|
|
|
|
|
by magicalhippo
2198 days ago
|
|
I had been very disappointed with the local weather forecast last summer, and then there was an interview with one of the meteorologists involved and they said they were quite proud of how accurate their predictions had been so far. I was taken aback, as in my mind their "success rate" had been well below 50%. Then I got my answer: they focused on the temperature forecast, while since I bike to work what I was interested in was "is it gonna rain today?" I get that it's difficult to predict when and where rain might occur, but I'd much prefer a rough probability scale to nothing. On the bright side, they have a real-time, radar-based 90 minute rain forecast now, so at least if I check it in the afternoon I can jump on my bike and get home before I get wet. |
|
As an example, they may forecast that 30% of the areas your city will report rain tomorrow. They may have an high level of confidence in this prediction (and verify it to be correct after the fact). It may still not be very useful to you, since the one outcome is so different to the other.
That said, I agree with your that the predictions should be presented in a more scientific manner. In fact, one irritating pattern is that rain probability and the predicted amount of rain sometimes get combined into a single percentage, which no longer represents neither the probability, nor the amount. It's some kind of weird combination of the two.