On 09/01/17 17:17, Eskimo Will wrote:
On 08/01/2017 22:02, John Hall wrote:
In message , Bernard Burton
writes
Never mind the medium range, today's forecasts in BBC R4 have been
pretty useless. Unless my hearing is faulty, the only mention of rain
on the 7.55 forecast was some drizzle over Wales. There was already
some precipitation in the SE showing on the radar then, and here we
had intrermittent slight drizzle all night, and this developed into
over an hour of moderate rain and drizzle here, and appeared to be
quite widespread on the radar. The models obviously missed this
development, and a lack of a decent covering of 'real' obs and a
dearth of radio soundings makes this type blunder only to be expected.
I noticed too, that the EGLL TAF has almost as many amends as there
were METARS!. On the 1255 forecast I heard a lot about how cold it
would be later in the week, but no mention or apology for the
downright duff forecasts for today.

The forecast for SE England currently shown on the Met Office website,
and time-stamped at 13:19 says:

This Evening and Tonight:
Often overcast skies tonight with mist and patches of fog. Light winds
at first will freshen later. It should be a dry night for most, but with
a few spots of drizzle in the wind. Minimum Temperature 5 °C.

I happened to be visiting a friend in SE London today, and there was
moderate rain there from at least 18:30 to 19:00. So it seems that
nobody at the Met Office noticed that their forecast was wrong till
later than 13:19, and even then they didn't bother to issue an updated
forecast. I know it's Sunday, and perhaps there aren't mainly people on
duty, but it's not very impressive.

TBH I don't think many care anymore. Morale is still rock-bottom and I
know of several who want to give up operational meteorology as the plan
is still full automation (apart from warnings) by 2020.


Nothing too new regarding automated forecasting. Work on
computer-generated shipping forecasts was begun at least forty years ago.

Also, when I started working on MOS forecasts almost forty years ago,
the problems the Canadian Met service had had with forecast verification
could have been associated with lowered morale or, perhaps, laziness. As
MOS output had improved, so forecasters' accuracy deteriorated.

When I was forecasting, there were a few forecasters I would have been
glad to have seen replaced by a machine. As an example, on one morning I
came on duty to find the night-duty forecaster has drawn a single pencil
line on the 0300 UK chart that was supposed to mark a warm front and
that was the sum total of his work on those charts. It struck me as an
unusual front in that it had no cloud on it whatsoever let alone any
sign of the rain he said it would bring in the afternoon. It came as
little surprise that the forecast he handed over to me bore no
relationship to reality and I was having to issue amendments before he'd
left the building. I think the 'afternoon rain' may have got him before
he got to his car at 0845.

In those days, some forty five years ago, it was well-known that TAFs
issued by LAP for their outstations were nigh on useless and that it
would take much effort to persuade them to correct a really bad TAF.
Automation couldn't come soon enough.


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
There are more fools than knaves in the world, else the knaves would
not have enough to live upon. [Samuel Butler]

On Monday, 9 January 2017 17:16:22 UTC, wrote:
On 08/01/2017 22:02, John Hall wrote:
In message , Bernard Burton
writes
Never mind the medium range, today's forecasts in BBC R4 have been
pretty useless. Unless my hearing is faulty, the only mention of rain
on the 7.55 forecast was some drizzle over Wales. There was already
some precipitation in the SE showing on the radar then, and here we
had intrermittent slight drizzle all night, and this developed into
over an hour of moderate rain and drizzle here, and appeared to be
quite widespread on the radar. The models obviously missed this
development, and a lack of a decent covering of 'real' obs and a
dearth of radio soundings makes this type blunder only to be expected.
I noticed too, that the EGLL TAF has almost as many amends as there
were METARS!. On the 1255 forecast I heard a lot about how cold it
would be later in the week, but no mention or apology for the
downright duff forecasts for today.

The forecast for SE England currently shown on the Met Office website,
and time-stamped at 13:19 says:

This Evening and Tonight:
Often overcast skies tonight with mist and patches of fog. Light winds
at first will freshen later. It should be a dry night for most, but with
a few spots of drizzle in the wind. Minimum Temperature 5 °C.

I happened to be visiting a friend in SE London today, and there was
moderate rain there from at least 18:30 to 19:00. So it seems that
nobody at the Met Office noticed that their forecast was wrong till
later than 13:19, and even then they didn't bother to issue an updated
forecast. I know it's Sunday, and perhaps there aren't mainly people on
duty, but it's not very impressive.

TBH I don't think many care anymore.....

Nor do many others will, smug. But then again, you won't see this, so maybe just concentrate on your perfect driving in the snow eh?

