http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...ases-data.html

Not sure what 'data' this is referring to. Perhaps we may get hourly
synops on the web :-)
--
Phil
Guildford

On Nov 28, 6:44*am, Phil Layton wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...ok-fair-for-am...

Not sure what 'data' this is referring to. Perhaps we may get hourly
synops on the web :-)
--
Phil
Guildford

It seems that the Met Office isn't very popular with Telegraph
readers!

Of course, I'm sure the majority of posters get their forecasts from
the BBC/ITV, so does that still technically count as a MO forecast?
How much of their own spin are they allowed to put on the MO data they
get?

--
Liam (Milton Keynes)
http://www.physics.open.ac.uk/~lsteele/

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:44:08 +0000
Phil Layton wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...ases-data.html

Not sure what 'data' this is referring to. Perhaps we may get hourly
synops on the web :-)

I haven't the foggiest idea.

Dissemination of real-time observational data is limited by
international treaty so, whatever the government rule, it may make sod
all difference.

Forecast data have always been available for free, assuming you have
the right equipment and tools. Even before the internet, all you needed
was some wireless equipment and, say, a radio-fax. The problem the Met
Office has always had is that they had to give away their forecasts and
so private companies could re-distribute the same product, claim it as
their own, perhaps with some so-called "added value" and collect the
cash. Some "added-value" products even contained errors like
mis-labelled isobars or depressions that had originated in CFO.

To get archive data for free, these companies used college students
and graduates who "needed the data for research." One of these
characters, who'd been working in the Office for six months, was found
to be working for a commercial competitor of the Office. What followed
was a tightening of rules on who could or could not get free data,
much to the distress of true researchers.

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change boy to man
Teach evolution, not creationism: http://evolutionnotcreationism.org.uk/

Graham P Davis wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:44:08 +0000
Phil Layton wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...-for-amateurs-
as-Met-Office-releases-data.html

Not sure what 'data' this is referring to. Perhaps we may get hourly
synops on the web :-)

I haven't the foggiest idea.

Dissemination of real-time observational data is limited by
international treaty so, whatever the government rule, it may make sod
all difference.

Forecast data have always been available for free, assuming you have
the right equipment and tools. Even before the internet, all you needed
was some wireless equipment and, say, a radio-fax. The problem the Met
Office has always had is that they had to give away their forecasts and
so private companies could re-distribute the same product, claim it as
their own, perhaps with some so-called "added value" and collect the
cash. Some "added-value" products even contained errors like
mis-labelled isobars or depressions that had originated in CFO.

Graham, that is about as far from the truth as it could be. While there may be
one or two 'fly-by-night' operators who behave like you say, the vast majority
of private sector operators are highly professional organisations and
individuals who generate their own products. They exist because they provide a
good service to their clients.


To get archive data for free, these companies used college students
and graduates who "needed the data for research." One of these
characters, who'd been working in the Office for six months, was found
to be working for a commercial competitor of the Office. What followed
was a tightening of rules on who could or could not get free data,
much to the distress of true researchers.

Again, this is far from the truth. Private sector companies and individuals
(myself included) pay a lot of money for archived data.

I thought that the days when the private sector was seen by the meteorological
"establishment" as some sort of sub-culture were long gone but it seems that
the "old school" has not completely disappeared.

On several occasions the Met Office has pointed clients in my direction because
they are no longer active in the field in which I specialise. We have moved on
a very long way in the past 10-15 years and the private sector is now very
firmly a part of the legitimate meteorological establishment and is generally
seen as such by all concerned.

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

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:23:25 +0000, Graham P Davis
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:44:08 +0000
Phil Layton wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...ases-data.html

Not sure what 'data' this is referring to. Perhaps we may get hourly
synops on the web :-)

I haven't the foggiest idea.

Dissemination of real-time observational data is limited by
international treaty

Is it?

Got a reference for that?


--

On 28/11/11 09:58, Norman wrote:
Graham P Davis wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:44:08 +0000
Phil wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...-for-amateurs-
as-Met-Office-releases-data.html

Not sure what 'data' this is referring to. Perhaps we may get hourly
synops on the web :-)

I haven't the foggiest idea.

Dissemination of real-time observational data is limited by
international treaty so, whatever the government rule, it may make sod
all difference.

