meteorologists will probably either try to take an average of the computer models, take note of the most common result of the dozen or so models they look at, or draw upon past personal experience to decide which model looks the most realistic.  In short, it's all computer-based anyway. 

They also look at model trends. If the current model has the storm further north than 6 hours ago, and that is further north than 12 hours ago, it is assumed that the models are probably still too far south. The local ones will also know the local quirks, not down to a block, but, for example the urban heat island effect will mean Philadelphia and its adjoining areas will be warmer than elsewhere. The pinelands in NJ will be colder at night under clear skies. Coastal areas will usually be affected by the ocean water temperature (warmer than elsewhere in winter, cooler in summer).

1. I for one do not see us getting 100% accuracy. First, what is 100% accuracy? I do see us getting a much better accuracy though. To use that data, you have to have the computional power to sift through that data. I don't see us getting anything more than citywide trends 99% correct. Everything else is too complicated to predict rather than display. (Models vs Radar screens [warnings])

2. Yes. I tend to go with the local news stations over the NWS forecasts, but for the most part I use the NWS as their data is more complete and freely available (For now at least)

[vdeane]

So, people expect weather forecasting to be more like this...

What gets me about that scene is how the wiper blades are never turned off, even after it stops raining.

[kphoger]

What gets me about that scene is how the wiper blades are never turned off, even after it stops raining.

Like about 10% of the drivers out there.
That and high-speed wipers for a light sprinkling just... perplex me.

[MNHighwayMan]

What gets me about that scene is how the wiper blades are never turned off, even after it stops raining.

Like about 10% of the drivers out there.
That and high-speed wipers for a light sprinkling just... perplex me.

Seriously. I try to use my wipers as little as possible because the sound and visual interruption bother me.

[webny99]

At least in the Philadelphia area, this is seriously true. They advertise the ability to give forecasts down to your street.
In my time in the Rochester NY area, it was much much less so.
So maybe it's a regional thing?

There is good reason no one in Rochester claims to be able to accurately predict the weather. They would be the laughingstock of the county. Everybody around here knows that weather is unpredictable to start with, and our weather is even less predictable than unpredictable.

Also, we are not scared of snow (again, unlike the East Coast) so it really does not matter to us whether we get nothing, 2 inches, or 2 feet. Schools would not close in any of those scenarios. Nobody would consider leaving work early in any of those scenarios, either. And that is the key difference.

[jeffandnicole]

It's not the forecasters. It's that people are actually so dimwitted as to actually believe a journalist with a meteorological degree could be accurate down the millimetre. Fucking ridiculous expectation. I don't give a shit how accurate they tell viewers they are.

Oh, you won't believe the dimwittedness that exists...

I'm Facebook friends with our local meteorologists Facebook pages.  They'll post the weather maps and expected snowfall amounts.  People will constantly post: "How much do you think we'll get in (my town)".  I mean, seriously - look at the fricken map.  I'm hoping these people have some sense of where they live, so by looking at the map they can see if they're in the 3" - 6" range, or the 6" - 10" range.  And even then, they want more specifics.

What gets me about that scene is how the wiper blades are never turned off, even after it stops raining.

Like about 10% of the drivers out there.

One of my Turnpike toll-collecting stories:  Driver pulls into my lane.  I ask if she's tired.  She's a little shocked by my question, but says yes, she is.  I said, I can tell - your windshield wipers are on, your car's dry and it hasn't rained for hours.  At least she laughed.

[jakeroot]

It's not the forecasters. It's that people are actually so dimwitted as to actually believe a journalist with a meteorological degree could be accurate down the millimetre. Fucking ridiculous expectation. I don't give a shit how accurate they tell viewers they are.

Oh, you won't believe the dimwittedness that exists...

I'm Facebook friends with our local meteorologists Facebook pages.  They'll post the weather maps and expected snowfall amounts.  People will constantly post: "How much do you think we'll get in (my town)".  I mean, seriously - look at the fricken map.  I'm hoping these people have some sense of where they live, so by looking at the map they can see if they're in the 3" - 6" range, or the 6" - 10" range.  And even then, they want more specifics.

Like any meteorologist, they'll try their best. But it's up to viewers to understand the caveats with weather prediction, namely the whole "predicting the future" aspect.

So, people expect weather forecasting to be more like this...

https://youtu.be/cI7ctWyXl5s

That seems to be the case, yes.

If you're ever in Wichita, I'll buy you a beer.

[Tonytone]

But wait, there's more! Why does the "Weather Channel"  make such good predictions on Big Storms? They just don't cover you're local area, which is the bad part.


iPhone

[jakeroot]

But wait, there's more! Why does the "Weather Channel"  make such good predictions on Big Storms? They just don't cover you're local area, which is the bad part.

I think people are more willing to give the Weather Channel a pass, since they aren't "local". For some reason, expectations of local forecasters are much higher. To a degree, that's fair, as local forecasters are more likely to be familiar with local weather patterns. But to the degree that forecasting is still just predictions, people don't give credit where it's due, and are happy to take it away when weathermen aren't 100% correct.

[Tonytone]

But wait, there's more! Why does the "Weather Channel"  make such good predictions on Big Storms? They just don't cover you're local area, which is the bad part.

I think people are more willing to give the Weather Channel a pass, since they aren't "local". For some reason, expectations of local forecasters are much higher. To a degree, that's fair, as local forecasters are more likely to be familiar with local weather patterns. But to the degree that forecasting is still just predictions, people don't give credit where it's due, and are happy to take it away when weathermen aren't 100% correct.

Seems reasonable, Weather people go through hell. I give it to them, but all the local weather channels in our area seem the same to me. I can flip thru all the channels during a storm, & they all have the same "maps"  same "predictions"  & the same stories. Only difference I see is the people & the climate of their audience.


iPhone

[MNHighwayMan]

I can flip thru all the channels during a storm, & they all have the same "maps"  same "predictions"  & the same stories. Only difference I see is the people & the climate of their audience.

Which implies that given the same data, they're all coming up with the same, largely correct results.

Or it's a massive conspiracy.

I'll let the audience decide.

[kphoger]

I can flip thru all the channels during a storm, & they all have the same "maps"  same "predictions"  & the same stories. Only difference I see is the people & the climate of their audience.

Which implies that given the same data, they're all coming up with the same, largely correct results.

Or it's a massive conspiracy.

I'll let the audience decide.

Every so often, I'll see a meteorologist disagree with what the models are predicting, based on his or her years of experience in the region.  But it's always an older person with a lot of years under the belt who dares deviate from the models.

[bzakharin]

I can flip thru all the channels during a storm, & they all have the same “maps” same “predictions” & the same stories. Only difference I see is the people & the climate of their audience.

Which implies that given the same data, they're all coming up with the same, largely correct results.

Or it's a massive conspiracy.

I'll let the audience decide.

Every so often, I'll see a meteorologist disagree with what the models are predicting, based on his or her years of experience in the region.  But it's always an older person with a lot of years under the belt who dares deviate from the models.

I have seen (younger) meteorologists disagree with what's being displayed on the screen ("This model seems to be underestimating blah blah blah, we'll probably hit 50") but of course the onscreen graphics, and the website, are still displaying 45.

[froggie]

^ The onscreen graphics are often part of the same software package that is using their in-house model, which is not the same as the weather models the NWS and academics typically use.

[jeffandnicole]

But wait, there’s more! Why does the “Weather Channel” make such good predictions on Big Storms? They just don’t cover you’re local area, which is the bad part.


iPhone

Oh, they're no better either.  There was a storm last year that they majorly whiffed on...the same one the locals whiffed on as well.  In fact, The Weather Channel issued what may be one of the longest non-apologies on record: https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/winter-storm-stella-northeast-bust-march-2017/ .  You'd have to find all the forecasts and stories just before the storm didn't hit as expected to see how much hype this storm got.

[PHLBOS]

But wait, there's more! Why does the "Weather Channel"  make such good predictions on Big Storms? They just don't cover you're local area, which is the bad part.


iPhone

Oh, they're no better either.  There was a storm last year that they majorly whiffed on...the same one the locals whiffed on as well.  In fact, The Weather Channel issued what may be one of the longest non-apologies on record: https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/winter-storm-stella-northeast-bust-march-2017/ .  You'd have to find all the forecasts and stories just before the storm didn't hit as expected to see how much hype this storm got.

In the old days of the Weather Channel; if Jim Cantore was broadcasting in your neighborhood, your area was screwed weather-wise.