New 25-Day Forecast on AccuWeather

[phlwx]

The old "the public doesn't understand the forecast anyway" argument. The bottom line here folks- this is a money making decision pure and simple. You do not really believe for a minute that any Met worth his or her salt, including Jesse who is bravely defending this product here, really deep down thinks this is worth a hill of beans. However, in the corporate world, if you can sell something worthless why not do it - integrity be damned. The venerable P.T. Barnum principle in effect.

If weather weren't a business something like this would be laughed at and scorned.

The worst thing to do is launch this in one of the most volatile times of the year, especially since weather can go from 40's to 80's at a drop of a hat...if you're going to release it and pimp it as a viable product July is a great time to do that since there's very little going on other than heat and scattered thunder in 80% of the country.

[CT Rain]

What a joke. This kind of garbage makes the entire profession look bad.

[Snowlover76]

Very poor decision, most people who will look at this will take it 100% verbatim.

Not a very good idea IMO.

[Jesse Ferrell - AccuWx]

They claim it's forecasts (probably Euro weeklies, etc) run through "complex algorithms". In other words, they're doing a pseudo-MOS.

It's more than that, though as previously mentioned, I can't say exactly what

[Jesse Ferrell - AccuWx]

The old "the public doesn't understand the forecast anyway" argument. The bottom line here folks- this is a money making decision pure and simple. You do not really believe for a minute that any Met worth his or her salt, including Jesse who is bravely defending this product here, really deep down thinks this is worth a hill of beans. However, in the corporate world, if you can sell something worthless why not do it - integrity be damned. The venerable P.T. Barnum principle in effect.

Every decision here is a money making one -- or we wouldn't be celebrating our 50th next year. However, we do believe that we can help people plan their future 25 days out. In the end, success in the private weather industry depends on our product having a level of accuracy that the public is comfortable with, and we're confident in this product reaching that level of accuracy.

[CT Rain]

Every decision here is a money making one -- or we wouldn't be celebrating our 50th next year. However, we do believe that we can help people plan their future 25 days out. In the end, success in the private weather industry depends on our product having a level of accuracy that the public is comfortable with, and we're confident in this product reaching that level of accuracy.

By issuing a 25-day deterministic forecast? Lame.

If you could find a unique and clever way to display and explain a forecast beyond day 15 with a probabilistic forecast I'd be the first one to give you guys props. Our profession as a whole from media right on up through the NWS does a generally poor job expressing uncertainty and using probabilistic forecasts (partially because it's more challenging to communicate).

This is just a gimmick and of absolutely no use to anyone. Total fail by Accuweather.

[KEITH L.I]

Can't wait for my Christmas day forecast on Nov 30th lol..this is just totally absurd..you can use those stupid CFS 2000 hr forecasts too if you like

[OKpowdah]

Only in the interest of presenting a counter-argument, this IS the first step in longer range prediction. Operational forecasting out to 25 days is absurd, but if AccuWx actually cares about the science (probably trumped 10 times over by money unfortunately), they can use the verification stats to improve long range forecasting on a daily time scale. Again, that's only if they actually try. I am fully expecting their 16-25 day forecast to be kicked in the ass by climatology, but I look forward to see if maybe over the next year, there is noticeable improvement.

[LocoAko]

Coincidentally, I just saw this meme floating around on Facebook.

[usedtobe]

OMG they have this? (April 26 in NYC)

Variable clouds with showers and thunderstorms

• Max UV Index: (low)
  
• Thunderstorm Probability: 55%
  
• Amount of Precipitation: 0.02 in
  
• Amount of Rain: 0.02 in
  
• Amount of Snow: 0.0 in
  
• Amount of Ice: 0.00 in
  
• Hours of Precipitation: 1 hrs
  
• Hours of Rain: 1 hrs
  

Thunderstorms with .02".... Wow, I guess the heart of the storm myst have just missed them- what accuracy! No, what crap. No other way to sugarcoat it. I think our profession has jumped the shark.

I pretty agree, Steve Tracton and I weighed in on the Capital Weather Gang.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/accuweather-debuts-25-day-forecasts/2012/04/04/gIQAQU5FvS_blog.html#pagebreak

Jesse can try to defend it but when I heard they were going to do 15 day forecasts years ago I talked to Reeves about it and expressed that there would be no skill compared to climo and now 25 day forecast. A forecast with a probability of 55% for a forecast on April 26th shows accuwx management cares little about the science.

[JoMo]

They should try getting the 3-5 day forecast right first.

[Mr Torchey]

Can't wait for my Christmas day forecast on Nov 30th lol..this is just totally absurd..you can use those stupid CFS 2000 hr forecasts too if you like

Hmm, well, you never know, you kept knocking the Euro weeklies all winter when they showed warmth, they verified nicely. I think subtle pattern recognition is what they are striving for, shame on anyone if they take it more seriously, and the average person could care less to be honest.

[thunderman]

This is a HORRIBLE idea. And quite frankly, have to question the scientific competence of whoever proposed this and those who supported it. Anyone who has even taken an intro 200 level meteo class can probably tell you that this is near impossible to do. I suppose this is what you get when you mix money for profit and science ... money wins and science takes a backseat.

[Jesse Ferrell - AccuWx]

That's decent. I'm uploading that one to http://accuweather.cheezburger.com

Coincidentally, I just saw this meme floating around on Facebook.

[WxMidwest]

I can see seasonal/monthly forecasts improving with things like the Euro/CFSv2 Long Range and Creatively tooled forecasts made by AER. I suppose one could apply probabilistic 25 week forecasts to these different tools along with a mix of climatology, it's still a trick though so damn far out. . Does actual verification exist in the 25 days range? It's hard to get any decent high model verification correlation coefficient especially +7 days. I guess I'll see it when I believe it, it sure isn't going to happen with the non-4d stuff the U.S. pumps out.

[OceanStWx]

What a joke. This kind of garbage makes the entire profession look bad.

This is what's concerning. There are subtle changes to climatology that one can make as you head into the long, long term forecasts, but these are completely deterministic forecasts. Whether the public understands that or not, they will take the numbers handed them verbatim.

When the long range forecast of a dire winter for Chicago goes wrong, it's meteorologists that get slammed by the public and media outlets, not Accuweather. When somebody's plans get ruined because they saw the day 23 forecast said sunny and 65 it will again be meteorologists that get blamed, not Accuweather. The more people that get burned by these forecasts, the more likely they are to be turned off to the message when the weather is actually of a critical nature. There is a lot of good work being done on how to get the public to respond to our forecasts, but that assumes and implies there is a level of trust between the forecaster and the user. Most of these studies and improvements to products are focusing on building a greater trust that we know what we're talking about and action is necessary. I am struggling to believe that a 25 day forecast is going to build any such trust for the community as a whole.

[Blizzard92]

Yet again we attempt to 'dumb down' everything science related for the general public. The concept of highlighting trends in long range weather patterns can be helpful, but an exact day-by-day forecast with details such as rainfall to the hundreth of an inch is absurd and irresponsible. There is no statistical accuracy in these variables at all. I think before the entire new forecast was launched, a statistical report should have been released with some explanation for the validity of these forecasts. In the end, looks like more critiscm for the meteorological field is headed our way.

[GaWx]

Going out day by day in detail 25 days appears to me to be a farce of a forecast. I thought going out to day 16 in detail based on GFS runs was already a bit much due to the inherent inaccuracy. Now to day 25? OMG

What's next? A 365 day by day forecast?

[metalicwx366]

This is what's concerning. There are subtle changes to climatology that one can make as you head into the long, long term forecasts, but these are completely deterministic forecasts. Whether the public understands that or not, they will take the numbers handed them verbatim.

When the long range forecast of a dire winter for Chicago goes wrong, it's meteorologists that get slammed by the public and media outlets, not Accuweather. When somebody's plans get ruined because they saw the day 23 forecast said sunny and 65 it will again be meteorologists that get blamed, not Accuweather. The more people that get burned by these forecasts, the more likely they are to be turned off to the message when the weather is actually of a critical nature. There is a lot of good work being done on how to get the public to respond to our forecasts, but that assumes and implies there is a level of trust between the forecaster and the user. Most of these studies and improvements to products are focusing on building a greater trust that we know what we're talking about and action is necessary. I am struggling to believe that a 25 day forecast is going to build any such trust for the community as a whole.

Yes. They were saying people in Chicago might want to move after the 2011-12 winter. They barely saw any snow in the winter.

[LocoAko]

Yes. They were saying people in Chicago might want to move after the 2011-12 winter. They barely saw any snow in the winter.

Why not make amazing forecasts such as this one deterministic?

[RodneyS]

Why not make amazing forecasts such as this one deterministic?

Not to defend AccuWeather, but the number of accurate 2011-12 winter predictions were limited. For example, even DC's sainted Capital Weather Gang opined: "We favor near average temperatures but would lean below rather than above if we had to choose . . . We are unlikely to get as many measurable snow events as last winter, when we got a surprising 12. But we expect that, on average, the snow events we do get will pack more of a punch. As a result, we think chances are good that we will match or surpass last winter’s seasonal snow totals." See http://www.washingto....html#pagebreak

[Jesse Ferrell - AccuWx]

all of the substantive criticism in this thread and this the post you choose to comment on?

I guess you missed my previous 8 posts. Actually, I prefer this one:

Can't we all just get along?

[Visiteur]

Can't we all just get along?

We'll get along when your employer stops reinforcing public perceptions that meteorologists are always wrong. Now, I guess you have no problem with this slap in the face towards weather prediction, but it has consequences - I wonder how many people heard the tornado sirens go off in Joplin last year, and blew it off as "bah, the meteorologists are always wrong"? Even if it was just one, it's one too many.

[Cheeznado]

It is not just the fact that they are providing a 25 day forecast, which of course is ridiculous on its face. If you delve into some of the specific details of any of their forecasts beyond 7 days or so there are a plethora of completely nonsensical things such as: A forecast of 1.7" of snow in Norman, OK on April 25 (this was last night) but a high of 68 and a low of 48 . There are specific qpf amounts for the entire 25 day period, but sometimes they have a rain forecast with no qpf, or a sunny forecast with low POP but a measurable qpf.

Anorther irony- they claim accuracy to 25 days, but last night late, when the MCS if the Gulf was hitting Tampa Bay with a severe t-storm warning in effect- their forecast for the overnight period? Tonight: Clear.

The basic premise here is that private and to a lesser extent the NWS are turning to automated forecasts and it is very obvious that the state of NWP is nowrhere near the state where any models or blend of models can do an adeqyate job, especially in the longer term. Plain and SImple.

[MGorse]

It is not just the fact that they are providing a 25 day forecast, which of course is ridiculous on its face. If you delve into some of the specific details of any of their forecasts beyond 7 days or so there are a plethora of completely nonsensical things such as: A forecast of 1.7" of snow in Norman, OK on April 25 (this was last night) but a high of 68 and a low of 48 . There are specific qpf amounts for the entire 25 day period, but sometimes they have a rain forecast with no qpf, or a sunny forecast with low POP but a measurable qpf.

Anorther irony- they claim accuracy to 25 days, but last night late, when the MCS if the Gulf was hitting Tampa Bay with a severe t-storm warning in effect- their forecast for the overnight period? Tonight: Clear.

The basic premise here is that private and to a lesser extent the NWS are turning to automated forecasts and it is very obvious that the state of NWP is nowrhere near the state where any models or blend of models can do an adeqyate job, especially in the longer term. Plain and SImple.

That is not good!

[The Dude]

In talking to some other mets who have posted here today, I think the disagreement is an approach for the masses versus one for researchers. The public doesn't want "a 20% chance of temperatures between 49 and 51" -- they want to hear 50. It may be a sad fact for us scientists, but it's true. I'll retell a story that I posted on a blog earlier:

I find it interesting that AccuWx's approach here is to tell the public what they want to hear rather than to acknowledge that information can't be provided accurately.

[Stebo]

Terrible idea and yes the general public will look at this and take it for face value. When in reality anything beyond 7 days is rarely forecasted correctly.

[ChrisM]

Here's my thing..a couple of my ski buddies have planned their trips around accuwxs 15 day forecases. Theyll see snow in the forecast on day 12 and go balls to the wall. The public does not always understand the complexity of atmospheric science and how forecasts differ from day to day. They take it verbatim, thinking it must be kind of right if its on the internet...cause everything on the internet is true obviously. This is absurd...

[Stebo]

Here's my thing..a couple of my ski buddies have planned their trips around accuwxs 15 day forecases. Theyll see snow in the forecast on day 12 and go balls to the wall. The public does not always understand the complexity of atmospheric science and how forecasts differ from day to day. They take it verbatim, thinking it must be kind of right if its on the internet...cause everything on the internet is true obviously. This is absurd...

Planning around a 12 day forecast is not to swift, how many times have you seen the Euro or GFS nail a 10 day forecast? Probably <20 times a year.

[Fantom X]

That's the problem with weather outlets. They want to entertain and not educate. That's why I loved TWC during the 80's. It taught me more in an hour than TWC can teach me in a month today.