Just out of curiosity, is it at all possible that the situation could have
been the other way around. i.e, no warnings and a forecast of calm
conditions but when it comes to the event, damaging storm force winds? I
had thought that the MO had learned their lesson from the billions of pounds
worth of damage caused in 1987. From recent events, it looks like things
are no better now than they were back then.

I just hope someone from the MO has the guts to stand up and admit
catastrophic failure.

Shaun Pudwell.

"Shaun Pudwell" wrote in message
...
The other distinct problem is the fact that the GFS model was spot on,
even
a full 24 hours out. During the 1987 storm, I am sure some of the other
models was predicting Hurricane force winds for the SE. Again the MO
model
failed. They may have a new super computer, but have they really updated
their software? It looks like a variation of the same model with the same
weaknesses as before. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

That's two major BAD forecasts so far from the MO this winter. First we
didn't get the xx cm of snow and blizzards a few weeks ago and now no
wind,
and I mean ( NO WIND ). Its absolutely dead calm outside!

Shaun Pudwell.


"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...

"Shaun Pudwell" wrote in message
...
Being a computer programmer by trade, I can say with confidence "Crap
In,
Crap Out". In otherwords, no matter how good the model, if you put in
an
inadequate amount of information or the wrong type of information for
that
matter, the resulting forecast will always be less than perfect.

... I think you summed it up quite well. The problem was always going to
be initialising the models correctly - get the starting point wrong and
the outcome will drift wildly in these particular situations,
particularly as the models become ever more sophisticated - a slight
nudge T+0 to T+2 could lead to major deviations at T+18. The best that
could be done in this situation (and I feel that, given the
uncertainties, the forecasters did do a creditable job), is to outline
the possibilities and let people judge.

Where I *do* have problems is the "up to xxx" terminology .. we've
talked about this before. I don't know where this crept in, but it
really isn't good enough to say 'up to 70 mph', or 'up to 40mm' or 'up
to 5 cm' etc. This is where we (professionals) are being let down by
dissemination system: I'm not sure where the 'blame' lies, but we really
have to tighten up on presentation.

Martin.