Forecast data have always been available for free, assuming you have
the right equipment and tools. Even before the internet, all you needed
was some wireless equipment and, say, a radio-fax. The problem the Met
Office has always had is that they had to give away their forecasts and
so private companies could re-distribute the same product, claim it as
their own, perhaps with some so-called "added value" and collect the
cash. Some "added-value" products even contained errors like
mis-labelled isobars or depressions that had originated in CFO.

Graham, that is about as far from the truth as it could be. While there may be
one or two 'fly-by-night' operators who behave like you say, the vast majority
of private sector operators are highly professional organisations and
individuals who generate their own products. They exist because they provide a
good service to their clients.

Although I misguidedly used the word "always," I was referring to past
events. The last sentence refers to the time of radio-fax machines but
the company involved was no fly-by-night. I'm glad to hear that things
have improved.



To get archive data for free, these companies used college students
and graduates who "needed the data for research." One of these
characters, who'd been working in the Office for six months, was found
to be working for a commercial competitor of the Office. What followed
was a tightening of rules on who could or could not get free data,
much to the distress of true researchers.

Again, this is far from the truth. Private sector companies and individuals
(myself included) pay a lot of money for archived data.

You seem to be darned close to calling me a liar here. I'm sure you
didn't intend to do so but that's how it appears to me. I stick to what
I said. This event happened as did the consequences.

In this case, I don't see how you were confused about the tense that I
was writing in but it seems you were. As you are writing about the
current situation and I was writing about the past, I don't see a real
need for disagreement.


I thought that the days when the private sector was seen by the meteorological
"establishment" as some sort of sub-culture were long gone but it seems that
the "old school" has not completely disappeared.

On several occasions the Met Office has pointed clients in my direction because
they are no longer active in the field in which I specialise. We have moved on
a very long way in the past 10-15 years and the private sector is now very
firmly a part of the legitimate meteorological establishment and is generally
seen as such by all concerned.


I'm glad to hear that things have moved on in the past 10-15 years.


--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change boy to man
Teach evolution, not creationism: http://evolutionnotcreationism.org.uk/

On 28/11/11 10:26, The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:23:25 +0000, Graham P Davis
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:44:08 +0000
Phil wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...ases-data.html

Not sure what 'data' this is referring to. Perhaps we may get hourly
synops on the web :-)

I haven't the foggiest idea.

Dissemination of real-time observational data is limited by
international treaty

Is it?

Got a reference for that?



We had this discussion over a decade ago in this group. I didn't think
I'd have a cat-in-hell's chance of finding a reference but luckily
remembered the answer was "40" and not "42". A quick glance shows me
that my memory of what it covered was a bit foggy.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/about/Resolution40_en.html

--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change boy to man
Teach evolution, not creationism: http://evolutionnotcreationism.org.uk/

Graham P Davis wrote:

On 28/11/11 09:58, Norman wrote:
Graham P Davis wrote:

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:44:08 +0000
Phil wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...fair-for-amate
urs- as-Met-Office-releases-data.html

Not sure what 'data' this is referring to. Perhaps we may get hourly
synops on the web :-)

I haven't the foggiest idea.

Dissemination of real-time observational data is limited by
international treaty so, whatever the government rule, it may make sod
all difference.

Forecast data have always been available for free, assuming you have
the right equipment and tools. Even before the internet, all you needed
was some wireless equipment and, say, a radio-fax. The problem the Met
Office has always had is that they had to give away their forecasts and
so private companies could re-distribute the same product, claim it as
their own, perhaps with some so-called "added value" and collect the
cash. Some "added-value" products even contained errors like
mis-labelled isobars or depressions that had originated in CFO.

Graham, that is about as far from the truth as it could be. While there may
be one or two 'fly-by-night' operators who behave like you say, the vast
majority of private sector operators are highly professional organisations
and individuals who generate their own products. They exist because they
provide a good service to their clients.

Although I misguidedly used the word "always," I was referring to past
events. The last sentence refers to the time of radio-fax machines but the
company involved was no fly-by-night. I'm glad to hear that things have
improved.



