On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:02:46 UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 12:30:43 UTC, wrote:
On 09/01/2017 17:17, Eskimo Will wrote:
On 08/01/2017 22:02, John Hall wrote:
In message , Bernard Burton
writes
Never mind the medium range, today's forecasts in BBC R4 have been
pretty useless. Unless my hearing is faulty, the only mention of rain
on the 7.55 forecast was some drizzle over Wales. There was already
some precipitation in the SE showing on the radar then, and here we
had intrermittent slight drizzle all night, and this developed into
over an hour of moderate rain and drizzle here, and appeared to be
quite widespread on the radar. The models obviously missed this
development, and a lack of a decent covering of 'real' obs and a
dearth of radio soundings makes this type blunder only to be expected.
I noticed too, that the EGLL TAF has almost as many amends as there
were METARS!. On the 1255 forecast I heard a lot about how cold it
would be later in the week, but no mention or apology for the
downright duff forecasts for today.

The forecast for SE England currently shown on the Met Office website,
and time-stamped at 13:19 says:

This Evening and Tonight:
Often overcast skies tonight with mist and patches of fog. Light winds
at first will freshen later. It should be a dry night for most, but with
a few spots of drizzle in the wind. Minimum Temperature 5 °C.

I happened to be visiting a friend in SE London today, and there was
moderate rain there from at least 18:30 to 19:00. So it seems that
nobody at the Met Office noticed that their forecast was wrong till
later than 13:19, and even then they didn't bother to issue an updated
forecast. I know it's Sunday, and perhaps there aren't mainly people on
duty, but it's not very impressive.

TBH I don't think many care anymore. Morale is still rock-bottom and I
know of several who want to give up operational meteorology as the plan
is still full automation (apart from warnings) by 2020.

Another point is that there is now no experience left in UKMO. I mean
real experience of 30 years+ in synoptic met. relating weather to charts
etc. If the model says no then the forecasters have little to draw upon
to go against it. An example is showers. Not many people know that the
high res models do not advect showers, they are formed in situ at each
gridpoint. That is why windward coasts get warnings and not places
downwind. Of course if the forecasters had a lot of experience of
different situations then they could correct that. The next 10 years may
see very poor forecasting indeed until models improve and start to take
over the experience of relating weather to synoptics. But then again the
scientists to do this automation work are often not experienced either,
oh dear! And no I'm not going back, I love not working after getting
voluntary redundancy (and a big pay off) in 2012.

Oh dear, more smugness. Look at me, see how much I've been paid off at the taxpayers expense. Best not mention that gilt-edged pension, eh?

Col

The 2012 redundancies were a two sided cost saving method for the Met Office and hence the taxpayer. It firstly enabled the final demise of the Observers (of all ages) without trying to find them new jobs. The Observer roles were then spliced with the incumbent forecasters and some refreshed automation (MMS Observing network) (The forecasters did not get any additional pay for absorbing this partial role into their workload BTW).

The other saving was to release older more experience forecasters and recruit more fresh young graduates at a lower payscale (and with much reduced pension rights (working til at least 65-70) and massively higher contribution rates...now much like any private pension with no final salary involved ....6 to 8% average contribution rates).

The training budget for forecasters was effectively cut by significantly simplifying the forecasting course (making it model centric) and shifting the final training responsibility out to the on-site managers, who are now also training assessors (Again no pay increase for the extra role absorption).

The opportunity was also there to change the demographic, for the past 8 to 10 years, most of the graduates have been female, such that now a male forecaster over 35 years old is much more scarce, and most are under 30 years old!

So as you can see, the taxpayer's money has been saved, as most of those earlier redundancies involved people who were already approaching retirement or who were in the base level (low paid) Observer roles. Along with role merging and IT/model efficiencies, the cost of staff and pensions is greatly reduced in real terms.

Hope this helps