Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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] |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Met Met Office explanation of Heathrow record | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Met Office 'Big freeze' predictions get better. | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Useless model predictions!,cold blast off? | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
weather warnings useless | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
me own thread damn BT they are bleed'in useless for Dave | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |