Why local TV weather forecasts really do suck

Over and over again, I've pointed out the horribly inaccurate weather forecasts that we receive through our WLOSers. The weather-guessers rarely get it right, and this week was no exception. Lots of people come to the defense of the weather-guessers, noting "micro-climates" and other bullshit Mother Nature excuses.

Now I've found some information that makes it blatantly clear that local television weather forecasters don't get it right most of the time and don't care that they don't get it right.

Here's the most excellent post, and here are some relevant bits:

In a study of the accuracy of local TV weather forecasts, here's what station personnel said about their forecasting:

“We have no idea what’s going to happen [in the weather] beyond three days out.”

“There’s not an evaluation of accuracy in hiring meteorologists. Presentation takes precedence over accuracy.”

“All that viewers care about is the next day. Accuracy is not a big deal to viewers.”

The weather-guessers regularly miss when it comes to temperature:

Even more conclusively than the temperature accuracy graph, this prediction variance graph shows that 21st century meteorology is not developed enough to provide a week of accurate temperature forecasting. Meteorologists take a blind stab at what the high temperature and rain possibilities might be seven days out, and then adjust their predictions on the fly as the week goes on. As mentioned earlier, one meteorologist told us: “We have no idea what’s going to happen beyond three days out.”

And they're pretty bad when it comes to predicting precipitation, too:

For all days beyond the next day out, viewers would be better off flipping a coin to predict rainfall than trusting the stations on days where rain was possible. Oddly, N.O.A.A. — which had been one of the better forecasters in our other evaluations — was the worst in this one, especially when predicting three days out and beyond. When N.O.A.A. meteorologist Noelle Runyan was questioned about this, she stated, “Our forecasts are more conservative than the television stations. We raise our P.O.P. predictions to over 50 percent only when we are sure of rain.” This statement and the data above are another illustration of how — with the data and tools given to them — today’s meteorologists cannot confidently predict the weather beyond three days out.

And here are the big weaknesses, spelled out for you:

One of the two major weaknesses in television meteorology today is the “non-event” days — the boring, run-of-the-mill days when no significant weather events are upcoming. It is unfortunate that 13 percent of each news telecast (actually about 20 percent if you discount the commercials) is dedicated to a weather forecast that is mostly time-consuming fluff.

The meat of such forecasts could easily be condensed to one minute or less, or maybe even a crawl at the bottom of the screen that runs for the full telecast. Reduction of the weather segment on days when there is no weather news would allow for more thorough reporting of world, national, and local news.

The other major weakness is that ratings drive television. Sadly, the data show that stations are so consumed with ratings that accuracy in weather predictions takes an irrelevant back seat to snappy patter and charm. When directly asked if accuracy mattered in forecasting, every station manager and meteorologist said it did. But when asked what steps they had taken to measure and ensure accuracy, they were without answers.

No meteorologist or television station kept records of what they predicted, nor compared their predictions to actual results over a long term. No meteorologist posts their accuracy statistics on their résumé. No station managers use accuracy statistics in the hiring or evaluation of their meteorologists.

Instead, the focus is on charm, charisma, and presentation. Their words say they care about accuracy, but their actions say they do not. Yet, they wish to continue providing inaccurate seven-day forecasts that are no more than a semi-educated shot in the dark because a) their competitors do and b) they can get away with it since they think the public does not know how inaccurate they are.

Until the public demands change in the form of lost ratings from this hollow practice of “placebo forecasting,” T.V. weather forecasts will continue to blow smoke up our … upper-level-lows.

Comments

[Jason]

I still use NOAA. They are the oldest most time tested weather data informant that we have. You just have to take the forcast that they predict and divide it by two. Otherwise it is perfect. :)

http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?site=GSP&llon=-82.982083&rlon=-82.069583&tlat=36.072917&blat=35.162917&smap=1&mp=0&map.x=117&map.y=131

[marc]

Of course, this "study" was conducted by a 7th grader and her father, and apparently contains a number of statistical reporting errors, if some of the supposed statistics PhDs posting comments are to believed.

To me the issue isn't that the weather guessers aren't very accurate. There's no way they could be, what with chaos theory, all the variables, etc. (to modify one of the comments on that article, it's like expecting Stan to accurately and consistently predict the score of upcoming Braves games). The issue is how they all promote themselves as being more accurate and reliable than is actually possible, and how we all continue to expect them to be such, despite years of evidence to the contrary. Oh, and that whole "so, Mike, are you going to bring us some rain today?" implication that they have some sort of control over this phenomenon they can't even predict.

[In The Know]

Being a meteorologist, I take offense to this posting. It is true that beyond three days, our accuracy is sharply less than that of a forecast out to three days, but that isn't because meteorologists aren't knowledgeable. It's strictly due to the fact that technology isn't where we need it to be to get a more accurate forecast. This doesn't relate just to broadcast meteorologists, but rather meteorologists all around the world. And it really only relates to a specific temperature forecast. We can easily have a good idea of what will happen as far as large weather systems and their impacts several days in advance. We are even pretty good with timing. In fact, we knew that this huge wind event was going to be here for several days. So yes, temperature forecasts past 3 days are not as accurate as they could be, but that isn't just in TV...it's all meteorologists. As technology improves, so will forecasts.

[Clocky]

I call this number when want a clear, no-B.S. forecast. That means a grade of A+ for presentation.

864-848-3859

It's a National Weather Service office in Greenville. It's a tape recording. I think it changes twice a day.

First, press 2, you get forecasts.

Then, press 4, and you get the Asheville-Hendersonville area.

I almost never get a busy signal; I get a forecast within a minute.

[A to the P]

Micro Climates are not bullshit. It's science.

And even without that, weather forcasters USE THE SAME DATE AROUND THE WORLD.

There are 2-3 major weather data providers that give local forcasters their info. Which means almost every single forcaster, local or national, is running off the same data. There is no weather genius being kept of TV because he lacks presntation.

The very idea of that is freaking idiotic.

The technology is simply no better that what was stated. After 3 days, everything starts going to shit because...GASP...WEATHER IS CHAOTIC.

[greenashevilleblogspot.com]

I love it when they stand in front of the map when they are showing the radar and blab on about nothing. Someone needs to tell them to get the F*** out of the way. We are not all idiots. Some of us know how to read a map.

[jc697]

I loved it Sunday at 6pm when the WLOS weathergirl was saying "High Wind Warning until 6am Monday". Actually the warning was until 6pm Monday.

You will never get good televison weather forecasts on WLOS until you hire competent people to do them. WLOS viewers would be best served to just use the internet to get their forecasts.

[RadioLongAgo]

To me, one of those most important things to see, is the map in motion. It takes several runs of this to totally get a good idea. I don't care if the map shows it is raining hard on Biltmore Avneue...WHERE is it going?