On 09/01/2017 17:17, Eskimo Will wrote:
On 08/01/2017 22:02, John Hall wrote:
In message , Bernard Burton
writes
Never mind the medium range, today's forecasts in BBC R4 have been
pretty useless. Unless my hearing is faulty, the only mention of rain
on the 7.55 forecast was some drizzle over Wales. There was already
some precipitation in the SE showing on the radar then, and here we
had intrermittent slight drizzle all night, and this developed into
over an hour of moderate rain and drizzle here, and appeared to be
quite widespread on the radar. The models obviously missed this
development, and a lack of a decent covering of 'real' obs and a
dearth of radio soundings makes this type blunder only to be expected.
I noticed too, that the EGLL TAF has almost as many amends as there
were METARS!. On the 1255 forecast I heard a lot about how cold it
would be later in the week, but no mention or apology for the
downright duff forecasts for today.

The forecast for SE England currently shown on the Met Office website,
and time-stamped at 13:19 says:

This Evening and Tonight:
Often overcast skies tonight with mist and patches of fog. Light winds
at first will freshen later. It should be a dry night for most, but with
a few spots of drizzle in the wind. Minimum Temperature 5 °C.

I happened to be visiting a friend in SE London today, and there was
moderate rain there from at least 18:30 to 19:00. So it seems that
nobody at the Met Office noticed that their forecast was wrong till
later than 13:19, and even then they didn't bother to issue an updated
forecast. I know it's Sunday, and perhaps there aren't mainly people on
duty, but it's not very impressive.

TBH I don't think many care anymore. Morale is still rock-bottom and I
know of several who want to give up operational meteorology as the plan
is still full automation (apart from warnings) by 2020.

Another point is that there is now no experience left in UKMO. I mean
real experience of 30 years+ in synoptic met. relating weather to charts
etc. If the model says no then the forecasters have little to draw upon
to go against it. An example is showers. Not many people know that the
high res models do not advect showers, they are formed in situ at each
gridpoint. That is why windward coasts get warnings and not places
downwind. Of course if the forecasters had a lot of experience of
different situations then they could correct that. The next 10 years may
see very poor forecasting indeed until models improve and start to take
over the experience of relating weather to synoptics. But then again the
scientists to do this automation work are often not experienced either,
oh dear! And no I'm not going back, I love not working after getting
voluntary redundancy (and a big pay off) in 2012.

On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 12:30:43 UTC, wrote:
On 09/01/2017 17:17, Eskimo Will wrote:
On 08/01/2017 22:02, John Hall wrote:
In message , Bernard Burton
writes
Never mind the medium range, today's forecasts in BBC R4 have been
pretty useless. Unless my hearing is faulty, the only mention of rain
on the 7.55 forecast was some drizzle over Wales. There was already
some precipitation in the SE showing on the radar then, and here we
had intrermittent slight drizzle all night, and this developed into
over an hour of moderate rain and drizzle here, and appeared to be
quite widespread on the radar. The models obviously missed this
development, and a lack of a decent covering of 'real' obs and a
dearth of radio soundings makes this type blunder only to be expected..
I noticed too, that the EGLL TAF has almost as many amends as there
were METARS!. On the 1255 forecast I heard a lot about how cold it
would be later in the week, but no mention or apology for the
downright duff forecasts for today.

The forecast for SE England currently shown on the Met Office website,
and time-stamped at 13:19 says:

This Evening and Tonight:
Often overcast skies tonight with mist and patches of fog. Light winds
at first will freshen later. It should be a dry night for most, but with
a few spots of drizzle in the wind. Minimum Temperature 5 °C.

I happened to be visiting a friend in SE London today, and there was
moderate rain there from at least 18:30 to 19:00. So it seems that
nobody at the Met Office noticed that their forecast was wrong till
later than 13:19, and even then they didn't bother to issue an updated
forecast. I know it's Sunday, and perhaps there aren't mainly people on
duty, but it's not very impressive.

TBH I don't think many care anymore. Morale is still rock-bottom and I
know of several who want to give up operational meteorology as the plan
is still full automation (apart from warnings) by 2020.

Another point is that there is now no experience left in UKMO. I mean
real experience of 30 years+ in synoptic met. relating weather to charts
etc. If the model says no then the forecasters have little to draw upon
to go against it. An example is showers. Not many people know that the
high res models do not advect showers, they are formed in situ at each
gridpoint. That is why windward coasts get warnings and not places
downwind. Of course if the forecasters had a lot of experience of
different situations then they could correct that. The next 10 years may
see very poor forecasting indeed until models improve and start to take
over the experience of relating weather to synoptics. But then again the
scientists to do this automation work are often not experienced either,
oh dear! And no I'm not going back, I love not working after getting
voluntary redundancy (and a big pay off) in 2012.

