 |
|
| uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#31
November 9th 05, 08:59 AM
posted to uk.sci.weather
|
|||
|
|||
Winter Forecast Clarification
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. 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. Did the forecast produce temperature expectations in quintiles or terciles? Graham Davis Bracknell |
|
#33
November 9th 05, 05:04 PM
posted to uk.sci.weather
|
|||
|
|||
|
Winter Forecast Clarification
"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. -- |
|
#34
November 10th 05, 10:00 AM
posted to uk.sci.weather
|
|||
|
|||
|
Winter Forecast Clarification
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Clarification of wind direction. | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
| Winter 1947 website-memories of a real winter | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
| Winter Outlook Update: Winter Weather Still Promising Much Variablity | Latest News | |||
| Summer forecasts for Winter Or Winter forecasts for Summer? Either or None? Help? | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
| Grenzschichtbewoelkung .. clarification? | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Linear Mode
