UKC

What's going on with the weather forecasts? Went out yesterday because it was supposed to be "the best day" and got soaked. Today was supposed to be heavy rain - you've guessed, not a drop!

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Same here but it only lasted 20 minutes - that was enough though

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

For real?

Go and find a dictionary and look up the word forecast. If it mentions guaranteed accuracy or incredible future seeing powers then please report back and I'll start paying attention.

I've always found the Weather forecast to be hugely reliable in some aspects. As they predict, night always comes and the hours do pass in a linear fashion. Also, we do get rain, sun and cloud - not always at the times they say, but eventually.

Last year I remember them predicting a frost, a bugger me, within 6 months we did! Can't get better than that without sacrificing a few virgins - not common in Stoke!

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Froggatt was forecast to be dry, warm and cloudy with sun later. They got it 100%

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

I claim credit for Saturday's Froggatt sunshine, I nobly sacrificed my personal comfort by wearing a merino wool T-shirt and invoking The Ancient Law of Sod.
I was roasting! That's my excuse anyway

In reply to Blue Straggler:

It was Sunday actually, as we drove over the tops the clag was down and there a thick mizzle in the air - "bloody typical" thought I - but it turned out to be fine.


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:
Aye I'd worked that out from your post originally. And from the fact that you weren't there on Saturday (there were only about 10-12 people on the whole crag, and six of those were my party!)
I'll still claim credit. Further invocation of sod's law yesterday when I went to Wimberry and it was minging!

In reply to victim of mathematics:

It doesn't mention the words 'blind guess' either. With all the kit they've got these days it ought to be better for a 24 hour forecast by now.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

They are attempting to predict what a complicated weather picture will do in specific areas. At the moment that's very difficult. There's a low pressure system (yet another one) over the UK with an occluded front swinging across, which is bound to bring some showers. But earlier today there was still a ridge of high pressure disappearing towards the south, which meant there was still some chance of sunshine. There's also high pressure north west over the Atlantic and there's another depression heading towards us from the west Atlantic. Depressions pass over quite quickly and their direction is determined by the other weather systems around them, so they are hard to predict apart from saying they bring weather fronts (warm fronts, cold fronts and sometimes occluded fronts), and therefore usually rain. At the moment there a couple of troughs heading in from Ireland, so you can expect some more rain later or tomorrow. But they might change direction and might not happen.

Learn some basic meteorology and check the pressure charts on the Met Office site, and you'll see how comlicated it is with a lot of low pressure systems around. It kind of stops you being frustrated with the weather forecast if you understand what's going on. If we get slow moving high pressure, then it can be very easy to predict sunshine for the next week or so, but at the moment they've got little chance of 100% accuracy.

In reply to Wiley Coyote: Why exactly?

In reply to Wiley Coyote: Ever since that fiasco with the gales some time ago I think they tend to err on the side of caution. I know that a few of the holiday resorts are up in arms about the inaccuracies that keep day trippers away. These days the forecast mostly seems to be cloudy with a risk of showers which just about covers 90% of our climate.

It does beg the question however if they deserve the degree of funding that they get. All these expensive computers and if anything I would say that the forecasts have become less reliable than they used to be.

Al

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I forecast watched carefully on Saturday into Sunday seems to me there was a chance of showers most places but SE peak seemed OKish (and was). I blame your abililty to read a forecast.

In reply to Wiley Coyote: I've just had a look at too different areas. For one the "headline summary" shows sunshine and some cloud with showers very early in the morning. The other one suggests dark cloud and rain but when you drill down it's exactly the same forecast.

Al

In reply to tradlad:

Problem solved then. I'll phone the Met Office and let them know the findings of your research.

In reply to Steve Parker:


I'm sure it is.

But to be fair, it is their job. And they're paid over eighty million pounds a year to do it. I don't think accuracy is too much to ask, do you?

In reply to Wiley Coyote: fortunately I wasn't where you was and got sunburned yesterday.

the forecasts are generalised and cannot predict exactly where the rain will fall nor can it tell where the sun will be due to the weather system being a fundamentally chaotic system that can be affected by the slightest change be it a butterfly or a shift in the jet stream.

stop complaining and suck it up. we all get rained off sometimes due to a seemingly poor forecast but I have learned to trust the forecast about as much as a politician.

In reply to niggle: It is when accuracy is a complete and utter impossibilty.

In reply to tradlad:

The forecasts are as good as they are ever likely to get when we're sitting under the current weather systems. They don't control the weather they have to make the best possible prediction.

If you don't like it try using FNMOC and see whether you can do any better. A summer high sitting low in the mid Atlantic will always lead to catchy, hit and miss weather.

In reply to niggle:

Problem is science got more complicated. Before quantum mechanics you could predict the weather with absolute certainty. Then along come some boffins with their black holes and silly string theories and you can't get anythign right.

In fact there is some law that prevents the transporters working in Star Trek that basically says the more accurate you measure the weather the less likely you are to be there when it's sunny.

In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:


Then to quote the OP, Why do we bother with weather forecasts?

Don't you think it's a pretty shameful waste of money to spend so much on the impossible?

In reply to niggle:

In certain atmospheric conditions accuracy would be largely down to luck. In other conditions they'll get it right most of the time. With lots of low pressure systems endlessly tracking across the Atlantic towards the UK and calving off others as tghey go, like we've been seeing for the last few weeks, I wouldn't put much money on a detailed forecast. All you could really say is that there's plenty of rain coming over, but not exactly where or at what time it's going to fall. Doesn't matter how much money they get every year, there are some things that just aren't achievable yet.

In reply to Steve Parker:


ER...isn't that their job?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I was suggesting it as a way to avoid getting caught out as easily, wasn't suggesting you become a weather forecaster. You asked what was going on with the forecasts. To understand what's going on you would need to have a look at the information the forecasters use to see how complex it is at the moment. Otherwise you won't understand the answer to your question.

You could try a trick my mum does. You put your hand out of the window holding a red sock and a thermometer. Wait 20 seconds. Pull your hand back in.


If the sock is wet then it's raining.

In reply to Steve Parker:

Even non-experts can get a good idea from looking at the forecast then when things are uncertain wrt rain (like sunday) view the recent radar map.

In reply to Offwidth:

Exactly. I find them really useful and you don't need to be an expert. I happen to be into sailing, so knowing what the weather is likely to do is pretty vital if I don't want to risk killing my kids by getting it wrong.

In reply to Philip:

There is the other well known saying that I heard down at Ilfracombe in the context of Lundy "If you can't see Lundy it's raining, if you can see it it's going to rain."

Al

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=401326&v=1#x5769186

In reply to niggle: It's not always impossible it's sometimes impossible, and sometimes when it appears to be straightforward something unexpected happens. It's a chaotic system.

In reply to tradlad:


or the classic 'weather rock' on string
If this rock is wet, it's raining.
If it is white, it is snowing.
If it is swinging, it is windy.
If your tongue sticks to it it's probably a bit nippy.

In reply to Wiley Coyote: The problem is that sometimes they can forecast accurately and sometimes they can't, but they always show the forecasts in the same way. What I would like to see is more transparency from the meteorologists in their predictions by showing the percentage probability of their forecast being correct along with the forecast.

In reply to Chris Harris:

That was the Nottingham airport forecast thread right... the airport thats a good distance from Nottingham and thrown into a local predictor system designed for the masses that want a distinct 'most likely' forecast. On the border when things are uncertain that will often generate different predictions for neighbouring cells even though the models with the probabilities are very similar. If you want the best information look at the data.

In reply to Juggler13:


Actually this isn't that uncommon. You often see a 'Confidence' heading in the weather forecast.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Dear everybody maungeing about inaccurate forecasts. I've got 5 words for you:

Sensitive Dependence On Initial Conditions.

If you don't know what that means then go and look it up, then come back and apologise for being ignorant. If you do know what it means but are still moaning about inaccurate forecasts 'in this day and age' then you're a bigger idiot still.

As Offwidth says, consult many sources and use a bit of nouse and optimism and it's amazing how much more accurate you can be than just blindly looking at one forecast and assuming it's right.

In reply to Philip:

or your gutters are leaking. lol
why do you need a thermometer?

In reply to niggle:


Actually, no it isn't; the Met. Office's job is not to provide a 30 second synopsis at the end of the news, although that is what most people assume because that's what they see.

Since it's inception during the war, the Met Office is part of the UK defence network, and it's primary role has always been support of UK military operations; most met. office forecasters work at RAF bases (including active operations in places like Afghanistan). Obviously there's a civil defence component as well. As such, your 'taxpayer' money for the MO comes from the defence budget largely.

There is an increasing component of funding that comes from contract services for weather dependent organisations, which include e.g. public utilities (power consumption is very weather-dependent), local authority traffic departments, and many more. A lot of these services are now available from private companies like AP, but then again AP are still using (and paying for) Met Office data and model results.

There is a further smaller component of money whereby one can contact the Met Office for specific advice; it's a simple as phoning the Met Office for a nominal fee (about GBP 17 or thereabouts) and speaking to a forecaster. Typical users are farmers (what's the best day this week for me to spray; I need these conditions.....'), contactors (I need to hire a crane, when can i best avoid high winds which will render the crane inoperable), or the general public ('my daughter's wedding is next saturday and we want it outside; what are the chances?').

A 30 second general synopsis for the whole country is NOT what you as a taxpayer pays for; it's a piddling little thing (and a piddling little income stream) that many forecasters think shouldn't even be done, simply because of the general public's ignorance in the use of forecasts.

