Suing the Weather Forecast for false predictions.

a reply to: halfoldman

It doesn't claim to be "weather". It claims to be a "weather forecast". And like I already posted, forecasts are literally estimates and predictions. They're not facts and shouldn't be treated as such, which is why they're called "forecasts".

a reply to: enlightenedservant

And like I said, if informed forecasts are not binding, then you have no legal guarantee on anything.

Yes, they are binding.

the last two slides make no sense.

"this case didn't go to court"?
"Conclusion: the lady got $1,000 and an apology"?

to answer your question.. No, I wouldn't sue them for bad prediction. it's 50/50, plus nature sometimes don't give a sh it

For the sake of time, since I'm about to go to sleep, I did not read anyone's comments on this but will tomorrow.

Simply looking at the pretty 7-10 day forecast pictures on your favorite news station or weather site doesn't mean its going to be sunny or rainy. There is so much more to that. For example, there is a forecast discussion(Portland, OR: forecast.weather.gov...) that gives detailed information on why they forecast the way they do. Not only are they forecasting the weather based on several different computer models from supercomputers, which vary all the time, they also point out any variables they may or may not change the upcoming weather event.

In the PacNW, there are so many variables including the ocean and cold air from Canada, that the weather patterns being seen on their computers can change drastically in a matter of hours. Sometimes one forecast model will tend to be on the cooler side while another model will have a different opinion based on different information and will show warmer.

No matter what anyone tells you, a forecast over 5-7 days out is never 100%. So many things can change by the time that day arrives. Accuweather.com for instance, offers an extended forecast up to 90 days which is simply obsurd. In fact, meteorologists around the country are unhappy about this but according to Accuweather, they are showing people "trends" in the weather. And speaking of the devil, they are one of the most popular sites for weather info due to their marketing. Almost every android phone has some sort of built in weather app that's provided by Accuweather.

Another thing I'd like to point out is precipitation. One may see a sunny day in the forecast when in reality there's a 10% chance of rain as well. So you go outside, expecting a beautiful day, and it just so happens that an isolated rain shower formed over the top of you. That doesn't mean the entire forecast area, or entire city, got rained on. It happens.

I recommend downloading RadarScope(free on android and US only I believe) to keep up to date with precipitation in your area. I also recommend using weather.gov... to find the forecast in your area and the links that will provide you with your local weather office, the local weather office's FB and Twitter, forecast discussion, and many more important information including your local radar as well.

Hope that helps

a reply to: Tardacus

My accuweather app tells me it's going to rain in my area in ten minutes and they are mostly correct.
It asks for my zip and gives me very specific forecasts .
I don't find that the forecasts are incorrect in any great number. It used to be but like someone pointed out satellites and radar make mistakes pretty much a thing of the past.
Even the temperature is almost always dead on to the one outside my kitchen window.

Where do you guys live? Cable weather and the weather channel are available almost everywhere. No one needs to get weather from the guys at the general store anymore.

a reply to: Xaphan

We say send the dog out. If he come back wet it's raining.

a reply to: bjvanwash

Thanks for this!
I'm "guilty" of using accuweather but in my defense Intellicast changed their format and their radar won't load for me. I don't go by A's forecast as more than a guideline anyways. I look at the radar (enlarged) to see what's coming and go by that.

@ enlightenedservant

It doesn't claim to be "weather". It claims to be a "weather forecast". And like I already posted, forecasts are literally estimates and predictions. They're not facts and shouldn't be treated as such, which is why they're called "forecasts".

On one hand that's true, but on the other hand Meteorologists go to college for this, study for years and like any other "professional" is expected to possess some degree of expertise in their profession. While weather gets a bad rap of unpredictability it's also a science with fundamental laws. A warm front hitting a cold front is gonna make rain ect.....

The current lack of anyone getting our local forecasts even close to accurate is inexplicably irresponsible.

