Posts: 847
Threads: 37
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote Racer X]The reports I get from a meteorologist friend who is stationed at McCord AFB here in Puget Sound are far more accurate than what is reported on the news.
Not surprising. Persona, looks, and presentation are usually put above forecasting skill when it comes to TV weather personalities. Many weather people on TV majored in Communications, not Meteorology.
There are a few exceptions, though (said the guy who sees and hears some of his ex-roomates on TV and radio).
- Shadow
Posts: 847
Threads: 37
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
[quote Grateful11]As far forecast I think Accuweather is more accurate than the National Weather Service.
That's due more to marketing and revisionist history than to accuracy. For example, I am looking at a screenshot which shows the forecasted track for Katrina taken on the Friday evening before landfall. AccuWx has the hurricane hitting Apalachicola, FL, whereas the NWS has it hitting the MS Gulf Coast.
AccuWx error: 500 miles
NWS error: 50 miles
The week after Katrina, Joe Bastardi (head-honcho at AccuWx) had this to say:
"Katrina. We were right on top of that Friday Night for you on Fox with Katrina's going right into New Orleans, telling people to get out of there."
That must have been after they updated their forecasts to match the NWS track exactly. Mind you, with Rita, they simply copied the NWS track throughout the whole event.
I've been involved with and read many independent reports comparing the major forecast services, AccuWx always comes out below NWS. These reports take the actual forecasts and observations to determine accuracy.
AccuWx has a handful of people forecasting from a single location for the whole world at any one time. The NWS has hundreds of forecasters working at the same time, each one forecasting for the area they live and work in. What you have to realize with AccuWeather is that the product is not the forecast, but the presentation.
- Shadow
Posts: 316
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2016
The National Weather Service runs a long range numerical weather forecast called the GFS. You can see the output here:
http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwprod/analysis/ . They use other techniques such as 'ensemble forecasting' (running multiple forecasts starting with small perturbations of the initial forecast) to assess the forecast spread and determine how predicatable the weather situation is currently. I'm not saying the 16-day forecast is going to be accurate - but it would serve as a basis for the extended forecast you (h') saw.
Of course the global forecast models provide mainly a larger-scale picture of how weather will evolve. A good forecaster who knows how local conditions (topography, prevailing winds, etc) impact on the weather can make better forecasts than those provided by model guidance. Then again there are some times when it isn't really possible to provide a good forecast - the exact track of a storm system determining whether you get a rain, icy mix or snow (a dusting or a foot of snow!) so I expect that we have to allow the forecasters their misses once in a while.
