Or was it Lest We get Wet ?

So much rain for the UK the last three months now's a good time to
review what the United Kingdom Metrological Office, or as named on
their website 'Weather and Climate Change'; actually predicted as late
a 23rd March 2012 for April, May and June this year

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pd...precip-AMJ.pdf

Here is their own precipitation summary from the linked PDF
__________________________________________________ ___________


SUMMARY - PRECIPITATION:
The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than
average
conditions for AprilMayJune
as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the
driest of the 3 months.
With this forecast, the water resources situation in southern, eastern
and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April
May June
period.
The probability that UK precipitation for April May June
will fall into the driest of our five categories is 2025%
whilst the probability that it will fall into
the wettest of our five categories is 1015%
(the 19712000
climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).

__________________________________________________ ________

Now there is not one shadow of doubt as Bruce Springsteen struggles to
make through floods to the Isle of Wight rock festival and evacuations
from rising floodwaters as I write are taking place in Northern
England that the forecast for A,M & J by UKMO was an absolute farce,
in fact it's so bad it's almost funny.

Now those odd few recently sectioned poor souls that may even read my
bilge; could fairly ask why am I always attacking UKMO?

Well my answer would be that the preening boastful all style and no
substance organisation that replaced the once matter of fact
conservative and very honest met Office of yesteryear bloody, deserve
it. They(their) hierarchy is a green(red) motivated arrogant tax
funded lorry load of AGW , H&S NHS apologist tripe. One time the met
Office dealt with ...erm...weather and that was it.

Now off they are dealing with dangerous climate change, five day
forecasts for in grown toe nail removals for the NHS and millions of
inane weather warnings which would warm (within recommended H&S
temperature guidelines of course) the endangered (due to AGW )Cockles
off the heart of any overzealous H&S inspector. Is there nothing that
UKMO can't do?

Erm... predict weather three months ahead?

As for the arrogance shown in the way the they have foisted the pigs-
ear of a new website upon the public despite all the complaints,
surely illustrates that pompous 'we know better than you attitude '.
The website immediately knows where you live when you visit it and
the forecast 'drill down' can apparently give the forecast not just
for your post code but down to any particular pavement on your
street. All of which besides giving the impression that the UKMO board
can walk on water-which is handy given their three month drier than
average forecast; but for those people who believe in the UKMO hype
are now suffering due to flooding.

Don't get me wrong weather/climate is a bugger to get right over a
few days and most rationale people know that and would/will forgive
mistakes . But UKMO have over the recent years have increasingly
given the impression that they know everything hence the legendary BBQ
summers and mild winter forecasts.

If they continue to be lead by ideology they will continue to make
these enormous gaffs which they seem to be totally impervious to.

Has anyone from the metOffice apolgised for this disastrous three
monthly forecast that no doubt was issued to Defra, The EA and local
councils as well as the various water authorities ; if so kindly point
me to it.

On 23/06/12 11:29, Lawrence13 wrote:

snip

Don't get me wrong weather/climate is a bugger to get right over a
few days and most rationale people know that and would/will forgive
mistakes .

Doesn't that negate your entire argument above then? It is very
difficult to predict what the weather will do for the next three months,
but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try! If, to the best of our
knowledge, it looks like it is going to be drier than average, then
should we not tell anyone at all, in case we are wrong? Or issue a
forecast with associated probabilities expressing the likelihood of
various events occuring?

But UKMO have over the recent years have increasingly
given the impression that they know everything hence the legendary BBQ
summers and mild winter forecasts.

I think that was probably more the fault of the MO PR department.

If they continue to be lead by ideology they will continue to make
these enormous gaffs which they seem to be totally impervious to.

Has anyone from the metOffice apolgised for this disastrous three
monthly forecast that no doubt was issued to Defra, The EA and local
councils as well as the various water authorities ; if so kindly point
me to it.

But you are making the assumption that once they issued this forecast in
March, they wouldn't in any way alter it. I'm sure if it was given to
Defra etc, then it would subsequently be revised, and not just left
unaltered for three months!

