Long term forecasting 'cracked'
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:30 am
No link to the article, as The Times charge for reading it online, but they ran a cover story today that the Met Office have 'cracked' long term forecasting .... particularly for the winter.
They said that previously, computer models fared only slightly better than chance, but that their new modelling software is 63% accurate (but that they hope it will rise to 80% over the coming years). If we assign chance as 50/50, isn't 63% still only slightly better than chance? I just wanted to throw it out there to the guys who knew about this sort of thing as it seemed very dodgy to me. Following that appalling 'research' on 7-a-day fruit/veg (which had more holes than a slice of swiss cheese .... but the papers decided was groundbreaking) is this genuine advances in meteorology, or more dodgy reporting (from a paper that we might expect better)?
They said that previously, computer models fared only slightly better than chance, but that their new modelling software is 63% accurate (but that they hope it will rise to 80% over the coming years). If we assign chance as 50/50, isn't 63% still only slightly better than chance? I just wanted to throw it out there to the guys who knew about this sort of thing as it seemed very dodgy to me. Following that appalling 'research' on 7-a-day fruit/veg (which had more holes than a slice of swiss cheese .... but the papers decided was groundbreaking) is this genuine advances in meteorology, or more dodgy reporting (from a paper that we might expect better)?