(Inspired by this thread on weather forecasts and our recent snowstorms.) Why do so many forecasts use a temperature-and-condition only format? To me, these forecasts are nearly useless without a crucial piece of information: the amount of precipitation expected. For example, they might show a snow icon and a temperature of -2, but won’t reveal if we’re in for 5 cm or 50. That can make a huge difference in terms of my plans for that day. Maybe I’m suffering from confirmation bias, but the Weather Network (TV, not the website), Yahoo weather, and the weather report on the Wii all use this format. Why is this uninformative format so popular?
Exactly which report are you talking about? In the US, the Weather Channel has city by city reports, which I see since I get a satellite, not cable, feed, which has only the icon. The more detailed reports give snow amounts, in ranges. I suspect giving snowfall totals would be tough since there isn’t enough space and the total varies a lot by location. Saying it is snowing in Peoria is accurate, but saying it is 4 - 6 inches there might be misleading, since it might be 10 inches not far away.
Boston area TV and radio forecasts almost always include the amount of snow (and often rain) predicted for a given day. In fact, they will beat you over the head with it by cancelling other programming, having fancy graphs showing expected total by specific area and then computer models that show potential ranges. Other areas of the U.S. don’t get snow but they do the same for substantial rain.
I know what you are saying about some of the major weather websites. However, there are others.
www.wunderground.com has a whole ton of info if it covers your area.
I mean The Weather Network. The TV summary looks very similar to the short term forecast there, except without the wind, humidity, and snow information.