"Dawlish" wrote in message
...

Not surprising to see there are others on here who are concerned that
the plethora of weather warnings about severe (or extreme!!) weather
that have been issued recently have resulted in so little severe, or
extreme, weather.

The accuracy of these can only be judged from the outcomes.
Communication about how effective that site is relies on a small part
of an annual report. There's nothing to tell people how likely
something is to happen, apart from saying you have a 60% (early
warning), then an 80% (severe warning) that severe, or even "extreme"
weather is in the offing. How many individuals who have heard a
weather warning in the last 2 weeks (and I've lost track of how many
there have been) have ACTUALLY experienced severe, or extreme weather?
60%? 80%??

Nothing like those percentages have experienced what has been forecast
and I don't need to monitor every severe weather warning to know that.
Everyone knows it.

I thought they meant that there is (e.g.) a 60% chance of that weather
occurring somewhere within a particular area not that 60% of people will
experience it, that is to say 60% of that area will experience it. So
is it the probability that any one point in an area will experience it,
if that's the same thing? The warnings don't read that way to me but I
never understood stats. Or is it 40% chance of no one experiencing it ?

Tom

On Jul 22, 2:08*pm, "Tom Allen" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...





Not surprising to see there are others on here who are concerned that
the plethora of weather warnings about severe (or extreme!!) weather
that have been issued recently have resulted in so little severe, or
extreme, weather.

The accuracy of these can only be judged from the outcomes.
Communication about how effective that site is relies on a small part
of an annual report. There's nothing to tell people how likely
something is to happen, apart from saying you have a 60% (early
warning), then an 80% (severe warning) that severe, or even "extreme"
weather is in the offing. How many individuals who have heard a
weather warning in the last 2 weeks (and I've lost track of how many
there have been) have ACTUALLY experienced severe, or extreme weather?
60%? 80%??

Nothing like those percentages have experienced what has been forecast
and I don't need to monitor every severe weather warning to know that.
Everyone knows it.

I thought they meant that there is (e.g.) a 60% chance of that weather
occurring somewhere within a particular area not that 60% of people will
experience it, that is to say 60% of that area will experience it. *So
is it the probability that any one point in an area will experience it,
if that's the same thing? *The warnings don't read that way to me but I
never understood stats. *Or is it 40% chance of no one experiencing it ?

Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The headline on the flash warnings page is this:

"These are issued when the Met Office has 80% or greater confidence
that severe weather is expected in the next few hours". There is
nothing on that front page to explain anything about what the "80%"
actually refers to. I think people are expected to simply make their
own mind up what it means.

If you click on the present warning, for Highlands & Eilean Siar, you
find this, together with; "These are issued when the Met Office has
80% or greater confidence that severe weather is expected in the next
few hours":

"Showers will be heavy and thundery this afternoon and may give
accumulations of 15 to 25mm within a few hours." Does that mean: an
80% chance of a heavy shower in that area; an 80% chance of a heavy
shower in all of that area; an 80% chance that everyone will see a
shower at some time in the 9 hour period for which the warning is in
place; or some other explanation involving 80%. It's as clear as the
provibial very wet soil which almost certainly will have formed in
parts of the highlands this afternoon.

In addition, does 15-25mm really constitute "severe" weather? It
certainly isn't in any way extreme, but the public are told to expect
"severe, or extreme weather" in every single weather warning. there is
no distinction. I think the public are probably fed up to the back
teeth of being told they can expect "severe, or extreme" weather and
not getting anything more than wet when they go for a walk, or out in
the car. Cue; "well how would you feel if there was no warning and
severe weather happened?". Is that the ONLY reason for these blanket
area warnings when the real reason is that the forecasting of ACTUAL
severe weather in a place, at a particular time and for a period of
time is presently beyond anyone. The MetO site implies that it is
within the capabilities of the MetO to forecast severe weather for us,
the general public, you and me. I'm afraid that it can't, beyond
blanket warnings in which, sometimes, extreme weather is bound to
occur.

I know the MetO is caught between a rock and a hard place. I know
expectations are high and on the same page it states: "The Met Office
has responsibility for providing weather warnings for the UK". Just
tell us how bloody difficult it is and for an individual's location,
the severe weather may not actually happen and we can't be any more
accurate than that, instead of this insufferable papering over the
cracks of forecasting at the absolute limits of possibility. People
would then actually begin to understand why the MetO warnings site
gets it wrong so often! We pay for this (FHS!) and the site treats us
like idiots, expecting us to forgive every inaccurate forecast, but
also expects us to react if there actually is severe weather - how can
we actualy tell? Ring the highways authority, perhaps?

