http://www.metoffice.com/corporate/p.../timeline.html

Jon.

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message
...

http://www.metoffice.com/corporate/p.../timeline.html

Shame it won't reach 200. Shall we have a sweepstake?

I'll start the ball rolling and offer a generous 172. The end comes
when no part of the MO(1) remains a central government-
funded and controlled(2) service.

(1) except the Library and Archives
which, strictly speaking, are distinct from the rest
(2) excluding under the aegis of
a university or other educational establishment

Send your tenners to me!

Philip Eden

http://www.metoffice.com/corporate/p.../timeline.html

Shame it won't reach 200

However long it lasts, there will be plenty more information contained in the
October special issue of 'Weather', commemorating the anniversary.

Julian

Julian Mayes
West Molesey
Surrey
(Ed. 'Weather')

Shame it won't reach 200. Shall we have a sweepstake?

I'll start the ball rolling and offer a generous 172. The end comes
when no part of the MO(1) remains a central government-
funded and controlled(2) service.

Too pessimistic! The present orthodoxy will not last for ever. Look,
at the non-headline stuff, what is happening on the railways. Eventually we
will have BR back, in effect. So with the Met Office. A vague, optimistic
feeling? Of course it is. But I would put very little money on 172. More
like "200". What odds are you offering, Philip?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

"TudorHgh" wrote in message
...


Shame it won't reach 200. Shall we have a sweepstake?

I'll start the ball rolling and offer a generous 172. The end
comes
when no part of the MO(1) remains a central government-
funded and controlled(2) service.

Too pessimistic! The present orthodoxy will not last for
ever. Look,
at the non-headline stuff, what is happening on the railways.
Eventually we
will have BR back, in effect. So with the Met Office. A vague,
optimistic
feeling? Of course it is. But I would put very little money on
172. More
like "200". What odds are you offering, Philip?

No odds, Tudor ... it's a sweep. Winner takes all.
My tongue, of course, was firmly (if only half) in cheek.
Nevertheless I see no argument for a meteorological
service of the future to be a nationalised one. Already
there are practically no observers in government service,
the number of forecasters is diminishing and will continue
so to do ... I wonder what the ratio of paperclip-counters
to 4B-wielders is now? Investment in research will become
increasingly hard to justify as return per research-pound
decreases, etc, etc, etc.

Philip Eden

In message , Philip Eden
writes

No odds, Tudor ... it's a sweep. Winner takes all.
My tongue, of course, was firmly (if only half) in cheek.
Nevertheless I see no argument for a meteorological
service of the future to be a nationalised one. Already
there are practically no observers in government service,
the number of forecasters is diminishing and will continue
so to do ... I wonder what the ratio of paperclip-counters
to 4B-wielders is now? Investment in research will become
increasingly hard to justify as return per research-pound
decreases, etc, etc, etc.

Philip Eden


Oh dear another illusion shattered.

Good forecaster you may well be Philip but sadly you seem to be yet
another right wing ideologue. Private is best and all that.

What a shame.
--
Bill

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote snip
Shame it won't reach 200. Shall we have a sweepstake?

I'll start the ball rolling and offer a generous 172. The end comes
when no part of the MO(1) remains a central government-
funded and controlled(2) service.
snip
Send your tenners to me!

.... no money from me I'm afraid, but I can't disagree with Philip's
general diagnosis - both here and in his recent book (Daily Telegraph -
Book of the Weather); the 'status quo' surely cannot be maintained -
indeed of course, the 'situation' has been creeping through change for
some years: another 'change' is about to be 'engineered' as regards the
Met Office - sometime later this year.

I wonder more though whether greater European integration will also
force change - will not someone in the Brussels / Strasbourg 'axis' turn
eyes on the great conundrum that is the running of global models from
several centres (EC, UKMO, MF, DWD)? Not to mention a sprinkling of
local / regional-scale models, driven not necessarily by the former:
some provided with boundary data from the GFS for example.

There is also the basic MET data provision, collation, analysis &
storage question. Do we need this to be split up amongst the nation
states? Why not a central organisation funded by the EU? Is this not
already the way the Satellite and (perhaps to a lesser extent) the radar
observation of our continent is proceeding?

Martin.

In message , Martin Rowley
writes
"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote snip
Shame it won't reach 200. Shall we have a sweepstake?

I'll start the ball rolling and offer a generous 172. The end comes
when no part of the MO(1) remains a central government-
funded and controlled(2) service.
snip
Send your tenners to me!

... no money from me I'm afraid, but I can't disagree with Philip's
general diagnosis - both here and in his recent book (Daily Telegraph -
Book of the Weather); the 'status quo' surely cannot be maintained -
indeed of course, the 'situation' has been creeping through change for
some years: another 'change' is about to be 'engineered' as regards the
Met Office - sometime later this year.

I wonder more though whether greater European integration will also
force change - will not someone in the Brussels / Strasbourg 'axis' turn
eyes on the great conundrum that is the running of global models from
several centres (EC, UKMO, MF, DWD)? Not to mention a sprinkling of
local / regional-scale models, driven not necessarily by the former:
some provided with boundary data from the GFS for example.

There is also the basic MET data provision, collation, analysis &
storage question. Do we need this to be split up amongst the nation
states? Why not a central organisation funded by the EU? Is this not
already the way the Satellite and (perhaps to a lesser extent) the radar
observation of our continent is proceeding?


I agree with what you say, Martin. In the current era of European
"get-togetherness" it appears increasingly out of step that we have all
these overlapping and competing national met services. It would surely
be far more cost-efficient to have a single European Weather Service.

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles
England

"Martin Rowley" wrote in
message ...

I wonder more though whether greater European integration will
also
force change - will not someone in the Brussels / Strasbourg
'axis' turn
eyes on the great conundrum that is the running of global models
from
several centres (EC, UKMO, MF, DWD)? Not to mention a sprinkling
of
local / regional-scale models, driven not necessarily by the
former:
some provided with boundary data from the GFS for example.

There is also the basic MET data provision, collation, analysis &
storage question. Do we need this to be split up amongst the
nation
states? Why not a central organisation funded by the EU? Is this
not
already the way the Satellite and (perhaps to a lesser extent) the
radar
observation of our continent is proceeding?

Yes, I deliberately avoided mentioning Europe, which was my
get out clause ... there'd be an awful lot of politicking, of
course,
but 20+ years should be enough for this to happen. And why
stop at Europe ... why shouldn't global models be run, and
their output marketed, on a global basis?

Philip Eden

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Oh dear another illusion shattered.

Good forecaster you may well be Philip but sadly you seem to be
yet
another right wing ideologue. Private is best and all that.

LOL ...

Wrong on both counts, Bill. Far too old and too lazy to be
called a good forecaster, and as for the other, you've no
idea how funny that is.

Philip Eden