Even 12 hours ago the BBC weather was predicting rain and storms over a
substantial part of london and the southwest.

[looks out the window]

Blue sky. And looking at the rainfall radar the nearest rain is in
cambridgshire and calais.

And this isn't the first time. If all their expertise and their very
expensive supercomputer can't even get a forecast right 12 hours ahead then
whats the point of them?

--
Spud

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 08:53:06 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:
Even 12 hours ago the BBC weather was predicting rain and storms over a
substantial part of london and the southwest.

Typo - southeast.

--
Spud

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 08:53:06 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:

Even 12 hours ago the BBC weather was predicting rain and storms over a
substantial part of london and the southwest.

[looks out the window]

Blue sky. And looking at the rainfall radar the nearest rain is in
cambridgshire and calais.

And this isn't the first time. If all their expertise and their very
expensive supercomputer can't even get a forecast right 12 hours ahead then
whats the point of them?


Idiot.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 10:49:31 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 08:53:06 +0000 (UTC)
wrote:

Even 12 hours ago the BBC weather was predicting rain and storms over a
substantial part of london and the southwest.

[looks out the window]

Blue sky. And looking at the rainfall radar the nearest rain is in
cambridgshire and calais.

And this isn't the first time. If all their expertise and their very
expensive supercomputer can't even get a forecast right 12 hours ahead then
whats the point of them?


Idiot.

Very erudite. Got anything further to add or is that your contribution for
the day and you need to go lie down now?

FWIW I dragged around a useless umbrella and I suspect some farmers and event
managers are a bit put out too. No one expects them to get the weather dead on
a week ahead, but 12 hours?? A piece of seaweed could have done better.

--
Spud

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 10:49:31 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 08:53:06 +0000 (UTC)
wrote:

Even 12 hours ago the BBC weather was predicting rain and storms over a
substantial part of london and the southwest.

[looks out the window]

Blue sky. And looking at the rainfall radar the nearest rain is in
cambridgshire and calais.

And this isn't the first time. If all their expertise and their very
expensive supercomputer can't even get a forecast right 12 hours ahead then
whats the point of them?


Idiot.

Very erudite. Got anything further to add or is that your contribution for
the day and you need to go lie down now?

FWIW I dragged around a useless umbrella and I suspect some farmers and event
managers are a bit put out too. No one expects them to get the weather dead on
a week ahead, but 12 hours?? A piece of seaweed could have done better.


Clearly you have not understood the Met Office warnings properly. It said most
places will miss the storms altogether and stay dry. They did not go for wall
to wall storms. Even the auto site forecasts were dry (mainly). Now go away and
come back when you understand a bit more about meteorology and the nature of
convection - thank you. Also I am not sure now that BBC weather get their
forecast from the Met Office any more they were meant to be moving over to using
MeteoGroup. Stephen?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Will Hand wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 10:49:31 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 08:53:06 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:

Even 12 hours ago the BBC weather was predicting rain and storms over a
substantial part of london and the southwest.

[looks out the window]

Blue sky. And looking at the rainfall radar the nearest rain is in
cambridgshire and calais.

And this isn't the first time. If all their expertise and their very
expensive supercomputer can't even get a forecast right 12 hours ahead
then whats the point of them?


Idiot.

Very erudite. Got anything further to add or is that your contribution for
the day and you need to go lie down now?

FWIW I dragged around a useless umbrella and I suspect some farmers and
event managers are a bit put out too. No one expects them to get the
weather dead on a week ahead, but 12 hours?? A piece of seaweed could have
done better.


Clearly you have not understood the Met Office warnings properly. It said most
places will miss the storms altogether and stay dry. They did not go for wall
to wall storms. Even the auto site forecasts were dry (mainly). Now go away
and come back when you understand a bit more about meteorology and the nature
of convection - thank you. Also I am not sure now that BBC weather get their
forecast from the Met Office any more they were meant to be moving over to
using MeteoGroup. Stephen?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


My take on this is that 'Warnings' should be issued only for something that is
expected to happen. In my ideal world the current large 'Warning' area should
be a 'Watch' area. The 'Warnings' should be issued and updated on an
hour-by-hour basis referring only to individual storms or clusters of storms
and restricted to those localities at imminent risk, say over the next 2 hours.
The 'Convective SIGMETs' issued by the US National Weather Service are an
excellent example of this, as are the tornado warnings. In other words, in
thundery situation, I think the 'Warnings' should take the form of 'Nowcasts'
updated hourly.

My experience is that I am very seldom affected by severe weather on the
occasions when a blanket 'Warning' is issued covering the part of the country
where I happen to be. This frequent 'cry wolf' situation has a huge negative
impact on the reputation of the Severe Weather Warning service. People of my
acquaintance in this part of the country largely ignore severe weather warnings
because of this.

I appreciate the forecasting difficulty in the present situation where there is
considerable potential for development. However, we have had a 'Warning' in
force for here since 6 a.m. but, so far, there hasn't been any hint of shower
activity in the area. A 'Watch' would have been much more appropriate than a
'Warning'.

Just my tuppence-worth :-)

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

On 06/07/17 13:38, Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 10:49:31 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 08:53:06 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:

Even 12 hours ago the BBC weather was predicting rain and storms over a
substantial part of london and the southwest.

[looks out the window]

Blue sky. And looking at the rainfall radar the nearest rain is in
cambridgshire and calais.

And this isn't the first time. If all their expertise and their very
expensive supercomputer can't even get a forecast right 12 hours ahead then
whats the point of them?


Idiot.

Very erudite. Got anything further to add or is that your contribution for
the day and you need to go lie down now?

FWIW I dragged around a useless umbrella and I suspect some farmers and event
managers are a bit put out too. No one expects them to get the weather dead on
a week ahead, but 12 hours?? A piece of seaweed could have done better.


Clearly you have not understood the Met Office warnings properly. It said most
places will miss the storms altogether and stay dry. They did not go for wall
to wall storms. Even the auto site forecasts were dry (mainly). Now go away and
come back when you understand a bit more about meteorology and the nature of
convection - thank you. Also I am not sure now that BBC weather get their
forecast from the Met Office any more they were meant to be moving over to using
MeteoGroup. Stephen?

I don't know about other models but GFS has been forecasting an area of
rain for SE England for the past week. Initially, it was due mainly
during Friday but gradually backtracked to Thursday. I had a dental
appointment this morning and, going by yesterday's GFS, I was expecting
to be needing my mackintosh (I'm a bit twitchy about using an umbrella
during a thunderstorm).


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
“Like sewage, smartphones, and Donald Trump, some things are just
inevitable.� [The Doctor]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:38:19 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
wrote:
Very erudite. Got anything further to add or is that your contribution for
the day and you need to go lie down now?

FWIW I dragged around a useless umbrella and I suspect some farmers and
event
managers are a bit put out too. No one expects them to get the weather dead
on
a week ahead, but 12 hours?? A piece of seaweed could have done better.


Clearly you have not understood the Met Office warnings properly. It said most
places will miss the storms altogether and stay dry. They did not go for wall

I don't know what the warnings were, I simply watched a number of forecasts
both broadcast and the online map. They all showed rain and storms over a
significant part of the southeast. The rain graphics arn't a probability map,
they're where they expect rain to fall with a high certainty.

They weren't slightly wrong, they were completely arse about face wrong.

to wall storms. Even the auto site forecasts were dry (mainly). Now go away and
come back when you understand a bit more about meteorology and the nature of
convection - thank you. Also I am not sure now that BBC weather get their

Spare me your feable attempts at being patronising, there are far better
practioners than you at it on usenet. And as for the "nature of convection",
yes, it might be chaotic and I wouldn't expect them to be bang on the money
but to predict a large swathe of storms over an area 80 miles wide and then we
get *none at all* leads me to believe theres a problem with either their models
or measurements.

--
Spud

On 6 Jul 2017 13:50:14 GMT
"Norman Lynagh" wrote:

Will Hand wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 10:49:31 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 08:53:06 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:

Even 12 hours ago the BBC weather was predicting rain and storms over a
substantial part of london and the southwest.

[looks out the window]

Blue sky. And looking at the rainfall radar the nearest rain is in
cambridgshire and calais.

And this isn't the first time. If all their expertise and their very
expensive supercomputer can't even get a forecast right 12 hours
ahead
then whats the point of them?


Idiot.

Very erudite. Got anything further to add or is that your contribution for
the day and you need to go lie down now?

FWIW I dragged around a useless umbrella and I suspect some farmers and
event managers are a bit put out too. No one expects them to get the
weather dead on a week ahead, but 12 hours?? A piece of seaweed could have
done better.


Clearly you have not understood the Met Office warnings properly. It said
most places will miss the storms altogether and stay dry. They did not go
for wall to wall storms. Even the auto site forecasts were dry (mainly).
Now go away and come back when you understand a bit more about meteorology
and the nature of convection - thank you. Also I am not sure now that BBC
weather get their forecast from the Met Office any more they were meant to
be moving over to using MeteoGroup. Stephen?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


My take on this is that 'Warnings' should be issued only for something that is
expected to happen. In my ideal world the current large 'Warning' area should
be a 'Watch' area. The 'Warnings' should be issued and updated on an
hour-by-hour basis referring only to individual storms or clusters of storms
and restricted to those localities at imminent risk, say over the next 2
hours. The 'Convective SIGMETs' issued by the US National Weather Service are
an excellent example of this, as are the tornado warnings. In other words, in
thundery situation, I think the 'Warnings' should take the form of 'Nowcasts'
updated hourly.

My experience is that I am very seldom affected by severe weather on the
occasions when a blanket 'Warning' is issued covering the part of the country
where I happen to be. This frequent 'cry wolf' situation has a huge negative
impact on the reputation of the Severe Weather Warning service. People of my
acquaintance in this part of the country largely ignore severe weather
warnings because of this.

I appreciate the forecasting difficulty in the present situation where there
is considerable potential for development. However, we have had a 'Warning' in
force for here since 6 a.m. but, so far, there hasn't been any hint of shower
activity in the area. A 'Watch' would have been much more appropriate than a
'Warning'.

Just my tuppence-worth :-)


A yellow warning is meant to be a watch or a heads-up. Amber is a proper
warning in the old fashioned sense.

Will
--

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 15:39:11 +0000 (UTC)
d wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:38:19 +0100
Will Hand wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:55:03 +0000 (UTC)
wrote:
Very erudite. Got anything further to add or is that your contribution for
the day and you need to go lie down now?

FWIW I dragged around a useless umbrella and I suspect some farmers and
event
managers are a bit put out too. No one expects them to get the weather
dead
on
a week ahead, but 12 hours?? A piece of seaweed could have done better.


Clearly you have not understood the Met Office warnings properly. It said
most places will miss the storms altogether and stay dry. They did not go
for wall

I don't know what the warnings were, I simply watched a number of forecasts
both broadcast and the online map. They all showed rain and storms over a
significant part of the southeast. The rain graphics arn't a probability map,
they're where they expect rain to fall with a high certainty.

They weren't slightly wrong, they were completely arse about face wrong.

to wall storms. Even the auto site forecasts were dry (mainly). Now go away
and come back when you understand a bit more about meteorology and the
nature of convection - thank you. Also I am not sure now that BBC weather
get their

Spare me your feable attempts at being patronising, there are far better
practioners than you at it on usenet. And as for the "nature of convection",
yes, it might be chaotic and I wouldn't expect them to be bang on the money
but to predict a large swathe of storms over an area 80 miles wide and then we
get *none at all* leads me to believe theres a problem with either their
models or measurements.


Mr Hindsight the best forecaster in the world. Now go and pick some spuds.

Will
--

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com