As an amateur astronomer/astrophotographer for the past 25+ years I've relied on long to short term forecasts. Will it be clear for an event I want to see? I can certainly agree the models have improved and are pretty good. Much to my dislike on occasion such as the recent lunar eclipse. I was clouded out, that looked likely days ahead of time.
One has to appreciate the complexity of modeling such a large and dynamic system that the atmosphere is! There are cases where forecasting is more difficult. Certainly getting the temperature correct within a degree or two is one case.
Another issue is geography. I'm in middle of of USA and there is significant amount of data collected over the continental US as systems approach me. For those on the west coast I can see where forecasting is more challenging since there is far less data available to input into models (current atmosphere state 100s of kilometers out over the ocean). I'd suspect some European countries experience same situation, those further inland benefit from increased modelling data.
Reading the comments here I'm a bit surprised at how many quibble over slight details. The improvements over the past decades in forecasting models and the supercomputers that crunch the data has been significant. In most cases, like recent cold temperatures and snow fall amounts, models converge on a good solution as the event nears. This is consistent with idea that better data input yields better data out.
The system is complex beyond our comprehension. If we really wanted to model weather and climate better we need to know more things. Things like how much cow farts are there? I would be happy to build a system to ingest cow fart obs and feed them into the numerical models. FPS farts per sec yo
Great summary article for beginners. Ed's been reviewing scopes for as long as I've been in the hobby. His advice is sound.
The best advice I can give beginners is to get out to a dark sky on a moonless clear night and enjoy the wonders above you. Maybe watch for meteors for awhile. That only costs you time and effort. No equipment needed.
I've got mixed feelings about astro apps and phones/tablets. Sure their handy but I often see people looking at it instead of the night sky. While your looking down or trying to move your device around to orient it a meteor goes overhead. But you missed it jacking with your phone.
Also your night vision is affected by that phone/tablet screen - every time you look at it your pupils constrict letting in less light (unless you put a red filter over the screen). generally it takes 20 minutes for your eyes to become adapted to the dark. And 3 seconds looking at a bright screen wipes out that adaptation.
One has to appreciate the complexity of modeling such a large and dynamic system that the atmosphere is! There are cases where forecasting is more difficult. Certainly getting the temperature correct within a degree or two is one case.
Another issue is geography. I'm in middle of of USA and there is significant amount of data collected over the continental US as systems approach me. For those on the west coast I can see where forecasting is more challenging since there is far less data available to input into models (current atmosphere state 100s of kilometers out over the ocean). I'd suspect some European countries experience same situation, those further inland benefit from increased modelling data.
Reading the comments here I'm a bit surprised at how many quibble over slight details. The improvements over the past decades in forecasting models and the supercomputers that crunch the data has been significant. In most cases, like recent cold temperatures and snow fall amounts, models converge on a good solution as the event nears. This is consistent with idea that better data input yields better data out.