Well I Guess I Shouldn’t Be Surprised…
…that the Weather Channel’s fact-checkers are as accurate as their forecasters
#2: Binghamton, NY
To be sure, I could’ve easily picked the state of Vermont, or many other locations in Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, or Maryland for this entry, given the awful flooding from both Irene, and the remnant of what was once Tropical Storm Lee. The number of bridges washed out, roads closed and homes flooded is jaw-dropping!
All fine and dandy.
Except that the picture they use of “Binghamton, NY”
is actually Owego, NY,
(seen here from a different angle)
which is about 25 miles away.
Remember, they’re the Professionals.
Media | Mr. Bingley | 
September 14, 2011 10:20 am
Subscribe
Hey, a miss is as good as 25 miles!
Well they are in the same state.
Seen one old building under water and you’ve seen ’em all!
Don’t all of those ologies kinda make it up as they go? Meteorology, astrology, psychology, scientology …
Don’t lump me in with those shitheads. Our forecasters are accurate in my flight 90% of the time and we don’t use percentages with pilots. It’s either it will happen here or it won’t happen here at this time and height with the following speeds and convective potentials.
Unfortunately, we have to obey the NWS in all things civilian. They are a bunch of model forecasters that can’t do shit but believe the models. Sorry, if it doesn’t initialize well, it’s shit in and shit out. To make matters worse we have let them manage Hurricanes. Last three storms I called exactly from ten days out. They barely could three days out because they’re too busy paying attention to models that change every 12hrs.
Thank God for the Professionals.
That’s my Ebola!
NWS: But Google Maps is NEVER wrong!!one!
Google lied, Oswego wasn’t dried!
Ebola, my Dad was an old school meteorologist, and he was the first person to explain “GIGO” to me. I still maintain that he was more accurate in the 70s than these dipshits with their models today. And the thing is, even after being dead wrong, they NEVER revise the damn models. Every failure ought to be refining the models, but I don’t think they’ve tinkered with them since 1996.
The science is settled on the models, John 🙂
Heh! Ebola, my father called himself a “weatherman”, not a meteorologist. He gave local weather forecasts as part of his duties as an FAA “flight service specialist”; this was well before computers were used anywhere outside of colleges and sooper secret guvmint labs.
And he was pretty damn accurate, too! Came from all those years of flying fighters in bad weather and no radar. I once asked him what the difference between a weatherman and a meteorologist was.
His answer? “Weathermen feel it in their bones.”
Sounds to me like you know the difference already. Good to hear SOMEONE is keeping up the tradition.
And, FYI, not all of the NWS meteorologists are flakes. A lot of them, when freed from the constraints of national policy, do a good job. Problem is, that freedom is getting more and more restricted, in favor of The Computer Model™. And that happens in areas you might not have eyes on.
So, patience, young one, patience! You are learning well.
I prefer Ninja Weatherman, or “Weatherborn” as was my Team nickname in special operations indoc. John, most of the older forecasters that aren’t model forecasters are insanely accurate. We had a Gunny in training that could call from surface to upperlevel shifts in 24 hours at a point location 19/20 times just based off of one Skew-t and the latest metsat. Our model forecasting civilian cousins, almost all of whom are PhD holders who would probably go to Autozone looking for a canister of headlight fluid, actually revise the models constantly. Problem is their hefty college experience leaves them with no clue that their models are simply a singular aspect of the mission. Models become the world to them. Jeff, I’m on board with yer Pop.