Summary: How accurate are local TV weather forecasts? Not very, particularly anything farther out than three days. That was the result of a study printed in the "Freakonomics" blog of the New York Times by a Missouri resident who analyzed Kansas City TV forecasts. The blog is by Steven Dubner, co-author of the best-selling 2005 book "Freakonomics," which analyzes hard data to determine how things really are in society. 9:32 a.m./ 04-22-2008 For a candid summary of the findings check out tonyskansascity.com: http://tonyskansascity.com/
How Valid Are T.V. Weather Forecasts? A Guest Post By J.D. Eggleston
The authors of Freakonomics posed the question, "Do real estate agents have your best interests at heart"? Then they statistically showed they (the real estate agents) do not. So what about meteorologists? How accurate are their forecasts? Do they even care? A seven-month study of weather forecasting at Kansas City television stations was conducted over 220 days, from April 22 to November 21, 2007. The seven-day forecasts for both high temperature and P.O.P. (probability of precipitation) for each station's 10 p.m. telecast and from the N.O.A.A. Web site were recorded. For stations that did not offer a P.O.P. in the form of percent likelihood, the best impression of percent likelihood that could be inferred from the meteorologists' words and graphics were used. The results of Kansas City's high temperature and rainfall as reported at the K.C.I. airport weather station, which are the data that become the official record for weather at Kansas City were also recorded. Those results were then compared to the high temperature and P.O.P. predictions to determine forecasting accuracy for each source for each of the seven days predicted. The results were quite enlightening, as were some of the comments of the local meteorologists and their station managers. Here a few of the quotes we received:
"We have no idea what's going to happen [in the weather] beyond three days out."
"There's not an evaluation of accuracy in hiring meteorologists. Presentation takes precedence over accuracy."
"All that viewers care about is the next day. Accuracy is not a big deal to viewers."
LACK OF CONFIDENCE The Kansas City television meteorologists will change their mind from 6.8 to nearly nine degrees in temperature and 30 percent to 57 percent in precipitation, showing a distinct lack of confidence in their initial predictions as time goes on.
LUCIE OFF BY 31 DEGREES; THOMPSON 30 The prize for the single most inconsistent forecast goes to Channel 5�s Devon Lucie who on Sunday, September 30th predicted a high temperature of 53 degrees for October 7th, and seven days later changed it to 84 degrees � a difference of 31 degrees! It turned out to be 81 that day. A close second was Channel 4�s Mike Thompson�s initial prediction of 83 for October 15th, which he changed to 53 just two days later.
WEEKEND FORECASTERS At Channel 4, Mike Thompson�s weekend man is Joe Lauria. ...we can see that Lauria is actually much better than Thompson in temperature accuracy from about .5 to 2.5 degrees better across the seven-day range. Regarding precipitation, Thompson is slightly better than Lauria one or two days out, but Lauria is more accurate three to seven days out, and on the challenging days. At Channel 5, Katie Horner�s weekend replacement is Devon Lucie. As with Channel 4, it appears Channel 5�s weekend forecasts are more accurate for both temperature and precipitation, but only slightly. At Channel 9, Pete Grigsby is the weekend man for Bryan Busby. Here, Busby is better at precipitation and at one to three days out on temperature. Grigsby is better four to seven days out on temperature. Channel 41�s weekend weatherman is Jeremy Nelson. When it comes to temperature, Nelson is not as good as Lezak one or two days out, but is better than Lezak longer range. For precipitation, both are pretty even.
RATINGS DRIVE TV The other major weakness is that ratings drive television. Sadly, the data show that stations are so consumed with ratings that accuracy in weather predictions takes an irrelevant back seat to snappy patter and charm.
"CHARM, CHARISMA AND PRESENTATION" No meteorologist or television station kept records of what they predicted, nor compared their predictions to actual results over a long term. No meteorologist posts their accuracy statistics on their r�sum�. No station managers use accuracy statistics in the hiring or evaluation of their meteorologists. Instead, the focus is on charm, charisma, and presentation. Their words say they care about accuracy, but their actions say they do not. Yet, they wish to continue providing inaccurate seven-day forecasts that are no more than a semi-educated shot in the dark because a) their competitors do and b) they can get away with it since they think the public does not know how inaccurate they are.
PLACEBO FORECASTING... Until the public demands change in the form of lost ratings from this hollow practice of �placebo forecasting,� T.V. weather forecasts will continue to blow smoke up our � upper-level-lows. Until this change comes to pass, we must take what we see on T.V. with a grain (or perhaps block) of salt. And if you really want to know what weather will occur in Kansas City tomorrow, find out what happened in Denver today.
