I was quite amused by the apologetic article about why the storm of the century didn’t hit us on Saturday. Quoting the National Weather Service: “Although weather models, the technology, and the science are constantly improving, there is still an aspect of unpredictability in weather forecasting.” You think? Quoting a Weather Service meteorologist, “When systems are developing, they are passing over the Pacific Ocean. It’s not a data-rich environment.” No kidding! “Satellite images provide information...but those images don’t tell you what is happening on the surface, and they are not always available because of the thickness of the cloud cover.” Really? “Subtle shifts in the storm pattern can mean a big difference in how a major storm plays out compared to what was forecast.”
If a week’s worth of “subtle shifts” and lack of data can mean a “big difference” in a local forecast, how much difference can a decade’s worth of global shifts and inaccurate data make in predictions of “climate change?