On a serious note, what would you like to see? It is clear that we need
to do some sort of planning for future weather, but as everyone will
admit, the science is not there yet to enable us to predict months in
advance with a great deal of accuracy. Would you prefer no forecasts to
be issued to anyone?

--
Liam (Milton Keynes)
http://physics.open.ac.uk/~lsteele/

In article
,
Lawrence13 writes:
snip
The probability that UK precipitation for April May June
will fall into the driest of our five categories is 2025%
whilst the probability that it will fall into
the wettest of our five categories is 1015%
(the 19712000
climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).

So the 10-15% chance was the one that came up. Anyone who follows the
gee-gees knows that 7-1 shots sometimes win. Since the MetO were careful
to mention that wet weather was a possibility, and that the forecast
only "slightly favours drier than average conditions", I don't see why
you are giving them so much stick. Everyone knows - or should know -
that three-monthly forecasts have a high degree of uncertainty.
--
John Hall
Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Lawrence13 writes:
snip
The probability that UK precipitation for April May June
will fall into the driest of our five categories is 2025%
whilst the probability that it will fall into
the wettest of our five categories is 1015%
(the 19712000
climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).

So the 10-15% chance was the one that came up. Anyone who follows the
gee-gees knows that 7-1 shots sometimes win. Since the MetO were careful
to mention that wet weather was a possibility, and that the forecast
only "slightly favours drier than average conditions", I don't see why
you are giving them so much stick. Everyone knows - or should know -
that three-monthly forecasts have a high degree of uncertainty.

He gives them stick simply because the Met Office 'believes' in
AGW and he doesn't, it's as simple as that.
Any excuse to put the boot in.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

Col wrote:
"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Lawrence13 writes:
snip
The probability that UK precipitation for April May June
will fall into the driest of our five categories is 2025%
whilst the probability that it will fall into
the wettest of our five categories is 1015%
(the 19712000
climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).
So the 10-15% chance was the one that came up. Anyone who follows the
gee-gees knows that 7-1 shots sometimes win. Since the MetO were careful
to mention that wet weather was a possibility, and that the forecast
only "slightly favours drier than average conditions", I don't see why
you are giving them so much stick. Everyone knows - or should know -
that three-monthly forecasts have a high degree of uncertainty.

He gives them stick simply because the Met Office 'believes' in
AGW and he doesn't, it's as simple as that.
Any excuse to put the boot in.
-------------------------------------
I do think and have said for some time that the effort various
organisations put into seasonal and long term forecasting is mis-placed.
Well maybe not the research that is going on in the background but in
the publication of them. The original forecast although probably based
on better science had no more validity in reality than similar efforts
by people like Joe *******i and Piers Corbyn. OK, carry on the research
in the background but don't bother publishing them and concentrate on
accurate 7 day forecasts which are clearly tricky enough.
Dave

In article ,
Dave Cornwell writes:
Col wrote:
"John Hall" wrote in message
. ..
In article
,
Lawrence13 writes:
snip
The probability that UK precipitation for April May June
will fall into the driest of our five categories is 2025%
whilst the probability that it will fall into
the wettest of our five categories is 1015%
(the 19712000
climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).
So the 10-15% chance was the one that came up. Anyone who follows the
gee-gees knows that 7-1 shots sometimes win. Since the MetO were careful
to mention that wet weather was a possibility, and that the forecast
only "slightly favours drier than average conditions", I don't see why
you are giving them so much stick. Everyone knows - or should know -
that three-monthly forecasts have a high degree of uncertainty.
He gives them stick simply because the Met Office 'believes' in
AGW and he doesn't, it's as simple as that.
Any excuse to put the boot in.
-------------------------------------
I do think and have said for some time that the effort various
organisations put into seasonal and long term forecasting is mis-
placed. Well maybe not the research that is going on in the
background but in the publication of them. The original forecast
although probably based on better science had no more validity in
reality than similar efforts by people like Joe *******i and Piers
Corbyn. OK, carry on the research in the background but don't
bother publishing them and concentrate on accurate 7 day
forecasts which are clearly tricky enough.
Dave

I'm a little surprised to see this forecast in a press release. I
thought that a couple of years back the MetOffice had decided that they
were going to stop issuing them to the general public. (Those who knew
where to look on their website could still find them, though clearly
flagged as a research activity.)
--
John Hall
Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)

**** off

On 23/06/2012 11:29 AM, Lawrence13 wrote:
..

Has anyone from the metOffice apolgised for this disastrous three
monthly forecast

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

On Jun 23, 7:02*pm, "Col" wrote:
"John Hall" wrote in message

...





In article
,
Lawrence13 writes:
snip
The probability that UK precipitation for April May June
will fall into the driest of our five categories is 2025%
whilst the probability that it will fall into
the wettest of our five categories is 1015%
(the 19712000
climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).

So the 10-15% chance was the one that came up. Anyone who follows the
gee-gees knows that 7-1 shots sometimes win. Since the MetO were careful
to mention that wet weather was a possibility, and that the forecast
only "slightly favours drier than average conditions", I don't see why
you are giving them so much stick. Everyone knows - or should know -
that three-monthly forecasts have a high degree of uncertainty.

He gives them stick simply because the Met Office 'believes' in
AGW and he doesn't, it's as simple as that.
Any excuse to put the boot in.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Put the agw to one side Col: Do you really think an organisation that
boasts how important it is to our very lives itself is an arrogant
nanny state meddling pile of doggy do. I had to laugh reading the
other day that someone at UKMO's Peter Trevylan had won and award for
IT application for visualising weather forecasts . I then immediatley
thought of their ****e new website and yet they release a three month
precipitation forecast only seven days before the heavens opened.

Style over substance is the new mantra and they are at least good at
that.

On Jun 23, 10:10*pm, Stan wrote:
**** off

On 23/06/2012 11:29 AM, Lawrence13 wrote:
.



Has anyone from the metOffice apolgised for this disastrous three
monthly forecast

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

Charming and as thick as ever, Stan.

On Jun 23, 1:38*pm, Liam Steele wrote:
On 23/06/12 11:29, Lawrence13 wrote:

snip

Don't get me wrong weather/climate *is a bugger to get right over a
few days and most rationale people know that and would/will forgive
mistakes .

Doesn't that negate your entire argument above then? It is very
difficult to predict what the weather will do for the next three months,
but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try! If, to the best of our
knowledge, it looks like it is going to be drier than average, then
should we not tell anyone at all, in case we are wrong? Or issue a
forecast with associated probabilities expressing the likelihood of
various events occuring?

But UKMO have over the *recent years have increasingly
given the impression that they know everything hence the legendary BBQ
summers and mild winter forecasts.

I think that was probably more the fault of the MO PR department.

If they continue to be lead by ideology they will continue to make
these enormous gaffs *which they seem to be totally impervious to.

Has anyone from the metOffice apolgised for this disastrous three
monthly forecast that no doubt was issued to Defra, The EA and local
councils as well as the various water authorities ; if so kindly point
me to it.

But you are making the assumption that once they issued this forecast in
March, they wouldn't in any way alter it. I'm sure if it was given to
Defra etc, then it would subsequently be revised, and not just left
unaltered for three months!

On a serious note, what would you like to see? It is clear that we need
to do some sort of planning for future weather, but as everyone will
admit, the science is not there yet to enable us to predict months in
advance with a great deal of accuracy. Would you prefer no forecasts to
be issued to anyone?

--
Liam (Milton Keynes)http://physics.open.ac.uk/~lsteele/

Doesn't negate my argument one bean, I'm not the one making
vainglorious preening stupid forecasts with the strong subtext of AGW
driving my every disaster ladened forecast. They get generously paid
for 90% of the tripe they put out on tax payers dosh.

To put out that three month forecast on precipitation (the narrative
being wicked nasty AGW) and fail with such epic proportions within
just seven days and yet not one apology ; smacks off arrogance beyond
the pale. Hey ho never mind the funding will keep on pouring in.
They are full of their own self importance, you may say the same about
me , but I;m not making outrageous foracasts and further more I don't
get paid for doing so.