AEMET defends warm winter forecast after cold Christmas

AEMET maintains that a warm winter can include severe cold

The Spanish State Meteorological Agency (AEMET) announced in early December that the winter would likely be warmer than normal. On December 23, it reported that the first week of Christmas was the coldest since 2010. It resolved this apparent paradox by stating: it is not contradictory, because periods of intense cold can occur within a season characterized as warm. While technically defensible, this argument has fueled suspicions that seasonal forecasts act as a catch-all explanation.

What AEMET said and why it faces public backlash

The controversy began with a thread of tweets from the agency, explaining the difference between seasonal character—the three-month average—and the weather during a specific week. Logically, an average can be warm even if there are temporary dips. The issue lies in expectations. When communicating a three-month forecast, citizens perceive a promise rather than a probability distribution.

Most reactions do not dispute the statistics but how they are used. Some argue the agency contradicts itself: if December was cold and January and February are typically harsher, significant warmth would be needed to balance the quarter. Others speak of a narrative: accuracy is claimed when convenient, and nuances are added when predictions fail.

The winter that doesn't match agriculture or thermometers

The most uncomfortable aspect comes not from models but from those working outdoors. One user describes pausing olive harvesting every three days due to rain and ice, noting grass overgrowth caused by forecasts of a dry, warm winter. Their conclusion mirrors many others: they will no longer trust weather forecasts. Another mentions rosemary bushes without flowers, indicating colder-than-expected conditions, preferring their own rudimentary methods over official predictions.

This highlights the gap between aggregated data and concrete experience. Statistics say one thing; home thermometers say another. Distrust thrives in this distance.

Rain, drought, and late warnings

Water is the other front. Several comments recall forecasts of a dry winter in southwestern Spain, yet December brought heavy rains to southern areas. Early January predictions suggest abundant rainfall in some spots, again contradicting the three-month seasonal outlook.

Here arises the harshest criticism, unrelated to averages or probabilities: warning management during extreme events. Critics argue the agency focuses on defending its fruta while early alerts for violent phenomena remain weak. This accusation carries weight and cannot be answered with graphs alone.

Climate change as a universal excuse

If it’s cold, it’s climate change. If it’s hot, also. Heavy rain is attributed to accelerated warming; light rain to structural drought. This phrase repeats sarcastically throughout the thread, reflecting fatigue with a climate framework seen as unfalsifiable because it never commits to specific outcomes.

In contrast, technical defenders argue that a warm winter containing a freezing week proves climate destabilization. Both interpretations use the same fact to reach opposite conclusions. Neither side yields.

Forecasting three months versus thirty years

A common critique presents a paradox: the institution admitting uncertainty for three-month forecasts projects scenarios for thirty years with unwarranted confidence. The argument is simple: if they miss January, how can they predict 2050?

Meteorologists distinguish between deterministic prediction—daily weather—and climate projection—decadal trends. These are distinct disciplines with different confidence levels. Explaining this requires nuance; dismissing it takes only a sentence online.

Erosion of a once-unquestionable institution

Twenty years ago, the former National Meteorological Institute was an undisputed reference. Today, it is compared to questioned statistical bodies and accused of political bias. The underlying complaint is not scientific but about trust: public funds, opaque communication, and the sense that the institution protects itself before serving citizens.

Amidst this, an uncomfortable question remains: if seasonal forecasts are so unreliable, why are they communicated with such certainty? And what if the problem isn’t the climate, but how it is narrated?