In reply to Offwidth:

Nottingham Airport's about 2½ miles from Nottingham. Hardly a good distance.

In reply to Captain Fastrousers:

Interesting post. I was unaware of a lot of that. Cheers.

In reply to Chris Harris:

probably means East Midlands airport, the one near to Derby ^^

In reply to Steve Parker:

May have been interesting but missing the point somewhat.

If the government is looking for things to cut by 25-40% then the met office should be near the top of the list. Any 'essential' roles it plays could be run on a much smaller budget whilst the rest of this particular gravy train can go find something meaningful to do with their working lives. A big chunk of funding goes into research which results in ever smaller improvements in forecast accuracy - classic case of the law of diminishing returns. I remember a meteorology lecturer telling us on day one that if anyone asks us what the weather is going to do tomorrow we should reply 'similar to today' as that was right 67% of the time. Hundreds of millions of pounds of funding over decades has not really produced the advances one would expect and hope above this figure.

Things might have become leaner and meaner since I left the meto (tho doubt it) but if you're thinking 'disgruntled former worker' then the above explains exactly why I am just that.

Btw, if you're wondering, its showers tomorrow, brighter later.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Problem is not so much what comes out of the met office computers which is essentially based on probability theory. But the over simplication, on TV etc, for the ordinary man on the street. The forecast is presented as a certainty rather than a probability i.e. there is a 20% chance of rain by 12pm based on the data from the weather stations etc.

In reply to Steve Parker:

I'd suggest that it's very simple at the moment. The weather will be unsettled until the mid-atlantic high moves north. It's the same basic weather setup that we've seen for at least the last 3 summers and we have to live with it. I can accept it as a farmer who has been itching to get started on haymaking for over a month. Why can't the rest of the country accept it? The worst most folks are suffering from is a damp holiday.

The BBC have come up with the most stupid way of representing the weather. They show the major weather for a 3 hour period as the forecast for the timeslot, and then the worst weather for the day as the day forecast. So 2 days away could be heavy rain, then next day you get 3hour break downs but none of them show heavy rain because it's only forecast for 2 hours split over 3 hour periods. Result is a forecast that changes from wet to dry in a day and then dumps on you.

In reply to kend:


Really? Looks more like dry morning and showers later to me (over most of England anyway - Scotland could have a big nasty trough by tomorrow morning). I guess I should take your word for it as I'm very much an amateur. I always give myself a large margin of error for this reason when sailing!

In reply to timjones:

Yeah, no disagreement with that, but what I meant was that that unsettled picture makes very specific predictions difficult. Easy to say there will be depressions bringing fronts with brighter periods between them, but getting the exact times and locations right has got to be quite difficult. Hence this thread, I guess.

In reply to Steve Parker:

Tongue-in-cheek alert Steve!!

I have visions of you drowning at sea all because you thought I knew what the weather was going to do tomorrow (tho it is the first time someone has taken me seriously for a long long time, cheers!

In reply to kend:

Haha! Fair cop then.

;0)

(I do err on the side of taking people seriously on this internet thing.)

In reply to kend:

Not really; it was addressing the grumble being aired here that since taxpayer's money is being spent on the met office, a 100% accuracy in a 30-60 second round-up after the football scores should be expected.

As to your other point, i.e. the amount of money spent on research for incrementally small forecast improvements, then I tend to agree with you; a lot of the research money might have been better spent on improved observation networks or on improved climate model parameterisation. Then again, that's the thing about research isn't it; you don't really know unless you try.

In reply to niggle:
>

It would be a lot cheaper for the Met office to hang seaweed over the door and keep a herd of cows. The cows would even produce an income.

In reply to Wiley Coyote: It makes me laugh when they say things like, "cloudy with chances of sun and showers"....Well that covers everything then.

In reply to Chris Harris:

Good enough to be grouped in a seperate cell in the forecast model (south of the river and about 3 miles from Trent bridge (the edge of the city boundary) as the crow flies.

In reply to niggle:


wahey, that will be the deficit cut in a flash. All those items where we cant guarantee 100% accuracy binned off will save an absolute fortune.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Forecast for Friday on the BBC website:

Nottingham: 23°c, wind 12mph from the south west
Nottingham Airport: 16°c, wind 9mph from the north east.

So a 7°c temperature difference and a 180° difference in wind direction.

In reply to Chris Harris:

Forecast issued Mon 23rd Aug for Thurs 26th:

Nottingham: 20°c day, 16°c night, wind 18mph from SSW

Nottingham Airport: 16°c day, 11°c night, wind 15mph from due N

So a 4-5°c temperature difference and winds meeting pretty much head on with a closing speed of 33mph.

In reply to Chris Harris:

So at what speed did the plane take off.....if it did?

In reply to Bulls Crack: Dunno, but it looks like there ought to be some good updraughts for the gliders with those 2 winds colliding head on.