I think the trick is not to take a football supporters approach to forecasts. If you look at a couple and they're different, rather than trying to pick a winner take the message that there is significant uncertainty. If we're a day or so ahead I'd then look at the synoptics, if it's now I don't bother with forecasts much at all and just look at radar and satellite data.
So their forecast is just shit then and doesn’t match the satellite data, or Highrepute is just unlucky!
Met office abs MWIS will often say in their written reports that there’s uncertainty, particularly when there’s storm systems fucking shit up. I think also as climbers what we want out of a forecast is a lot more than most people. For example it’s not raining up here today but there’s zero chance of anything drying out. Most people going out for a walk would be happy with the ‘not raining’ bit and maybe look at cloud level, wind and visibility. We want to know how long it will take Earl crag to dry out when it’s raining.
the consistent shitness/uncertainty of the forecast in what is fundamentally a pretty flat country is amazing.
When people say that forecasts are shit are they not just judging them against a utopian ideal that’s never actually existed? They’re surely better now than they’ve ever been.
It's really not, we're on a west coast island which is slap bang at the wavering latitude of the polar front, with a climate that should be much colder but is kept anomalously warm by a ocean current. It's one of the least predictable places in the world.
I would really like some sort of 'percentage uncertainty' metric on a forecast as currently I don't think there is a way to know this without being a meteorologist.
Meteoblue have a 'predictability' percentage for each day's forecast. I also like that they (and the Windy app) show the predictions of multiple models, helpful for quickly seeing if there's general agreement or not.