Again, I have no issue with this fact. What I take issue with is 0% and 100% specifically. Those numbers are absolutes. Even with the definition of CxA that was provided earlier in the thread. You cannot move from an absolute in my opinion, so why state it if "things are constantly changing". Seems like you would say, "I'm extremely confident that it will not rain this weekend, but we still have a lot of time to have things change, so we'll have to leave it at 10% for now".. To me that means, it's probably not going to rain, which is good enough. But when you tell me it's 0%, then I'm thinking it definitely won't rain, and what if I drop a ton of cash on some outdoor activity, only for you to up it to an 80% chance 3 days later!!!???

I just don't see how we accept this.

2 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by Dire Wolf

bawcomville

Member since Sep 2008

37354 posts

Posted on 4/28/16 at 10:11 am to KG6

quote:
What I take issue with is 0% and 100% specifically. Those numbers are absolutes.

unless there is a hurricane coming, you rarely see 100% on the extended forecast

The guy on the news has 1 or two minute segment they don't have time to break down every variable for you.

Weatherunderground and other sites like it are better place to get info

0 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by Bmath

Member since Aug 2010

18716 posts

Posted on 4/28/16 at 10:15 am to KG6

quote:
Again, I have no issue with this fact. What I take issue with is 0% and 100% specifically. Those numbers are absolutes.

Would you rather they pass a standard that only allows them to be able to display 1% and 99% to leave room for doubt? These numbers are being shot out of a computer, I highly doubt anyone is actually taking the time to interpret the models for a basic rain forecast.

1 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board