On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 9:55:27 AM UTC, wrote:
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
--

It's probably more prevalent on Dartmoor! exposure that is!

On 11/01/2017 13:32, Will Hand wrote:
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
--


Would you advise against me applying for a job there whenever a
potentially suitable one for me comes up.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:08:00 +0000
Adam Lea wrote:

On 11/01/2017 13:32, Will Hand wrote:
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
--


Would you advise against me applying for a job there whenever a
potentially suitable one for me comes up.

Certainly not! It's a great place to work. After 42 years I had had enough of
the politics, cost saving and corporate ****e but the work and people were still
interesting and nice. Good luck and if you need any interview advice let me
know.

Will
--

On 12/01/2017 08:55, Will Hand wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:08:00 +0000
Adam Lea wrote:

On 11/01/2017 13:32, Will Hand wrote:
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
--


Would you advise against me applying for a job there whenever a
potentially suitable one for me comes up.

Certainly not! It's a great place to work. After 42 years I had had enough of
the politics, cost saving and corporate ****e but the work and people were still
interesting and nice. Good luck and if you need any interview advice let me
know.

Will
--


Ok, I was a little confused as I have always had the opinion it was a
good place to work but you seem to have a lot of negative opinions of
the place, so I was beginning to wonder if my opinion was wrong. I keep
an eye on the scientific jobs and have applied several times in the
past, but always get pipped at the post. I'm told I'm a suitable
candidate to work there but there ends up being someone else with a bit
more experience in one of the required criteria. I guess it is a case of
keep trying and hope one day I end up being the first choice rather than
the runner up.

"Will Hand" wrote in message
. ..

After 42 years I had had enough of
the politics, cost saving and corporate ****e but the work and people were
still
interesting and nice.

TBH that sounds no different to any other larger organisation, whether in
the public sector or the real economy. At a more junior level you're often
not very exposed to the less agreeable side of organisations and the first
several years' of employment can be both interesting and motivating. But as
you progressively assume more responsibility and especially if you get drawn
into middle management then the downsides of organisations are usually all
too visible at first hand. Two rules:

1. If at all possible, keep your head down and just get on with your work
conscientiously, whatever might be going on all around.

2. Always have an escape route planned, at least in outline.

On Thursday, 12 January 2017 10:11:52 UTC, JohnD wrote:
"Will Hand" wrote in message
. ..

After 42 years I had had enough of
the politics, cost saving and corporate ****e but the work and people were
still
interesting and nice.

TBH that sounds no different to any other larger organisation, whether in
the public sector or the real economy. At a more junior level you're often
not very exposed to the less agreeable side of organisations and the first
several years' of employment can be both interesting and motivating. But as
you progressively assume more responsibility and especially if you get drawn
into middle management then the downsides of organisations are usually all
too visible at first hand. Two rules:

1. If at all possible, keep your head down and just get on with your work
conscientiously, whatever might be going on all around.

2. Always have an escape route planned, at least in outline.

Terrific advice. Or, alternatively, form your own company, where you have no boss. 😎

On Thursday, 12 January 2017 09:58:32 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:
On 12/01/2017 08:55, Will Hand wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:08:00 +0000
Adam Lea wrote:

On 11/01/2017 13:32, Will Hand wrote:
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
--


Would you advise against me applying for a job there whenever a
potentially suitable one for me comes up.

Certainly not! It's a great place to work. After 42 years I had had enough of
the politics, cost saving and corporate ****e but the work and people were still
interesting and nice. Good luck and if you need any interview advice let me
know.

Will
--


Ok, I was a little confused as I have always had the opinion it was a
good place to work but you seem to have a lot of negative opinions of
the place, so I was beginning to wonder if my opinion was wrong. I keep
an eye on the scientific jobs and have applied several times in the
past, but always get pipped at the post. I'm told I'm a suitable
candidate to work there but there ends up being someone else with a bit
more experience in one of the required criteria. I guess it is a case of
keep trying and hope one day I end up being the first choice rather than
the runner up.

I somehow think application advice from smug of Haytor may not be the best you could access... I'd counsel taking any feedback from your interviewers on the chin, but as gold dust and contact and foster links with, serving MetO employees for tips and advice. If the MetO is your preferred metier, keep on trying. Don't give up and good luck.

As someone who sometimes does application sifting...I could help.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:11:45 -0000
"JohnD" wrote:

"Will Hand" wrote in message
. ..

After 42 years I had had enough of
the politics, cost saving and corporate ****e but the work and people were
still
interesting and nice.

TBH that sounds no different to any other larger organisation, whether in
the public sector or the real economy. At a more junior level you're often
not very exposed to the less agreeable side of organisations and the first
several years' of employment can be both interesting and motivating. But as
you progressively assume more responsibility and especially if you get drawn
into middle management then the downsides of organisations are usually all
too visible at first hand. Two rules:

1. If at all possible, keep your head down and just get on with your work
conscientiously, whatever might be going on all around.

2. Always have an escape route planned, at least in outline.


I did! :-)

But yes you are totally correct I became exposed to all the ****e when I turned
50 and became a senior member of the TU. Many things I could not talk about and
still can't publicly. Language at Union meetings with
Management got a tad rich at times although we had good relations with the HR
department.

Will (now a free man)
--

On 08/01/2017 10:50, 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 :-)

I can't work out how to post to a newsgroup with Thunderbird to replying
to you Norman.

Would I be right in thin king that Weatheronline expert maps (the only
source of detailed weather charts I know) have been pulled today to
scupper anyone using them commercially as its the first signigicant
weather of the winter?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus