The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Probability Forecasting in Meteorology
Abstract
Efforts to quantify the uncertainty in weather forecasts began more than 75 years ago, and many studies and experiments involving objective and subjective probability forecasting have been conducted in meteorology in the intervening period. Moreover, the U.S. National Weather Service (NWS) initiated a nationwide program in 1965 in which precipitation probability forecasts were formulated on an operational basis and routinely disseminated to the general public. In addition, the NWS now prepares objective probability forecasts for many variables, using statistical procedures. Hence probability forecasting in meteorology is unique in that very large sets of probability forecasts that have been subjected to detailed evaluation are available. This article has four objectives: (a) to review the history of probability forecasting in meteorology to acquaint statisticians with this body of literature; (b) to describe recent methodological, experimental, and operational activities in this field; (c) to examine current issues in probability forecasting; and (d) to discuss briefly the relationship between probability forecasting in meteorology and probability forecasting in other fields. Results of operational and experimental weather forecasting programs are presented, methods of verifying and evaluating probability forecasts in common use in meteorology are discussed, and an extensive list of references is provided.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability
BRIER, G. W. (1950) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078%3c0001:vofeit%3e2.0.co;2
Cited by
Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.90.4.293 · Cited by 3,991
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives.
Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.2.136 · Cited by 3,024
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
“Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.”
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2648573 · Cited by 2,298
Metadata
- Authors
- Murphy, A. H., & Winkler, R. L.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1984-09
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 387
- Pages
- 489-500
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W2039254862
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Probability Forecasting in Meteorology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01621459.1984.10478075
- The paper
- Murphy, A. H., & Winkler, R. L. (1984). Probability Forecasting in Meteorology. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1984.10478075
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.