On Jun 28, 2:46*pm, Richard Dixon wrote:
On 28 June, 14:03, Dawlish wrote:

Outcomes Richard. Outcomes. Funny how you never read the posts where I
defend the MetO and prasie the forecasters

No - I didn't see them.

Funny also how you don't believe in outcomes as a method of judging
the accuracy of forecasts and would rather attack the questioner, than
agree with the comments about the lack of general accuracy in many of
these "severe" weather warnings.

Because I realise your view of "outcomes" is far, far different from
mine in weather forecasting. Yesterday there were scattered severe
thunderstorms. Apart from the Kent convergence line cock-up (that I
pointed to in another thread) that led to an amended warning, they did
a pretty good job. In your "outcome" book, they didn't as it was just
a wishy-washy broad warning. We have two entirely different points of
view.

Yesterday's wide area "be prepared"
warning was another example of many people being warned.......then
nothing happens for them, but only happens for a few.

Which is down to the basic difficult of forecasting the situation
which I get the impression you fail to grasp. Convective storms were
forecast to be isolated events yesterday, the MO didn't have a full
grasp on where they were to form so what do you do? Issue nothing? No,
you issue warnings for where thunderstorms could happen
(unfortunately, the Kent example evaded their model).

Maybe you'd like to note today's severe weather warning which states
"Slow moving thunderstorms will develop this afternoon giving
torrential downpours and hail, although some places will miss them and
stay dry. However, in areas affected, 20-40mm of rain is likely in 3
hours or less". That's pretty clear in saying we've got some showers
around, we're not quite sure where exactly they're going to fall, but
you could catch one, and it could be pretty nasty. It's called
"dumbing down" if you like and trying to get the uncertainty across to
the general public.

FWIW and I'll repeat for your benefit,
I don't think it is the fault
of the MetO at all.
I think the difficulties lie in exaggerated public
expectation, combined with forecasting at the limits of what is
possible, in terms of location, intensity and duration of the rainfall
(or snowfall, in the very poorly forecast and very localised devon
event in February; or the very local and again poorly forecast St Just
event; or the very local and again poorly forecast Ottery St. Mary
event; or the less local, but very poorly forecast and expensive for
many local communities, non-event over the Spring Bank holiday - and
they are just recent SW events this year which were poorly forecast at
12-36 hours notice).

Take a breath, man! Semi-colon overload! I think "exaggerated public
expectation" is probably where you're right here, and are probably the
champion of the movement.

Now Richard; I understand that conundrum. Falling back on defensive
posts like the last one of yours really doesn't help. An open
assessment of the state of forecasting of convective events would be a
better standpoint.

In your humble opinion, of course. Do you really think you local
butcher wants to know about the state of forecasting convective
events? I would say that probably at most 1% of the population is
interested in this. Given your keenness, maybe you could start a
career in research - having come from that area, it's quite rewarding
- and helps you to understand the demands, time and effort of other
involved in forecasting research. Just ask Will Hand..

However, the
achievement of good outcomes at 12-36 hoursand not just for the areas
on which the rain fell - not difficult to get a result on that one
when the majority of England was highlighted as a risk zone, whereas
heavy rain fell in a very small part of that area yesterday, judging
by reports - is the difficult part.

This is where I give up with you - you're expecting them to forecast
accurately everywhere that's going to get wet. As before, I refer you
to the dictionary definition of warning: "An intimation, threat, or
sign of impending danger". There was a *threat* of storms throughout
England and Wales yesterday that the forecasting models were not able
to suggest locations for as it can be such a random process. Given
this threat, but no guidance of where they could be, would you want
them to stay quiet?

Richard

It's the same pitch from you Richard. There were so many areas in
which storms were forecast yesterday and didn't happen. You admit, in
one sentence "Which is down to the basic difficult of forecasting the
situation which I get the impression you fail to grasp. Convective
storms were forecast to be isolated events yesterday, the MO didn't
have a full
grasp on where they were to form so what do you do? Issue nothing? No,
you issue warnings for where thunderstorms could happen
(unfortunately, the Kent example evaded their model)."

After saying in the previous; "Because I realise your view of
"outcomes" is far, far different from mine in weather forecasting.
Yesterday there were scattered severe thunderstorms. Apart from the
Kent convergence line cock-up (that I pointed to in another thread)
that led to an amended warning, they did a pretty good job. In your
"outcome" book, they didn't as it was just a wishy-washy broad
warning. We have two entirely different points of view.

I understand well the difficulties of forecasting in this situation.
At 12-36 hours it is impossible to forecast accurately on the 3
perameters I've mentioned and you have studiously ignored. Why not
admit to that instead of trying to defend such poor outcomes? It would
be so good if the MetO did not "dumb down" the situation and treated
it's public, on this particular (note, particular) part of its site to
a lot more honesty. Why not say, outright "We know the difficulties of
forecasting this difficult situation, but we've produced the best
forecast we can. Some of you will get showers, some won't"? Then
explain in some detail why forecasting this kind of situation is so
difficult.

My semi colons separated (accurately - you can't have read Keats, or
Virginia Wolfe *)) ) 4 different, recent examples from just the SW
where 12-36 hour "flash" warnings were not correct (could any of those
4, well known and well discussed examples have been good forecasts, by
any outcome means that you could conjure from your "different"
viewpoint?) From the point of view of the general public living in
those areas, or stuck in the snow on the A380, or A30 on that February
night, or were flooded out, or died in flash floods - and that's the
viewpoint that actually counts - they were not correct and the pretty
extreme outcomes were not as predicted in any of the "flash" warnings,
only 12 hours in advance.