Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Groundhog-day.com – structured groundhog data

groundhog-day.com

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Show HN: Groundhog-day.com – structured groundhog data

#31
post #19
post #10

Remarkable how in the 1910s and 1920s we had uninterrupted stretches of extra winters decades in a row, but now early spring dominates. Clear evidence of global warming.

That's a huge insight to take away. Nevertheless, we still have climate-denier groundhogs consistently predicting winter and being wrong about it ( cough Phil cough ). Hopefully, this site helps shine a light on these unscientific groundhogs.

If I'm not mistaken, Phil's "predictions" are just written down ahead of time, while other groundhogs have to actually move towards a sign that says "early spring" or "long winter".

I wonder if there is an easy way to tell which groundhog uses which method and if the groundhogs are more accurate about climate change than the humans.

Re: Show HN: Groundhog-day.com – structured groundhog data

#39
post #27

I'm going to need to see success rating for each groundhog. How often do they correctly predict the weather? Also how often did their right or wrong predictions contradict the majority?

> How often do they correctly predict the weather? I mentioned this in another comment, but accuracy data is basically impossible to get. You have to get weather data year by year for different regions of the country and then compare them to historical ranges. Means a pretty huge amount of trawling through data, not a lot of payoff. > Also how often did their right or wrong predictions contradict the majority? This o…

NOAA's already done it.

https://www.noaa.gov/stories/everyones-favorite-groundhog-pr...

40% accurate, so you're better off inverting Phil's prediction, but not by much.

Post reply on HN