Looking at the T+72 chart issued in the early hours of today and seeing the occluded front going apparently backwards across Scandinavia, makes me wonder how low the knowledge has to get before the MO do some decent training.

Add to that the incessant use of occluded fronts on the BBC forecast with the warm bumps and cold triangles drawn the wrong way around....I think that standards are definitely not important any more.

I wonder if these standards reflect the quality of other aspects, such as the observations and models as these new forecasters go up the chain over the past few years?
Certainly the apparent quality and accuracy of output that is given as public service forecasts has dropped significantly.

I fear for the future of MO forecasting.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:42:13 -0800 (PST)
Crusader wrote:

Looking at the T+72 chart issued in the early hours of today and seeing the
occluded front going apparently backwards across Scandinavia, makes me wonder
how low the knowledge has to get before the MO do some decent training.

Add to that the incessant use of occluded fronts on the BBC forecast with the
warm bumps and cold triangles drawn the wrong way around....I think that
standards are definitely not important any more.

I wonder if these standards reflect the quality of other aspects, such as the
observations and models as these new forecasters go up the chain over the
past few years? Certainly the apparent quality and accuracy of output that is
given as public service forecasts has dropped significantly.

I fear for the future of MO forecasting.


And so you should. Even before I retired analyses were constructed with
"objective fronts" drawn on by computer. The forecaster then could alter
these. I suspect now little alteration is taking place. Some of the worded
scripts are pathetic now. Last Saturday when we had several hours of frontal
snow the forecast talked about "wintry showers". It gave the impression that
the so called forecaster was just translating model output into words. Of
course they are now working on automating that too as well
(intelligent autotext). I fear for the the future of the MO full stop. I can see
it all breaking up in 10 years :-(

Will
--

On 13/02/17 11:17, Will Hand wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:42:13 -0800 (PST)
Crusader wrote:

Looking at the T+72 chart issued in the early hours of today and seeing the
occluded front going apparently backwards across Scandinavia, makes me wonder
how low the knowledge has to get before the MO do some decent training.

Add to that the incessant use of occluded fronts on the BBC forecast with the
warm bumps and cold triangles drawn the wrong way around....I think that
standards are definitely not important any more.

I wonder if these standards reflect the quality of other aspects, such as the
observations and models as these new forecasters go up the chain over the
past few years? Certainly the apparent quality and accuracy of output that is
given as public service forecasts has dropped significantly.

I fear for the future of MO forecasting.


And so you should. Even before I retired analyses were constructed with
"objective fronts" drawn on by computer. The forecaster then could alter
these. I suspect now little alteration is taking place. Some of the worded
scripts are pathetic now. Last Saturday when we had several hours of frontal
snow the forecast talked about "wintry showers". It gave the impression that
the so called forecaster was just translating model output into words. Of
course they are now working on automating that too as well
(intelligent autotext). I fear for the the future of the MO full stop. I can see
it all breaking up in 10 years :-(


When I was in Met O 2b, I found that they'd been working on automated
shipping forecasts from the 10-level model before I joined them at the
beginning of 1978.


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
There are more fools than knaves in the world, else the knaves would
not have enough to live upon. [Samuel Butler]

On Monday, 13 February 2017 11:19:05 UTC, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:42:13 -0800 (PST)
Crusader wrote:

Looking at the T+72 chart issued in the early hours of today and seeing the
occluded front going apparently backwards across Scandinavia, makes me wonder
how low the knowledge has to get before the MO do some decent training.

Add to that the incessant use of occluded fronts on the BBC forecast with the
warm bumps and cold triangles drawn the wrong way around....I think that
standards are definitely not important any more.

I wonder if these standards reflect the quality of other aspects, such as the
observations and models as these new forecasters go up the chain over the
past few years? Certainly the apparent quality and accuracy of output that is
given as public service forecasts has dropped significantly.

I fear for the future of MO forecasting.


And so you should. Even before I retired analyses were constructed with
"objective fronts" drawn on by computer. The forecaster then could alter
these. I suspect now little alteration is taking place. Some of the worded
scripts are pathetic now. Last Saturday when we had several hours of frontal
snow the forecast talked about "wintry showers". It gave the impression that
the so called forecaster was just translating model output into words. Of
course they are now working on automating that too as well
(intelligent autotext). I fear for the the future of the MO full stop. I can see
it all breaking up in 10 years :-(

Will
--

It won't. The MetO will go from strength to strength, whereas, you will get more disillusioned and irrelevant. Shame eh?

On Monday, 13 February 2017 08:42:15 UTC, Crusader wrote:
Looking at the T+72 chart issued in the early hours of today and seeing the occluded front going apparently backwards across Scandinavia, makes me wonder how low the knowledge has to get before the MO do some decent training.

Add to that the incessant use of occluded fronts on the BBC forecast with the warm bumps and cold triangles drawn the wrong way around....I think that standards are definitely not important any more.

I wonder if these standards reflect the quality of other aspects, such as the observations and models as these new forecasters go up the chain over the past few years?
Certainly the apparent quality and accuracy of output that is given as public service forecasts has dropped significantly.

I fear for the future of MO forecasting.

I fear for the future of the electorate.

If the Met Office are showing you what the GFS is doing and it hasn't been adjusted by the flowerpots, there is something in the signal that you should be paying attention to.

I am not asking you to follow my posts but you must take the responsibility for your ignorance.

On Monday, 13 February 2017 15:36:04 UTC, wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2017 11:19:05 UTC, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:42:13 -0800 (PST)
Crusader wrote:

Looking at the T+72 chart issued in the early hours of today and seeing the
occluded front going apparently backwards across Scandinavia, makes me wonder
how low the knowledge has to get before the MO do some decent training.

Add to that the incessant use of occluded fronts on the BBC forecast with the
warm bumps and cold triangles drawn the wrong way around....I think that
standards are definitely not important any more.

I wonder if these standards reflect the quality of other aspects, such as the
observations and models as these new forecasters go up the chain over the
past few years? Certainly the apparent quality and accuracy of output that is
given as public service forecasts has dropped significantly.

I fear for the future of MO forecasting.


And so you should. Even before I retired analyses were constructed with
"objective fronts" drawn on by computer. The forecaster then could alter
these. I suspect now little alteration is taking place. Some of the worded
scripts are pathetic now. Last Saturday when we had several hours of frontal
snow the forecast talked about "wintry showers". It gave the impression that
the so called forecaster was just translating model output into words. Of
course they are now working on automating that too as well
(intelligent autotext). I fear for the the future of the MO full stop. I can see
it all breaking up in 10 years :-(

Will
--

It won't. The MetO will go from strength to strength, whereas, you will get more disillusioned and irrelevant. Shame eh?

Well, Will was/is a meteorologist which is more than can be said for you.

Tudor Hughes

On Monday, 13 February 2017 17:34:26 UTC, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2017 15:36:04 UTC, wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2017 11:19:05 UTC, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:42:13 -0800 (PST)
Crusader wrote:

Looking at the T+72 chart issued in the early hours of today and seeing the
occluded front going apparently backwards across Scandinavia, makes me wonder
how low the knowledge has to get before the MO do some decent training.

Add to that the incessant use of occluded fronts on the BBC forecast with the
warm bumps and cold triangles drawn the wrong way around....I think that
standards are definitely not important any more.

I wonder if these standards reflect the quality of other aspects, such as the
observations and models as these new forecasters go up the chain over the
past few years? Certainly the apparent quality and accuracy of output that is
given as public service forecasts has dropped significantly.

I fear for the future of MO forecasting.


And so you should. Even before I retired analyses were constructed with
"objective fronts" drawn on by computer. The forecaster then could alter
these. I suspect now little alteration is taking place. Some of the worded
scripts are pathetic now. Last Saturday when we had several hours of frontal
snow the forecast talked about "wintry showers". It gave the impression that
the so called forecaster was just translating model output into words.. Of
course they are now working on automating that too as well
(intelligent autotext). I fear for the the future of the MO full stop.. I can see
it all breaking up in 10 years :-(

Will
--

It won't. The MetO will go from strength to strength, whereas, you will get more disillusioned and irrelevant. Shame eh?

Well, Will was/is a meteorologist which is more than can be said for you.

Tudor Hughes

Good. As you are one of the few smug has not killfiled, he'll now have seen my message. Nice one hughes. 😀😀

PS Have you signed up for smug's Dartmoor winter driving course? I hear it is the bees knees. 😂😂

On Monday, 13 February 2017 17:34:26 UTC, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2017 15:36:04 UTC, wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2017 11:19:05 UTC, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:42:13 -0800 (PST)
Crusader wrote:

Looking at the T+72 chart issued in the early hours of today and seeing the
occluded front going apparently backwards across Scandinavia, makes me wonder
how low the knowledge has to get before the MO do some decent training.

Add to that the incessant use of occluded fronts on the BBC forecast with the
warm bumps and cold triangles drawn the wrong way around....I think that
standards are definitely not important any more.

I wonder if these standards reflect the quality of other aspects, such as the
observations and models as these new forecasters go up the chain over the
past few years? Certainly the apparent quality and accuracy of output that is
given as public service forecasts has dropped significantly.

I fear for the future of MO forecasting.


And so you should. Even before I retired analyses were constructed with
"objective fronts" drawn on by computer. The forecaster then could alter
these. I suspect now little alteration is taking place. Some of the worded
scripts are pathetic now. Last Saturday when we had several hours of frontal
snow the forecast talked about "wintry showers". It gave the impression that
the so called forecaster was just translating model output into words. Of
course they are now working on automating that too as well
(intelligent autotext). I fear for the the future of the MO full stop. I can see
it all breaking up in 10 years :-(

Will
--

It won't. The MetO will go from strength to strength, whereas, you will get more disillusioned and irrelevant. Shame eh?

Well, Will was/is a meteorologist which is more than can be said for you.

I wonder what dawlish gets out of all this. I know that we both have the same problem of not being able to leave people alone but I have yet to work out where he gets off with his version of sociopathy.

Even if I were as dumb as him, I would eventually get bored with myself.

On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 08:51:36 UTC, wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2017 17:34:26 UTC, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2017 15:36:04 UTC, wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2017 11:19:05 UTC, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:42:13 -0800 (PST)
Crusader wrote:

Looking at the T+72 chart issued in the early hours of today and seeing the
occluded front going apparently backwards across Scandinavia, makes me wonder
how low the knowledge has to get before the MO do some decent training.

Add to that the incessant use of occluded fronts on the BBC forecast with the
warm bumps and cold triangles drawn the wrong way around....I think that
standards are definitely not important any more.

I wonder if these standards reflect the quality of other aspects, such as the
observations and models as these new forecasters go up the chain over the
past few years? Certainly the apparent quality and accuracy of output that is
given as public service forecasts has dropped significantly.

I fear for the future of MO forecasting.


And so you should. Even before I retired analyses were constructed with
"objective fronts" drawn on by computer. The forecaster then could alter
these. I suspect now little alteration is taking place. Some of the worded
scripts are pathetic now. Last Saturday when we had several hours of frontal
snow the forecast talked about "wintry showers". It gave the impression that
the so called forecaster was just translating model output into words. Of
course they are now working on automating that too as well
(intelligent autotext). I fear for the the future of the MO full stop. I can see
it all breaking up in 10 years :-(

Will
--

It won't. The MetO will go from strength to strength, whereas, you will get more disillusioned and irrelevant. Shame eh?

Well, Will was/is a meteorologist which is more than can be said for you.

Tudor Hughes

Good. As you are one of the few smug has not killfiled, he'll now have seen my message. Nice one hughes. 😀😀

PS Have you signed up for smug's Dartmoor winter driving course? I hear it is the bees knees. 😂😂

Who is "smug" - what is he? There's a four-letter monosyllable for you 'n all. Say no more! SAY NO MORE!

Tudor Hughes

On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 23:21:26 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

'dawlish'

Back on the obsession.