This is what amounts to forecast meteorology — a seasoned weatherman will look at the current charts and try to interpret them based on patterns that have been associated with previous observations. They appear to have equal powers of memory recall, pattern matching, and the art of the bluff.
I don’t do that kind of stuff and don’t think I ever will.
If this comes out of a human mind, then that same information can be fed into a knowledgebase and either a backward or forward-chained inference engine could make similar assertions.
And that explains why I don’t do it — a machine should be able to do it better.
What makes an explanation good enough? by Santa Fe Institute
GeoEnergy Math 
The above quote describes modern meteorology when weather forecasters wing it, such as Mr. Masiello above. He describes everything to meticulous detail (almost to the point of a “just-so story”), but the built-in correlation of many of the descriptions does not promote understanding. Just saying N equivalent things in different ways does not improve understanding.
LikeLike