Awwwww. They need you Smug. They need you so much! I'm surprised the MetO bosses haven't been making beelines to your door, begging you to return.

Never mind. You'll get some snow at the end of this week so you can make all the visitors to Haytor so jealous of your mastery driving-in-snow skills.

Pass me the kill file sick bucket, please.

On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 12:30:43 UTC, wrote:
On 09/01/2017 17:17, Eskimo Will wrote:
On 08/01/2017 22:02, John Hall wrote:
In message , Bernard Burton
writes
Never mind the medium range, today's forecasts in BBC R4 have been
pretty useless. Unless my hearing is faulty, the only mention of rain
on the 7.55 forecast was some drizzle over Wales. There was already
some precipitation in the SE showing on the radar then, and here we
had intrermittent slight drizzle all night, and this developed into
over an hour of moderate rain and drizzle here, and appeared to be
quite widespread on the radar. The models obviously missed this
development, and a lack of a decent covering of 'real' obs and a
dearth of radio soundings makes this type blunder only to be expected..
I noticed too, that the EGLL TAF has almost as many amends as there
were METARS!. On the 1255 forecast I heard a lot about how cold it
would be later in the week, but no mention or apology for the
downright duff forecasts for today.

The forecast for SE England currently shown on the Met Office website,
and time-stamped at 13:19 says:

This Evening and Tonight:
Often overcast skies tonight with mist and patches of fog. Light winds
at first will freshen later. It should be a dry night for most, but with
a few spots of drizzle in the wind. Minimum Temperature 5 °C.

I happened to be visiting a friend in SE London today, and there was
moderate rain there from at least 18:30 to 19:00. So it seems that
nobody at the Met Office noticed that their forecast was wrong till
later than 13:19, and even then they didn't bother to issue an updated
forecast. I know it's Sunday, and perhaps there aren't mainly people on
duty, but it's not very impressive.

TBH I don't think many care anymore. Morale is still rock-bottom and I
know of several who want to give up operational meteorology as the plan
is still full automation (apart from warnings) by 2020.

Another point is that there is now no experience left in UKMO. I mean
real experience of 30 years+ in synoptic met. relating weather to charts
etc. If the model says no then the forecasters have little to draw upon
to go against it. An example is showers. Not many people know that the
high res models do not advect showers, they are formed in situ at each
gridpoint. That is why windward coasts get warnings and not places
downwind. Of course if the forecasters had a lot of experience of
different situations then they could correct that. The next 10 years may
see very poor forecasting indeed until models improve and start to take
over the experience of relating weather to synoptics. But then again the
scientists to do this automation work are often not experienced either,
oh dear! And no I'm not going back, I love not working after getting
voluntary redundancy (and a big pay off) in 2012.

Oh dear, more smugness. Look at me, see how much I've been paid off at the taxpayers expense. Best not mention that gilt-edged pension, eh?

Col

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 10:50:35 AM UTC, Norman Lynagh wrote:
The medium range models are a continuing source of light entertainment. The 00z
operational runs this morning show the following predictions for the British
Isles for Tue/Wed 17th/18th

ECMWF: Bitterly cold easterlies setting in.
GFS: Very mild SW'lies
GEM: Very strong, cold westerlies with polar maritime air

All that can reasonably deduced from that lot is that, on the basis of current
knowledge, the evolution of the weather pattern that far ahead is
unforecastable to any useful level of reliability at present. Long may that
state of affairs continue :-)

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org
@TideswellWeathr


Northern Britain warning from Met Office yesterday gave 55mph maximum winds over hills and coasts. You can't call urban Leeds exposed - we have already exceeded 55mph at 300feet AMSL.
!

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 00:59:17 -0800 (PST)
Robert Brooks wrote:

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 10:50:35 AM UTC, Norman Lynagh wrote:
The medium range models are a continuing source of light entertainment. The
00z operational runs this morning show the following predictions for the
British Isles for Tue/Wed 17th/18th

ECMWF: Bitterly cold easterlies setting in.
GFS: Very mild SW'lies
GEM: Very strong, cold westerlies with polar maritime air

All that can reasonably deduced from that lot is that, on the basis of
current knowledge, the evolution of the weather pattern that far ahead is
unforecastable to any useful level of reliability at present. Long may that
state of affairs continue :-)

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org
@TideswellWeathr


Northern Britain warning from Met Office yesterday gave 55mph maximum winds
over hills and coasts. You can't call urban Leeds exposed - we have already
exceeded 55mph at 300feet AMSL. !

But I should imagine that a lot of people expose themselves in urban Leeds?

Will
--

On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:02:46 UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 12:30:43 UTC, wrote:
On 09/01/2017 17:17, Eskimo Will wrote:
On 08/01/2017 22:02, John Hall wrote:
In message , Bernard Burton
writes
Never mind the medium range, today's forecasts in BBC R4 have been
pretty useless. Unless my hearing is faulty, the only mention of rain
on the 7.55 forecast was some drizzle over Wales. There was already
some precipitation in the SE showing on the radar then, and here we
had intrermittent slight drizzle all night, and this developed into
over an hour of moderate rain and drizzle here, and appeared to be
quite widespread on the radar. The models obviously missed this
development, and a lack of a decent covering of 'real' obs and a
dearth of radio soundings makes this type blunder only to be expected.
I noticed too, that the EGLL TAF has almost as many amends as there
were METARS!. On the 1255 forecast I heard a lot about how cold it
would be later in the week, but no mention or apology for the
downright duff forecasts for today.

The forecast for SE England currently shown on the Met Office website,
and time-stamped at 13:19 says:

This Evening and Tonight:
Often overcast skies tonight with mist and patches of fog. Light winds
at first will freshen later. It should be a dry night for most, but with
a few spots of drizzle in the wind. Minimum Temperature 5 °C.

I happened to be visiting a friend in SE London today, and there was
moderate rain there from at least 18:30 to 19:00. So it seems that
nobody at the Met Office noticed that their forecast was wrong till
later than 13:19, and even then they didn't bother to issue an updated
forecast. I know it's Sunday, and perhaps there aren't mainly people on
duty, but it's not very impressive.

TBH I don't think many care anymore. Morale is still rock-bottom and I
know of several who want to give up operational meteorology as the plan
is still full automation (apart from warnings) by 2020.

Another point is that there is now no experience left in UKMO. I mean
real experience of 30 years+ in synoptic met. relating weather to charts
etc. If the model says no then the forecasters have little to draw upon
to go against it. An example is showers. Not many people know that the
high res models do not advect showers, they are formed in situ at each
gridpoint. That is why windward coasts get warnings and not places
downwind. Of course if the forecasters had a lot of experience of
different situations then they could correct that. The next 10 years may
see very poor forecasting indeed until models improve and start to take
over the experience of relating weather to synoptics. But then again the
scientists to do this automation work are often not experienced either,
oh dear! And no I'm not going back, I love not working after getting
voluntary redundancy (and a big pay off) in 2012.

Oh dear, more smugness. Look at me, see how much I've been paid off at the taxpayers expense. Best not mention that gilt-edged pension, eh?

Col

The 2012 redundancies were a two sided cost saving method for the Met Office and hence the taxpayer. It firstly enabled the final demise of the Observers (of all ages) without trying to find them new jobs. The Observer roles were then spliced with the incumbent forecasters and some refreshed automation (MMS Observing network) (The forecasters did not get any additional pay for absorbing this partial role into their workload BTW).

The other saving was to release older more experience forecasters and recruit more fresh young graduates at a lower payscale (and with much reduced pension rights (working til at least 65-70) and massively higher contribution rates...now much like any private pension with no final salary involved ....6 to 8% average contribution rates).

The training budget for forecasters was effectively cut by significantly simplifying the forecasting course (making it model centric) and shifting the final training responsibility out to the on-site managers, who are now also training assessors (Again no pay increase for the extra role absorption).

The opportunity was also there to change the demographic, for the past 8 to 10 years, most of the graduates have been female, such that now a male forecaster over 35 years old is much more scarce, and most are under 30 years old!

So as you can see, the taxpayer's money has been saved, as most of those earlier redundancies involved people who were already approaching retirement or who were in the base level (low paid) Observer roles. Along with role merging and IT/model efficiencies, the cost of staff and pensions is greatly reduced in real terms.

Hope this helps

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 05:10:21 -0800 (PST)
Crusader wrote:

On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:02:46 UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 12:30:43 UTC,
wrote:
On 09/01/2017 17:17, Eskimo Will wrote:
On 08/01/2017 22:02, John Hall wrote:
In message , Bernard Burton
writes
Never mind the medium range, today's forecasts in BBC R4 have been
pretty useless. Unless my hearing is faulty, the only mention of rain
on the 7.55 forecast was some drizzle over Wales. There was already
some precipitation in the SE showing on the radar then, and here we
had intrermittent slight drizzle all night, and this developed into
over an hour of moderate rain and drizzle here, and appeared to be
quite widespread on the radar. The models obviously missed this
development, and a lack of a decent covering of 'real' obs and a
dearth of radio soundings makes this type blunder only to be expected.
I noticed too, that the EGLL TAF has almost as many amends as there
were METARS!. On the 1255 forecast I heard a lot about how cold it
would be later in the week, but no mention or apology for the
downright duff forecasts for today.

The forecast for SE England currently shown on the Met Office website,
and time-stamped at 13:19 says:

This Evening and Tonight:
Often overcast skies tonight with mist and patches of fog. Light winds
at first will freshen later. It should be a dry night for most, but
with a few spots of drizzle in the wind. Minimum Temperature 5 °C.

I happened to be visiting a friend in SE London today, and there was
moderate rain there from at least 18:30 to 19:00. So it seems that
nobody at the Met Office noticed that their forecast was wrong till
later than 13:19, and even then they didn't bother to issue an updated
forecast. I know it's Sunday, and perhaps there aren't mainly people on
duty, but it's not very impressive.

TBH I don't think many care anymore. Morale is still rock-bottom and I
know of several who want to give up operational meteorology as the plan
is still full automation (apart from warnings) by 2020.

Another point is that there is now no experience left in UKMO. I mean
real experience of 30 years+ in synoptic met. relating weather to charts
etc. If the model says no then the forecasters have little to draw upon
to go against it. An example is showers. Not many people know that the
high res models do not advect showers, they are formed in situ at each
gridpoint. That is why windward coasts get warnings and not places
downwind. Of course if the forecasters had a lot of experience of
different situations then they could correct that. The next 10 years may
see very poor forecasting indeed until models improve and start to take
over the experience of relating weather to synoptics. But then again the
scientists to do this automation work are often not experienced either,
oh dear! And no I'm not going back, I love not working after getting
voluntary redundancy (and a big pay off) in 2012.

Oh dear, more smugness. Look at me, see how much I've been paid off at the
taxpayers expense. Best not mention that gilt-edged pension, eh?

Col

The 2012 redundancies were a two sided cost saving method for the Met Office
and hence the taxpayer. It firstly enabled the final demise of the Observers
(of all ages) without trying to find them new jobs. The Observer roles were
then spliced with the incumbent forecasters and some refreshed automation
(MMS Observing network) (The forecasters did not get any additional pay for
absorbing this partial role into their workload BTW).

The other saving was to release older more experience forecasters and recruit
more fresh young graduates at a lower payscale (and with much reduced pension
rights (working til at least 65-70) and massively higher contribution
rates...now much like any private pension with no final salary involved ....6
to 8% average contribution rates).

The training budget for forecasters was effectively cut by significantly
simplifying the forecasting course (making it model centric) and shifting the
final training responsibility out to the on-site managers, who are now also
training assessors (Again no pay increase for the extra role absorption).

The opportunity was also there to change the demographic, for the past 8 to
10 years, most of the graduates have been female, such that now a male
forecaster over 35 years old is much more scarce, and most are under 30 years
old!

So as you can see, the taxpayer's money has been saved, as most of those
earlier redundancies involved people who were already approaching retirement
or who were in the base level (low paid) Observer roles. Along with role
merging and IT/model efficiencies, the cost of staff and pensions is greatly
reduced in real terms.

Hope this helps

What a great summary, concur with all of the above. I basically took the
opportunity when it came up. Come on, who wouldn't! Win for the MetO and win
for me. No doubt there will be further exit schemes as departments continue to
look for savings.

Eskimo Will
--

On 11/01/17 13:10, Crusader wrote:
The other saving was to release older more experience forecasters and recruit more fresh young graduates at a lower payscale (and with much reduced pension rights (working til at least 65-70) and massively higher contribution rates...now much like any private pension with no final salary involved ...6 to 8% average contribution rates).

As I recall, the virtual pension-contribution rates of about fifteen to
twenty years ago were 10%. This was the amount by which salaries were
reduced during pay comparisons with outside industry to take account of
the 'non-contributory' Civil Service scheme. If you add on the 1.5% real
Widows and Orphans contribution, that makes pension contributions of
11.5% at that time.

So pension contributions have actually dropped - assuming the previous
10% salary adjustment has been rescinded. I'm sure the government,
honest people that they are, would have done that, wouldn't they?


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
There are more fools than knaves in the world, else the knaves would
not have enough to live upon. [Samuel Butler]