http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/...t_alltext.html


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"TT" wrote in message
...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/...t_alltext.html

I know nothing :-)

Will
--

On Mar 2, 6:12*pm, "Will Hand" wrote:
"TT" wrote in message

...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/...t_alltext.html

I know nothing :-)

Will
--

Hmmm.. don't much like the sound of the 2nd half of March, which
sounds worryingly like the 2nd half of February, though at least it's
suggesting average sunshine levels rather than dull. What we really
need now is a long, long dry spell to get rid of all this surface
standing water and mucky mire - still, it looks fairly dry out to mid
month.

Nick

and seasonal lrf is gone too.

Will Hand wrote:

"TT" wrote in message
...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/...t_alltext.html

I know nothing :-)

Will
--



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"TT" wrote in message
...
| Will Hand wrote:
|
| "TT" wrote in message
| ...
| http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/...t_alltext.html
|
| I know nothing :-)
|
| Will
| --
|
|
|
| and seasonal lrf is gone too.
|

The Met Office have done what I suggested a couple of weeks ago in a
discussion on seasonal forecasts here.

The seasonal forecast has gone where it belongs - it can now be found under
the "Science" tab, away from the "operational" forecasts.

All we need now is the other suggestion - that a "good until" date be given
to the monthly forecasts, based on the ensemble spread. Often in the last
few weeks it has been much less than 30 days. Once you see the ensembles
predicting surface pressures of anything between 990 hPa and 1030 hPa
depending on which slight "tweak" you use (as is the case for 15 March on
the current "spaghetti" [18Z GFS] for Hampshire on netweather.tv) then the
forecasts can surely not be dependable. Looking at this output, the "good
until" date for the GFS output is 11 March, but that still does not stop the
Met Office issuing a forecast out to the start of April - or is their model
considerably superior to the GFS?

Let's be honest about this - if the computer is saying "don't know", just
WHY are the forecasting authorities having a guess anyway and putting it up
on public websites as an operational forecast? This sort of thing can only
bring the forecasters' art/science into disrepute. Unless there is serious
reason for confidence in the 16-30 day forecast (and the ensembles I can see
suggest that currently there isn't), why put it up? If the Met Office want
to give it a go to see how it works out, all well and good but put it with
the seasonal forecasts in the "experimental" section. Either that, or be up
front about it with a form of words such as "We currently have confidence in
the detail of our forecast until about 11 March. Information after that
date is only an indication of the trend we think most likely."

It's a funny thing, but people respect you more if you are honest with them
rather than if you try to "flannel" them. Why not give it a try?
--
- Yokel -

"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

On Mar 4, 12:15*am, "Yokel" wrote:
"TT" wrote in message

...| Will Hand wrote:

|
| "TT" wrote in message
| ...
| http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/...t_alltext.html
|
| I know nothing :-)
|
| Will
| --
|
|
|
| and seasonal lrf is gone too.
|

The Met Office have done what I suggested a couple of weeks ago in a
discussion on seasonal forecasts here.

The seasonal forecast has gone where it belongs - it can now be found under
the "Science" tab, away from the "operational" forecasts.

All we need now is the other suggestion - that a "good until" date be given
to the monthly forecasts, based on the ensemble spread. *Often in the last
few weeks it has been much less than 30 days. *Once you see the ensembles
predicting surface pressures of anything between 990 hPa and 1030 hPa
depending on which slight "tweak" you use (as is the case for 15 March on
the current "spaghetti" [18Z GFS] for Hampshire on netweather.tv) then the
forecasts can surely not be dependable. *Looking at this output, the "good
until" date for the GFS output is 11 March, but that still does not stop the
Met Office issuing a forecast out to the start of April - or is their model
considerably superior to the GFS?

Let's be honest about this - if the computer is saying "don't know", just
WHY are the forecasting authorities having a guess anyway and putting it up
on public websites as an operational forecast? *This sort of thing can only
bring the forecasters' art/science into disrepute. Unless there is serious
reason for confidence in the 16-30 day forecast (and the ensembles I can see
suggest that currently there isn't), why put it up? *If the Met Office want
to give it a go to see how it works out, all well and good but put it with
the seasonal forecasts in the "experimental" section. *Either that, or be up
front about it with a form of words such as "We currently have confidence in
the detail of our forecast until about 11 March. *Information after that
date is only an indication of the trend we think most likely."

It's a funny thing, but people respect you more if you are honest with them
rather than if you try to "flannel" them. *Why not give it a try?
--
* * * * * * * * - Yokel -

"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

Highly sensible, I agree and I too admit I'm at a loss on this one to
see why the MetO sees the need to produce a 15-30 day forecast when
the outcome success will (and I mean will) be so low.

In addition, they surely can't be using an ensemble analysis to
predict at that distance, when the ensembles already show spaghetti
well before 15 days out? Indeed, it is very rare for an obvious trend
to be interpreted from the ensembles at even 10 days and spaghetti
often forms well before that. I think (and I'm guessing, as I'm at a
loss here) that the prediction is mainly one of extrapolation from the
pattern shown between 10-15 days. that in itself, in my experience,
has a very limited use for forecasting purposes even at that distance.

I've argued for a long time that the MetO should be more open about
the limitations of its forecasts and I agree entirely that people
respect you less if they feel that they are not subject to
explanations of why a forecast says what it does.

Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:15 am, "Yokel" wrote:

I've argued for a long time that the MetO should be more open about
the limitations of its forecasts and I agree entirely that people
respect you less if they feel that they are not subject to
explanations of why a forecast says what it does.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/10209

This monthly forecast at least owns up to the challenges
of forecasting beyond a week.

See the caveat at the bottom of the page.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

"Col" wrote in message
...
| Dawlish wrote:
|
| I've argued for a long time that the MetO should be more open about
| the limitations of its forecasts and I agree entirely that people
| respect you less if they feel that they are not subject to
| explanations of why a forecast says what it does.
|
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/10209
|
| This monthly forecast at least owns up to the challenges
| of forecasting beyond a week.
|
| See the caveat at the bottom of the page.

But that forecast is produced by one of the BBC's own weather experts and is
not the same as the forecast shown on the Met Office site. The Met Office
also update their forecast daily, whilst the BBC one says it is updated at
weekly intervals.

The monthly forecast on the Met Office site also lacks (or did the last time
I looked) the caveat at the end of the BBC's version. If you click on the
"Printable view" link you get the whole month with no division between the
bits which should be reliable (the first two sections) and the bits which
are less reliable / total guesswork (the last two sections).

Many of us on here may know the difference because we are interested or have
specialist knowledge - but the Met Office site is provided for Joe Public to
use.
--
- Yokel -

"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

"Yokel" wrote in message
...

"Col" wrote in message
...
| Dawlish wrote:
|
| I've argued for a long time that the MetO should be more open about
| the limitations of its forecasts and I agree entirely that people
| respect you less if they feel that they are not subject to
| explanations of why a forecast says what it does.
|
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/10209
|
| This monthly forecast at least owns up to the challenges
| of forecasting beyond a week.
|
| See the caveat at the bottom of the page.

But that forecast is produced by one of the BBC's own weather experts and
is
not the same as the forecast shown on the Met Office site. The Met Office
also update their forecast daily, whilst the BBC one says it is updated at
weekly intervals.

Well yes, I know that.
I was merely pointing out a long range forecast that *does* indicate
the challenges of forecasting beyond a week.

The monthly forecast on the Met Office site also lacks (or did the last
time
I looked) the caveat at the end of the BBC's version. If you click on the
"Printable view" link you get the whole month with no division between the
bits which should be reliable (the first two sections) and the bits which
are less reliable / total guesswork (the last two sections).

I thought they had such a warning on their seasonal forecasts at least.

Many of us on here may know the difference because we are interested or
have
specialist knowledge - but the Met Office site is provided for Joe Public
to
use.

That's a fair point.
You and I may understand their nature and treat them accordingly
but Joe public will just see them as weather forecasts and if they
are seen to 'go wrong' the Met Office willbe criticised.
The whole 'barbeque summer' fiasco was entirely of their own making though.
I assume that the met Office will still be making seasonal forecasts,
but they just won't be made public.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl