Stormageddon Mk 6 The Fury of February
Discussion
WindyCommon said:
don4l said:
WindyCommon said:
don4l said:
The BBC must be pleased that they cancelled their contract with the Met Office. They would look like complete idiots if they had forecasted 100mph winds when they actually turned out to be less than 20mph.
Undoubtedly, the Met Office will try to use this fiasco to claim that they need an even bigger computer.
I wouldn't give them another penny until they got the software in the current computer right.
A more expensive computer would only mean that they could reach the wrong conclusion faster.
Did the Met Office forecast 100mph winds?Undoubtedly, the Met Office will try to use this fiasco to claim that they need an even bigger computer.
I wouldn't give them another penny until they got the software in the current computer right.
A more expensive computer would only mean that they could reach the wrong conclusion faster.
Or did they say "The most likely scenario is for inland locations to see a relatively short period of 40-50mph gusts. Windward coastal areas will see a longer period of 50-60mph gusts with isolated gusts to 70mph."
We had 20mph gusts.
Clearly, the BBC were absolutely correct to cancel their contract with the Met Office.
There was no storm. Even the Met Office accept this, as witnessed by their freeing up of the name "Doris".
You can view yesterday's data for Camberley here:-
https://www.wunderground.com/personal-weather-stat...
We had some wind last night for several hours, peak gust was about 55mph, it was whistling - but not a serious storm!
I think all the Doris nonsense was mostly down to wild speculation by the fake news industry, Express and BBC news, Met Office and weather forecasts were very clear about the extreme uncertainty of the track/depth of the low.
I think all the Doris nonsense was mostly down to wild speculation by the fake news industry, Express and BBC news, Met Office and weather forecasts were very clear about the extreme uncertainty of the track/depth of the low.
don4l said:
There was no storm. Even the Met Office accept this, as witnessed by their freeing up of the name "Doris".
They didn't drop it. They never applied it because they were only forecasting a relatively short period of 40-50mph gusts. They weren't forecasting a storm.I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you. But is it really so difficult...?
WindyCommon said:
don4l said:
There was no storm. Even the Met Office accept this, as witnessed by their freeing up of the name "Doris".
They didn't drop it. They never applied it because they were only forecasting a relatively short period of 40-50mph gusts. They weren't forecasting a storm.I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you. But is it really so difficult...?
t weather reports there, he means? don4l said:
WindyCommon said:
don4l said:
The BBC must be pleased that they cancelled their contract with the Met Office. They would look like complete idiots if they had forecasted 100mph winds when they actually turned out to be less than 20mph.
Undoubtedly, the Met Office will try to use this fiasco to claim that they need an even bigger computer.
I wouldn't give them another penny until they got the software in the current computer right.
A more expensive computer would only mean that they could reach the wrong conclusion faster.
Did the Met Office forecast 100mph winds?Undoubtedly, the Met Office will try to use this fiasco to claim that they need an even bigger computer.
I wouldn't give them another penny until they got the software in the current computer right.
A more expensive computer would only mean that they could reach the wrong conclusion faster.
Or did they say "The most likely scenario is for inland locations to see a relatively short period of 40-50mph gusts. Windward coastal areas will see a longer period of 50-60mph gusts with isolated gusts to 70mph."
We had 20mph gusts.
Clearly, the BBC were absolutely correct to cancel their contract with the Met Office.
I'm under the impression that it's not that this didn't happen, it's just it went south of the most likely track and ended up smashing France instead?
Which means the forecast was still rubbish because it was obvious the weather was coming but all their high probability forecasts had it going north, and maybe a low risk of it drifting down over the south coast. Not missing entirely.
Naming storms was and is a stupid PR driven idea.
Which means the forecast was still rubbish because it was obvious the weather was coming but all their high probability forecasts had it going north, and maybe a low risk of it drifting down over the south coast. Not missing entirely.
Naming storms was and is a stupid PR driven idea.
Jonesy23 said:
I'm under the impression that it's not that this didn't happen, it's just it went south of the most likely track and ended up smashing France instead?
Which means the forecast was still rubbish because it was obvious the weather was coming but all their high probability forecasts had it going north, and maybe a low risk of it drifting down over the south coast. Not missing entirely.
