Writing as a mere layman ,apart from the ridiculous about turnabouts from
the Met Office what suprises me most is the reliance on the models shown by
the 'experts' on this group.They are pored over and dissected every six
hours with renewed forecasts being issued daily,most of which are wrong
,unless of course we are in a mobile Westerly where models are fairly
irrelevant anyway
It is likely the cost of all this modelling is enormous (although it does
keep a lot of people off the unemployment lists I suppose),so my question is
,what is the point of this slavish reliance on computer models ?, one
forecast issued every 24 hours would more than suffice,and reduce the
chances of getting it wrong by 75% .
By the way,is there any of you Met Office employed guys out there ready to
offer an explanation as to why the long forecasts went so bellyup this
weekend....?

RonB

PS Unless there a satisfactory reply within the next 24 hours I shall set
Lawrence upon you !

OK Will your explanation has preceded my little rant ,(you can stand down
Lawrence)

RonB
"ronaldbutton" wrote in message
...
Writing as a mere layman ,apart from the ridiculous about turnabouts from
the Met Office what suprises me most is the reliance on the models shown
by the 'experts' on this group.They are pored over and dissected every six
hours with renewed forecasts being issued daily,most of which are wrong
,unless of course we are in a mobile Westerly where models are fairly
irrelevant anyway
It is likely the cost of all this modelling is enormous (although it does
keep a lot of people off the unemployment lists I suppose),so my question
is ,what is the point of this slavish reliance on computer models ?, one
forecast issued every 24 hours would more than suffice,and reduce the
chances of getting it wrong by 75% .
By the way,is there any of you Met Office employed guys out there ready to
offer an explanation as to why the long forecasts went so bellyup this
weekend....?

RonB

PS Unless there a satisfactory reply within the next 24 hours I shall set
Lawrence upon you !

On 31 Jan, 17:25, "ronaldbutton" wrote:
Writing as a mere layman ,apart from the ridiculous about turnabouts from
the Met Office what suprises me most is the reliance on the models shown by
the 'experts' on this group.They are pored over and dissected every six
hours with renewed forecasts being issued daily,most of which are wrong
,unless of course we are in a mobile Westerly where models are fairly
irrelevant anyway
It is likely the cost of all this modelling is enormous (although it does
keep a lot of people off the unemployment lists I suppose),so my question is
,what is the point of this slavish reliance on computer models ?, one
forecast issued every 24 hours would more than suffice,and reduce the
chances of getting it wrong by 75% .
By the way,is there any of you Met Office employed guys out there ready to
offer an explanation as to why the long *forecasts went so bellyup this
weekend....?

RonB

PS Unless there a satisfactory reply within the next 24 hours I shall set
Lawrence upon you !

Have you and Lawrence ever been seen together in the same room, Ron?

In article ,
ronaldbutton writes:
Writing as a mere layman ,apart from the ridiculous about turnabouts from
the Met Office

I've thought that the Met Offices 6-15 day forecast has been fairly
consistent for the last few days, though there's likely to be a big
tuirnabout in the one issued tomorrow. But what else can they do when
the weather "changes its mind"? They can't stick with a forecast once
they realise that it is no longer likely to be correct.

what suprises me most is the reliance on the models shown by
the 'experts' on this group.They are pored over and dissected every six
hours with renewed forecasts being issued daily,most of which are wrong
,unless of course we are in a mobile Westerly where models are fairly
irrelevant anyway

I'm certainly no expert, but I find dissecting the models great fun,
which is why I do it. And if you want to forecast, then there's no
alternative to the models, unless you believe in WeatherLawyer's
earthquakes. Of course, the Met Office has one advantage over us, in
that they get to see a lot of data from the ECMWF and their own model
that we amateurs never get to see. (Whereas the GFS seems to go in for
full disclosure.)

It is likely the cost of all this modelling is enormous (although it does
keep a lot of people off the unemployment lists I suppose),

They do produce surprisingly accurate forecasts out to 5-6 days for most
of the time. It's when you try to go beyond that, that it tends to go
pear-shaped. But the marginal extra cost of running the models beyond
5-6 days must be small, and it does quite often produce useful guidance.

so my question is
,what is the point of this slavish reliance on computer models ?, one
forecast issued every 24 hours would more than suffice,and reduce the
chances of getting it wrong by 75% .

Perhaps once every 6 hours, as the GFS does, is a bit excessive. But
things can change a lot in 24 hours, so I think that once every 12 hours
is justifiable.

By the way,is there any of you Met Office employed guys out there ready to
offer an explanation as to why the long forecasts went so bellyup this
weekend....?

RonB

PS Unless there a satisfactory reply within the next 24 hours I shall set
Lawrence upon you !




--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Jan 31, 6:06*pm, John Hall wrote:
In article ,

*ronaldbutton writes:
Writing as a mere layman ,apart from the ridiculous about turnabouts from
the Met Office

I've thought that the Met Offices 6-15 day forecast has been fairly
consistent for the last few days, though there's likely to be a big
tuirnabout in the one issued tomorrow. But what else can they do when
the weather "changes its mind"? They can't stick with a forecast once
they realise that it is no longer likely to be correct.

what suprises me most is the reliance on the models shown by
the 'experts' on this group.They are pored over and dissected every six
hours with renewed forecasts being issued daily,most of which are wrong
,unless of course we are in a mobile Westerly where models are fairly
irrelevant anyway

I'm certainly no expert, but I find dissecting the models great fun,
which is why I do it. And if you want to forecast, then there's no
alternative to the models, unless you believe in WeatherLawyer's
earthquakes. Of course, the Met Office has one advantage over us, in
that they get to see a lot of data from the ECMWF and their own model
that we amateurs never get to see. (Whereas the GFS seems to go in for
full disclosure.)

It is likely the cost of all this modelling is enormous (although it does
keep a lot of people off the unemployment lists I suppose),

They do produce surprisingly accurate forecasts out to 5-6 days for most
of the time. It's when you try to go beyond that, that it tends to go
pear-shaped. But the marginal extra cost of running the models beyond
5-6 days must be small, and it does quite often produce useful guidance.

so my question is
,what is the point of this slavish reliance on computer models ?, one
forecast issued every 24 hours would more than suffice,and reduce the
chances of getting it wrong by 75% .

Perhaps once every 6 hours, as the GFS does, is a bit excessive. But
things can change a lot in 24 hours, so I think that once every 12 hours
is justifiable.

By the way,is there any of you Met Office employed guys out there ready to
offer an explanation as to why the long *forecasts went so bellyup this
weekend....?

RonB

PS Unless there a satisfactory reply within the next 24 hours I shall set
Lawrence upon you !


--
John Hall
* * * * * *"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
* * * * * * from coughing."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

Looking at model output every six hours in order to get a better idea
of what might happen beyond 5 or 6 days has been shown to be
pointless.
Doing this is verging on suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder.
The six hourly model runs are there to try to put a better feel of how
things might be up to five days ahead.
Beyond that once a day is quite sufficient. Slavishly looking every
six hours at what might happen in 10 days time shows a lack of
understanding of how these models are constructed.

Len Wood
Wembury, SW Devon

snip

Len Wood wrote:


Looking at model output every six hours in order to get a better idea
of what might happen beyond 5 or 6 days has been shown to be
pointless.
Doing this is verging on suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder.
The six hourly model runs are there to try to put a better feel of how
things might be up to five days ahead.
Beyond that once a day is quite sufficient. Slavishly looking every
six hours at what might happen in 10 days time shows a lack of
understanding of how these models are constructed.

Len Wood
Wembury, SW Devon


Well said that man! I think it is often forgotten that NWP is a tool (and a
very imperfect tool) intended to be used by experienced meteorologists. It's
not something that's intended to give the "right" answer to Joe Public.
Nevertheless, it's a bit of harmless fun for enthusiasts on here to try to pick
their way out to T+384 every 6 hours. Nobody really suffers any loss, except
perhaps to their ego :-) What I find less acceptable is that raw numerical
model output is regularly sold to gullible end users without any sort of
"health warning" and is also presented to Joe Public as a "forecast". That is
indefensible IMHO.