I'm going to say, just like any other "profession" if you are continually misguiding the public, same as any other public safety official or even a banker giving false/misleading information then yes....sue their asses. If a couple of lawsuits is what it takes to "reset" the Weather community into realizing they are overly dependent on flawed computer models and need to be accountable in their professions then yep! Do it!

Whoever in their industry had Meteorologists move away from the science into accepting data from computer models is ultimately responsible for what we're seeing. If anyone has paid attention the European Model has been consistently "more correct" in predicting atlantic storms and it's a FARSE that the US model is even referenced at this point. The US Model/program has clearly been junk for that last ten years that I am aware of.

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: SecretKnowledge

Argumentatively, I disagree

An informed prediction cannot be factually acted upon?
There goes the insurance industry, or pie in the sky religion.
In fact, there goes the foreign policy of every country in the world.

No!
But yeah.

Of course it can be acted on, but thats the individual's choice.
If i predict the score of a football match and tell a load of people and someone puts money on it can they sue me?
Its their choice

a reply to: halfoldman

This is from the Weather Channel's legal page (on Weather.com):

8. Disclaimer of Warranty; Limitation of Liability.
YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. NEITHER TWC, ITS AFFILIATES NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, THIRD PARTY CONTENT PROVIDERS OR LICENSORS (COLLECTIVELY, ?COVERED PARTIES?) WARRANT THAT THE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE; NOR DO THEY MAKE ANY WARRANTY AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE SERVICES, OR FROM THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN, OR AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY INFORMATION, SERVICE OR MERCHANDISE PROVIDED THROUGH THE SERVICES. IN NO EVENT WILL COVERED PARTIES OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY INVOLVED IN CREATING, PRODUCING OR DISTRIBUTING THE SERVICES, BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, CLAIMS, OR INJURY, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR PERSONAL OR BODILY INJURY, (I) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF, OR INABILITY TO USE, THE SERVICES, OR (II) ARISING FROM OR IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR CREATING CONTENT, BY VIDEOTAPING, PHOTOGRAPHY OR OTHERWISE, FOR SUBMISSION TO THE SERVICES, AND YOU HEREBY ASSUME ALL RISK FOR ANY DAMAGES, CLAIMS OR INJURIES.

weather.com...

This is from Accuweather.com's legal page:

12. Disclaimer.
ACCUWEATHER MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, GUARANTEES OR AFFIRMATIONS THAT WEATHER INFORMATION WILL OCCUR OR HAS OCCURRED AS THE REPORTS, FORECASTS, GRAPHICS, DATA, BRIEFINGS OR INFORMATION COMPRISING THE SITE, PRODUCTS OR SERVICES STATE, REPRESENT OR DEPICT AND ACCUWEATHER SHALL HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY WHATSOEVER TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY, PARTIES AND NON-PARTIES ALIKE, FOR ANY INCONSISTENCY, INACCURACY OR OMISSION FOR WEATHER OR EVENTS PREDICTED OR DEPICTED, REPORTED, OCCURRING OR OCCURRED.

www.accuweather.com...

You can probably look up the same for your local weather station as well.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

OK, but not every news channel uses that.

But in that case, fair enough.

a reply to: halfoldman

It's no longer 1996, where the case in question was made.

But you still check with a remote for the weather channel (what we call here DSTV) - you can get a forecast for a week!

You can plan an expensive party based on it.

And usually it's wrong, and it rains on the party.

But there's no distinctive weather disclaimer.

Then we have news channels in several local languages, and they don't do so either.

Not until this day.

Suing the whether forecast for false prediction would prove very diffictult.

For example: who would have been able to predict that the EU military today were creating a snow storm in Saint Petersburg, Russia using their whether control technologies?

Or even better: Who would have predicted that the Italian government would use whether manipulation as a false flag, against Orban's voicing that Italy needs to close ports to the "migrants". Basically they targeted Rome with a series of whether manipulation to create water drought and play the victim? In a state of emergency, it looks bad for Orban to be so intrusive in Italy's Agenda-21 , which should be called more appropriately D'Alema's Agenda-19.