On Jul 22, 7:00*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 22, 2:08*pm, "Tom Allen" wrote:





"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

Not surprising to see there are others on here who are concerned that
the plethora of weather warnings about severe (or extreme!!) weather
that have been issued recently have resulted in so little severe, or
extreme, weather.

The accuracy of these can only be judged from the outcomes.
Communication about how effective that site is relies on a small part
of an annual report. There's nothing to tell people how likely
something is to happen, apart from saying you have a 60% (early
warning), then an 80% (severe warning) that severe, or even "extreme"
weather is in the offing. How many individuals who have heard a
weather warning in the last 2 weeks (and I've lost track of how many
there have been) have ACTUALLY experienced severe, or extreme weather?
60%? 80%??

Nothing like those percentages have experienced what has been forecast
and I don't need to monitor every severe weather warning to know that.
Everyone knows it.

I thought they meant that there is (e.g.) a 60% chance of that weather
occurring somewhere within a particular area not that 60% of people will
experience it, that is to say 60% of that area will experience it. *So
is it the probability that any one point in an area will experience it,
if that's the same thing? *The warnings don't read that way to me but I
never understood stats. *Or is it 40% chance of no one experiencing it ?

Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The headline on the flash warnings page is this:

"These are issued when the Met Office has 80% or greater confidence
that severe weather is expected in the next few hours". There is
nothing on that front page to explain anything about what the "80%"
actually refers to. I think people are expected to simply make their
own mind up what it means.

If you click on the present warning, for Highlands & Eilean Siar, you
find this, together with; "These are issued when the Met Office has
80% or greater confidence that severe weather is expected in the next
few hours":

"Showers will be heavy and thundery this afternoon and may give
accumulations of 15 to 25mm within a few hours." Does that mean: an
80% chance of a heavy shower in that area; an 80% chance of a heavy
shower in all of that area; an 80% chance that everyone will see a
shower at some time in the 9 hour period for which the warning is in
place; or some other explanation involving 80%. It's as clear as the
provibial very wet soil which almost certainly will have formed in
parts of the highlands this afternoon.

In addition, does 15-25mm really constitute "severe" weather? It
certainly isn't in any way extreme, but the public are told to expect
"severe, or extreme weather" in every single weather warning. there is
no distinction. I think the public are probably fed up to the back
teeth of being told they can expect "severe, or extreme" weather and
not getting anything more than wet when they go for a walk, or out in
the car. Cue; "well how would you feel if there was no warning and
severe weather happened?". Is that the ONLY reason for these blanket
area warnings when the real reason is that the forecasting of ACTUAL
severe weather in a place, at a particular time and for a period of
time is presently beyond anyone. The MetO site implies that it is
within the capabilities of the MetO to forecast severe weather for us,
the general public, you and me. I'm afraid that it can't, beyond
blanket warnings in which, sometimes, extreme weather is bound to
occur.

I know the MetO is caught between a rock and a hard place. I know
expectations are high and on the same page it states: "The Met Office
has responsibility for providing weather warnings for the UK". Just
tell us how bloody difficult it is and for an individual's location,
the severe weather may not actually happen and we can't be any more
accurate than that, instead of this insufferable papering over the
cracks of forecasting at the absolute limits of possibility. People
would then actually begin to understand why the MetO warnings site
gets it wrong so often! We pay for this (FHS!) and the site treats us
like idiots, expecting us to forgive every inaccurate forecast, but
also expects us to react if there actually is severe weather - how can
we actualy tell? Ring the highways authority, perhaps?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Am I the only one here who is begining to get bored with Dawlish?

Steve R.
Swansea

On Jul 22, 6:10*pm, wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:00*pm, Dawlish wrote:



On Jul 22, 2:08*pm, "Tom Allen" wrote:

"Dawlish" wrote in message

....

Not surprising to see there are others on here who are concerned that
the plethora of weather warnings about severe (or extreme!!) weather
that have been issued recently have resulted in so little severe, or
extreme, weather.

The accuracy of these can only be judged from the outcomes.
Communication about how effective that site is relies on a small part
of an annual report. There's nothing to tell people how likely
something is to happen, apart from saying you have a 60% (early
warning), then an 80% (severe warning) that severe, or even "extreme"
weather is in the offing. How many individuals who have heard a
weather warning in the last 2 weeks (and I've lost track of how many
there have been) have ACTUALLY experienced severe, or extreme weather?
60%? 80%??

Nothing like those percentages have experienced what has been forecast
and I don't need to monitor every severe weather warning to know that.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:10:32 -0700 (PDT),
wrote in


Am I the only one here who is begining to get bored with Dawlish?

Not sure about the words "begining to":-) His arrogance and obsession
means many of us totally ignore him now. Why he keeps posting this verbose
stuff on the same topic in usw defeats me.

Maybe I should pass on the name/address of my therapist. She's got a very
powerful weapon that would soon shut him up:-)

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 22/07/2009 18:28:35 GMT

"Mike Tullett" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:10:32 -0700 (PDT),
wrote in


Am I the only one here who is begining to get bored with Dawlish?

Not sure about the words "begining to":-) His arrogance and obsession
means many of us totally ignore him now. Why he keeps posting this
verbose
stuff on the same topic in usw defeats me.

Maybe I should pass on the name/address of my therapist. She's got a very
powerful weapon that would soon shut him up:-)


LOL even good old Lawrence doesn't reply to him now!

Will
--

On Jul 22, 7:51*pm, "Will Hand" wrote:
"Mike Tullett" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:10:32 -0700 (PDT),
wrote in


Am I the only one here who is begining to get bored with Dawlish?

Not sure about the words "begining to":-) *His arrogance and obsession
means many of us totally ignore him now. *Why he keeps posting this
verbose
stuff on the same topic in usw defeats me.

Maybe I should pass on the name/address of my therapist. *She's got a very
powerful weapon that would soon shut him up:-)

LOL even good old Lawrence doesn't reply to him now!

Will
--

Oh smug, now come on: you did (then ran away). How's the eyrie? Wet, I
see.

On Jul 22, 7:28*pm, Mike Tullett wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:10:32 -0700 (PDT),
wrote in


Am I the only one here who is begining to get bored with Dawlish?

Not sure about the words "begining to":-) *His arrogance and obsession
means many of us totally ignore him now. *Why he keeps posting this verbose
stuff on the same topic in usw defeats me.

Maybe I should pass on the name/address of my therapist. *She's got a very
powerful weapon that would soon shut him up:-)

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W *posted 22/07/2009 18:28:35 *GMT

Not again! Another vulture post from the Tullet. Nothing to do with
the thread, just a personal attack, hanging on the coat tails of
someone else's criticism. He's never actually been brave enough to
cast the first stone, but doesn't like me and will contribute to that
dislike after someone else has said some silly personal insulty stuff.
Can you do nothing else, dear boy? Maybe because someone needs to, is
the answer to your why? question. You can be bored, or not Steve and
if you don't like me, killfile me. Easy. However if you decide to post
some kind of idiocy that needs challenge, expect a challenge. Same
with smug, who descended from his eyrie up on Haytor simply to have a
go, then never returned to back up the highly questionable and
patronising effort that he posted. Same with others. Have either you,
Steve, or Tullet got anything, hopefully intelligent, to say on the
topic of severe weather forecasts? No? Then would you mind being asked
politely to fly back to your tree? A feeling that there is safety in
numbers excuses no-one. Insults are hardly likely to put me off. Do
feel to have a pop anytime, but expect a response if you do. I'd
always reserve that particular right and its a right that few people
would deny anyone.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jul 22, 7:28 pm, Mike Tullett wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:10:32 -0700 (PDT),
wrote in


Am I the only one here who is begining to get bored with Dawlish?

Not sure about the words "begining to":-) His arrogance and obsession
means many of us totally ignore him now. Why he keeps posting this verbose
stuff on the same topic in usw defeats me.

Maybe I should pass on the name/address of my therapist. She's got a very
powerful weapon that would soon shut him up:-)

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 22/07/2009 18:28:35 GMT

Not again! Another vulture post from the Tullet. Nothing to do with
the thread, just a personal attack, hanging on the coat tails of
someone else's criticism. He's never actually been brave enough to
cast the first stone, but doesn't like me and will contribute to that
dislike after someone else has said some silly personal insulty stuff.
Can you do nothing else, dear boy? Maybe because someone needs to, is
the answer to your why? question. You can be bored, or not Steve and
if you don't like me, killfile me. Easy. However if you decide to post
some kind of idiocy that needs challenge, expect a challenge. Same
with smug, who descended from his eyrie up on Haytor simply to have a
go, then never returned to back up the highly questionable and
patronising effort that he posted. Same with others. Have either you,
Steve, or Tullet got anything, hopefully intelligent, to say on the
topic of severe weather forecasts? No? Then would you mind being asked
politely to fly back to your tree? A feeling that there is safety in
numbers excuses no-one. Insults are hardly likely to put me off. Do
feel to have a pop anytime, but expect a response if you do. I'd
always reserve that particular right and its a right that few people
would deny anyone.

====

Paul, if you actually lightened up a bit then you may get more responses. I
for one do not relish coming on here after a hard day's work to argue the
toss with someone you know will never budge from an entrenched position. I
come on here for enjoyment and amusement mostly and to occasionally impart
some information and, hopefully, knowledge. Surely being banned from TWO and
other discussion boards over the years should be telling you something? You
cannot be banned on here of course, but you can be ignored, is that what you
really want? Mike Tullett, although he doesn't post that often now, is a
highly respected, and one of the founder members of this group, that respect
is earned, it doesn't come as of right. I suspect you crave respect too, and
you know there are many points of view you put across that I and probably
others agree with, for example, that the MetO severe weather warning service
does need improving but I feel that I for one can never have a constructive
dialogue with you because you always seem to be on a one man crusade!

Will
--

On Jul 22, 8:55*pm, "Will Hand" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Jul 22, 7:28 pm, Mike Tullett wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:10:32 -0700 (PDT),
wrote in


Am I the only one here who is begining to get bored with Dawlish?

Not sure about the words "begining to":-) His arrogance and obsession
means many of us totally ignore him now. Why he keeps posting this verbose
stuff on the same topic in usw defeats me.

Maybe I should pass on the name/address of my therapist. She's got a very
powerful weapon that would soon shut him up:-)

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 22/07/2009 18:28:35 GMT

Not again! Another vulture post from the Tullet. Nothing to do with
the thread, just a personal attack, hanging on the coat tails of
someone else's criticism. He's never actually been brave enough to
cast the first stone, but doesn't like me and will contribute to that
dislike after someone else has said some silly personal insulty stuff.
Can you do nothing else, dear boy? Maybe because someone needs to, is
the answer to your why? question. You can be bored, or not Steve and
if you don't like me, killfile me. Easy. However if you decide to post
some kind of idiocy that needs challenge, expect a challenge. Same
with smug, who descended from his eyrie up on Haytor simply to have a
go, then never returned to back up the highly questionable and
patronising effort that he posted. Same with others. Have either you,
Steve, or Tullet got anything, hopefully intelligent, to say on the
topic of severe weather forecasts? No? Then would you mind being asked
politely to fly back to your tree? A feeling that there is safety in
numbers excuses no-one. Insults are hardly likely to put me off. Do
feel to have a pop anytime, but expect a response if you do. I'd
always reserve that particular right and its a right that few people
would deny anyone.

====

Paul, if you actually lightened up a bit then you may get more responses. I
for one do not relish coming on here after a hard day's work to argue the
toss with someone you know will never budge from an entrenched position. I
come on here for enjoyment and amusement mostly and to occasionally impart
some information and, hopefully, knowledge. Surely being banned from TWO and
other discussion boards over the years should be telling you something? You
cannot be banned on here of course, but you can be ignored, is that what you
really want? Mike Tullett, although he doesn't post that often now, is a
highly respected, and one of the founder members of this group, that respect
is earned, it doesn't come as of right. I suspect you crave respect too, and
you know there are many points of view you put across that I and probably
others agree with, for example, that the MetO severe weather warning service
does need improving but I feel that I for one can never have a constructive
dialogue with you because you always seem to be on a one man crusade!

Will
--

You know very little about me Will, but purport to. Instead of trying
to psychoanalyse me, try returning to answer the question I put to
you: how accurate do you feel the MetO 10 day forecasts are, based on
the stats produced on the MetO site? It's going to be an awkward
question to answer, I know, when you told me this: "Any meteorologist
worth his salt knows that to just look at deterministic T+240 is
madness as that is bound to oscillate wildly most of the time. Use the
ensembles FHS." That's why you are now ducking the answer and throwing
up a smokescreen by trying to deflect attention by writing a post
focusing on me (after trying to say that no one replies; like I said,
you do. I know you'd like no-one to reply as then I wouldn't ask you
these horrid, difficult questions, would I?)

Will, the outcome forecast success percentage at 10 days, by the MetO,
is very low. How do you reconcile your views about that "must use"
piece of data, when the outcomes from using it are so low?

The trouble is Will, is that I ask difficult questions and I do that
from experience and knowledge, not from an imagined (by you)
"crusade". There are many areas of meteorology where I read and learn
from posts, instead of contributing, but this is an area where there
is very little forecasting success and it is no good you hiding behind
accepted wisdom, when the accepted wisdom falls down upon analysis.
Your knowledge of success rates with forecasting at 10 days is quite
obviously very limited; as is your knowledge of me! *))