--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

On Jan 31, 7:43*pm, Len Wood wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:06*pm, John Hall wrote:





In article ,

*ronaldbutton writes:
Writing as a mere layman ,apart from the ridiculous about turnabouts from
the Met Office

I've thought that the Met Offices 6-15 day forecast has been fairly
consistent for the last few days, though there's likely to be a big
tuirnabout in the one issued tomorrow. But what else can they do when
the weather "changes its mind"? They can't stick with a forecast once
they realise that it is no longer likely to be correct.

what suprises me most is the reliance on the models shown by
the 'experts' on this group.They are pored over and dissected every six
hours with renewed forecasts being issued daily,most of which are wrong
,unless of course we are in a mobile Westerly where models are fairly
irrelevant anyway

I'm certainly no expert, but I find dissecting the models great fun,
which is why I do it. And if you want to forecast, then there's no
alternative to the models, unless you believe in WeatherLawyer's
earthquakes. Of course, the Met Office has one advantage over us, in
that they get to see a lot of data from the ECMWF and their own model
that we amateurs never get to see. (Whereas the GFS seems to go in for
full disclosure.)

It is likely the cost of all this modelling is enormous (although it does
keep a lot of people off the unemployment lists I suppose),

They do produce surprisingly accurate forecasts out to 5-6 days for most
of the time. It's when you try to go beyond that, that it tends to go
pear-shaped. But the marginal extra cost of running the models beyond
5-6 days must be small, and it does quite often produce useful guidance..

so my question is
,what is the point of this slavish reliance on computer models ?, one
forecast issued every 24 hours would more than suffice,and reduce the
chances of getting it wrong by 75% .

Perhaps once every 6 hours, as the GFS does, is a bit excessive. But
things can change a lot in 24 hours, so I think that once every 12 hours
is justifiable.

By the way,is there any of you Met Office employed guys out there ready to
offer an explanation as to why the long *forecasts went so bellyup this
weekend....?

RonB

PS Unless there a satisfactory reply within the next 24 hours I shall set
Lawrence upon you !


--
John Hall
* * * * * *"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
* * * * * * from coughing."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

Looking at model output every six hours in order to get a better idea
of what might happen beyond 5 or 6 days has been shown to be
pointless.
Doing this is verging on suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder.
The six hourly model runs are there to try to put a better feel of how
things might be up to five days ahead.
Beyond that once a day is quite sufficient. Slavishly looking every
six hours at what might happen in 10 days time shows a lack of
understanding of how these models are constructed.

Len Wood
Wembury, SW Devon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All sorts of odd statements in there Len that I don't think are backed
by facts!

1. Where have you seen that "Looking at model output every six hours
in order to get a better idea of what might happen beyond 5 or 6 days
has been *shown* to be pointless",

2. Would you point to someone who has come to that conclusion?

3. Why does looking at 6-hourly output in any way show a lack of
understanding of how these models are constructed?

4. Why should looking at the models once a day be quite sufficient?

PS. We do not suffer from OCD. We do not suffer from OCD. We do not
suffer from OCD. We do not suffer from OCD. We do not suffer from
OCD. We do not suffer from OCD. We do not suffer from OCD. We do not
suffer from OCD. We do not suffer from OCD. We do not suffer from OCD.
We do not suffer from OCD. See?

In article ,
Norman writes:
Well said that man! I think it is often forgotten that NWP is a tool (and a
very imperfect tool) intended to be used by experienced meteorologists. It's
not something that's intended to give the "right" answer to Joe Public.
Nevertheless, it's a bit of harmless fun for enthusiasts on here to try to pick
their way out to T+384 every 6 hours. Nobody really suffers any loss, except
perhaps to their ego :-)

Yes, that's my view too.

What I find less acceptable is that raw numerical
model output is regularly sold to gullible end users without any sort of
"health warning" and is also presented to Joe Public as a "forecast". That is
indefensible IMHO.

Indeed.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Jan 31, 8:14*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 31, 7:43*pm, Len Wood wrote:





On Jan 31, 6:06*pm, John Hall wrote:

In article ,

*ronaldbutton writes:
Writing as a mere layman ,apart from the ridiculous about turnabouts from
the Met Office

I've thought that the Met Offices 6-15 day forecast has been fairly
consistent for the last few days, though there's likely to be a big
tuirnabout in the one issued tomorrow. But what else can they do when
the weather "changes its mind"? They can't stick with a forecast once
they realise that it is no longer likely to be correct.

what suprises me most is the reliance on the models shown by
the 'experts' on this group.They are pored over and dissected every six
hours with renewed forecasts being issued daily,most of which are wrong
,unless of course we are in a mobile Westerly where models are fairly
irrelevant anyway

I'm certainly no expert, but I find dissecting the models great fun,
which is why I do it. And if you want to forecast, then there's no
alternative to the models, unless you believe in WeatherLawyer's
earthquakes. Of course, the Met Office has one advantage over us, in
that they get to see a lot of data from the ECMWF and their own model
that we amateurs never get to see. (Whereas the GFS seems to go in for
full disclosure.)

