Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
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 |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 03:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Graham Easterling wrote: On Saturday, August 11, 2012 9:47:49 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote: On Saturday, 11 August 2012 20:36:48 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: "There is no clear signal for any particular weather type to dominate through this period"........... for the last four weeks this has been the mantra. What will it take to alter this phrase? Are we really to believe that one of the world's foremost meteorological organisations lacks the knowledge, or the confidence, to make an informed prediction more than two weeks into the future? This is fence-sitting on an industrial scale; what do those of us who live in the UK pay our taxes for? You pay your taxes so as not to be reliant on the likes of Piers Corbyn and his bold, confident rubbish. Fair enough, the trouble is it's drifting towards the Dawlish school of forecasting (just wait until everything points in the same direction). Perhaps best to drop forecasts so far out & concentrate on the next few days. Graham, I'm sorry but I don't see what the problem is. If the signs are for no particular weather type to dominate, how is that any less of a forecast than one that says there are signs that one particular type will dominate? During a fortnight, it happens that particular types of weather don't always dominate. -- Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change 'boy' to 'man' "A neighbour put his budgerigar in the mincing machine and invented shredded tweet." - Chic Murray openSUSE Linux: http://www.opensuse.org/en/ |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Col" wrote in message ... Lawrence13 wrote: On Saturday, 11 August 2012 21:47:49 UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote: On Saturday, 11 August 2012 20:36:48 UTC+1, David Brown wrote: "There is no clear signal for any particular weather type to dominate through this period"........... for the last four weeks this has been the mantra. What will it take to alter this phrase? Are we really to believe that one of the world's foremost meteorological organisations lacks the knowledge, or the confidence, to make an informed prediction more than two weeks into the future? This is fence-sitting on an industrial scale; what do those of us who live in the UK pay our taxes for? You pay your taxes so as not to be reliant on the likes of Piers Corbyn and his bold, confident rubbish. Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey. Strange one though Tudor, as Peirs is going fo the jet stream to take a Med Club holiday after the 19th August putting the UK in a slack northerly to NE. As for UKMO not knowing: well at least I respect and appreciate that honesty. It's far better than trying to give answers that aren't known. Agreed. If you don't know, then say so. If the odds of it being wet in two weeks' time are 50:50 then don't commit to anything, it's just guesswork. This may lead to claims of 'They don't know what they're bloody doing' but better in the long run to take this cautious approach than nailing your colours to the mast and end up being spectacularly wrong. If it really was 50-50 then the MetO would say something more definite as 50-50 does not mean "I don't know" but there is a 50% chance of a situation happening which is useful information. I suspect that the ECMWF ensemble products are giving lots of possible Lamb types as possibilities therefore there is no useful signal. I.e. 10 lots of 10% is worth nothing. Will -- |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Col writes: If you don't know, then say so. If the odds of it being wet in two weeks' time are 50:50 then don't commit to anything, it's just guesswork. This may lead to claims of 'They don't know what they're bloody doing' but better in the long run to take this cautious approach than nailing your colours to the mast and end up being spectacularly wrong. Absolutely. Anyway today's updated 16-30 day forecast is much more definite. -- John Hall "The beatings will continue until morale improves." Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2 |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dartmoor Will wrote:
"Col" wrote in message Agreed. If you don't know, then say so. If the odds of it being wet in two weeks' time are 50:50 then don't commit to anything, it's just guesswork. This may lead to claims of 'They don't know what they're bloody doing' but better in the long run to take this cautious approach than nailing your colours to the mast and end up being spectacularly wrong. If it really was 50-50 then the MetO would say something more definite as 50-50 does not mean "I don't know" but there is a 50% chance of a situation happening which is useful information. I suspect that the ECMWF ensemble products are giving lots of possible Lamb types as possibilities therefore there is no useful signal. I.e. 10 lots of 10% is worth nothing. A 50% risk of a shower for the day ahead is a useful forecast because it allows people to make judgements at a very basic level like whether to take a brolly to work. But a 50% chance of a week as a whole being seen as 'wet' or 'dry' doesn't to me provide much in the way of useful information beyond 'we don't really know what is going to happen'. -- Col Bolton, Lancashire 160m asl |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Col" wrote in message ... Dartmoor Will wrote: "Col" wrote in message Agreed. If you don't know, then say so. If the odds of it being wet in two weeks' time are 50:50 then don't commit to anything, it's just guesswork. This may lead to claims of 'They don't know what they're bloody doing' but better in the long run to take this cautious approach than nailing your colours to the mast and end up being spectacularly wrong. If it really was 50-50 then the MetO would say something more definite as 50-50 does not mean "I don't know" but there is a 50% chance of a situation happening which is useful information. I suspect that the ECMWF ensemble products are giving lots of possible Lamb types as possibilities therefore there is no useful signal. I.e. 10 lots of 10% is worth nothing. A 50% risk of a shower for the day ahead is a useful forecast because it allows people to make judgements at a very basic level like whether to take a brolly to work. But a 50% chance of a week as a whole being seen as 'wet' or 'dry' doesn't to me provide much in the way of useful information beyond 'we don't really know what is going to happen'. A week ahead it would be useful Col as it would mean you would have to prepare for rainy weather, a 95% forecast of dry would mean you could relax and, depending on your cost/loss ratio plan accordingly e.g. just pack a brolly or take nothing if you are prepared to get wet. My point is that the MetO use the whole range of probabilities from 0 to 100% and saying 50% chance of rain does not mean they don't know it is saying that there is a 50% chance of rain and, depending on your circumstances, you can make use of that. If I was planning a walk in a benign area a forecast of 50% chance of rain means that I pack waterproofs (the cost) a forecast of 10% chance of rain means that I wouldn't as it would not be serious (the loss). A walk in a more challenging area would mean me packing waterproofs whatever. Will -- |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Met Met Office explanation of Heathrow record | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
met office 15 day forecast, not up to date? | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Appalling forecast by Met Office (or Beebs interpretation of) now binned!! | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
The official Met Office Xmas forecast | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Met Office Forecast | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |