On Sunday, 24 February 2013 23:58:51 UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 15:24:21 -0800 (PST), Lawrence13

wrote:

They are just advisory, for information,

they are not an order. If they are not useful to you then ignore

them



Because for the majority of areas they are not true. I can't help

it, must be my upringing but I really hate fibs.

Read the criteria for the warnings (not defined by the Meto by the

way) and you will see that they are being met - hence the Meto has

no choice but to issue the warning.



Like John said - if they're not useful to you, ignore them.



--

Freddie

Bayston Hill

Shropshire

102m AMSL

http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/

https://twitter.com/#!/BaystonHillWx for hourly reports

But why put them out? If anyone used UKMO's warnings as a proxy record , they would have assumed snowball earth followed by the cretacious period all in one year!!!!
Surely Freddie that isn't right.

On Sunday, 24 February 2013 23:58:51 UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 15:24:21 -0800 (PST), Lawrence13

wrote:

They are just advisory, for information,

they are not an order. If they are not useful to you then ignore

them



Because for the majority of areas they are not true. I can't help

it, must be my upringing but I really hate fibs.

Read the criteria for the warnings (not defined by the Meto by the

way) and you will see that they are being met - hence the Meto has

no choice but to issue the warning.



Like John said - if they're not useful to you, ignore them.



--

Freddie

Bayston Hill

Shropshire

102m AMSL

http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/

https://twitter.com/#!/BaystonHillWx for hourly reports

One more thing: despite what John says UKMO wouldn't have issued such OTT warnings thirty odd years ago and therefore there would have been nothing to ignore. Please just ignore this if you don't agree.

On 24/02/13 23:24, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Saturday, 23 February 2013 23:35:56 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:
On 23/02/13 19:18, John Hall wrote:

In ,

Eskimo writes:



wrote in message news:kga6p9$

...

So who are those warnings for?

See John Hall's earlier post. You're best off asking the NHS that

question, rather than the MO.



Ah but it is a real good earner for the MetO. Health is big business

not just the warnings you see but private contracts too and MetO

sales and business staff are *very* enthusiastic as it brings the dosh

in regardless of what other people think of it. It's all about money

nowadays in the MetO.



I don't have any problem with the MetO doing that in the case of the

NHS. After all, I don't have to read the warnings. And I imagine that,

were the MetO to refuse the NHS, they might be forcibly reminded by

central government that they are a government agency, and that there are

certain obligations that they are expected to fulfil as part of that

status if they want to be allowed to retain a measure of independence.



Agreed. I really don't understand why some people get so hot and

bothered about the warnings. They are just advisory, for information,

they are not an order. If they are not useful to you then ignore them,

but that then doesn't mean they won't be useful to anyone else.

Because for the majority of areas they are not true. I can't help it, must be my upringing but I really hate fibs.

Perhaps you need to appreciate the importance of probability and
uncertainty, and their relevance in weather forecasting.

It is a good job you don't live in a hurricane zone, people there get
far more warnings than they get direct hits from hurricanes. Of course,
the reason for this is that the authorities need about 72 hours to
complete preparations (including evacuation), but the 72 hour forecast
track error is about 100 nm, and the diameter of hurricane force winds
on average is only around 60 nm.

In article ,
Lawrence13 writes:
On Saturday, 23 February 2013 23:35:56 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:

Agreed. I really don't understand why some people get so hot and

bothered about the warnings. They are just advisory, for information,

they are not an order. If they are not useful to you then ignore them,

but that then doesn't mean they won't be useful to anyone else.

Because for the majority of areas they are not true. I can't help it,
must be my upringing but I really hate fibs.

But in a lot of cases you seem to have complained about warnings which,
when you check which areas they are for, turn out not to be for the SE
at all. Don't assume that, because one of the icons on the SE forecast
page is shown as other than green, that the warning actually applies to
the SE. Confusingly those icons are coloured non-green when there's a
warning in force for anywhere in the UK, and you have to click on the
icon before you can actually see where in the UK is affected.
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde

On Monday, 25 February 2013 08:35:35 UTC, wrote:

But why put them out? If anyone used UKMO's warnings as a proxy record ,
they would have assumed snowball earth followed by the cretacious period
all in one year!!!!

Lawrence they put them out for one reason - BUSINESS.

It's a shame an existing forecaster (and I'm aware that some have posted on here in the past year or two) can't come on here to discuss this point.

I'd have thought that for an on-duty forecaster, in the heat of time pressure for issuing a warning, simply "getting it right" and making the public aware comes first over business - well at least I'd hope that was the case.

Richard

"Richard Dixon" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 25 February 2013 08:35:35 UTC,
wrote:

But why put them out? If anyone used UKMO's warnings as a proxy record
,
they would have assumed snowball earth followed by the cretacious
period
all in one year!!!!

Lawrence they put them out for one reason - BUSINESS.

It's a shame an existing forecaster (and I'm aware that some have posted
on here in the past year or two) can't come on here to discuss this point.


Yes what happened to Jon O Rourke?

I'd have thought that for an on-duty forecaster, in the heat of time
pressure for issuing a warning, simply "getting it right" and making the
public aware comes first over business - well at least I'd hope that was
the case.


Ha ha ha it doesn't work like that Richard.
The cold warning will be discussed by the forecasting team, the Chief
meteorologist (not a bench forecaster) and other parties before issue. All
web products are also scrutinised by the brand manager, so it is a team
effort and not rushed out. And yes they will of course ensure that they are
likely to be correct but I think Lawrence is asking why they should be
issued at all? And the answer is that they are a good money earner paid for
by money out of the government's health budget. I am obliged not to say here
how much the warning system and other health forecasts cost but one could
indeed ask the question are they worth it when the NHS is short of beds,
nurses and cleaners?

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On Monday, 25 February 2013 13:25:06 UTC, wrote:

Yes what happened to Jon O Rourke?

Jon's still about. I still hear from him regularly. Like a few others I believe he got a bad case of "newsgroup malaise".

The cold warning will be discussed by the forecasting team, the Chief
meteorologist (not a bench forecaster) and other parties before issue. All
web products are also scrutinised by the brand manager, so it is a team
effort and not rushed out.

Ahh I got wires crossed here. I was talking about general weather warnings not the cold weather ones. I have less I can add to this then!

And yes they will of course ensure that they are
likely to be correct but I think Lawrence is asking why they should be
issued at all? And the answer is that they are a good money earner paid for
by money out of the government's health budget.

Surely even then they're not going to issue forecasts willy-nilly just because it gets a few extra pounds in? Aside from your perception, do you have evidence of people *actually* doing this with that reason?

Again, it's a shame that this newsgroup tends to resort to bashing the Met Office when it's unlikely they'll come on here to defend themselves. It's like the Daily Mail Online at times in here. MO employees, over to you?

Richard

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 05:14:13 -0800 (PST), Richard Dixon
wrote:
I'd have thought that for an on-duty forecaster, in the heat of
time pressure for issuing a warning, simply "getting it right" and
making the public aware comes first over business - well at least I'd
hope that was the case.

I think that is exactly what is in the forecaster's mind at time of
issue. The criteria are there for guidance, and if the criteria are
likely to be met then the warning is issued.

I should imagine "business considerations" are at the forefront when
the warning criteria are formulated - not at operational issue time.

--
Freddie
Bayston Hill
Shropshire
102m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
https://twitter.com/#!/BaystonHillWx for hourly reports

"Richard Dixon" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 25 February 2013 13:25:06 UTC,
wrote:

Yes what happened to Jon O Rourke?

Jon's still about. I still hear from him regularly. Like a few others I
believe he got a bad case of "newsgroup malaise".

The cold warning will be discussed by the forecasting team, the Chief
meteorologist (not a bench forecaster) and other parties before issue.
All
web products are also scrutinised by the brand manager, so it is a team
effort and not rushed out.

Ahh I got wires crossed here. I was talking about general weather warnings
not the cold weather ones. I have less I can add to this then!

And yes they will of course ensure that they are
likely to be correct but I think Lawrence is asking why they should be
issued at all? And the answer is that they are a good money earner paid
for
by money out of the government's health budget.

Surely even then they're not going to issue forecasts willy-nilly just
because it gets a few extra pounds in? Aside from your perception, do you
have evidence of people *actually* doing this with that reason?


Richard I *never* said they did. You inferred that and your inference is
incorrect. The warnings are issued as part of a *service* for the NHS and
MetO will do its best to provide a good service. But nowadays it is also
business and the commercial folk will not let a good little earner pass by.
So the forecasters are obliged to issue. At the end of the day, issuing cold
weather warnings like they do is not rocket science and it is something
forecasters 30 years ago could have done easily and accurately. Some might
even say it is "money for old rope" :-)

Again, it's a shame that this newsgroup tends to resort to bashing the Met
Office when it's unlikely they'll come on here to defend themselves. It's
like the Daily Mail Online at times in here. MO employees, over to you?


I doubt many would dare come on here and express an opinion for fear of
being reprimanded by the Brand police. They are everywhere and you get
hauled over the coals quite quickly if you step out of line. I was many
times in recent years, but I simply didn't care. Others will care more as
there are mortgages to pay, families to look after etc.

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On Monday, 25 February 2013 13:52:05 UTC, wrote:

I doubt many would dare come on here and express an opinion for fear of
being reprimanded by the Brand police.

Now this *is* a definite downside of becoming more commercial, I agree there!!

They are everywhere and you get
hauled over the coals quite quickly if you step out of line. I was many
times in recent years, but I simply didn't care. Others will care more as
there are mortgages to pay, families to look after etc.

Didn't you have a pension to worry about if they'd given you the elbow?!

Richard