On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 18:32:07 +0100
Will Hand wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 15:39:11 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:38:19 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
wrote:
Very erudite. Got anything further to add or is that your contribution
for the day and you need to go lie down now?

FWIW I dragged around a useless umbrella and I suspect some farmers
and
event
managers are a bit put out too. No one expects them to get the weather
dead
on
a week ahead, but 12 hours?? A piece of seaweed could have done better.


Clearly you have not understood the Met Office warnings properly. It said
most places will miss the storms altogether and stay dry. They did not go
for wall

I don't know what the warnings were, I simply watched a number of forecasts
both broadcast and the online map. They all showed rain and storms over a
significant part of the southeast. The rain graphics arn't a probability
map, they're where they expect rain to fall with a high certainty.

They weren't slightly wrong, they were completely arse about face wrong.

to wall storms. Even the auto site forecasts were dry (mainly). Now go away
and come back when you understand a bit more about meteorology and the
nature of convection - thank you. Also I am not sure now that BBC weather
get their

Spare me your feable attempts at being patronising, there are far better
practioners than you at it on usenet. And as for the "nature of
convection", yes, it might be chaotic and I wouldn't expect them to be bang
on the money but to predict a large swathe of storms over an area 80 miles
wide and then we get *none at all* leads me to believe theres a problem
with either their models or measurements.


Mr Hindsight the best forecaster in the world. Now go and pick some spuds.

Will
--


Apologies for being flippant.

I'm wondering if part of the issue is the presentation. The media broadcasters
should have been aware that many places were to remain dry and present the
story as such. As this is what the models were saying. It is very unfair to
blame the models, that is what upset me with Spud's original post.


Will
--



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Will Hand wrote:

On 6 Jul 2017 13:50:14 GMT
"Norman Lynagh" wrote:

Will Hand wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 10:49:31 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 08:53:06 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:

Even 12 hours ago the BBC weather was predicting rain and storms
over a substantial part of london and the southwest.

[looks out the window]

Blue sky. And looking at the rainfall radar the nearest rain is in
cambridgshire and calais.

And this isn't the first time. If all their expertise and their very
expensive supercomputer can't even get a forecast right 12 hours
ahead
then whats the point of them?


Idiot.

Very erudite. Got anything further to add or is that your contribution
for the day and you need to go lie down now?

FWIW I dragged around a useless umbrella and I suspect some farmers and
event managers are a bit put out too. No one expects them to get the
weather dead on a week ahead, but 12 hours?? A piece of seaweed could
have done better.


Clearly you have not understood the Met Office warnings properly. It said
most places will miss the storms altogether and stay dry. They did not go
for wall to wall storms. Even the auto site forecasts were dry (mainly).
Now go away and come back when you understand a bit more about meteorology
and the nature of convection - thank you. Also I am not sure now that BBC
weather get their forecast from the Met Office any more they were meant to
be moving over to using MeteoGroup. Stephen?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


My take on this is that 'Warnings' should be issued only for something that
is expected to happen. In my ideal world the current large 'Warning' area
should be a 'Watch' area. The 'Warnings' should be issued and updated on an
hour-by-hour basis referring only to individual storms or clusters of storms
and restricted to those localities at imminent risk, say over the next 2
hours. The 'Convective SIGMETs' issued by the US National Weather Service
are an excellent example of this, as are the tornado warnings. In other
words, in thundery situation, I think the 'Warnings' should take the form
of 'Nowcasts' updated hourly.

My experience is that I am very seldom affected by severe weather on the
occasions when a blanket 'Warning' is issued covering the part of the
country where I happen to be. This frequent 'cry wolf' situation has a huge
negative impact on the reputation of the Severe Weather Warning service.
People of my acquaintance in this part of the country largely ignore severe
weather warnings because of this.

I appreciate the forecasting difficulty in the present situation where there
is considerable potential for development. However, we have had a 'Warning'
in force for here since 6 a.m. but, so far, there hasn't been any hint of
shower activity in the area. A 'Watch' would have been much more
appropriate than a 'Warning'.

Just my tuppence-worth :-)


A yellow warning is meant to be a watch or a heads-up. Amber is a proper
warning in the old fashioned sense.

Will

Then why not call it a 'watch' to avoid confusion. A 'Warning' is a warning,
irrespective of the colour. The word 'warning' should be used very sparingly.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org
Twitter: @TideswellWeathr

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 18:32:07 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 15:39:11 +0000 (UTC)
Mr Hindsight the best forecaster in the world. Now go and pick some spuds.

So you're basically saying we shouldn't expect the Met Office to even come
close in their forecasts. If they get it right then thats nice, if they get
it wrong, well meh, thats just the way it is.

Remind me, how much does it cost to run this organisation? Perhaps we should
give Piers Corbyn a bus pass and send him around the country to phone in
his guesses for the next day? He couldn't do any worse right now.

--
Spud

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 19:09:56 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 18:32:07 +0100
I'm wondering if part of the issue is the presentation. The media broadcasters
should have been aware that many places were to remain dry and present the
story as such. As this is what the models were saying. It is very unfair to
blame the models, that is what upset me with Spud's original post.

The BBC don't make up the charts themselves, the met office provide them.
Either the computer models provided the charts or they were altered manually
by someone who didn't believe the computer. Either way they got it badly
wrong. Never mind no thunderstorms, there was barely any cloud. Thats not
a minor slip up, its a total forecasting failure.

--
Spud

On 07/07/2017 09:40, d wrote:

Remind me, how much does it cost to run this organisation? Perhaps we should
give Piers Corbyn a bus pass and send him around the country to phone in
his guesses for the next day? He couldn't do any worse right now.


Well, if he shares his brother's talent for selling BS to the gullible,
then he'll do all right...


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 10:24:51 +0100
Vidcapper wrote:
On 07/07/2017 09:40, d wrote:

Remind me, how much does it cost to run this organisation? Perhaps we should
give Piers Corbyn a bus pass and send him around the country to phone in
his guesses for the next day? He couldn't do any worse right now.


Well, if he shares his brother's talent for selling BS to the gullible,
then he'll do all right...

Well he makes a living out of it so he seems to have aquired some of his
brothers snake oil selling abilities. According to Piers, global warming is all
down to solar activity don't you know. If only climate researchers had taken
the sun into account in their models.....

--
Spud

On Friday, 7 July 2017 10:52:49 UTC+1, wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 10:24:51 +0100
Vidcapper wrote:
On 07/07/2017 09:40, d wrote:

Remind me, how much does it cost to run this organisation? Perhaps we should
give Piers Corbyn a bus pass and send him around the country to phone in
his guesses for the next day? He couldn't do any worse right now.


Well, if he shares his brother's talent for selling BS to the gullible,
then he'll do all right...

Well he makes a living out of it so he seems to have aquired some of his
brothers snake oil selling abilities. According to Piers, global warming is all
down to solar activity don't you know. If only climate researchers had taken
the sun into account in their models.....

--
Spud

Its a bit like the BBC SE Today forecast this morning, Dry Spells but cooler near the coast !!
Now to me that says its going to be wet with dry spells or am I being dumb?

Another glorious day here near Brighton, Just had my second dip in the sea today and enjoying the blue skies.

On 07/07/2017 09:42, d wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 19:09:56 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 18:32:07 +0100
I'm wondering if part of the issue is the presentation. The media broadcasters
should have been aware that many places were to remain dry and present the
story as such. As this is what the models were saying. It is very unfair to
blame the models, that is what upset me with Spud's original post.

The BBC don't make up the charts themselves, the met office provide them.
Either the computer models provided the charts or they were altered manually
by someone who didn't believe the computer. Either way they got it badly
wrong. Never mind no thunderstorms, there was barely any cloud. Thats not
a minor slip up, its a total forecasting failure.

I was looking at the weather radar pages yesterday and there were quite
a lot of thunderstorms over London and over East Anglia (going by the
lightning page). You don't say where you live, but I live on the western
edge of the warning area and we got no rain, but having read the
forecast I wasn't really expecting any. Similarly I never heard anybody
saying 'storms everywhere'. Who was it who forecast storms everywhere?
It was a low probability, high impact event and so the forecast was
broadly correct IMHO.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:54:00 +0100
Metman2012 wrote:
On 07/07/2017 09:42, d wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 19:09:56 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 18:32:07 +0100
I'm wondering if part of the issue is the presentation. The media
broadcasters
should have been aware that many places were to remain dry and present the
story as such. As this is what the models were saying. It is very unfair to
blame the models, that is what upset me with Spud's original post.

The BBC don't make up the charts themselves, the met office provide them.
Either the computer models provided the charts or they were altered manually
by someone who didn't believe the computer. Either way they got it badly
wrong. Never mind no thunderstorms, there was barely any cloud. Thats not
a minor slip up, its a total forecasting failure.

I was looking at the weather radar pages yesterday and there were quite
a lot of thunderstorms over London and over East Anglia (going by the
lightning page). You don't say where you live, but I live on the western
edge of the warning area and we got no rain, but having read the
forecast I wasn't really expecting any. Similarly I never heard anybody
saying 'storms everywhere'. Who was it who forecast storms everywhere?
It was a low probability, high impact event and so the forecast was
broadly correct IMHO.

Storms turned up in the north london area last night heading east. However BBC
weather both on the online chart and the broadcast were showing pretty
comprehensive rain cover for a line roughly stretching from oxford in the east
to ashford in the west via london coming up from the south coast for 9am
yesterday on wednesday evening. If they can't get it even close to correct only
12 hours in advance then their modelling has serious problems IMO.

--
Spud

On 07/07/17 15:00, d wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:54:00 +0100
Metman2012 wrote:
On 07/07/2017 09:42, d wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 19:09:56 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 18:32:07 +0100
I'm wondering if part of the issue is the presentation. The media
broadcasters
should have been aware that many places were to remain dry and present the
story as such. As this is what the models were saying. It is very unfair to
blame the models, that is what upset me with Spud's original post.

The BBC don't make up the charts themselves, the met office provide them.
Either the computer models provided the charts or they were altered manually
by someone who didn't believe the computer. Either way they got it badly
wrong. Never mind no thunderstorms, there was barely any cloud. Thats not
a minor slip up, its a total forecasting failure.

I was looking at the weather radar pages yesterday and there were quite
a lot of thunderstorms over London and over East Anglia (going by the
lightning page). You don't say where you live, but I live on the western
edge of the warning area and we got no rain, but having read the
forecast I wasn't really expecting any. Similarly I never heard anybody
saying 'storms everywhere'. Who was it who forecast storms everywhere?
It was a low probability, high impact event and so the forecast was
broadly correct IMHO.

Storms turned up in the north london area last night heading east. However BBC
weather both on the online chart and the broadcast were showing pretty
comprehensive rain cover for a line roughly stretching from oxford in the east
to ashford in the west via london coming up from the south coast for 9am
yesterday on wednesday evening. If they can't get it even close to correct only
12 hours in advance then their modelling has serious problems IMO.


As I said, theirs wasn't the only model to get it wrong. Also, the
forecaster on in the early morning TV made sure to play down the event.

Several days before the event, the bulk of the rain was forecast to
reach the London area for Friday, but the models kept backtracking each run.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
“Like sewage, smartphones, and Donald Trump, some things are just
inevitable.� [The Doctor]