At the Spring ACWA conference, some attendees compared our CAP forecast to the Farmer’s Almanac.

This prompted me to dig into the Almanac’s history and methodology. I discovered some interesting facts about the Almanac and key differences from our CAP forecast. 

Comparing Forecast Formats

In addition to astronomical data, gardening advice, and folklore, the Almanac provides long-range weather forecasts. These regional outlooks give both qualitative information and specific monthly precipitation estimates.

While this level of detail is impressive, it should be used with caution as the Almanac’s methodology lacks transparency and uses single-point verification. 

In contrast, the CAP model has been rigorously tested and delivers water year precipitation estimates in 20 percent ranges relative to normal.

Methodological Differences

The Almanac relies heavily on solar science and mines historical patterns to predict future weather, but these methods lack clear empirical support. 

CAP focuses exclusively on meteorological observations, ensuring higher reliability and accuracy.

Empirical Validation

The Farmers Almanac claims 80% accuracy, but its validation is based on qualitative assessments, inconsistent verification locations, and unclear selection criteria. 

For example, the precipitation forecast for the state of California is verified at a single city (last year, Fresno), which changes each year and isn’t disclosed at the beginning of the year.

CAP, however, tests and validates our predictions using National Weather Service data from over 100 stations in California.  

California’s observed precipitation has consistently fallen within CAP's predicted ranges for the past seven years.

Trust in Proven Guidance

For critical business decisions, Weather Tools’ CAP water year forecast provides validated guidance, ensuring precision and reliability. 

Click here to learn more about our CAP report and how it may benefit your business!