Naming storms was and is a stupid PR driven idea.
the problem with met weather forecasts is they are the output of a computer (that we paid for) that is supposedly "learning" from the data that is put into it. it is not learning very well from what i can see as local accuracy is appalling and has been for some time.Which means the forecast was still rubbish because it was obvious the weather was coming but all their high probability forecasts had it going north, and maybe a low risk of it drifting down over the south coast. Not missing entirely.
Naming storms was and is a stupid PR driven idea.
using real time weather charts ,radar etc might not be great for longer range forecasts, but at least they offer a degree of accuracy,the computer modeled crap is no better than crystal balling .
wc98 said:
Jonesy23 said:
I'm under the impression that it's not that this didn't happen, it's just it went south of the most likely track and ended up smashing France instead?
Which means the forecast was still rubbish because it was obvious the weather was coming but all their high probability forecasts had it going north, and maybe a low risk of it drifting down over the south coast. Not missing entirely.
Naming storms was and is a stupid PR driven idea.
the problem with met weather forecasts is they are the output of a computer (that we paid for) that is supposedly "learning" from the data that is put into it. it is not learning very well from what i can see as local accuracy is appalling and has been for some time.Which means the forecast was still rubbish because it was obvious the weather was coming but all their high probability forecasts had it going north, and maybe a low risk of it drifting down over the south coast. Not missing entirely.
Naming storms was and is a stupid PR driven idea.
using real time weather charts ,radar etc might not be great for longer range forecasts, but at least they offer a degree of accuracy,the computer modeled crap is no better than crystal balling .
Mr GrimNasty said:
They made it quite clear the path was doubtful and anywhere from southern England to mid France, it was the media that went with the unsubstantiated wild Doris UK nonsense.
As they do with any and every story they get their teeth into, desperate for public attention. They are, after all, a profit making business. The truth, facts, common sense, pah, who needs that?Jonesy23 said:
I'm under the impression that it's not that this didn't happen, it's just it went south of the most likely track and ended up smashing France instead?
Which means the forecast was still rubbish because it was obvious the weather was coming but all their high probability forecasts had it going north, and maybe a low risk of it drifting down over the south coast. Not missing entirely.
Naming storms was and is a stupid PR driven idea.
I remember when I was young there was a time of year when the weather was wetter and colder than the rest of the year. I think it was called Winter. When it was winter, you expected the rain to fall, and it was windy. It was sometimes so changeable that when you left the house in the morning, you took an umbrella because it might be raining in the evening.Which means the forecast was still rubbish because it was obvious the weather was coming but all their high probability forecasts had it going north, and maybe a low risk of it drifting down over the south coast. Not missing entirely.
Naming storms was and is a stupid PR driven idea.
Winter seems to have been abolished, and replaced with panic every time the weather diverges from 15C, zero wind, no precipitation.
Jonesy23 said:
I'm under the impression that it's not that this didn't happen, it's just it went south of the most likely track and ended up smashing France instead?
Which means the forecast was still rubbish because it was obvious the weather was coming but all their high probability forecasts had it going north, and maybe a low risk of it drifting down over the south coast. Not missing entirely.
Naming storms was and is a stupid PR driven idea.
My Sister is currently in France in the area which was supposedly to be hit by the storm, When I asked her what the weather had been like, she said a little bit of rain, and a little bit of wind, so if part of the storm was as bad as predicted, not really sure where it actually went.Which means the forecast was still rubbish because it was obvious the weather was coming but all their high probability forecasts had it going north, and maybe a low risk of it drifting down over the south coast. Not missing entirely.
Naming storms was and is a stupid PR driven idea.
mondeoman said:
ahm, yes, but, computer says...
and for tomorrow its Armageddon by flooding, as we get a months rain in a day across the UK. (except its bits of Wales and west Scotland, and maybe the west country that might get some drizzle.)
It's true :and for tomorrow its Armageddon by flooding, as we get a months rain in a day across the UK. (except its bits of Wales and west Scotland, and maybe the west country that might get some drizzle.)
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/weather/uk-weather-t...
techiedave said:
ok may not be laughing at the end of the week but theyve thrown everything into that article
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff