[counters]

> Weather forecasts have always been an inexact science

Weather forecasting is anything but "an inexact science." It's extremely exact up to the limitations and assumptions you impose on your model due to resource constraints.

And yes - I assume that this is what you mean by "an inexact science." But still in 2026 I regularly meet people who think that weather forecasting is the same as astrology, completely ignorant of massive amount of physical scientific understanding that goes into it.

[imiric]

> Weather forecasting is anything but "an inexact science." It's extremely exact up to the limitations and assumptions you impose on your model due to resource constraints.

It's "extremely exact" but our models are not good enough. So... inexact?

The reality is that we don't have the technology to model the physical world with extreme accuracy. If we did, we would be able to predict the future, and not just weather events. The world's most powerful supercomputers can model atmospheric conditions pretty well, and they've certainly improved over time, but there are still a lot of variables unaccounted for.

This is why I think that ~90% accuracy for a few days in advance[1] is good enough for most people. A smartphone app won't miraculously make this better, no matter how pretty or "fun" it is.

[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/weather-forecasts

[counters]

> It's "extremely exact" but our models are not good enough. So... inexact?

That's not the common way that the phrase "inexact science" is used. All modeling involves approximations at some levels, but you wouldn't turn around and call it "inexact science."

> ... but there are still a lot of variables unaccounted for.

Such as... ?

This is the problem with throwing away colloquialisms like "inexact science." What, specifically, is a "variable" that is unaccounted for that would unlock improved forecast accuracy or to push thresholds closer to the predictability limits?

> This is why I think that ~90% accuracy for a few days in advance[1] is good enough for most people. A smartphone app won't miraculously make this better, no matter how pretty or "fun" it is.

I agree, which is why the other portions of your comment come off poorly.