Just watched the BBC weather following the news and from the charts it would
appears the rain tomorrow looks very patchy and light and mainly in the
north, yesterday we were promised heavy rain, back to the hosepipe.


Chris
Kempston, Bedford

--

"Col" wrote in message
...

"danny" wrote in message
...


Who knows, it might even help the public understand the difficulties
of weather forecasting?

Col

You got it! At last someone in this newsgroup can accept *at the moment*
you
*cannot* rely on 1-2 day forecast to plan our lives ... e.g. go for a
walk
tommorow or whatever , instead of bumlicking the METO.
They are just not accurate enough... maybe if they ploughed less money
into
Global Warming systems, and back to basics?

Well to be fair you can *usually* rely on 1-2 day forecasts.
We have come a long way from 30 years ago when the 2 day forecasts
were about as accurate as the 5 day forecasts are today.

as someone who tends to keep an eye on the forecasts because the weather is
important I do think they are better than they were.
As a rule of thumb, for todays forecast I would expect it to be right but
with evens perhaps turning up an hour later or early, tomorrows forecast
should be a decent guide.
Interestingly enough the forecast the BBC do on a Sunday about noon tends to
be useful because they explain the trends, which means that during the week
you can see why things are starting to differ from the forecast and make
your judgements accordingly.

Jim Webster

"danny" wrote in message
...
tommorow or whatever , instead of bumlicking the METO.

Danny,

It's a sad fact that this NG does bumlick the UKMO, some contributors even
have chapped lips because of it ;-)

You may like to know that the (what appears to be) correct scenario (a bog
standard trough) was forecasted correctly earlier this week by two models,
CMC and NOGAPS. GFS, JMA and UKMO all got the intensity of the secondary low
wrong... the UKMO model even missed the further secondary low which runs
into Northern France...

A

"Andrew Bond" wrote in message
...

"danny" wrote in message
...
tommorow or whatever , instead of bumlicking the METO.

Danny,

It's a sad fact that this NG does bumlick the UKMO, some contributors even
have chapped lips because of it ;-)

You really have a chip on your shoulder about this don't you?
Get over it!
How can you expect to be taken seriously as a forecaster when you
behave like this? It's pathetic, it really is.

You may like to know that the (what appears to be) correct scenario (a bog
standard trough) was forecasted correctly earlier this week by two models,
CMC and NOGAPS. GFS, JMA and UKMO all got the intensity of the secondary low
wrong... the UKMO model even missed the further secondary low which runs
into Northern France...

So 2 models got it right and 3 (including the MO) got it wrong.
Big deal, so what does that prove apart from the fact that it was a difficult
sceanario that some models would get right and others wrong?

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk

"Mike Tullett" wrote in message
...

I see you site is *currently* forecasting a mean wind of 32.1 mph for the
City of Derry for 0900 tomorrow - only 9 hours away. I'm amazed at your
resolution to 0.1mph, but have a feeling your error will be of the order
of
15-20 mph. I suppose you might have a .1 in the speed - well a 10% chance
- though no sensible forecaster would use such a resolution.

Mike,

I'm currently verifying forecasts/actual against last nights GFS for Derry,
you seem to have picked the one location which I am not sure whether the
data is correct for. A visitor yesterday complained that the forecast was
underestimating the actual wind speed so I had to do something about this to
verifiy the forecasts.

If the compaint is not upheld then the dataset will return to the original
configuration.... I'll email you when I know the results at 6pm tomorrow.

Yet you rubbish the GFS model in the above quoted paragraph - slight
contradiction?

Huh? The GFS is the mutts nutts with regards to emprical forecasts... it got
a day wrong, as Metcheck did... big deal... I was simply offering a balanced
view.

A

"Andrew Bond" wrote in message
...

Huh? The GFS is the mutts nutts with regards to emprical forecasts... it
got

That's empirical (before HRH Will corrects me)..... whadda ****!

A

================================================== ==================
This posting expresses the personal view and opinions of the author.
Something which everyone on this planet should be able to do.
================================================== ==================

Andrew,

Sadly you missed the point of Mike Tullett's post that to forecast to a
precision of 0.1 mph for wind speed (note not 'accuracy') (those two are very
different things),is both ludicrous and mis-leading. We cannot even measure wind
speed to that accuracy, it would vary over a matter of yards by 0.1 mph and that
is notwithstanding the accuracy of models including the MetO and GFS. You do a
similar thing with temperatures - it is all meaningless I'm afraid.

BTW the GFS is a numerical model not an empirical rule-based model.
I think the word you are looking for is "objective" .

Will.
--

" Love begins when judgement ceases "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www: http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk

DISCLAIMER - All views and opinions expressed by myself are personal
and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Bond wrote in message ...

"Andrew Bond" wrote in message
...

Huh? The GFS is the mutts nutts with regards to emprical forecasts... it
got

That's empirical (before HRH Will corrects me)..... whadda ****!

A

In article ,
Mike Tullett writes:
[Re Metcheck]
I see you site is *currently* forecasting a mean wind of 32.1 mph for
the City of Derry for 0900 tomorrow - only 9 hours away. I'm amazed at
your resolution to 0.1mph, but have a feeling your error will be of the
order of 15-20 mph. I suppose you might have a .1 in the speed - well
a 10% chance - though no sensible forecaster would use such a
resolution.

I imagine that the 0.1 resulted from conversion from either knots or kph
used in the original. However it would certainly be much more sensible
to round to the nearest whole number - or even to the nearest 5mph.
--
John Hall "Never play cards with a man called Doc.
Never eat at a place called Mom's.
Never sleep with a woman whose troubles
are worse than your own." Nelson Algren

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 23:35:24 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Bond in
wrote:

I see you site is *currently* forecasting a mean wind of 32.1 mph for the
City of Derry for 0900 tomorrow - only 9 hours away. I'm amazed at your
resolution to 0.1mph, but have a feeling your error will be of the order
of
15-20 mph. I suppose you might have a .1 in the speed - well a 10% chance
- though no sensible forecaster would use such a resolution.


I'm currently verifying forecasts/actual against last nights GFS for Derry,
snip

It turns out the wind is currently (as of 0950 BST) all of 9mph - so even
my guess of the error was an underestimate.

If the compaint is not upheld then the dataset will return to the original
configuration.... I'll email you when I know the results at 6pm tomorrow.

Please respond via this newsgroup and not by email.

Yet you rubbish the GFS model in the above quoted paragraph - slight
contradiction?

Huh? The GFS is the mutts nutts with regards to emprical forecasts... it got
a day wrong, as Metcheck did... big deal... I was simply offering a balanced
view.

I didn't find your opening reference to contributors to this NG and the MO
exactly "balanced" in MID

I'm no apologist for the MO and I find quite a few aspects of the MO not to
my liking - the commercially driven nature of its working, and sometimes
the media presentation of forecasts, but I am *convinced* the science done
in the background (NWP - the pre-cursor to the forecast, as well as
research on climate change) is second to none.

--
Mike posted to uk.sci.weather 07/09/2003 09:33:07 UTC
Coleraine
Seeking information about the Internet and the way it works? - Subscribe to
news:uk.net.beginners

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 09:42:34 +0100, "Will"
wrote:

Andrew before slagging off the MetO you may wish to consider this which was on
your site a few days ago :

" Fabian UK Bound
Added [Wednesday September 03 2003 : 1:43:00 PM]
Hurricane Fabian is causing a bit of a stir for the latest computer models which
now show the storm racing across the Atlantic and slamming into the UK midweek
next week.
[Cape Verde bit snipped]

A very dramatic, piece of sensationalism to say the least. When it became
obvious to you that Fabian would come nowhere near the UK that paragraph was
simply removed and nobody would have even known it had been there. Yes, of
course, being accountable to nobody as an enthusiastic amateur you are at total
liberty to do just that.

For me, that's the real problem. Others including some Professionals
can be over-enthusiastic too, and sometimes get it badly wrong, but if
they are open to scrutiny I have no problem with that. One such IMO is
Joe *******i of Accuweather and last Wednesday, he said this:

"But the big news next week may be Fabian. The storm will lash Bermuda
with hurricane conditions Friday, then head northeast. It will pass
south of Iceland Monday then take aim at northwest Europe Tuesday and
Wednesday."

Similarly wrong, albeit less sensationalistic than Andrew's comments.
The big difference is that Joe's original speculative comments are
still readily accessible on the website:
http://wwwa.accuweather.com/adcbin/p...?type=jbeurope
and hence open to scrutiny after the event (or non-event).

The MetO, however, are accountable to lots of
organisations not least the national audit Office.
Yes I know the MetO are guilty of not apologising/explaining enough and I agree
with Col that they should do it more,

I agree; I'd also like to see an archive on the website of all public
forecasts issued.

but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Quite.

--
Dave