i don't think you are quite grasping what he's saying. all weather models are probabilistic models that factor in historical data, current observed data, and the understood mathematics that describe the atmosphere. obviously it could be wrong because models are often wrong. but let's look at the inputs again - unless you are arguing that one of those inputs was somehow corrupted for this particular model run, it is telling you that the most likely outcome is what is shown (with rain basically everywhere). i think that is where the concern lies - it is outputting an outcome that is not what one would've expected in years past, meaning it is incorporating some sort of fundamental change in terms of those inputs. I don't think the math has changed wildly (if only to improve model precision), so...