h a l f b a k e r yA few slices short of a loaf.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Rather than having TV weathermen throw a dart at a regular cricket-style dartboard to predict tomorrows weather like they usually do, let's now divide each number on the board (20, 1, 18, etc) into two sections:
The left half of a number means less than 50% chance.
The right half means more than
50% chance.
So if they shoot a "20" right in the middle, that means a 50% chance of rain (either it will or it won't)
At least its more accurate than the dart boards they use nowadays :)
[link]
|
| |
This idea seems a bit like a rant about inaccurate weather prediction to me, but I am elated that it is in the proper category! |
|
| |
blainez: if you throw your mental darts more towards ideas that are about inventions you will score more bullseyes here. |
|
| |
cricket-style dartboard?? |
|
| |
I might give this a croissant. Though only because he got it in the right category. |
|
| |
If the clouds look like cellulite - it will be raining over that same area in 23 hours. |
|
| |
I disagree with the premise here. I've found that weather reports are fairly accurate. Especially since the weather reporters clearly state their accuracy level, which understandably degrades as the time scale increases. Very accurate for tomorrow, pretty accurate for a 5-7 day forecast, and they don't speculate much beyond that.
So I would encourage anybody who says that weather forecasting is inaccurate to clearly state what level of accuracy they think should be standard. Rainfall amounts predicted to within 0.01"? That would be an overly burdensome requirement. Besides, it's (yet another) example of overvaluation of artificial precision. Does it make any difference to anybody's plans if the weatherman were to predict 0.15" rain versus 0.20" rain? No. Granted, the 0.05" difference might matter to someone, but I'm talking about the difference in the prediction, not the event predicted.
Pardon my little rant.
Jokes, puns, comedy skits, etc., in which the purported inaccuracy of weather forecasts plays the dominant role, are too cliche. |
|
| |
I disagree with everyone here except possibly blainez (in the right cat. for once) here in UK we don't have climate we have weather and predicting that is possibly bordering on magic. just don't bother.... they predicted last night a hard frost - so I set the clock 10 mins early to scrape the car and woke up to the loveliest mild day.... its England and thats what we like about it...quite mad |
|
| |
Perhaps there are geographic areas that are just more problematic for forecasting. I live darned near the middle of North America, where there's lots of continent for weather systems to cover before arrival. Maybe coastal areas are tougher to predict. Though So. California is probably the easiest place to predict the weather.
At least po brought up a good example of how accuracy of forecast might impact behavior. |
|
| |
It is a coastal thing. 5 cm of snow for last night, not a cloud in the sky. I think British Columbia and England are a lot alike. |
|
| |
(again annotating my own post) This invention was meant to be humorous, not necessarily practical. |
|
| |
But it is still true that if meteorologists call for a "50% chance of rain" Either it will or it won't. |
|
| |