To get archive data for free, these companies used college students
and graduates who "needed the data for research." One of these
characters, who'd been working in the Office for six months, was found
to be working for a commercial competitor of the Office. What followed
was a tightening of rules on who could or could not get free data,
much to the distress of true researchers.

Again, this is far from the truth. Private sector companies and individuals
(myself included) pay a lot of money for archived data.

You seem to be darned close to calling me a liar here. I'm sure you didn't
intend to do so but that's how it appears to me. I stick to what I said. This
event happened as did the consequences.

In this case, I don't see how you were confused about the tense that I was
writing in but it seems you were. As you are writing about the current
situation and I was writing about the past, I don't see a real need for
disagreement.


I thought that the days when the private sector was seen by the
meteorological "establishment" as some sort of sub-culture were long gone
but it seems that the "old school" has not completely disappeared.

On several occasions the Met Office has pointed clients in my direction
because they are no longer active in the field in which I specialise. We
have moved on a very long way in the past 10-15 years and the private
sector is now very firmly a part of the legitimate meteorological
establishment and is generally seen as such by all concerned.


I'm glad to hear that things have moved on in the past 10-15 years.

As long as your comments were intended to refer to the situation as it was in
the past, but not in the present day, I have no problem. As I said, we have
moved on a very long way in recent years.

No offence intended :-)

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

On Nov 28, 9:58*am, "Norman" wrote:
Graham P Davis wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:44:08 +0000
Phil Layton wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/we...ok-fair-for-am....
as-Met-Office-releases-data.html

Not sure what 'data' this is referring to. Perhaps we may get hourly
synops on the web :-)

I haven't the foggiest idea.

Dissemination of real-time observational data is limited by
international treaty so, whatever the government rule, it may make sod
all difference.

Forecast data have always been available for free, assuming you have
the right equipment and tools. Even before the internet, all you needed
was some wireless equipment and, say, a radio-fax. The problem the Met
Office has always had is that they had to give away their forecasts and
so private companies could re-distribute the same product, claim it as
their own, perhaps with some so-called "added value" and collect the
cash. Some "added-value" products even contained errors like
mis-labelled isobars or depressions that had originated in CFO.

Graham, that is about as far from the truth as it could be. While there may be
one or two 'fly-by-night' operators who behave like you say, the vast majority
of private sector operators are highly professional organisations and
individuals who generate their own products. They exist because they provide a
good service to their clients.



To get archive data for free, these companies used college students
and graduates who "needed the data for research." One of these
characters, who'd been working in the Office for six months, was found
to be working for a commercial competitor of the Office. What followed
was a tightening of rules on who could or could not get free data,
much to the distress of true researchers.

Again, this is far from the truth. Private sector companies and individuals
(myself included) pay a lot of money for archived data.

I thought that the days when the private sector was seen by the meteorological
"establishment" as some sort of sub-culture were long gone but it seems that
the "old school" has not completely disappeared.

Compared to the US ideology, the Met Office is on a par with the
Canadian office.

Excellent as far as it goes but crap if you are of a different
mindset.

As for the MetOffice and competitors....

There is no way anyone can compete with them on a level field. They
have a computer acreage of two football fields (whatever that means
besides consuming as much tax payer fired electricity a is required by
a small town.)

Presumably that is just the Exitdoor establishment; all the other
government funded and volunteer sites must cost something to run.

The staff are government trained and paid civil servants.
Now they want a bigger computer and no guarantee they will go for one
that works right out the box if previous experience is much to go by.

And who the hell are funding the Universities and the Climatology nut
house?

Goodness:
"A new Open Data Institute, co-directed by Prof Sir Tim Berners- Lee,
the inventor of the world wide web, and Prof Nigel Shadbolt, another
web expert, will be opened in Shoreditch, east London, to develop ways
for private companies to benefit from government information."

So when they say free they really mean free?

I don't believe it. A huge swing towards Linux may ensue.

Did anyone forecasrtt this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...-rainfall.html by the by?

In article
,
Sir Loin Steak writes:
snip
Of course, I'm sure the majority of posters get their forecasts from
the BBC/ITV, so does that still technically count as a MO forecast?
How much of their own spin are they allowed to put on the MO data they
get?

In the case of the BBC, none at all. Most of the presenters are actually
MO employees.
--
John Hall
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw