Weather Banter - View Single Post

Will Hand · November 9th 05, 05:04 PM posted to uk.sci.weather

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , Graham P Davis
writes:
Keith Dancey wrote:

In article , Graham P Davis
writes:
Keith Dancey wrote:

I don't mind if the Met Office is wrong in the prediction because
everything I have purchased will either get used, or is useful to have
around anyway. But I think they could and should have simply been a
little bit clearer in wording how bad they expected conditions might
get.

I fail to see what more they could have done to make it clearer.

Then you *haven't* read the postings...

I have, but perhaps I should have used "should" instead of "could" as I
didn't believe that any so-called improvement was necessary. When the media
want to make up a story it doesn't matter how careful you are about what
you say they'll still turn it on its head.

The Met Office did give an indication as to how bad conditions might get by
simply saying they expected the winter to be colder than average and the
coldest since 1995/6. If the media decide to interpret this as meaning the
coldest for 40 years - not 10 - and change "colder than average" to
"severe" or "harsh" then I still don't see how the Met Office can be
blamed.

May I gently remind you that several people in this thread were confused about
*which* average the Met Office was referring. They are weather enthusiasts,
and if they were confused should we not expect the general media to also get
confused? (The media did other things as well, which went way beyond
confusion).

I merely suggest that when addressing "the Public", about matters of high
interest, attention is taken of possible misinterpretation of phrases. I
don't think the Met Office is to be blamed, as such, but to think about
how best to express themselves. It is all about the "Public Understanding of
Science"; be clear, and be especially clear about uncertainties.

I've understood what terms such as "colder than average" and "normal" meant
in terms of how the temperature felt since I was a child so I don't see why
the press - or the man on the Clapham Omnibus - shouldn't be expected to
have at least the same level of comprehension as a child.

The idea that there should have been a firmer definition of the depth of
cold expected is OK if that was known.

I have to assume it was known, within the probabilities, because both an
upper limit (below 30-year average) and a lower limit (coldest since 1995/6)
was expressed. They could so easily have put numbers (and accompanying
probabilities) to that, to emphasise the limits if the expected range.

... Did the forecast produce temperature
expectations in quintiles or terciles?

If you attend the "Winter Weather Briefing Event" - at the RI - you will
(probably) find out;-)

I would love to be there (for the "science behind the forecast" and "this
winter's forecast and potential regional variations" bits), but I'm not paying
that sort of money...

I could also, perhaps, then ponder Will's dark "motives";-)

If you held a big event attracting a lot of wealthy, influential and "important"
people what would *you* want to get out of it?

Will.
--