It is likely the cost of all this modelling is enormous (although it does
keep a lot of people off the unemployment lists I suppose),

They do produce surprisingly accurate forecasts out to 5-6 days for most
of the time. It's when you try to go beyond that, that it tends to go
pear-shaped. But the marginal extra cost of running the models beyond
5-6 days must be small, and it does quite often produce useful guidance.

so my question is
,what is the point of this slavish reliance on computer models ?, one
forecast issued every 24 hours would more than suffice,and reduce the
chances of getting it wrong by 75% .

Perhaps once every 6 hours, as the GFS does, is a bit excessive. But
things can change a lot in 24 hours, so I think that once every 12 hours
is justifiable.

By the way,is there any of you Met Office employed guys out there ready to
offer an explanation as to why the long *forecasts went so bellyup this
weekend....?

RonB

PS Unless there a satisfactory reply within the next 24 hours I shall set
Lawrence upon you !


--
John Hall
* * * * * *"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
* * * * * * from coughing."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

Looking at model output every six hours in order to get a better idea
of what might happen beyond 5 or 6 days has been shown to be
pointless.
Doing this is verging on suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder.
The six hourly model runs are there to try to put a better feel of how
things might be up to five days ahead.
Beyond that once a day is quite sufficient. Slavishly looking every
six hours at what might happen in 10 days time shows a lack of
understanding of how these models are constructed.

Len Wood
Wembury, SW Devon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All sorts of odd statements in there Len that I don't think are backed
by facts!

1. Where have you seen that "Looking at model output every six hours
in order to get a better idea of what might happen beyond 5 or 6 days
has been *shown* to be pointless",

2. Would you point to someone who has come to that conclusion?

3. Why does looking at 6-hourly output in any way show a lack of
understanding of how these models are constructed?

4. Why should looking at the models once a day be quite sufficient?

PS. We do not suffer from OCD. *We do not suffer from OCD. *We do not
suffer from OCD. *We do not suffer from OCD. *We do not suffer from
OCD. *We do not suffer from OCD. We do not suffer from OCD. We do not
suffer from OCD. We do not suffer from OCD. We do not suffer from OCD.
We do not suffer from OCD. See?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's only experience Paul, especially looking at the recent scenarios,
(e.g. will the easterlies return or won't they?). There have been
numerous exclamations, OMGs, recently when model output has fluctuated
wildly over the six hour period. The uncertainties involved in
numerical modelling, which I've outlined many times on this ng,
cumulate with time and can be large after 5 or 6 days. So looking
every 6 hours at model output makes no sense.

I like your humour at the end of the post. But note I only said
verging on OCD. I would not be presumptious enough to diagnose it.

Len

"Norman" wrote in message
...

snip

Len Wood wrote:


Looking at model output every six hours in order to get a better idea
of what might happen beyond 5 or 6 days has been shown to be
pointless.
Doing this is verging on suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder.
The six hourly model runs are there to try to put a better feel of how
things might be up to five days ahead.
Beyond that once a day is quite sufficient. Slavishly looking every
six hours at what might happen in 10 days time shows a lack of
understanding of how these models are constructed.

Len Wood
Wembury, SW Devon


Well said that man! I think it is often forgotten that NWP is a tool (and
a
very imperfect tool) intended to be used by experienced meteorologists.
It's
not something that's intended to give the "right" answer to Joe Public.
Nevertheless, it's a bit of harmless fun for enthusiasts on here to try to
pick
their way out to T+384 every 6 hours. Nobody really suffers any loss,
except
perhaps to their ego :-) What I find less acceptable is that raw numerical
model output is regularly sold to gullible end users without any sort of
"health warning" and is also presented to Joe Public as a "forecast". That
is
indefensible IMHO.

You mean like Metcheck, who base their forecasts on the GFS I believe,
and churn out impossibly detailed forecasts right out to 14 days?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl