On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:01:30 +0100, "J C-W"
wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
The following is true (I'm a sad soul). At the beginning of the year I
did
a
small experiment noting forecasts and noting what actually happened for
my
city over 3 weeks (I got bored after 3 weeks). I collected each forecast
for
the following day only, no long range stuff. The three sites were
Yahooo,
UK Weather.com and the Met Office. Yahoo had something like a 30%
accuracy,
UK Weather.com were about 40% I think and the Met Office came out tops
with
60 something %. I wish I'd kept the figures now. My conclusion was, it's
best to look out of the window :-) And... my goodness are they getting
paid
for this??!

That means that Yahoo was far and away the best forecaster. If you
rigorously stuck to the opposite of what they said, you would have had 70%
accuracy.

Franz

Er... somewhat flawed logic - just because it's right for 30% of the time,
does not mean that the opposite is true for 70% since there are so many
meteorological variables (i.e. the opposite could be just as wrong). What
this thread tells us is that for all the technology and super computer
models being used, the predictions are fundamentally flawed because they
rely on basic physical principles and ignore chaos theory, quantum mechanics
and the insight of a deity.

Sadly, I've never knowingly been "au fait" with the insight of a deity
..... especially in relation to weather forecasting. In my experience
he/she/it/they always keep(s) me guessing....!! Now.. quantum chaos I
can relate to!
(;-)
Regards
Geoff