Minor things that bother you

[GaryV]

The fact that Rhode Island calls itself an Island when it is not

Rhode Island is an island, for which the state was named.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquidneck_Island

Originally it was Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations (most of the land area is on the mainland). They officially dropped the latter part this decade, probably since most people didn't use it anyway.

[GaryV]

New one for me. I have my phone connected with Android Auto. The map pops up with a search dropdown, which invariably contains "Home". Didn't you figure out where this trip started? Then why would you think I need directions home when I just left there 2 minutes ago?

[US 89]

A lot of people out there also aren't good with probabilities, and will hear a 20% chance of rain as "It won't rain" and of course get all pissed when it does. Or other people will hear that same forecast, cancel their outdoor plans, and then get pissed if it doesn't rain. Some people really will get annoyed if the temperature gets to 72 instead of just 70. So for somebody out there, the vast majority of forecasts you make will be "wrong" in some way, even if you communicated that uncertainty.

This one I get - I see it a lot for destinations like Punta Cana, where it's going to rain nearly every day, but just briefly.  Many think that it means all day rain, which isn't true.  However, the forecasters also will often diminish the chance it'll rain, but yet will then claim "well we did say there was a change of rain" when it does.  So basically any forecast where they claim a 1% or greater chance of rain, they claim they were correct. 

I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Communicating uncertainty effectively is one of the core components of a good forecast. Especially for something like afternoon showers and thunderstorms, which are so small scale they essentially cannot be forecast specifically for a particular location until they have already developed. You can get an idea of how likely they are based on parameters like moisture and instability, but even on a day with a lot of storms you might happen to be in the one place in the area that avoids the storms. Or conversely, on a day that looks quieter from the model parameters, you might happen to be directly underneath the one storm cell that does develop that day. Forecasters aren't dealing with just one location - they have to cover a whole area.

The last thing is that forecasting is hard. The models are getting better, but are almost never exactly right, and each one has its own biases. Local geography, particularly at small scales that the models don't resolve, also plays a huge role. The longer you forecast for a particular area or location, the more accurate you'll be for there. But even if you have a very long tenure and you know the ins and outs of every geographical nook and cranny, the atmosphere will still find ways to humble you. As an example, lake effect snow in northern Utah is a bitch to forecast because there are so many variables that go into it (lake temperature, upper air temperature, wind shear, wind direction, upstream moisture content, surrounding terrain, and more) and they all have to be more or less right to get anything. About a month ago, we had an event where all these parameters looked really good on the guidance, and models were putting out these huge lake bands with some of the strongest signals anyone in the office had seen. So of course we messaged pretty heavily for lake effect snow and some impacts in and near SLC. You know what happened instead? The flow came in a bit drier than expected, and we wound up getting exactly one brief light rain shower.

This I get also, but then again, weather forecasters often say they can usually nail a forecast within 3 days.  Yet this is so often not true.  Since most people aren't going to keep track of the constant forecasts - and changes from one broadcast to another - there's some leeway there.  And forecasters will often say "well, we told you at 11pm it'll be raining in the morning.  True - but you didn't say that during the 6pm broadcast, and many people waking up early in the morning also aren't watching the late 11pm forecast.

I don't understand how adjusting a forecast based on newer and more accurate data is the fault of the meteorologist. If you don't adjust and you give the same forecast based on older data to the 11pm newscast, then you're wrong twice. The viewers who care that much about an accurate forecast have only themselves to blame for not staying tuned to the most up to date information. Again, the models are not perfect and typically get a lot more accurate the closer you get to the time you're forecasting (but not always).

People expect perfection that is simply not attainable with the current state of the science and probably will never be attainable due to limitations in the observation network and mathematical predictability limits. No meteorologist worth their salt will ever tell you they can nail a forecast three days out if it has anything more than dry weather and clear skies in it. Anyone doing that is looking for clicks and viewers. Hell, even in a quiet pattern I can think of several things that could possibly go "wrong" - temps might be a few degrees off for various reasons, maybe you get some fog you weren't expecting near the river at the bottom of a valley.

[kkt]

The fact that Rhode Island calls itself an Island when it is not. What more could we expect from the state that gave us Buddy Cianci?

There's a reason that the full name of the state is Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.  Rhode Island was the first part settled.  As you'd know if you'd Googled.

[Roadgeekteen]

The fact that Rhode Island calls itself an Island when it is not. What more could we expect from the state that gave us Buddy Cianci?

There's a reason that the full name of the state is Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.  Rhode Island was the first part settled.  As you'd know if you'd Googled.

Kernals was waiting for the aaroads ai to give him the answer right after he typed the question.

[kkt]

This I get also, but then again, weather forecasters often say they can usually nail a forecast within 3 days.

I have never heard a weather forecaster claim to be able to "nail" a forecast three days in advance.  The 3-day forecasts are better than sheer chance, but not reliable.  Maybe if they're predicting another three days of sun at the end of July here...

There's a professor of meteorology, Cliff Mass, here who does a blog and podcast, and often he goes into the details of what information they are looking at and how likely forecasts are to be wrong in different ways, or why a forecast event didn't happen as expected.  He's in Seattle so he's writing mostly about the northwest but some of it will apply elsewhere too. 
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com

Snow in the lowlands of Puget Sound is a hard forecast.  First, as far as temperature, we are right at the edge of too warm for snow most of the winter.  When we get freezing temperatures, that's usually cold arctic air breaking through from the northern Canadian midwest, which is also usually dry air having passed over the Canadian Rockies and the Cascades to get here.  The wet maritime air from over the Pacific is wet enough and the source of our frequent rain, but too warm to snow in the lowlands.  So you need to get two forecasts right in one.

[kernals12]

The fact that Rhode Island calls itself an Island when it is not. What more could we expect from the state that gave us Buddy Cianci?

There's a reason that the full name of the state is Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.  Rhode Island was the first part settled.  As you'd know if you'd Googled.

Do I need to spell out loud every time I say something tongue-in-cheek?

[1995hoo]

The fact that Rhode Island calls itself an Island when it is not. What more could we expect from the state that gave us Buddy Cianci?

There's a reason that the full name of the state is Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.  Rhode Island was the first part settled.  As you'd know if you'd Googled.

They actually eliminated "and Providence Plantations" in 2020. Apparently the word "Plantations" was deemed offensive to black people even though it had nothing to do with Southern plantations.

[GaryV]

Do I need to spell out loud every time I say something tongue-in-cheek?

Then I guess we'll consider most of what you say tongue-in-cheek. Like thousands of AI vehicles per hour, 150 mph cars, ....

He admits it folks. He's just toying with us.

[SEWIGuy]

A lot of people out there also aren't good with probabilities, and will hear a 20% chance of rain as "It won't rain" and of course get all pissed when it does. Or other people will hear that same forecast, cancel their outdoor plans, and then get pissed if it doesn't rain. Some people really will get annoyed if the temperature gets to 72 instead of just 70. So for somebody out there, the vast majority of forecasts you make will be "wrong" in some way, even if you communicated that uncertainty.

This one I get - I see it a lot for destinations like Punta Cana, where it's going to rain nearly every day, but just briefly.  Many think that it means all day rain, which isn't true.  However, the forecasters also will often diminish the chance it'll rain, but yet will then claim "well we did say there was a change of rain" when it does.  So basically any forecast where they claim a 1% or greater chance of rain, they claim they were correct. 

I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Communicating uncertainty effectively is one of the core components of a good forecast. Especially for something like afternoon showers and thunderstorms, which are so small scale they essentially cannot be forecast specifically for a particular location until they have already developed. You can get an idea of how likely they are based on parameters like moisture and instability, but even on a day with a lot of storms you might happen to be in the one place in the area that avoids the storms. Or conversely, on a day that looks quieter from the model parameters, you might happen to be directly underneath the one storm cell that does develop that day. Forecasters aren't dealing with just one location - they have to cover a whole area.

The last thing is that forecasting is hard. The models are getting better, but are almost never exactly right, and each one has its own biases. Local geography, particularly at small scales that the models don't resolve, also plays a huge role. The longer you forecast for a particular area or location, the more accurate you'll be for there. But even if you have a very long tenure and you know the ins and outs of every geographical nook and cranny, the atmosphere will still find ways to humble you. As an example, lake effect snow in northern Utah is a bitch to forecast because there are so many variables that go into it (lake temperature, upper air temperature, wind shear, wind direction, upstream moisture content, surrounding terrain, and more) and they all have to be more or less right to get anything. About a month ago, we had an event where all these parameters looked really good on the guidance, and models were putting out these huge lake bands with some of the strongest signals anyone in the office had seen. So of course we messaged pretty heavily for lake effect snow and some impacts in and near SLC. You know what happened instead? The flow came in a bit drier than expected, and we wound up getting exactly one brief light rain shower.

This I get also, but then again, weather forecasters often say they can usually nail a forecast within 3 days.  Yet this is so often not true.  Since most people aren't going to keep track of the constant forecasts - and changes from one broadcast to another - there's some leeway there.  And forecasters will often say "well, we told you at 11pm it'll be raining in the morning.  True - but you didn't say that during the 6pm broadcast, and many people waking up early in the morning also aren't watching the late 11pm forecast.

I don't understand how adjusting a forecast based on newer and more accurate data is the fault of the meteorologist. If you don't adjust and you give the same forecast based on older data to the 11pm newscast, then you're wrong twice. The viewers who care that much about an accurate forecast have only themselves to blame for not staying tuned to the most up to date information. Again, the models are not perfect and typically get a lot more accurate the closer you get to the time you're forecasting (but not always).

People expect perfection that is simply not attainable with the current state of the science and probably will never be attainable due to limitations in the observation network and mathematical predictability limits. No meteorologist worth their salt will ever tell you they can nail a forecast three days out if it has anything more than dry weather and clear skies in it. Anyone doing that is looking for clicks and viewers. Hell, even in a quiet pattern I can think of several things that could possibly go "wrong" - temps might be a few degrees off for various reasons, maybe you get some fog you weren't expecting near the river at the bottom of a valley.

Weather forecasting is way better now than it was a generation ago and will even be better in the future. People shouldn't expect perfection with something as complicated as the weather.

[Scott5114]

Besides, pretty much all of the raw observation data that forecasts are made from is available publicly. If you don't like the forecasts that your local meterologist is putting out, do it your damn self.

[J N Winkler]

Wikipedia's article on Group Captain James Stagg puts in perspective the stakes associated with weather forecasts in peacetime.

[kkt]

The fact that Rhode Island calls itself an Island when it is not. What more could we expect from the state that gave us Buddy Cianci?

There's a reason that the full name of the state is Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.  Rhode Island was the first part settled.  As you'd know if you'd Googled.

Do I need to spell out loud every time I say something tongue-in-cheek?

Text media do not convoy facial expressions or tone of voice.  Suggest putting something in your wording or using emojis if you don't mean the literal meaning of your words.

[Rothman]

I don't think meteorologists need to explain why they're wrong.  They just need to admit it.

[SEWIGuy]

I don't think meteorologists need to explain why they're wrong.  They just need to admit it.

Why?

[Rothman]

I don't think meteorologists need to explain why they're wrong.  They just need to admit it.

Why?

Because it's annoying when someone is obviously and patently incorrect argue that they are correct.

If meteorologists gambled, they'd argue they could never lose a bet since they calculated the probabilities...

[SEWIGuy]

I don't think meteorologists need to explain why they're wrong.  They just need to admit it.

Why?

Because it's annoying when someone is obviously and patently incorrect argue that they are correct.

If meteorologists gambled, they'd argue they could never lose a bet since they calculated the probabilities...

I don't see meteorologists claiming to be right when they were wrong.

People shouldn't expect perfection.

[Rothman]

I don't think meteorologists need to explain why they're wrong.  They just need to admit it.

Why?

Because it's annoying when someone is obviously and patently incorrect argue that they are correct.

If meteorologists gambled, they'd argue they could never lose a bet since they calculated the probabilities...

I don't see meteorologists claiming to be right when they were wrong.

People shouldn't expect perfection.

I knew a meteorologist -- Professor at a SUNY -- personally that gave a talk to a big group of people and said, straight-faced, that forecasts are never wrong, due to their being based upon probabilities.

People always expect perfection.

[kkt]

I don't think meteorologists need to explain why they're wrong.  They just need to admit it.

They are not wrong, usually.  They are working with imperfect information in a statistical science.

[thenetwork]

I have seen mets in larger cities refer to numerous weather computer models they use that help predict the weather.

Many times I have seen these same people discuss the differences between the models  when a significant weather event approaches.  Many times the forecaster will say, "Model A says this, model B says this.  Here's what I think will happen and why.".  Usually their explanation is based on having the best knowledge of the local area.

At least they will tell you when a forecast can change at the last minute and that the weather is, in effect, too close to call.

[Rothman]

I don't think meteorologists need to explain why they're wrong.  They just need to admit it.

They are not wrong, usually.  They are working with imperfect information in a statistical science.

Sure, which are solid ingredients to being wrong.

[formulanone]

I don't think meteorologists need to explain why they're wrong.  They just need to admit it.

They are not wrong, usually.  They are working with imperfect information in a statistical science.

To quote Smooth Jimmy Apollo: "when you're right 52% of the time, you're wrong 48% of the time".

[Roadgeekteen]

I've found the short term weather forecasts to be fine. The only baffling thing is when they say 0% chance of rain and it rains. That I can't understand.

[LilianaUwU]

Why can't I ever stream myself playing video games without my internet shitting the bed?

[wanderer2575]

I've found the short term weather forecasts to be fine. The only baffling thing is when they say 0% chance of rain and it rains. That I can't understand.

My understanding is that "x% chance of something" isn't the expected amount of time during which the something will occur; it's the percentage of times the something has happened in the past when conditions were the same as they are now (or are expected to be).  So "0% chance of rain" means it's never rained before when conditions were as they are now.  It doesn't mean that it's not actually raining now.