|"There are no rainbows in the area. Repeat: no rainbows today. |
Do not believe your lying eyes. And now, to Bob for the Accu-Traffic Report..."
"Did forecasters purposefully ignore last-minute warning signs that threatened their high-end snowfall predictions? According to the Associated Press, “Before the first snow fell, U.S. meteorologists realized there was a good chance the late-winter storm wasn’t going to produce giant snow totals in big Northeast cities as predicted. But they didn’t change their forecasts because they said they didn’t want to confuse the public.”
In short, hours before the system fully evolved, computer guidance began hinting at a more inland track — not a favorable one for coastal cities. But forecasters, leery of the “the windshield wiper effect” (a knee-jerk reaction to new, shifting data), stood their ground. The Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang called it a “poor decision” that, though “well-intentioned,” “has the potential to damage public trust in weather forecasts.” Still others, like meteorologist Marshall Shepherd, responded: “The perception of ‘bust’ is that it didn’t materialize for New York in the manner expected. Much of the expected snow fell as sleet. To me, ice is a far greater hazard.".......
Then forecast an ice storm, not a snow storm, genius. But don't do peoples' thinking for them. You're not equipped.
If they can't forecast correctly a hundred minutes from now, how can they forecast the temperature a hundred years from now?
And if they refuse to change their forecasts when they know they're incorrect, why should we trust them to change climate models when they are incorrect?
And if they dissemble about weather you can see this afternoon, won't they dissemble about weather yet unseen for many decades to come?
|"The Truth is for Experts; you can't handle it or you would have come in from the rain already!"|