Will Hand wrote:

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

Then why not call it a 'watch' to avoid confusion. A 'Warning' is a warning,
irrespective of the colour. The word 'warning' should be used very sparingly.

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