In message , Mike Tullett
writes

Hi Mike

I think what Will is referring to is the cloud. If you look closely at the
outline of it in the south, you'll see it is exactly as the N French coast
would be, as well as the coast of S England. Cornwall and Devon, for
example, lie over S Wales, with Wales itself in the Irish Sea as far as
Dublin:-)

If you run the animation sequence, its even more obvious.
The ghost cloud outline of the UK stays put (with the northerly offset),
while "real" cloud images move across.
--
steve

On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:52:25 +0100, Will Hand wrote:

"These satellite charts show the image you can see from space, so
are only available during the day between 1100 and 1600"?
snip
Presumably they are just being bloomin lazy and simply cannot be
bothered to alter the software to cope with different times of year?

Naw, those are the times the person who shifts the satellite image in
relation to the backgrouund comes in for. Sadly only half in jest...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:48:21 +0100, Will Hand wrote:

What's really hacked me off no end Norman is that in the past few
days, several of us have pointed this out offline, and it's still
not fixed. Confirms to me two things:
1. They don't ap[arently give a toss.
2. The whole introduction of these new graphics has been
disgracefully rushed in.
If those images are wrong then they should be removed until they are
fixed. That, at least, would be the *professional* thing to do.

Quite agree Will. Shoddy and amateurish not what we should be getting
from the UKs national broadcaster. It's plainly obvious that no one
has really looked at the output of this new super duper machinery to
check that it isn't generating garbage.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:48:21 +0100, Will Hand wrote:


What's really hacked me off no end Norman is that in the past few
days, several of us have pointed this out offline, and it's still
not fixed. Confirms to me two things:
1. They don't ap[arently give a toss.
2. The whole introduction of these new graphics has been
disgracefully rushed in.
If those images are wrong then they should be removed until they are
fixed. That, at least, would be the *professional* thing to do.


Quite agree Will. Shoddy and amateurish not what we should be getting
from the UKs national broadcaster. It's plainly obvious that no one
has really looked at the output of this new super duper machinery to
check that it isn't generating garbage.


BBC is looking to get rid of 4,000 staff. I know where they should start.

Graham

On Sat, 28 May 2005 07:47:30 +0100, Graham P Davis wrote in


What's really hacked me off no end Norman is that in the past few
days, several of us have pointed this out offline, and it's still
not fixed. Confirms to me two things:
1. They don't ap[arently give a toss.
2. The whole introduction of these new graphics has been
disgracefully rushed in.
If those images are wrong then they should be removed until they are
fixed. That, at least, would be the *professional* thing to do.

Quite agree Will. Shoddy and amateurish not what we should be getting
from the UKs national broadcaster. It's plainly obvious that no one
has really looked at the output of this new super duper machinery to
check that it isn't generating garbage.

BBC is looking to get rid of 4,000 staff. I know where they should start.

Yes, one or two names clearly spring to my mind.

Another aspect of this fiasco is the role of the Met Office, as they are
supplying (I assume) the raw information. Were I in senior management of
that organisation, would I be happy with the output from the BBC with the
MetO name associated with it? Is its reputation going to be enhanced or
damaged in the eyes of the viewer by this sorry story? I know my answer to
both questions.

--
Mike 55.13°N 6.69°W Coleraine posted to uk.sci.weather 28/05/2005 08:11:45 UTC

"Mike Tullett" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2005 07:47:30 +0100, Graham P Davis wrote in


What's really hacked me off no end Norman is that in the past few
days, several of us have pointed this out offline, and it's still
not fixed. Confirms to me two things:
1. They don't ap[arently give a toss.
2. The whole introduction of these new graphics has been
disgracefully rushed in.
If those images are wrong then they should be removed until they are
fixed. That, at least, would be the *professional* thing to do.

Quite agree Will. Shoddy and amateurish not what we should be getting
from the UKs national broadcaster. It's plainly obvious that no one
has really looked at the output of this new super duper machinery to
check that it isn't generating garbage.

BBC is looking to get rid of 4,000 staff. I know where they should start.

Yes, one or two names clearly spring to my mind.

Another aspect of this fiasco is the role of the Met Office, as they are
supplying (I assume) the raw information. Were I in senior management of
that organisation, would I be happy with the output from the BBC with the
MetO name associated with it? Is its reputation going to be enhanced or
damaged in the eyes of the viewer by this sorry story? I know my answer to
both questions.


So do I Mike and I am deeply deeply ashamed.

When one gives one's life to the pursuit of professional excellence only to see
cowboys, yes cowboys, make a mockery of it all, it hurts.

Will.
--

" Forget the BBC visit www.metoffice.gov.uk for UK weather information "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www: http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk

DISCLAIMER - All views and opinions expressed by myself are personal
and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 28 May 2005 09:43:23 +0100, "Will Hand"
wrote:

When one gives one's life to the pursuit of professional excellence only to see
cowboys, yes cowboys, make a mockery of it all, it hurts.

I worked for the BBC for twenty-eight years and after a while the pain
is replaced by a sort of irritating anger and sadness. It still
doesn't help, though.

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
Web cam and weather:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co....her/kabcam.htm
Some walks and treks:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/walks/index.html

In article , Norman Lynagh writes:
In message , Will Hand
writes

================================================ ====================
This posting expresses the personal view and opinions of the author.
Something which everyone on this planet should be able to do.
================================================ ====================

The professional BBC weather shows some cracking satellite pictures, look
closely at this one...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweath...e.shtml#no_url


Ever since the new graphics were introduced these satellite charts have
had the imagery displaced about 150 miles north of where it should be.
It's a constant error. The satellite imagery never matches up with the
radar imagery.

Parallax error from geostationary view, projected onto image frame and
rotated forward into a map projection (ie no correction for difference
in altitude between surface and cloud, during the forward rotation)?


No Cheers,

keith




---
Iraq: 6.5 thousand million pounds, 80 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:15:15 +0000 (UTC), Keith Dancey wrote in


http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweath...e.shtml#no_url

Ever since the new graphics were introduced these satellite charts have
had the imagery displaced about 150 miles north of where it should be.
It's a constant error. The satellite imagery never matches up with the
radar imagery.

Parallax error from geostationary view, projected onto image frame and
rotated forward into a map projection (ie no correction for difference
in altitude between surface and cloud, during the forward rotation)?

It's still like it tonight. They seem to be using two different
projections, one for the cloud and the other for the land. Then they
superimpose the cloud onto the land and the mismatch is seen - or is that
what you are saying:-) ? Even if they move the "cloud" to match the land
it still leaves a question - of the grey area, just what is real cloud and
what is an artifact of the system?

I'm still bemused by these words at the top

"These satellite charts show the image you can see from space, so are only
available during the day between 1100 and 1600" :-(

--
Mike 55.13°N 6.69°W Coleraine posted to uk.sci.weather 31/05/2005 20:17:46 UTC

In article , Mike Tullett writes:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:15:15 +0000 (UTC), Keith Dancey wrote in


http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweath...e.shtml#no_url

Ever since the new graphics were introduced these satellite charts have
had the imagery displaced about 150 miles north of where it should be.
It's a constant error. The satellite imagery never matches up with the
radar imagery.

Parallax error from geostationary view, projected onto image frame and
rotated forward into a map projection (ie no correction for difference
in altitude between surface and cloud, during the forward rotation)?

It's still like it tonight. They seem to be using two different
projections, one for the cloud and the other for the land. Then they
superimpose the cloud onto the land and the mismatch is seen - or is that
what you are saying:-) ?


What I *think* may be happening, to cause this constant displacement, is that
the BBC are taking satellite visible images (which will show a parallax error
between cloud and land from the geostationary POV) and then rotating the
whole image forward (pitch rotation about the z-axis of around 70 degrees)
as if the entire image lay in a single plane, in order to *attempt* to
display the image as seen from directly above.

The BBC have no scientific or mathematical credentials, and such a manipulation
of the original image will cause two gross errors: it will distort the shape
of the image because no account is taken of the curvature of the Earth and of
perspective, and it will show a constant displacement of the cloud with respect
to the surface because they have no altitude information with which to correct
the original parallax error?


Maybe that also explains why the "new-new" BBC weather maps - with an apparent
view from above - *appears* to distort Scotland. If they are simply applying a rotation to the perspective view (obtained from a geostationary POV) without
correcting for curvature of the Earth or for perspective, then the resulting
image will be distorted from reality.

(I say "*appears* to distort Scotland" because I have not yet looked at the
new projection to judge whether I think Scotland is distorted, but have read
such comments here)


It is fair to say that the UKMO would/should NEVER perform such an abomination to
original data because they employ scientists, and would report their methods.



...Even if they move the "cloud" to match the land
it still leaves a question - of the grey area, just what is real cloud and
what is an artifact of the system?

Not sure I follow this... but the BBC ought to publish its methods!



I'm still bemused by these words at the top

"These satellite charts show the image you can see from space, so are only
available during the day between 1100 and 1600" :-(


We are left speculating (again): maybe their data capture, followed by
data manipulation, limits the availability of *visible* images even beyond the
normal limits of seasonal daylight?


Cheers,

keith



---
Iraq: 6.5 thousand million pounds, 80 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...