Comment by tylervigen
1 day ago
> I don't feel as if I get any more accurate data now than I did back when my parents turned to the daily weather channel for the forecast.
The accuracy improvement is provable. A four-day forecast today is as accurate as a one-day forecast 30 years ago. And this is supremely impressive, because the difficulty of predicting the weather grows exponentially, not linearly, with time.
You are welcome to your feelings - and to be fair, I'm not sure that our understanding of the weather has improved as much as our computational power to extend predictions has.
You're 100% correct, but there's a subtlety in what the commenter is talking about.
Yes, _in aggregate_, forecasts are objectively, quantifiably better in 2025 than they were in 2005 let alone 1985. But any given, specific forecast may have unique and egregious failure modes. Look no further than the GFS' complete inability to lock on to the forecast track for Hurricane Melissa a month ago. This is dramatically compounded when you look at mesoscale forecast, where higher spatial resolution is a liability that leads to double-penalty errors (e.g. setting up a mesoscale snow squall band just slightly south of where it actually develops).
And keep in mind that the benchmarks shared from this model product are evaluating an ensemble mean, which further confounds things. Even if the ensemble mean is well-calibrated and accurate, there can be critical spread from the ensemble members themselves.