It has been a few years since the last time you took a weather report seriously.
Has the technology improved?
i've posted shit that's more relevant to technology than this and they all get deleted.
>>57408250
>news networks no longer hold a monopoly on the Weather Industryâ„¢ so the weather women have to get hotter and hotter to keep interest
How will the weather channel ever compete?
>>57408250
You have to undestand how things work:
The digital model (take your pick: NOGAPS, ECMWF, homebrew Cuda-based) runs every 12 hours.
The run is seeded with actual observations at the runtime. Gaps in coverage are filled from the previous run.
At some time after the run (depends on the model), forecasts will appear, usually at 3-hour intervals WRT to the runtime.
The forecaster(s) will look at the model for the actual time they're at. If it seems reasonable, they'll use those forecasts. If it's wrong, they'll use their own forecasting skills (or lack thereof...) to make the forecast.
tl;dr - Check several weather sites and look at RADAR and satellite shots - they aren't forecasts and reflect reality...
AccuWeather seems to be quite accurate with temperatures (both actual and perceived), but hit and miss with precipitation
Thing with weather.... It depends where you live on how predictable it will be.
Some places you can see everything forming days out. Other places have more factors and the weather is more random so the reports are less useful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufhg2TM-QW4
these are the only weather reports worth watching