Weather forecasting: again!!!
17 January 2013, 02:44 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So which is it?
17 January 2013, 02:50 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I read your post, it was nonsense as it implied what they say and what they really say are two different things. It's a f**kiing weather forecast not the Times crossword.
The fact remains they predicted two summers with a higher than average temperature and two mild winters and they were wrong about all of them.
What is it about that that you do not understand? And I am the thick one?
The fact remains they predicted two summers with a higher than average temperature and two mild winters and they were wrong about all of them.
What is it about that that you do not understand? And I am the thick one?
This is actually what the Met Office said in 2009
At the time the chief meteorologist, Ewen McCallum, said there was a 50 per cent chance of above- average temperatures and a 30 per cent chance of average temperatures. The chances of the summer being a washout were around 30 per cent, he declared.
Is that not a qualified forecast? Does it state absolute certainty? It actually says that there was 50% chance that it wouldn't be above average temps.
And as for summer 2012 - they said it would be above average temps last summer, oh and guess what ...they were right.
Now how are you going to spin that one?
17 January 2013, 02:51 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RA Dunk,
But where do you get your forecasts from? Specifically I mean, website, BBC national news etc.? Do you then follow them up with getting more in depth detail? Do you keep up to date as the critical time approaches?
Or are you like many, that hears on the national news that it might rain tomorrow in your area then gets upset when it doesn't rain, or does rain but an hour later than they said etc.?
You may find that your expectations of mainstream weather forecasts are too high. I've said it before, 2 minutes to cover the whole UK for up to three days ahead is daft (BBCs choice though, not the Met Office). Contrast that with the Met Office forecasters doing their weather brief for a single location for the next 12 hours only to RAF aircrew, that takes 10 mins.
Basically what I am saying is that if you want a better weather forecast first learn about the weather and how it works, then if it is critical to you, spend time looking at the various model output, look at the forecasts in detail etc.
Coming back to the "waste of money" the Met Office supposedly is, well another year, and another profit for the Treasury. I.e. Met Office returns more to the Treasury then it takes out. And according to the PWSCG for every pound spent in the public weather service portion of the Met Office, the UK economy benefits by about £20.
Think of the aviation work the Met Office does. Saves the airlines millions each year which in turn makes tickets cheaper and hence more people can fly.
Maritime work, routing ships around bad weather or taking advantage of the weather keeps shipping costs for products much cheaper and with more chance of them arriving.
Defence work, keeping all the forces safe in bad weather, using the weather as an advantage in warfare etc. Hell, 80 odd members of the Met Office staff actually serve overseas in combat scenarios to continue that work.
And these are just a tiny portion of what the Met Office does.
So if you want to call us "useless *****" because some *BBC* forecast you saw was a bit wrong, then you need to wake up and take a good look at yourself. *Your* ignorance is *your* problem.
But where do you get your forecasts from? Specifically I mean, website, BBC national news etc.? Do you then follow them up with getting more in depth detail? Do you keep up to date as the critical time approaches?
Or are you like many, that hears on the national news that it might rain tomorrow in your area then gets upset when it doesn't rain, or does rain but an hour later than they said etc.?
You may find that your expectations of mainstream weather forecasts are too high. I've said it before, 2 minutes to cover the whole UK for up to three days ahead is daft (BBCs choice though, not the Met Office). Contrast that with the Met Office forecasters doing their weather brief for a single location for the next 12 hours only to RAF aircrew, that takes 10 mins.
Basically what I am saying is that if you want a better weather forecast first learn about the weather and how it works, then if it is critical to you, spend time looking at the various model output, look at the forecasts in detail etc.
Coming back to the "waste of money" the Met Office supposedly is, well another year, and another profit for the Treasury. I.e. Met Office returns more to the Treasury then it takes out. And according to the PWSCG for every pound spent in the public weather service portion of the Met Office, the UK economy benefits by about £20.
Think of the aviation work the Met Office does. Saves the airlines millions each year which in turn makes tickets cheaper and hence more people can fly.
Maritime work, routing ships around bad weather or taking advantage of the weather keeps shipping costs for products much cheaper and with more chance of them arriving.
Defence work, keeping all the forces safe in bad weather, using the weather as an advantage in warfare etc. Hell, 80 odd members of the Met Office staff actually serve overseas in combat scenarios to continue that work.
And these are just a tiny portion of what the Met Office does.
So if you want to call us "useless *****" because some *BBC* forecast you saw was a bit wrong, then you need to wake up and take a good look at yourself. *Your* ignorance is *your* problem.
17 January 2013, 02:54 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An example
Kind of reminds me of your ridiculous pre Olympic ramblings. Actually hoping that the games would fail, and certain in your own tragic world view that it would all be terrible
Now I seem to remember that my 'deluded' view held up quite well
17 January 2013, 02:58 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RA Dunk,
But where do you get your forecasts from? Specifically I mean, website, BBC national news etc.? Do you then follow them up with getting more in depth detail? Do you keep up to date as the critical time approaches?
Or are you like many, that hears on the national news that it might rain tomorrow in your area then gets upset when it doesn't rain, or does rain but an hour later than they said etc.?
You may find that your expectations of mainstream weather forecasts are too high. I've said it before, 2 minutes to cover the whole UK for up to three days ahead is daft (BBCs choice though, not the Met Office). Contrast that with the Met Office forecasters doing their weather brief for a single location for the next 12 hours only to RAF aircrew, that takes 10 mins.
Basically what I am saying is that if you want a better weather forecast first learn about the weather and how it works, then if it is critical to you, spend time looking at the various model output, look at the forecasts in detail etc.
Coming back to the "waste of money" the Met Office supposedly is, well another year, and another profit for the Treasury. I.e. Met Office returns more to the Treasury then it takes out. And according to the PWSCG for every pound spent in the public weather service portion of the Met Office, the UK economy benefits by about £20.
Think of the aviation work the Met Office does. Saves the airlines millions each year which in turn makes tickets cheaper and hence more people can fly.
Maritime work, routing ships around bad weather or taking advantage of the weather keeps shipping costs for products much cheaper and with more chance of them arriving.
Defence work, keeping all the forces safe in bad weather, using the weather as an advantage in warfare etc. Hell, 80 odd members of the Met Office staff actually serve overseas in combat scenarios to continue that work.
And these are just a tiny portion of what the Met Office does.
So if you want to call us "useless *****" because some *BBC* forecast you saw was a bit wrong, then you need to wake up and take a good look at yourself. *Your* ignorance is *your* problem.
But where do you get your forecasts from? Specifically I mean, website, BBC national news etc.? Do you then follow them up with getting more in depth detail? Do you keep up to date as the critical time approaches?
Or are you like many, that hears on the national news that it might rain tomorrow in your area then gets upset when it doesn't rain, or does rain but an hour later than they said etc.?
You may find that your expectations of mainstream weather forecasts are too high. I've said it before, 2 minutes to cover the whole UK for up to three days ahead is daft (BBCs choice though, not the Met Office). Contrast that with the Met Office forecasters doing their weather brief for a single location for the next 12 hours only to RAF aircrew, that takes 10 mins.
Basically what I am saying is that if you want a better weather forecast first learn about the weather and how it works, then if it is critical to you, spend time looking at the various model output, look at the forecasts in detail etc.
Coming back to the "waste of money" the Met Office supposedly is, well another year, and another profit for the Treasury. I.e. Met Office returns more to the Treasury then it takes out. And according to the PWSCG for every pound spent in the public weather service portion of the Met Office, the UK economy benefits by about £20.
Think of the aviation work the Met Office does. Saves the airlines millions each year which in turn makes tickets cheaper and hence more people can fly.
Maritime work, routing ships around bad weather or taking advantage of the weather keeps shipping costs for products much cheaper and with more chance of them arriving.
Defence work, keeping all the forces safe in bad weather, using the weather as an advantage in warfare etc. Hell, 80 odd members of the Met Office staff actually serve overseas in combat scenarios to continue that work.
And these are just a tiny portion of what the Met Office does.
So if you want to call us "useless *****" because some *BBC* forecast you saw was a bit wrong, then you need to wake up and take a good look at yourself. *Your* ignorance is *your* problem.
I suspect you just wasted several minutes of your life.
17 January 2013, 02:58 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RA Dunk,
But where do you get your forecasts from? Specifically I mean, website, BBC national news etc.? Do you then follow them up with getting more in depth detail? Do you keep up to date as the critical time approaches?
Or are you like many, that hears on the national news that it might rain tomorrow in your area then gets upset when it doesn't rain, or does rain but an hour later than they said etc.?
You may find that your expectations of mainstream weather forecasts are too high. I've said it before, 2 minutes to cover the whole UK for up to three days ahead is daft (BBCs choice though, not the Met Office). Contrast that with the Met Office forecasters doing their weather brief for a single location for the next 12 hours only to RAF aircrew, that takes 10 mins.
Basically what I am saying is that if you want a better weather forecast first learn about the weather and how it works, then if it is critical to you, spend time looking at the various model output, look at the forecasts in detail etc.
Coming back to the "waste of money" the Met Office supposedly is, well another year, and another profit for the Treasury. I.e. Met Office returns more to the Treasury then it takes out. And according to the PWSCG for every pound spent in the public weather service portion of the Met Office, the UK economy benefits by about £20.
Think of the aviation work the Met Office does. Saves the airlines millions each year which in turn makes tickets cheaper and hence more people can fly.
Maritime work, routing ships around bad weather or taking advantage of the weather keeps shipping costs for products much cheaper and with more chance of them arriving.
Defence work, keeping all the forces safe in bad weather, using the weather as an advantage in warfare etc. Hell, 80 odd members of the Met Office staff actually serve overseas in combat scenarios to continue that work.
And these are just a tiny portion of what the Met Office does.
So if you want to call us "useless *****" because some *BBC* forecast you saw was a bit wrong, then you need to wake up and take a good look at yourself. *Your* ignorance is *your* problem.
But where do you get your forecasts from? Specifically I mean, website, BBC national news etc.? Do you then follow them up with getting more in depth detail? Do you keep up to date as the critical time approaches?
Or are you like many, that hears on the national news that it might rain tomorrow in your area then gets upset when it doesn't rain, or does rain but an hour later than they said etc.?
You may find that your expectations of mainstream weather forecasts are too high. I've said it before, 2 minutes to cover the whole UK for up to three days ahead is daft (BBCs choice though, not the Met Office). Contrast that with the Met Office forecasters doing their weather brief for a single location for the next 12 hours only to RAF aircrew, that takes 10 mins.
Basically what I am saying is that if you want a better weather forecast first learn about the weather and how it works, then if it is critical to you, spend time looking at the various model output, look at the forecasts in detail etc.
Coming back to the "waste of money" the Met Office supposedly is, well another year, and another profit for the Treasury. I.e. Met Office returns more to the Treasury then it takes out. And according to the PWSCG for every pound spent in the public weather service portion of the Met Office, the UK economy benefits by about £20.
Think of the aviation work the Met Office does. Saves the airlines millions each year which in turn makes tickets cheaper and hence more people can fly.
Maritime work, routing ships around bad weather or taking advantage of the weather keeps shipping costs for products much cheaper and with more chance of them arriving.
Defence work, keeping all the forces safe in bad weather, using the weather as an advantage in warfare etc. Hell, 80 odd members of the Met Office staff actually serve overseas in combat scenarios to continue that work.
And these are just a tiny portion of what the Met Office does.
So if you want to call us "useless *****" because some *BBC* forecast you saw was a bit wrong, then you need to wake up and take a good look at yourself. *Your* ignorance is *your* problem.
17 January 2013, 02:58 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends on which air mass is over you at the time. Yesterday our temperature in Devon was 5,2C and at my friend's place in East Lincs was -8.2C. That is a distance of about 250 miles.
The movement of air masses is very difficult to predict and so are the properties of the air in the air masses. You can measure all those properties and them you can attempt to predict the weather which they will produce. You can have an idea of how the air is affected by the proximity of another air mass and how it moves in relation, but to predict how it will move is another matter.
Air masses' properties are affected by the movement of the polar front or how the cold northerly air moves in relation to the tropical warmer air and the temperature on the land or sea, or how much water vapour is picked up from the sea. The polar front is marked by the Jet Stream which is a thermal wind produced by the difference in temperature between the cold northerly air and the warm tropical southerly air. It is at high level by the tropopause around 35 thousand feet and it is very fast through a narrow vertical layer but quite wide horizontally. When it moves south over us it means that we will be in a cold air mass which is prone to producing high and low pressure weather systems and that is where our weather comes from.
Knowing all this information, it is possible to make a fair guess at what weather we can expect. The forecasters have to have all the air mass information to do that but the problem is, the air masses do not necessarily follow the paths which one might expect. They have a mind of their own and can move one way or another in an unpredictable manner. There is always a lack of all the information the forecasters need as well since they have to rely on sensors which don't cover the whole areas under observation.
It all comes down to the fact that Mother Nature can move in mysterious and unpredictable ways. As we see, they sometimes get it right, but often it all changes in a way they could not anticipate and no one is qualified to blame them for that.
Having had to rely on them, often for survival, for all those years, I would never have the brass neck to criticise them, especially since in common with most, I dont understand the weather systems well enough to whine about an incorrect forecast!
Les
The movement of air masses is very difficult to predict and so are the properties of the air in the air masses. You can measure all those properties and them you can attempt to predict the weather which they will produce. You can have an idea of how the air is affected by the proximity of another air mass and how it moves in relation, but to predict how it will move is another matter.
Air masses' properties are affected by the movement of the polar front or how the cold northerly air moves in relation to the tropical warmer air and the temperature on the land or sea, or how much water vapour is picked up from the sea. The polar front is marked by the Jet Stream which is a thermal wind produced by the difference in temperature between the cold northerly air and the warm tropical southerly air. It is at high level by the tropopause around 35 thousand feet and it is very fast through a narrow vertical layer but quite wide horizontally. When it moves south over us it means that we will be in a cold air mass which is prone to producing high and low pressure weather systems and that is where our weather comes from.
Knowing all this information, it is possible to make a fair guess at what weather we can expect. The forecasters have to have all the air mass information to do that but the problem is, the air masses do not necessarily follow the paths which one might expect. They have a mind of their own and can move one way or another in an unpredictable manner. There is always a lack of all the information the forecasters need as well since they have to rely on sensors which don't cover the whole areas under observation.
It all comes down to the fact that Mother Nature can move in mysterious and unpredictable ways. As we see, they sometimes get it right, but often it all changes in a way they could not anticipate and no one is qualified to blame them for that.
Having had to rely on them, often for survival, for all those years, I would never have the brass neck to criticise them, especially since in common with most, I dont understand the weather systems well enough to whine about an incorrect forecast!
Les
17 January 2013, 03:14 PM
#38
Yes I read your post, it was nonsense as it implied what they say and what they really say are two different things. It's a f**kiing weather forecast not the Times crossword.
The fact remains they predicted two summers with a higher than average temperature and two mild winters and they were wrong about all of them.
What is it about that that you do not understand? And I am the thick one?
The fact remains they predicted two summers with a higher than average temperature and two mild winters and they were wrong about all of them.
What is it about that that you do not understand? And I am the thick one?
17 January 2013, 03:18 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I repeat (yet again)
This is actually what the Met Office said in 2009
At the time the chief meteorologist, Ewen McCallum, said there was a 50 per cent chance of above- average temperatures and a 30 per cent chance of average temperatures. The chances of the summer being a washout were around 30 per cent, he declared.now there's a surprise
Is anyone going to even acknowledge the facts?
Last edited by Martin2005; 17 January 2013 at 03:20 PM.
17 January 2013, 03:20 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I repeat
This is actually what the Met Office said in 2009
At the time the chief meteorologist, Ewen McCallum, said there was a 50 per cent chance of above- average temperatures and a 30 per cent chance of average temperatures. The chances of the summer being a washout were around 30 per cent, he declared.
Is that not a qualified forecast? Does it state absolute certainty? It actually says that there was 50% chance that it wouldn't be above average temps.
And as for summer 2012 - they said it would be above average temps last summer, oh and guess what ...they were right.
Now how are you going to spin that one?
This is actually what the Met Office said in 2009
At the time the chief meteorologist, Ewen McCallum, said there was a 50 per cent chance of above- average temperatures and a 30 per cent chance of average temperatures. The chances of the summer being a washout were around 30 per cent, he declared.
Is that not a qualified forecast? Does it state absolute certainty? It actually says that there was 50% chance that it wouldn't be above average temps.
And as for summer 2012 - they said it would be above average temps last summer, oh and guess what ...they were right.
Now how are you going to spin that one?
Originally Posted by Met Office in 2009
The coming summer is odds on for a barbeque summer. Temperatures across the country are likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or below average for the three months of summer
Originally Posted by Met Office 3 months later
In April we said there was a 65% chance of temperatures above average and rainfall below average but that does leave a 35% chance the opposite would be true. Seasonal forecasting is a new science
17 January 2013, 03:26 PM
#41
Are the media outlets spoonfed their forecasts by people like the Met, or do they get given a set of data for them to analyse to see fit, and report what they like?
If it's the former, then I think it's perfectly acceptable to be a bit irritated when the Met gets it wrong - if they don't have a high confidence rating in their forecast for two days into the future, then they really shouldn't issue a forecast at all. As in many walks of life, it's better to say I don't know, than to guess.
If it's the latter, then the lynch mob should be steered towards the BBC building instead of the Met
If it's the former, then I think it's perfectly acceptable to be a bit irritated when the Met gets it wrong - if they don't have a high confidence rating in their forecast for two days into the future, then they really shouldn't issue a forecast at all. As in many walks of life, it's better to say I don't know, than to guess.
If it's the latter, then the lynch mob should be steered towards the BBC building instead of the Met
17 January 2013, 03:29 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or 'C' because it isn't anywhere near as bad as you want it to be
An example
Kind of reminds me of your ridiculous pre Olympic ramblings. Actually hoping that the games would fail, and certain in your own tragic world view that it would all be terrible
Now I seem to remember that my 'deluded' view held up quite well
An example
Kind of reminds me of your ridiculous pre Olympic ramblings. Actually hoping that the games would fail, and certain in your own tragic world view that it would all be terrible
Now I seem to remember that my 'deluded' view held up quite well
What I am not wrong about is that the UK is run by corrupt politicians, has a corrupt press and a partially corrupt police force. The welfare state is out of control, the country's finances are a lot worse than we are being told, the EU is corrupt, heading for bankruptcy and taking us for a ride and we are letting it do so.
Neither Cameron or Milliband have the slightest f**king clue how to sort it out and anyway they probably don't care as they will be fine no matter what due to the political system you support.
You, however, think very little of this is true and that it is all rosy in the garden of Planet UK. You are in for one big shock in the next few years. We all are! Except a few of us who can see it coming!
17 January 2013, 03:37 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh wow so I got it wrong about the Olympics and did actually post to say so, I was hardly alone in my opinion though was I? When was the last time you acknowledged getting something wrong.... that's it though you are never wrong are you, you post conjecture as if it were fact and look down your nose at anyone who dares disagree with you.
What I am not wrong about is that the UK is run by corrupt politicians, has a corrupt press and a partially corrupt police force. The welfare state is out of control, the country's finances are a lot worse than we are being told, the EU is corrupt, heading for bankruptcy and taking us for a ride and we are letting it do so.
Neither Cameron or Milliband have the slightest f**king clue how to sort it out and anyway they probably don't care as they will be fine no matter what due to the political system you support.
You, however, think very little of this is true and that it is all rosy in the garden of Planet UK. You are in for one big shock in the next few years. We all are! Except a few of us who can see it coming!
What I am not wrong about is that the UK is run by corrupt politicians, has a corrupt press and a partially corrupt police force. The welfare state is out of control, the country's finances are a lot worse than we are being told, the EU is corrupt, heading for bankruptcy and taking us for a ride and we are letting it do so.
Neither Cameron or Milliband have the slightest f**king clue how to sort it out and anyway they probably don't care as they will be fine no matter what due to the political system you support.
You, however, think very little of this is true and that it is all rosy in the garden of Planet UK. You are in for one big shock in the next few years. We all are! Except a few of us who can see it coming!
I've never ever said that this a rosy. If you have to lie about what I've said to make a point, then it doesn't say much about the point you are trying to make does it?
The difference between the way I look at things and you is simple, I don't tend apply absolutist terms to my opinions.
For example you like to say 'all politicians are corrupt' this statement is patently untrue, but you continue to peddle (and defend) this particular line. The truth is SOME politician are corrupt, but that nuance seems to get lost somehow in your desire to paint an entirely negative picture of the state of things
And if you can point out somewhere that my opinion has been shown to be wrong, I'll happily acknowledge it.
On the Olympic you were alone, you were alone in stating WANTED IT THEM FAIL
Last edited by Martin2005; 17 January 2013 at 03:48 PM.
17 January 2013, 03:42 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an Oregan Scientific weather forecast thingy which is so much more accurate than any other weather forecast. This was also good but no longet active and matched my results whereas the loacal BBC and Met office forecasts are dire. I do pay particular attention to the weather as I work outside.
http://weather.lgfl.org.uk/default.aspx
http://weather.lgfl.org.uk/default.aspx
17 January 2013, 03:48 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never ever said that this a rosy. If you have to lie about what I've said to make a point, then it doesn't say much about the point you are trying to make does it?
The difference between the way I look at things and you is simple, I don't tend apply absolutist terms to my opinions.
For example you like to say 'all politicians are corrupt' this statement is patently untrue, but you continue to peddle (and defend) this particular line. The truth is SOME politician are corrupt, but that nuance seems to get lost somehow in your desire to paint an entirely negative picture of the state of things
And if you can point out somewhere that my opinion has been shown to be wrong, I'll happily acknowledge it.
The difference between the way I look at things and you is simple, I don't tend apply absolutist terms to my opinions.
For example you like to say 'all politicians are corrupt' this statement is patently untrue, but you continue to peddle (and defend) this particular line. The truth is SOME politician are corrupt, but that nuance seems to get lost somehow in your desire to paint an entirely negative picture of the state of things
And if you can point out somewhere that my opinion has been shown to be wrong, I'll happily acknowledge it.
On the latter point you called me thick, I have an IQ that patently demonstrates I am not ergo you were wrong. Not that you won't come back with some tedious retort regarding that of course.
17 January 2013, 03:51 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason I paint an entirely negative picture is because there is virtually nothing to be positive about, in my opinion, as regards the future of this country. I have arrived at this conclusion after decades of watching the country go further and further downhill. You have a different opinion.... they are however both opinions and not facts!
On the latter point you called me thick, I have an IQ that patently demonstrates I am not ergo you were wrong. Not that you won't come back with some tedious retort regarding that of course.
On the latter point you called me thick, I have an IQ that patently demonstrates I am not ergo you were wrong. Not that you won't come back with some tedious retort regarding that of course.
You know full well that I didn't, I assume you were being deliberately daft.
Last edited by Martin2005; 17 January 2013 at 03:53 PM.
17 January 2013, 03:54 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS There's a new multicultural thread for you to get your teeth into... off you go
Last edited by f1_fan; 17 January 2013 at 03:55 PM.
17 January 2013, 03:57 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would myself, but I don't have the time right now 
17 January 2013, 05:13 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RA Dunk,
But where do you get your forecasts from? Specifically I mean, website, BBC national news etc.? Do you then follow them up with getting more in depth detail? Do you keep up to date as the critical time approaches?
Or are you like many, that hears on the national news that it might rain tomorrow in your area then gets upset when it doesn't rain, or does rain but an hour later than they said etc.?
You may find that your expectations of mainstream weather forecasts are too high. I've said it before, 2 minutes to cover the whole UK for up to three days ahead is daft (BBCs choice though, not the Met Office). Contrast that with the Met Office forecasters doing their weather brief for a single location for the next 12 hours only to RAF aircrew, that takes 10 mins.
Basically what I am saying is that if you want a better weather forecast first learn about the weather and how it works, then if it is critical to you, spend time looking at the various model output, look at the forecasts in detail etc.
Coming back to the "waste of money" the Met Office supposedly is, well another year, and another profit for the Treasury. I.e. Met Office returns more to the Treasury then it takes out. And according to the PWSCG for every pound spent in the public weather service portion of the Met Office, the UK economy benefits by about £20.
Think of the aviation work the Met Office does. Saves the airlines millions each year which in turn makes tickets cheaper and hence more people can fly.
Maritime work, routing ships around bad weather or taking advantage of the weather keeps shipping costs for products much cheaper and with more chance of them arriving.
Defence work, keeping all the forces safe in bad weather, using the weather as an advantage in warfare etc. Hell, 80 odd members of the Met Office staff actually serve overseas in combat scenarios to continue that work.
And these are just a tiny portion of what the Met Office does.
So if you want to call us "useless *****" because some *BBC* forecast you saw was a bit wrong, then you need to wake up and take a good look at yourself. *Your* ignorance is *your* problem.
But where do you get your forecasts from? Specifically I mean, website, BBC national news etc.? Do you then follow them up with getting more in depth detail? Do you keep up to date as the critical time approaches?
Or are you like many, that hears on the national news that it might rain tomorrow in your area then gets upset when it doesn't rain, or does rain but an hour later than they said etc.?
You may find that your expectations of mainstream weather forecasts are too high. I've said it before, 2 minutes to cover the whole UK for up to three days ahead is daft (BBCs choice though, not the Met Office). Contrast that with the Met Office forecasters doing their weather brief for a single location for the next 12 hours only to RAF aircrew, that takes 10 mins.
Basically what I am saying is that if you want a better weather forecast first learn about the weather and how it works, then if it is critical to you, spend time looking at the various model output, look at the forecasts in detail etc.
Coming back to the "waste of money" the Met Office supposedly is, well another year, and another profit for the Treasury. I.e. Met Office returns more to the Treasury then it takes out. And according to the PWSCG for every pound spent in the public weather service portion of the Met Office, the UK economy benefits by about £20.
Think of the aviation work the Met Office does. Saves the airlines millions each year which in turn makes tickets cheaper and hence more people can fly.
Maritime work, routing ships around bad weather or taking advantage of the weather keeps shipping costs for products much cheaper and with more chance of them arriving.
Defence work, keeping all the forces safe in bad weather, using the weather as an advantage in warfare etc. Hell, 80 odd members of the Met Office staff actually serve overseas in combat scenarios to continue that work.
And these are just a tiny portion of what the Met Office does.
So if you want to call us "useless *****" because some *BBC* forecast you saw was a bit wrong, then you need to wake up and take a good look at yourself. *Your* ignorance is *your* problem.
Out of all the forecasts I check Met office are the least reliable.
Don't bust my chops pal, I can't help it if you and your company are completely incompetent.
17 January 2013, 05:28 PM
#51
I'm afraid that is the problem.
Most people don't listen to the weather forecast properly and even when they do they don't understand the differences that can happen due to local conditions.
It got to a minimum of -1.3 in our yard last night, but -5.4 up the other end of our garden (50m away). I understand why that happens.
But if I watched the TV forecast that has 2 minutes to convey three days of weather, and a single temperature forecast for last night covering the majority of the SW of England, the chances of actually getting it right for either of my two thermometers is pretty low.
As for the Met Office being a waste of money, does anyone know how much money they actually save for the country?
Most people don't listen to the weather forecast properly and even when they do they don't understand the differences that can happen due to local conditions.
It got to a minimum of -1.3 in our yard last night, but -5.4 up the other end of our garden (50m away). I understand why that happens.
But if I watched the TV forecast that has 2 minutes to convey three days of weather, and a single temperature forecast for last night covering the majority of the SW of England, the chances of actually getting it right for either of my two thermometers is pretty low.
As for the Met Office being a waste of money, does anyone know how much money they actually save for the country?
17 January 2013, 06:22 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I use Met Office, Well actually I check them all now due to your lack of ability to even get close to an accurate forecast.
Out of all the forecasts I check Met office are the least reliable.
Don't bust my chops pal, I can't help it if you and your company are completely incompetent.
Out of all the forecasts I check Met office are the least reliable.
Don't bust my chops pal, I can't help it if you and your company are completely incompetent.
So I'm incompetent as well as my company? And you think I'm incompetent because? You don't even know what I do, so your statement is unfounded. Pal.
17 January 2013, 06:49 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
We have some of the hardest Weather to forecast
Fortunately, we have in the met office one of the best forecasters in the world
Ask any sailer
Fortunately, we have in the met office one of the best forecasters in the world
Ask any sailer
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 17 January 2013 at 06:51 PM.
17 January 2013, 06:53 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garden end is in a frost hollow over grass and the yard is concrete which will easily give you a 4 degree difference, even more so in summer heat.
17 January 2013, 07:22 PM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One insult deserves another.
People in glass houses and all that...
17 January 2013, 07:34 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I wasn't being insulting. Or at least I didn't intend to. Apologies.
I was pointing out that your lack of knowledge (ignorance) may be the reason that you perceive weather forecasts to be wrong. If you spent the time to learn about the weather you may have a better understanding of why forecasts appear to be wrong to you.
Whatever, I tried to make a valid point but you are obviously not interested in having a discussion.
I was pointing out that your lack of knowledge (ignorance) may be the reason that you perceive weather forecasts to be wrong. If you spent the time to learn about the weather you may have a better understanding of why forecasts appear to be wrong to you.
Whatever, I tried to make a valid point but you are obviously not interested in having a discussion.
17 January 2013, 08:10 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I woulden't say I am completely without lack of Knowledge, I have a qualification in meteorology so do know the difference between a low and a high.
Sorry, I thought you were having a bit of a go at me and went all defensive lol
Sorry, I thought you were having a bit of a go at me and went all defensive lol
18 January 2013, 03:01 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very difficult to produce an accurate forecast for an entropic situation. Its usually an intelligent idea based very largely on sometimes accurate measurements and luck.
Les
Les
18 January 2013, 03:16 PM
#59
See, what gets me about the Metoffice is when you look out of the window and it's chucking it down, black clouds etc, and their site says no rain, some cloud.
You then look half an hour later and their site has been changed to say rain.....
Can I have a few millions of UK taxpayers' money?? I could do that.
You then look half an hour later and their site has been changed to say rain.....
Can I have a few millions of UK taxpayers' money?? I could do that.
18 January 2013, 03:49 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See, what gets me about the Metoffice is when you look out of the window and it's chucking it down, black clouds etc, and their site says no rain, some cloud.
You then look half an hour later and their site has been changed to say rain.....
Can I have a few millions of UK taxpayers' money?? I could do that.
You then look half an hour later and their site has been changed to say rain.....
Can I have a few millions of UK taxpayers' money?? I could do that.