Why do meteorologists, lie, they promised rain that is not fall

[Pawelk198604]

I'm from Wroclaw in Poland, we have a record heat over 45 ° C, our meteorologists promised a thunderstorm, which was not. Meteorologists are worse than liars and greedy for the money Polish politicians:D

[PakledHostage]

I think you need to go inside. Clearly the heat has fried your brain... Why would meteorologists lie? Heck, why would you say that it is 45°C when others have already pointed out to you in another thread that your thermometer's reading of 45°C is invalid because it was sitting in the sun?

In my experience, meteorologists speak in probabilities. For example they might say that there's a 30% chance of a thunderstorm. And since thunderstorms are localised, there may indeed be thunderstorms just not in your immediate area. I am sure you can find a weather radar site for your local area online. Why not have a look to see if there's anything going on out there before accusing the meteorologists of lying or of incompetence.

[lajoswinkler]

It's worth noting that in most post-socialist European countries meteorologists, when presenting forecasts to the public, don't use percentages as they do in USA, Canada, etc.

They use phrases such as: "not likely", "highly probable", etc.

I disagree with such usage, but they don't lie.

Also it's quite difficult to create forecasts for small countries of homogeneous topography.

[Streetwind]

Modern meteorology has a success quota of roughly 85%-90% to correctly predict the weather in detail 24 hours ahead of time. The farther you go into the future from that point, the lower that success percentage gets.

When the weather report says rain is guaranteed to come, and it ends up not raining, then that's not because the weather report lied. It's because the best possible simulation shows that it will be raining, and the simulation was simply not able to predict it correctly. It just happened to be that 1 out of 10 reports that simply gets it wrong. There is currently no better way known to the human race.

[Skyler4856]

Because meteorology is a dark and archaic art, if we continue to listen to such devil worshipers we shall die!

But on a serious note, the simply fact of the matter is that weather systems are incredibly complex and to predict weather exactly would require computational power on the level that no entity on this planet possesses...

[softweir]

They don't lie - they tell you what is most likely to happen to people in your area. But they can never tell you what will happen to you because weather is irregular and happens in patches - one place might have a thunderstorm, 3 kilometres away there is no storm, and there is no way they know exactly which places will get storms and which won't.

The British Meteorological Office reports the probability of rain etc, so in effect they say "over that part of the country, fewer than 5% of places will experience rain" or "80% of places will experience rain".

[Tommygun]

They do a good job with the 2 to 3 day forecasts, but those 5 to 7 day forecasts, that are seen a lot in the US at least, are nonsense.

I watched an interview with some scientists, I think from NOAA, that said that news stations put out those week long forecast because they are popular with the public.

As lajoswinkler mentioned topography makes a big difference too. I spent some time in the middle US states near the coast where they have no mountains. The weather there blows in very quickly and dramatically. At noon in Texas you can have clear skies and 44C and 6 hours later you have high winds, storm clouds and 24C.

[jwenting]

Meteorologists get paid off by Them for every person who gets wet when it rains during an unannounced rainstorm.

It's a CONSPIRACY!

It's very cunning. Those rainclouds are just vessels containing the mind control chemicals from the Illuminati that they need to expose people of so they don't notice the One World Government. So they need to have as many people outside as possible when it rains, and make sure they don't have umbrellas or rain coats!

The best you can do is not go outside at all, and if you must always wear a tin foil hat.

[Camacha]

For example they might say that there's a 30% chance of a thunderstorm.

At the same time I have always doubted these probabilities a bit. It is not that I think they are not basing the predictions on actual models that make as much sense as possible, it is just that probability in this way has little use. Whether it rains or shines, they are always right.

[PakledHostage]

At the same time I have always doubted these probabilities a bit. ... it is just that probability in this way has little use. Whether it rains or shines, they are always right.

I think that would depend on where you live. Where I grew up, a 60% chance of rain meant that there was a 40% chance of it being sunny all day because it was an arid region and precipitation was mostly as a result of localized convective activity. On the other hand, where I live now, a forecast of 60% chance of rain usually means that it is going to rain solidly for 60% of the day and be cloudy for the remainder.

If you read the definition of what 60% chance of rain means on the Environment Canada website, it is closer to the UK Met office's definition that Softweir quoted. In reality on Canada's west coast, it almost never works out that way. If they say 60% chance of rain, you're not going to see the sun and you are definitely going to get wet if you go outside.

Edited July 23, 2014 by PakledHostage

[78stonewobble]

It's worth noting that in most post-socialist European countries meteorologists, when presenting forecasts to the public, don't use percentages as they do in USA, Canada, etc.

They use phrases such as: "not likely", "highly probable", etc.

I disagree with such usage, but they don't lie.

Also it's quite difficult to create forecasts for small countries of homogeneous topography.

In Denmark too, I kinda agree with rather wanting to hear the percentages, though they rarely "promise" things any longer than 24 hours ahead here. They usually do mention that 3-5 days ahead is only a prognosis.

We do have pretty easy online access to their weather radars tho, which has prevented me getting soaked more than once and caused it even more, from trying to time it to the last minute before rain arrives .

[Sky_walker]

Don't feed the troll people.

I thought you learned your lesson after he started showing off his removed tooth.

[Red Iron Crown]

At the same time I have always doubted these probabilities a bit. It is not that I think they are not basing the predictions on actual models that make as much sense as possible, it is just that probability in this way has little use. Whether it rains or shines, they are always right.

That's how probability calculations work. The rules always hold true but make no solid predictions. The probability of a given weather condition is very useful even if it can't be relied upon 100%, I can't imagine how someone could say that it's not.

People's views of the accuracy of weather forecasts also suffer from negativity bias; they remember when unexpected rain spoils their picnic but not the other 80+% of the predictions that turned out to be accurate.

[Rickenbacker]

Meteorologists don't lie. Newscasters, however, often present the probabilities for precipitation as "it'll rain tomorrow", when the meteorologist said there's a 75% chance. Not the same thing.

[Camacha]

That's how probability calculations work.

They do, in cases of tossed coins or other things that can be tested multiple times. Since this is not true for the weather, using those odds seems a bit of a futile exercise. If you say there is 80% chance of rain for that day you are right whether it rains or not. You can never check that day again, which is different than for instance a coin toss.

Unless those percentages mean what PakledHostage says, a full prediction of the total precipitation that day. I am not sure the forecasts are meant to say that here - I certainly did not experience them that way. It would predict the actual result much more accurately.

Edit: I checked and locally it means what I thought it would mean: 90% means a 90% (0.9) chance of it raining at least once that day. So the numbers are pretty much meaningless. I guess that on a large scale you could measure the performance and accuracy of those numbers.

[Red Iron Crown]

They do, in cases of tossed coins or other things that can be tested multiple times. Since this is not true for the weather, using those odds seems a bit of a futile exercise. If you say there is 80% chance of rain for that day you are right whether it rains or not. You can never check that day again, which is different than for instance a coin toss.

You do realize that meteorologists validate their models with statistical tools, yes? They're more complex than those for a coin toss, but they're still mathematically and scientifically valid.

Unless those percentages mean what PakledHostage says, a full prediction of the total precipitation that day. I am not sure the forecasts are meant to say that here - I certainly did not experience them that way. It would predict the actual result much more accurately.

Edit: I checked and locally it means what I thought it would mean: 90% means a 90% (0.9) chance of it raining at least once that day. So the numbers are pretty much meaningless. I guess that on a large scale you could measure the performance and accuracy of those numbers.

How is knowing that it's very likely to rain meaningless? Is it meaningless to calculate odds for anything because the predictions are not guaranteed?

[Camacha]

You do realize that meteorologists validate their models with statistical tools, yes?

I do, but I guess you weren't getting my point.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Camacha

[PakledHostage]

The important point is that people should understand the conventions used in the forecasts that they are reading. Environment Canada has an entire web page dedicated to defining their "weather elements and when they are included in the forecast". Environment Canada's definition for "chance of precipitation" is the same as that quoted by softweir as the UK Met office's definition. I am sure that other countries' national weather services also have similar web pages and similar definitions.

Dumbing down the conventions, whether it be by the popular media or by the weather services themselves (don't get me started again on wind chill...) just leads to misinterpretation and opens the door to willful misrepresentation of what the models predict/don't predict.