With my hotel and air tickets already purchased for a trip to the Banff / Lake Louise area in January, I have been getting nervous about absolute horrible weather. I just found this website that I think is of great use to anyone planning a trip to Canada: http://text.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/s...html#forecasts

This is Environment Canada's website with long term weather predictions and probability of the predictions being correct. Having never seen such a websight (or maps trying to convey this information), it took me a few minutes to study over a few pages and understand what I was looking at, but it's really quite easy.

What I learned is that on 9/1/05, Environment Canada predicted that in January 2006, the temperatures in the area I am visiting are expected to be above normal with below average rainfall. The probability of this being correct is higher than just chance, but not absolutely certain. It's something like a 50-60% chance of a correct prediction for this area.

Granted, there could be a blizzard come through on any day that drops the temperatures to unbearable for days, but I feel a little better now. On November 1st, I'll be able to look at more updated predictions.

Hope this helps someone with their travel plans.

Well I'm glad this information gives you some relief. However be prepared for the weather to be completely different from what is predicted, even a forecast given in the morning can be wrong by noon. I've lived in the area for over 40 years and I would never base my plans on a forecast, particularly one five months ahead of your trip. Come to Banff/Lake Louise and enjoy the beauty, if it snows run outside and make snow angels, if it's cold sit inside beside a roaring fire and enjoy the breathtaking scenery out the window. You can't control the weather so don't even think about it.

This is not intended to give the forecast for a particular day and time. I'm aware of the concept of instantly changing unpredictable weather - that happens here in Texas, too. There is no way that I would expect these models to predict the exact weather on a specific day. However, there tends to be an environmental trend each season no matter where one lives -- and that trend is more predictable than the exact temperature, wind speed, and precipitation on a specific date. A particular season is GENERALLY hotter or colder than normal when compared to the same season in other years. The same can be said for more or less precipitation than normal. Having determined what normal is for the area I am traveling to, and knowing that there is a greater overall chance of the weather being warmer than normal with less precipitation than normal, I feel slightly hopeful that I won't show up for a week long blizzard and that I will be able to enjoy the activities that I have planned for my trip. I expect it to be cold -- and I expect it to snow -- I am just hoping that the weather is bearable and not below zero fahrenheit and the snow is not falling so hard for so long that all I can do is stay indoors -- not exactly the reason I'm spending thousands of dollars to come to Canada. These models give me some hope that my trip won't be a complete waste of time and money. I'm sorry, but sitting by the fire is something I can do here for pretty much free without wasting vacation days. Everyone has a different idea of what a vacation is -- and for me, it's getting out and enjoying the outdoors. Just looking at the scenery from indoors and not being able to go out would really not sit well with me. I think cabin fever would come over me very quickly.

I hate to disillusion you Michaela, but those Environment Canada long term forecasts are notoriously inaccurate.

For example, the last two 3-month forecast periods for the area that I live in have been completely wrong. Summer was predicted to be warmer and drier than normal, but so far it's been cooler, cloudier and wetter than normal (and there's not much summer left).

A 50 t0 60% chance is not much more than a random guess, especially when they use measures such as "warmer/colder" or "wetter/drier" than normal.

As Cruiseryyc said - come and enjoy the ambiance of Banff and Lake Louise in winter. There will be snow, it will be cold, so bundle up and have fun!!! (by the way - the Canadian west is a dry area and week long blizzards are unusual, I can't think of one in the past 25 years (in central and southern Alberta), most blizzards when they do occur are short, a day or maybe two, and the worst ones are in the spring when it is warmer and the snow is heavy and wet).

The mountains in winter are gorgeous, come and have a good time, don't worry about the weather!!

The website has merit - for someone who wants to take the time to understand what it says. As my original e-mail stated, the website explains just how accurate the predictions have been based on years of historical data. This is going to be different for every single measurement point on the map. So, just because they have been wrong for one area doesn't mean that they haven't been right for another. I see no reason why a person shouldn't have this information available as a reference, which is why I posted it here. I'm not telling people to rely on these predictions -- who really relies on everything they hear about weather predictions anyway!?!? It's intended to be a scientific reference for the interested traveler. The website explains the chances. 50% doesn't really mean that there's a 50/50 chance of it being right...that's closer to 33%.

People in Texas seem to be really proud of the fact that the weather is not very predictable (although I don't understand why) -- and I suspect the same may be for your region. But that's no reason for a traveler to completely ignore historical data and scientific predictions in addition to getting advice from the locals.

All right, we get your point. Come and enjoy whatever weather next January has. Hopefully it won't be "below zero fahrenheit" - January in the Canadian Rockies - good luck with that one.

No one is disputing the idea that more information is better, and that Environment Canada has a lot of useful information. And if you want to use the predictions, and think that they are useful for other travellers and that's why you provided the link - that's great!! No argument there.

All we are trying to say is that based on our experience with those very same predictions and because we live in the area and have to live with the weather every day, we don't rely on them, we don't even pay much attention to them because they are wrong more often than they are right. This is annoying for us, we are not proud of it, it wrecks more of our plans than you know.

Just as an example, I "believed" the Environment Canada weather forecast for this past weekend for Alberta, it was a long weekend and on Friday they forecast sunshine for Sunday for the central part of the province. That's only two days ahead, not four months into the future!! So we made plans based on that, and were very disappointed when we woke up to drenching rain. Stayed that way all day. Had to change our plans. Weekends are only a few days, and it was the last weekend of summer, so it was very disappointing not to be able to do what we wanted.

One of the problems for the meteorologists and weather forecasters is that Canada is a huge country but it is sparsely populated (larger then the US but with 1/10th the population). In areas that are sparsely populated, there aren't as many weather stations and the data hasn't been collected for as long as eastern Canada, so it isn't as reliable. Add to that the fact that the climate is changing, and well, the predictions become very difficult to make, even for the short term, let alone the long term.

We're just trying to give you the benefit of our experience, that's all.

Look - I'm not trying to debate any of you. I just wanted to post information that I found to be helpful to other travelers, whether you agree it's useful or not. Personally, I feel that scientific reporting is useful when used in conjunction with information obtained from locals. From your posts, you'd have travelers believe that they should ONLY listen to the locals - when all they seem to be able to say is that the weather is unpredictable.

I've already tried to explain that the site it useful in the grand scheme of things -- from a generalized viewpoint -- but I'll explain again: The website predicts weather trends -- not the actual weather. I'm not inferring that the information is going to predict the exact weather conditions for a certain location on a certain date -- or even a certain week or weekend. It's a prediction based on facts with statistical information and scientific backing, which in my personal opinion is more useful than a local saying "well, the weather's never predictable here." Do you watch the local weather news and feel that the meterologist has promised you a particular climate for the following day? I don't - so it's no surprise to me or many other people that predictions are often wrong. That goes without saying and there was no need to blast me for simply posting a website that uses scientific data. You'd have people believe that the workers from Environment Canada walk out on the street and ask the locals what the weather was like last year and look in the sky and think "well, I think it's gonna rain." There is a science to predicting weather and weather trends. And I believe that it is often the locals who are disillusioned. They pay more attention to when the predictions were wrong than when they are right. All I get on here are examples of everything and everyone being wrong. I find it hard to believe that Environment Canada has made more incorrect predictions than correct after reviewing the statistical information for various regions. And again -- there is going to be a variance for the location -- I know this -- I stated this -- It's just common sense. Do you think that every square inch of every other country is heavily populated? This is not unique to Canada!!!!!

This site is supposed to be a place to post helpful information. I regret that I ever posted the information in the first place....and I'll be sure to never post information here that I find helpful again since it just incites the locals...I'll let the locals run the board...I'll be gone...I've learned my lesson.

I hope other non-locals who post information here aren't run off and told that they are wrong constantly when all they are offering is some information. Seems to be against the whole point in having this forum.

Sorry if this is rude or harsh, but I feel like I received no welcome here, everyone just wanted to argue over nothing, and that you both really missed the point. I hope to be better received by locals when I visit -- maybe that's what I should be most concerned about -- rather than worrying about the weather.

And although you say that you say that you don't argue the usefulness of the link, the rest of your e-mail doesn't agree with that statement. It makes the assumption that I'm an idiot and that I shouldn't even bother with looking at the data -- that I should just listen to you say that the weather is unpredictable.

At no point did I request advice from the locals about the weather -- I just wanted to post a link and explain it's usefulness because I felt that it would be helpful to other travelers.

I don't understand why this became such a problem for the locals...and why it was necessary to try to debate me over something so ridiculously common sense. This is what I take offense to.

Perhaps because I'm not a local I did appreciate your original posting. I hope its reception doesn't keep you from further postings on this site.

I don't have an intimate knowledge of the weather in the Rockies, so I can comment about it. However, I do know that where I live (Ottawa) I find the Environment Canada weather site particularly useful, and I consult it regularly. I don't find it inaccurate at all, but I could be that we have more "predictable" weather here. Long range weather forecasting is a bit of a gamble, but usually EC gets the broad trends right.

Thank you, laverendrye. I really appreciate someone who doesn't make the assumption that science is all nonsense. Thank you for posting about your experience with using data from Environment Canada.

Wow Michaela - I can't believe your over-the-top response. No one has said (or even thinks) that you are an idiot, at least I don't!! Why do you jump to that unwarranted conclusion? Based on your postings, you sound really stressed out to me, and since you mentioned in your original post that you "have been getting nervous", I probably should have taken you at your word. I really hope that you have a nice vacation in Banff and Lake Louise, and that the weather is at its winter best!!

Laverendrye - I agree with you that the weather forecasts in Ontario are quite accurate. Some years back I actually lived in Toronto (for six years), and was amazed at the accuracy of the forecasts compared to what I had been used to "back home in Alberta". Even snowstorms arrived like clockwork exactly at the time predicted. I suspect that this was due to the larger number of weather stations which made it easier to track systems as they moved across the province (and the fact that many of your weather systems arrive from the south, that is, from the US, again more weather stations, whereas ours usually come from the west or from the north, where there are few).

Just a footnote to all of this, because "science" was mentioned in contrast to "locals" - it should be stated that one can be both!!- as a scientist (and yes, I am a scientist, that's how I have made my living for the past 25+ years), I know how easily data can be misinterpreted, and can be misleading, especially when there are a lot of variables. Scientists in all fields argue about the meaning of the data that they collect all the time, and quite often these debates become very heated.
Science is not synonymous with the word "truth" - science is a methodology for discovery, it's a way of asking questions (proposing a theory and developing a set of experiments to collect data) and exploring their answers (which will "prove" or "disprove" a theory, although very rarely will there be a clear-cut resolution because of unforeseen or uncontrolled variables).
The unforeseen or uncontrolled variables are what makes long term weather forecasting such an inexact endeavour, and why many of us are wary of the predictions.
This caution is no way a pan of the Environment Canada website (or any other website for that matter), just a "heads up". You can choose to ignore our wariness.

Bor...

Again...Refer back to my original post. I never indicated that the forecast would come true (nor did I ever indicate that science = truth). I indicated that there are variables. Simply wanted to post a site and explain its use. The posting was made for use of all travelers to Canada - not one specific location. My discussion of Banff/Lake Louise was simply an example of how I used the site. I intended for the user to go to the website to determine how useful the data is for the area they intended to visit. All of this was very clear in my original posting.

Yet....You went on to act as though I couldn't make the common sense conclusion that the weather may not be what I expect it to be...and went on and on and on about it. It was rude and condescending, whether you meant for it to be or not.

And...in your last post...you find it necessary to explain what science is...again a bit condescending (and you go on and try to qualify your remarks as coming from a scientist). Do you think that the rest of the world is uneducated? I mean, please...get off your soap box and allow people to think for themselves. There was no harm in me posting the link. I still believe that travelers can and will find it useful. Obviously, it will be more useful for those traveling to one region over the other. If anyone actually visited the website, they'd figure that out.

For someone who has a scientific background, you make a lot of statements that I don't think you can back up.
1. "Those Environment Canada long term forecasts are notoriously inaccurate." Says who? Why do you then agree later with laverendrye that they are accurate? Granted, we are talking about different regions...But my original post was never intended to narrow the usefulness down to one small area. It was posted to the "Canada" forum. And wherever the predictions are known to be less correct, the website makes that clear itself.
2. "A 50 t0 60% chance is not much more than a random guess" If you were familiar with the website (which you later seem to indicate that you aren't since you "don't even pay much attention to them [EC] because they [EC] are wrong more often than they are right&quot, then you would understand that 33% = a random guess. 50-60% is actually quite a bit better than just a random guess.
3. "Add to that the fact that the climate is changing" - Do you think that's not taken into account by the meteorologists? We are all well aware of global warming.
4. "you mentioned in your original post that you 'have been getting nervous,' I probably should have taken you at your word." You make it sound like I'm on the verge of a mental breakdown when all I was saying that I was nervous (and really, nervous in that sentence just meant that I was a little concerned about how my vacation will be -- not that I'm biting my nails in worry and angst -- I think that's obvious to most who read that sentence).
What really made me upset was the sarcastic tone of cruiseryyc's "Hopefully it won't be 'below zero fahrenheit' - January in the Canadian Rockies - good luck with that one." I looked over the data for the same dates that I will be traveling for the past five years. Only one year was it that cold at that time...and it was something like -30 deg F for several days (which is my fear, and which is somewhat alleviated by the forecast of a warmer winter -- somewhat because it's not definite). So...unless cruiseryyc has gone through the process of reviewing the statistics and found something contrary to what I found, then that statement shouldn't have been made. That, on top of all the other false generalizations made by both of you really set me off.

I'm not ignoring your wariness...I'm just saying that it's obvious. It comes with the territory of trying to predict weather. It's ridiculous to point out to everyone that weather predictions are often wrong. My original e-mail covered that point anyway.

It sounds almost as if you wish poor weather on your visitors so that they can endure the ruined plans and annoyance with the weather.

What I don't appreciate is the attitude that you both took in talking down to a non-local rather than being the friendly Canadians that I've heard so much about. You can sit there and say all you want that you weren't trying to be rude (and you probably really weren't consciously), but you should stop and ask yourself why you found it necessary to write every sentence that you did. Did you really have some sub-conscious ulterior motive that you need to come to terms with personally?

The last time I came to Canada (Niagara Falls area), I drove across the border. The first thing that border control noticed is that I'm from Texas. They immediately started asking about guns in the car "because all Texans have guns." They actually made me unpack everything in the car so that they could search for guns in the rear tire compartment in my trunk. Perhaps, Texans have some negative reputation in Canada as being uneducated hicks that carry around rifles...and maybe that's why you found it necessary to try to teach me 3rd grade level topics (weather unpredictability & what science is)???

M - You really really hate to be wrong don't you - even to the point of willfully and deliberately misunderstanding everything I wrote. It's unfortunate that you can't "see" my face or tone of voice in my statements; I'm sure that would change your mind. For now I'll just say - Calm down and read it all again. Wait a few days and read it all again. You DO sound as if you are having a nervous breakdown - and here I ma guilty of doing the same thing that you are doing - jumping to conclusions.

By the way, Cuiseryyc was just - in a casual Alberta way - telling you that the chances are there could be very cold weather when you are here, but hopefully not.

I came to this post in the hopes of figuring out what the weather 'might' be like for our Canada trip late September. Oh Boy!

Instead I found a poster with a 'big chip' on their shoulder.

Michaela you've put words into the mouths of posters who (as I read it) were having a discussion about the accuracies/ inaccuracies of weather reporting. I didn't read anything personal regarding you.

I'll be charitable and assume you've had a bad day

Borealis - You gave the OP lots of advice on her first post on Fodors. It must have taken you quite a while to write such a detailed reply, perhaps she’ll take a break from abusing this post and thank you for your help planning her trip.

I really just feel like we are both speaking English, but completely misunderstanding each other. I don't think that you've really understood what I've been saying....and if you weren't discouraging my post, then I guess I really don't understand what you were saying either - or at least what the purpose of your reply was. I do appreciate the answers you provided to my other post, but that thread really furthers my belief that we just don't speak the same English. The way I read the answers, I really didn't find the answers the questions I THOUGHT I was asking. Not trying to be rude or ungrateful - just offering some way for us to close this and move on without placing blame on any one of us - it's just general misunderstanding on both parts. Perhaps I don't make my posts clear enough which cause you to post something that you think is helping...and then I don't understand where you are going or what you saw in my original post to send you there.

So, I'm sorry this went on and on. True, I have had a bad day -- bad weeks -- but I'd like to think that I'm not truly on the verge of a nervous breakdown -- because that January trip is really far away.

I've been working in several weather stations in the last 7½ years. Two day forecasts are extremely accurate. If you read aviation forecasts, they'll give the beginning and end of precipitation by the hour, visibility and ceiling with mind-boggling accuracy. Yes, there are some errors and that's what people remember. There is also the fact that many people don't read forecast properly and only remember the weather when it mattered to them. For exemple, people complained about the grayish, rainy month of may in Montreal while in fact hours of sunshine were above average. For fun, I checked the sun cards and week-ends weren't very sunny. May was cold too so it didn't help to perceive it as a sunny month.

But the three month forecasts... even Environment Canada says it's a bit of a joke.

If you want and good idea of what the weather might be like, look at the 30 year stats.

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec....x_e.html?&

Make sure you look at "days with precipitations" at each levels for a better idea. For exemple, july looks very rainy in Montreal but it usually comes in a few big showers.

Dear mrkindallas,

I feel I must apologize for misinterpreting your original post. I assumed while you were offering information for other travellers, you were also looking for information from "locals" on what the weather might be like in January in the Rockies. I certainly didn't mean to come across as hostile. I truly hope that the weather is beautiful while you are here and that you have a wonderful time in Canada.

Hi mrkindallas,
Thanks for the website and information. Having lived in Alberta for many years (near Toronto now) I think the most useful thing to know about the weather there is:
It's called "SUNNY Alberta" for a very good reason!
and
The Western response regarding Alberta conditions, "If you don't like the weather, don't worry. It changes every 5 minutes."
is also very accurate!
Hope you have a wonderful time! My last visit in January was spectacularly beautiful, as I'm sure yours will be.