rant mode

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21967190

No wonder. Maybe this time the MetO will come down from its ivory tower, stop the hubris about its longer range forecasts and begin to introduce language that actually says "This forecast is experimental and cannot be relied upon in any way, *just yet*". Or introduce a system of probabilities for the general public, instead of using language which covers up their lack of knowledge.

Maybe in the future......

The MetO's approach to their presentation of LR forecasts has been wrong for a long time and is based upon an internal belief that they are untouchable. That comes out in statement after statement and is perfectly embodied by the response of one particular employee (now ex-employee)on here. The criticism leveled at the MetO capabilities in LRF is accurate. Why can't they recognise that LRF is something which they, *together with all others* are actually not very good at yet, as the parameters are presently too complex?

Why can't they work *with* the public to admit that, instead of implicitly saying, all the time, that "we're the best and you're just going to have to settle for that". The cock-ups expose tghem dreafully when those forecasts come a cropper - as they will, again and again.

The trouble is they *are* the best. The best research and the best forecasters and knowledge for forecasting in the UK and often world-leaders, but the dreadful hubris and smugness is appalling and I'm not the only one with an interest in weather and climate, who is annoyed by it .

Even in this statement today, what kind of language is; "it was not very helpful" in response to a 3 month forecast from last spring that was **completely wrong**. Fess up and admit it, for goodness sake. Maybe this very public faux-pas will wake them up, but there's no reason to think that will happen. The others didn't.

rant over

Dawlish wrote:
rant mode

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21967190

No wonder. Maybe this time the MetO will come down from its ivory tower, stop the hubris about its longer range forecasts and begin to introduce language that actually says "This forecast is experimental and cannot be relied upon in any way, *just yet*". Or introduce a system of probabilities for the general public, instead of using language which covers up their lack of knowledge.

Maybe in the future......

The MetO's approach to their presentation of LR forecasts has been wrong for a long time and is based upon an internal belief that they are untouchable. That comes out in statement after statement and is perfectly embodied by the response of one particular employee (now ex-employee)on here. The criticism leveled at the MetO capabilities in LRF is accurate. Why can't they recognise that LRF is something which they, *together with all others* are actually not very good at yet, as the parameters are presently too complex?

Why can't they work *with* the public to admit that, instead of implicitly saying, all the time, that "we're the best and you're just going to have to settle for that". The cock-ups expose tghem dreafully when those forecasts come a cropper - as they will, again and again.

The trouble is they *are* the best. The best research and the best forecasters and knowledge for forecasting in the UK and often world-leaders, but the dreadful hubris and smugness is appalling and I'm not the only one with an interest in weather and climate, who is annoyed by it .

Even in this statement today, what kind of language is; "it was not very helpful" in response to a 3 month forecast from last spring that was **completely wrong**. Fess up and admit it, for goodness sake. Maybe this very public faux-pas will wake them up, but there's no reason to think that will happen. The others didn't.

rant over
------------------------------------------
The logic to us is that we (and they) can see that the normal short term
forecasting techniques using current data and computer models are rarely
accurate after 7-10 days. Otherwise why wouldn't they give us an outlook
of more than a few days in their broadcast forecasts? Knowing this I
assume they use a different and a more climatic approach to a three
month forecast. Perhaps the forecast of the trend is more accurate than
the weather it produces so they think as scientists they are doing ok.
For our neck of the woods I think the research is well worth
undertaking but to currently publish these long term forecasts even with
the added provisos is a complete waste of time and money, causes them
disrepute and gives fodder to the fans of The Express and Corbyn.
Dave

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
rant mode

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21967190

No wonder. Maybe this time the MetO will come down from its ivory tower,
stop the hubris about its longer range forecasts and begin to introduce
language that actually says "This forecast is experimental and cannot be
relied upon in any way, *just yet*". Or introduce a system of probabilities
for the general public, instead of using language which covers up their lack
of knowledge.

Maybe in the future......

The MetO's approach to their presentation of LR forecasts has been wrong for
a long time and is based upon an internal belief that they are untouchable.
That comes out in statement after statement and is perfectly embodied by the
response of one particular employee (now ex-employee)on here. The criticism
leveled at the MetO capabilities in LRF is accurate. Why can't they
recognise that LRF is something which they, *together with all others* are
actually not very good at yet, as the parameters are presently too complex?

Why can't they work *with* the public to admit that, instead of implicitly
saying, all the time, that "we're the best and you're just going to have to
settle for that". The cock-ups expose tghem dreafully when those forecasts
come a cropper - as they will, again and again.

The trouble is they *are* the best. The best research and the best
forecasters and knowledge for forecasting in the UK and often world-leaders,
but the dreadful hubris and smugness is appalling and I'm not the only one
with an interest in weather and climate, who is annoyed by it .

Even in this statement today, what kind of language is; "it was not very
helpful" in response to a 3 month forecast from last spring that was
**completely wrong**. Fess up and admit it, for goodness sake. Maybe this
very public faux-pas will wake them up, but there's no reason to think that
will happen. The others didn't.

rant over

What is it that winds you up so much Dawlish ?, Met office statements are
always based on probabilities
rather than certanties,and they often get it pretty well right. Last Aprils
effort went widly wrong as did the 'barbecue summer',but they were the
exception ,which they tried tried to cover with a great deal of flannel and
most people recognised that as so.Should they stop trying ?,or would you
prefer a monthly
list of apologies,followed maybe by a large fine ,whipping through the
streets or instant dismissals ?
As for your private vendetta against Will ,should he ever stop contributing
to this group ,I for one would be more than aggrieved. His analysis and
reasoned offerings are much appreciated by many on this forum I suspect ,and
would be sorely missed if he took your venomous comments to heart.
The original founder of this NG Philip Eden ,before he took to his
cave,made many attempts at long range forecasting ,even to the extent of
calling his latest efforts 'not the long range forecasts',but he never
received the snide attacks which todays contributors are subject to.
I have been a weather enthusiast for more years than you have probably been
on this earth ,and I say more power to the elbows of those brave stalwarts
who at least try .
Perhaps if none of this resonates with you , you could list the criteria and
parameters which future forecasters should adhere to in order not to offend
you .

RonB

On Friday, 29 March 2013 11:44:59 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:

rant mode



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21967190



No wonder. Maybe this time the MetO will come down from its ivory tower, stop the hubris about its longer range forecasts and begin to introduce language that actually says "This forecast is experimental and cannot be relied upon in any way, *just yet*". Or introduce a system of probabilities for the general public, instead of using language which covers up their lack of knowledge.



Maybe in the future......



The MetO's approach to their presentation of LR forecasts has been wrong for a long time and is based upon an internal belief that they are untouchable. That comes out in statement after statement and is perfectly embodied by the response of one particular employee (now ex-employee)on here. The criticism leveled at the MetO capabilities in LRF is accurate. Why can't they recognise that LRF is something which they, *together with all others* are actually not very good at yet, as the parameters are presently too complex?



Why can't they work *with* the public to admit that, instead of implicitly saying, all the time, that "we're the best and you're just going to have to settle for that". The cock-ups expose tghem dreafully when those forecasts come a cropper - as they will, again and again.



The trouble is they *are* the best. The best research and the best forecasters and knowledge for forecasting in the UK and often world-leaders, but the dreadful hubris and smugness is appalling and I'm not the only one with an interest in weather and climate, who is annoyed by it .



Even in this statement today, what kind of language is; "it was not very helpful" in response to a 3 month forecast from last spring that was **completely wrong**. Fess up and admit it, for goodness sake. Maybe this very public faux-pas will wake them up, but there's no reason to think that will happen. The others didn't.



rant over

------------------------------------------

The logic to us is that we (and they) can see that the normal short term

forecasting techniques using current data and computer models are rarely

accurate after 7-10 days. Otherwise why wouldn't they give us an outlook

of more than a few days in their broadcast forecasts? Knowing this I

assume they use a different and a more climatic approach to a three

month forecast. Perhaps the forecast of the trend is more accurate than

the weather it produces so they think as scientists they are doing ok.

For our neck of the woods I think the research is well worth

undertaking but to currently publish these long term forecasts even with

the added provisos is a complete waste of time and money, causes them

disrepute and gives fodder to the fans of The Express and Corbyn.

Dave


Dave, Ron and anyone. I really don't believe that forecast was made this time last years without the political officers at UKMO looking for every given opportunity to promote AGW and the already established winter drought was right up that street. I know I go on about this ad nauseum but in my view it explains so much. Those that might read my remarks you only have to look at how much over the last decade UKMO have dedicated to AGW-they never used to touch it with a bargepole up until the eighties. Also the mouth and airtime given to showing how wonderful and caring the NHS is /was and although in the past many found my comments scurrilous or mainly rubbish the recent revelations about neglect in the NHS of the elderly mainly has been proven beyond a doubt. Yet ironically UKMO dedicate pages of their website to how much the NHS care for the elderly. Surely any rational human would say 'hold up ' you're saying this but in practice are doing that.


Look the NHS is and has provided fantastic treatment to the flavours of the month cases. My friends father is 96 totally compas mentis but had a defective heart valve and recently Brighton hospital carried out the first replacement procedure via the arterial system on a man this old and now he is fantastically well but meanwhile they are leaving less old patients to rot in their own urine. Look I'm digressing, my main point is the leadership at UKMO over the years have become a propaganda agent for failings in the NHS and more so a major tool in the promotion of AGW as a major danger to all of us. To be fair H&S has gone mad in this country as it's a tool to beat capitalism over the head with and ironically the private industry such as those overdoing legionella protection are making a vast fortune out of such nonsense.

Anyhow UKMO have no one to blame but themselves for any flak they recieve

On Friday, 29 March 2013 09:12:03 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
rant mode



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21967190



No wonder. Maybe this time the MetO will come down from its ivory tower, stop the hubris about its longer range forecasts and begin to introduce language that actually says "This forecast is experimental and cannot be relied upon in any way, *just yet*". Or introduce a system of probabilities for the general public, instead of using language which covers up their lack of knowledge.



Maybe in the future......



The MetO's approach to their presentation of LR forecasts has been wrong for a long time and is based upon an internal belief that they are untouchable. That comes out in statement after statement and is perfectly embodied by the response of one particular employee (now ex-employee)on here. The criticism leveled at the MetO capabilities in LRF is accurate. Why can't they recognise that LRF is something which they, *together with all others* are actually not very good at yet, as the parameters are presently too complex?



Why can't they work *with* the public to admit that, instead of implicitly saying, all the time, that "we're the best and you're just going to have to settle for that". The cock-ups expose tghem dreafully when those forecasts come a cropper - as they will, again and again.



The trouble is they *are* the best. The best research and the best forecasters and knowledge for forecasting in the UK and often world-leaders, but the dreadful hubris and smugness is appalling and I'm not the only one with an interest in weather and climate, who is annoyed by it .



Even in this statement today, what kind of language is; "it was not very helpful" in response to a 3 month forecast from last spring that was **completely wrong**. Fess up and admit it, for goodness sake. Maybe this very public faux-pas will wake them up, but there's no reason to think that will happen. The others didn't.



rant over

Why did you need to tell us you were shaking your head?

Shakes head

On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:02:40 PM UTC, ron button wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

rant mode



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21967190



No wonder. Maybe this time the MetO will come down from its ivory tower,

stop the hubris about its longer range forecasts and begin to introduce

language that actually says "This forecast is experimental and cannot be

relied upon in any way, *just yet*". Or introduce a system of probabilities

for the general public, instead of using language which covers up their lack

of knowledge.



Maybe in the future......



The MetO's approach to their presentation of LR forecasts has been wrong for

a long time and is based upon an internal belief that they are untouchable.

That comes out in statement after statement and is perfectly embodied by the

response of one particular employee (now ex-employee)on here. The criticism

leveled at the MetO capabilities in LRF is accurate. Why can't they

recognise that LRF is something which they, *together with all others* are

actually not very good at yet, as the parameters are presently too complex?



Why can't they work *with* the public to admit that, instead of implicitly

saying, all the time, that "we're the best and you're just going to have to

settle for that". The cock-ups expose tghem dreafully when those forecasts

come a cropper - as they will, again and again.



The trouble is they *are* the best. The best research and the best

forecasters and knowledge for forecasting in the UK and often world-leaders,

but the dreadful hubris and smugness is appalling and I'm not the only one

with an interest in weather and climate, who is annoyed by it .



Even in this statement today, what kind of language is; "it was not very

helpful" in response to a 3 month forecast from last spring that was

**completely wrong**. Fess up and admit it, for goodness sake. Maybe this

very public faux-pas will wake them up, but there's no reason to think that

will happen. The others didn't.



rant over



What is it that winds you up so much Dawlish ?, Met office statements are

always based on probabilities

rather than certanties,and they often get it pretty well right. Last Aprils

effort went widly wrong as did the 'barbecue summer',but they were the

exception ,which they tried tried to cover with a great deal of flannel and

most people recognised that as so.Should they stop trying ?,or would you

prefer a monthly

list of apologies,followed maybe by a large fine ,whipping through the

streets or instant dismissals ?

As for your private vendetta against Will ,should he ever stop contributing

to this group ,I for one would be more than aggrieved. His analysis and

reasoned offerings are much appreciated by many on this forum I suspect ,and

would be sorely missed if he took your venomous comments to heart.

The original founder of this NG Philip Eden ,before he took to his

cave,made many attempts at long range forecasting ,even to the extent of

calling his latest efforts 'not the long range forecasts',but he never

received the snide attacks which todays contributors are subject to.

I have been a weather enthusiast for more years than you have probably been

on this earth ,and I say more power to the elbows of those brave stalwarts

who at least try .

Perhaps if none of this resonates with you , you could list the criteria and

parameters which future forecasters should adhere to in order not to offend

you .



RonB

You could start by actually reading my post, Ron.

On Friday, March 29, 2013 1:53:38 PM UTC, Lawrence13 wrote:



Dave, Ron and anyone. I really don't believe that forecast was made this time last years without the political officers at UKMO looking for every given opportunity to promote AGW and the already established winter drought was right up that street. I know I go on about this ad nauseum but in my view it explains so much. Those that might read my remarks you only have to look at how much over the last decade UKMO have dedicated to AGW-they never used to touch it with a bargepole up until the eighties. Also the mouth and airtime given to showing how wonderful and caring the NHS is /was and although in the past many found my comments scurrilous or mainly rubbish the recent revelations about neglect in the NHS of the elderly mainly has been proven beyond a doubt. Yet ironically UKMO dedicate pages of their website to how much the NHS care for the elderly. Surely any rational human would say 'hold up ' you're saying this but in practice are doing that.


Look the NHS is and has provided fantastic treatment to the flavours of the month cases. My friends father is 96 totally compas mentis but had a defective heart valve and recently Brighton hospital carried out the first replacement procedure via the arterial system on a man this old and now he is fantastically well but meanwhile they are leaving less old patients to rot in their own urine. Look I'm digressing, my main point is the leadership at UKMO over the years have become a propaganda agent for failings in the NHS and more so a major tool in the promotion of AGW as a major danger to all of us. To be fair H&S has gone mad in this country as it's a tool to beat capitalism over the head with and ironically the private industry such as those overdoing legionella protection are making a vast fortune out of such nonsense.




=====

At this point you are a pretty much a parody of yourself.

--

Stephen.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 at 02:12:03, Dawlish wrote in
uk.sci.weather :

rant mode

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21967190

No wonder. Maybe this time the MetO will come down from its ivory
tower, stop the hubris about its longer range forecasts and begin to
introduce language that actually says "This forecast is experimental
and cannot be relied upon in any way, *just yet*".

Or just say - 'we can't do it, so don't ask!'
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

On Friday, 29 March 2013 15:24:00 UTC, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Friday, March 29, 2013 1:53:38 PM UTC, Lawrence13 wrote:







Dave, Ron and anyone. I really don't believe that forecast was made this time last years without the political officers at UKMO looking for every given opportunity to promote AGW and the already established winter drought was right up that street. I know I go on about this ad nauseum but in my view it explains so much. Those that might read my remarks you only have to look at how much over the last decade UKMO have dedicated to AGW-they never used to touch it with a bargepole up until the eighties. Also the mouth and airtime given to showing how wonderful and caring the NHS is /was and although in the past many found my comments scurrilous or mainly rubbish the recent revelations about neglect in the NHS of the elderly mainly has been proven beyond a doubt. Yet ironically UKMO dedicate pages of their website to how much the NHS care for the elderly. Surely any rational human would say 'hold up ' you're saying this but in practice are doing that.





Look the NHS is and has provided fantastic treatment to the flavours of the month cases. My friends father is 96 totally compas mentis but had a defective heart valve and recently Brighton hospital carried out the first replacement procedure via the arterial system on a man this old and now he is fantastically well but meanwhile they are leaving less old patients to rot in their own urine. Look I'm digressing, my main point is the leadership at UKMO over the years have become a propaganda agent for failings in the NHS and more so a major tool in the promotion of AGW as a major danger to all of us. To be fair H&S has gone mad in this country as it's a tool to beat capitalism over the head with and ironically the private industry such as those overdoing legionella protection are making a vast fortune out of such nonsense.









=====



At this point you are a pretty much a parody of yourself.



--



Stephen.

Sorry you feel that way Stephen but I feel this way and regardless whether it makes me a fool I'm staying with it as so far I haven't been too wrong.

In article ,
Dawlish writes:
rant mode

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21967190

No wonder. Maybe this time the MetO will come down from its
ivory tower, stop the hubris about its longer range forecasts and
begin to introduce language that actually says "This forecast is
experimental and cannot be relied upon in any way, *just yet*". Or
introduce a system of probabilities for the general public, instead
of using language which covers up their lack of knowledge.

Did you read the whole article? The forecast in question was for
planners in government and industry and not for the general public, and
I don't think anyone could have been in any doubt that as a seasonal
forecast it was experimental. And the forecast /was/ probabilistic.
--
John Hall
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist