I'm sorry but I do not believe all the so called evidence. So much of it is used to 'fit' what the climate change theorists want. I don't dispute that climate changes - it has done since the planet was formed. We've had much warmer and much colder periods than we have now,
I've read other reports that say that the planet hasn't warmed at all in the last 20 years. You pay your money and take your choice as the saying goes.
Weather is unpredictable, I agree, but when the BBC and Met office produce forecasts showing what the weather will be like in hourly or three hourly slots I would expect it to be more accurate than it is.
Quite agree. I think that's a fair expectation.
Actually, if you apply a bit of thought to it it's not a fair expectation. These forecasts, for your town or postcode, are still in their infancy. How can you possibly give a weather forecast with a single symbol? If the forecast for tomorrow was the outside chance of a shower any time during the day then, on the BBC's method, what hour(s) do you put the shower symbol and how useful would it be?
These forecasts are produced by computer (no human input) based on a grid system. Your forecast will be based on the centre (seed) point of the grid and will not take local features into consideration. The size of the grid is also relevant. One of the temperature charts produced on a global basis uses a large grid size for which the seed point for London is off the coast of the Isle of Wight! Ie very misleading if you use it to forecast tomorrow's max temperature (or the wind speed, shower likelihood etc) for London.
Weather forecasting is getting better and better but it's a highly complex subject and there is still so much we don't know or understand. The computer produced local forecasts will get better but for the time being I would advise treating them as an indication but don't take them too seriously.
I'm sorry but I do not believe all the so called evidence. So much of it is used to 'fit' what the climate change theorists want. I don't dispute that climate changes - it has done since the planet was formed. We've had much warmer and much colder periods than we have now,
I've read other reports that say that the planet hasn't warmed at all in the last 20 years. You pay your money and take your choice as the saying goes.
Weather is unpredictable, I agree, but when the BBC and Met office produce forecasts showing what the weather will be like in hourly or three hourly slots I would expect it to be more accurate than it is.
Quite agree. I think that's a fair expectation.
Actually, if you apply a bit of thought to it it's not a fair expectation. These forecasts, for your town or postcode, are still in their infancy. How can you possibly give a weather forecast with a single symbol? If the forecast for tomorrow was the outside chance of a shower any time during the day then, on the BBC's method, what hour(s) do you put the shower symbol and how useful would it be?
These forecasts are produced by computer (no human input) based on a grid system. Your forecast will be based on the centre (seed) point of the grid and will not take local features into consideration. The size of the grid is also relevant. One of the temperature charts produced on a global basis uses a large grid size for which the seed point for London is off the coast of the Isle of Wight! Ie very misleading if you use it to forecast tomorrow's max temperature (or the wind speed, shower likelihood etc) for London.
Weather forecasting is getting better and better but it's a highly complex subject and there is still so much we don't know or understand. The computer produced local forecasts will get better but for the time being I would advise treating them as an indication but don't take them too seriously.
You obviously know a lot more about this subject than I, so I bow.
However, my comment was made having acknowledged that weather is unpredictable. This is more or less what you are saying, in a very technical way.
Given that these localised reports are in their "infancy" and are, from my personal experience, very unreliable, a question - why bother publicising them until they've matured a tad? Particularly if you advise that they should not be taken seriously?
I appreciate your explanation, but still maintain that it is fair to expect such forecasts to be more accurate, or at the very least to come with your "warning"!!
I agree with you Eddie, why give detailed forecasts if you know they are not going to be correct? It just makes for disgruntled people when they prove to be wrong.
I'm sorry but I do not believe all the so called evidence. So much of it is used to 'fit' what the climate change theorists want. I don't dispute that climate changes - it has done since the planet was formed. We've had much warmer and much colder periods than we have now,
I've read other reports that say that the planet hasn't warmed at all in the last 20 years. You pay your money and take your choice as the saying goes.
Weather is unpredictable, I agree, but when the BBC and Met office produce forecasts showing what the weather will be like in hourly or three hourly slots I would expect it to be more accurate than it is.
Quite agree. I think that's a fair expectation.
Actually, if you apply a bit of thought to it it's not a fair expectation. These forecasts, for your town or postcode, are still in their infancy. How can you possibly give a weather forecast with a single symbol? If the forecast for tomorrow was the outside chance of a shower any time during the day then, on the BBC's method, what hour(s) do you put the shower symbol and how useful would it be?
These forecasts are produced by computer (no human input) based on a grid system. Your forecast will be based on the centre (seed) point of the grid and will not take local features into consideration. The size of the grid is also relevant. One of the temperature charts produced on a global basis uses a large grid size for which the seed point for London is off the coast of the Isle of Wight! Ie very misleading if you use it to forecast tomorrow's max temperature (or the wind speed, shower likelihood etc) for London.
Weather forecasting is getting better and better but it's a highly complex subject and there is still so much we don't know or understand. The computer produced local forecasts will get better but for the time being I would advise treating them as an indication but don't take them too seriously.
You obviously know a lot more about this subject than I, so I bow.
However, my comment was made having acknowledged that weather is unpredictable. This is more or less what you are saying, in a very technical way.
Given that these localised reports are in their "infancy" and are, from my personal experience, very unreliable, a question - why bother publicising them until they've matured a tad? Particularly if you advise that they should not be taken seriously?
I appreciate your explanation, but still maintain that it is fair to expect such forecasts to be more accurate, or at the very least to come with your "warning"!!
I think the answer lay in the same place as the answers to the questions 'why is software released before it is 100% bug-free' and 'why release weather forecasts that you have no faith in' - because we demand it (in an indirect way).
At the beginning of this year the Met Office's confidence in their forecasts was at an all-time low. This was due to the unusual global atmospheric patterns in place. However, they are contractually required to issue forecasts at specified intervals, which they did, even though they had little faith in them!
They also issue seasonal forecasts based on their new computer models because people want some idea of what lies ahead longer-term. They do come with a health warning but from a media perspective, why let that spoil a good story when it goes wrong.
For the record, I sort of agree with you. 'Likelyhood' and 'confidence' percentages should be used a lot more in forecast presentation but that goes against the BBC's dumbing down of weather.
Also, for the record, I don't believe anything I read about the weather in a newspaper. Come to think of it, I don't believe anything I read in a newspaper!
For the record, I tend to use the met office's website for info, and note the %s.
I totally accept your comments regarding the BBC and the papers. Radio, too.
The BBC's forecasts are produced (dictated) by the Met Office. The computer-based hourly forecasts are from the Met Office's main forecasting model (they have a number of models for different types of forecast) which is run twice daily. BBC weather people will follow the line given by the Met Office Chief Forecaster but may hint at slight disagreements.
On Met Office website when I looked just now (8.15 am) the weather for Maidstone at 7.00 am shows full cloud. When I woke at 5.30 this morning there wasn't a cloud in the sky and there are still no clouds. The BBC website shows Maidstone as being sunny right through this morning. How can we take these forecasts seriously when they are so different.
Last Friday, 21 June, was the summer solstice, and now the days are getting shorter and the nights are drawing in. I think our "summer" confined itself to last Wednesday, when I took a seven-mile walk across east London in oppressive heat and humidity: it reminded me of Chicago in August. But on Sunday a chilly north-westerly wind was whistling through the ventilation grille in my flat, and yesterday morning at the keyboard my fingers were numb with cold and I resorted to turning on the central heating.
I was beginning to wonder whether it was just me, feeling the cold. But a friend in St Albans went to work yesterday wearing a thick anorak over a blazer - and he was still cold - and another friend in Purley has got his central heating cranked right up. At the end of June? It's madness!
I was in Italy for the past two weeks near Rome, and we didn't have a day under 30celsius and not a cloud in the sky. It was 37c when we arrived in Bologna on Friday. I found it hard to comprehend trying to get changed in the arrivals hall at Gatwick on Saturday, putting on socks, shoes and track suit bottoms.
Considering the relatively short distance between London and Rome, it's all getting very crazy.
Yet again the weather forecast for this morning is wrong. According to the Met Office it was supposed to be raining by now. My husband put off a job because it was supposed to be wet and I thought I'd leave my washing until tomorrow so I could get it dry.
It is currently hot and sunny here! I suppose I should realise by now that the weather forecast is generally wrong even a few hours in advance.
Stormy weather supposed to be coming in from the south! Still warm & sunny here on south coast with no clouds in sight. Should be ok for a few hours yet.
Comments
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Emergency+Canmore+Cougar+Creek+flooding+extremely+dangerous+with+video/8550481/story.html
These forecasts are produced by computer (no human input) based on a grid system. Your forecast will be based on the centre (seed) point of the grid and will not take local features into consideration. The size of the grid is also relevant. One of the temperature charts produced on a global basis uses a large grid size for which the seed point for London is off the coast of the Isle of Wight! Ie very misleading if you use it to forecast tomorrow's max temperature (or the wind speed, shower likelihood etc) for London.
Weather forecasting is getting better and better but it's a highly complex subject and there is still so much we don't know or understand. The computer produced local forecasts will get better but for the time being I would advise treating them as an indication but don't take them too seriously.
However, my comment was made having acknowledged that weather is unpredictable. This is more or less what you are saying, in a very technical way.
Given that these localised reports are in their "infancy" and are, from my personal experience, very unreliable, a question - why bother publicising them until they've matured a tad? Particularly if you advise that they should not be taken seriously?
I appreciate your explanation, but still maintain that it is fair to expect such forecasts to be more accurate, or at the very least to come with your "warning"!!
At the beginning of this year the Met Office's confidence in their forecasts was at an all-time low. This was due to the unusual global atmospheric patterns in place. However, they are contractually required to issue forecasts at specified intervals, which they did, even though they had little faith in them!
They also issue seasonal forecasts based on their new computer models because people want some idea of what lies ahead longer-term. They do come with a health warning but from a media perspective, why let that spoil a good story when it goes wrong.
For the record, I sort of agree with you. 'Likelyhood' and 'confidence' percentages should be used a lot more in forecast presentation but that goes against the BBC's dumbing down of weather.
Also, for the record, I don't believe anything I read about the weather in a newspaper. Come to think of it, I don't believe anything I read in a newspaper!
I totally accept your comments regarding the BBC and the papers. Radio, too.
A few days ago, I heard the forecast for "London" as being a "dry" day with showers in the afternoon.
To be fair, they qualified it to "mainly dry" later on, but it did make me laugh!
I was beginning to wonder whether it was just me, feeling the cold. But a friend in St Albans went to work yesterday wearing a thick anorak over a blazer - and he was still cold - and another friend in Purley has got his central heating cranked right up. At the end of June? It's madness!
Considering the relatively short distance between London and Rome, it's all getting very crazy.
Surely we're due one?
Put away your sunglasses.
It is currently hot and sunny here! I suppose I should realise by now that the weather forecast is generally wrong even a few hours in advance.
:-)