Met Office - We knew really!!?!

[ninja-lewis]

Lost_BMW said:

Guam said:

Harrabin . . .

Anyone citing that woeful apology for a Journalist loses all credibility in defending anyone let alone Mystic Met.

Cheers

The self styled environmental 'analyst' and scientific soundbiter for the BBC who has no appropriate qualifications for preaching and prognosticating the tripe he foists on us weekly - at or expense, whether we want it or not - thanks to the 'impartial' BBC.

If either you read the thread properly, you'll see it was the Telegraph using Harrabin as a source (but only the bits they liked). I merely pointed out that the original quote was longer and included important context) - as reported by other media outlets. I see the Telegraph has now done a volte-face and decided Harrabin is not a reliable source, unlike this morning. Likewise they were suddenly happy to believe Meto seasonal forecasts that they had repeatedly criticised in the past.

I don't work for Meto and I'm not terribly interested in defending them. I simply have enough understanding of meteorology to know it's a bloody complex business that nobody fully understands and that a forecast is nothing more than that - a forecast. What does grind my gears is the laughable hypocrisy of the media who make up stories and then accuse others of being wrong. Yet it's the Telegraph/Mail/Mirror that people prefer to tell them how to think. All this thread has demonstrated is that neither the Telegraph nor you understand the limitations of long range forecasting (in terms of probabilities of outcomes/uncertainty, not whether there is a warmist bias) nor do you appear interested in doing so when it is far easier to profit without.

[turbobloke]

It doesn't look that way from here.

Many people commenting in this thread know the score on climate forecasting and weather forecasting, and are capable of making their own minds up as to whether any related content in a newsapaper is accurate or not, credible or not. As such the identity of the newsapaper is irrelevant and there is no need for routemaps.

Meanwhile the Met Office remains beyond the pale for a variety of reasons.

[Eric Mc]

It seems that The Telegraph article is largely based on an article written by Harrabin for the Radio Times. It seems a steering group is being set up to investigate the accuracy of the Met Office forecasts and compare that accuracy (or lack of it) with other weather forecasting agencies. If I was the Met Office, I would be getting worried.

[don4l]

tank slapper said:

IforB said:

Since the met office got rid of forecasters in various locations and now rely on their fancy super computer, then their forecasts are pretty cruddy. I've spent my life staring at weather reports and forecasts, one thing I have definately noticed is a reduction in accuracy overall.

I frequently use the inshore waters forecast and shipping forecasts, and have found they are much less accurate than they used to be. The last few seasons, when checking the forecast for a sailing trip it has been the standing joke that we now know what the weather won't be, as it seems to always be wrong.

I am also a sailor, and I agree that the forecasts are much more inaccurate than they were 20 years ago.

The 5 day forecast used to be fairly reliable. Nowadays it is utterly useless.


Don
--

[Pesty]

I know I'm a bit thick but i don't buy this we knew it all along.

So they didn't want to tell us it was going to be bad snow in case they got it wrong and they looked silly, so they told us something they didn't think would happen...

But wait wouldn't they look just as silly if that prediction was wrong anyway?
oh yes and if they thought it was wrong in the first place which they did, isn't it more likely to be wrong making them look like complete planks?

fking bullst biys try harded ps it didn't snow here over night like you predicted yester you useless pricks'

Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 4th January 23:26

[Lost_BMW]

ninja-lewis said:

Lost_BMW said:

Guam said:

Harrabin . . .

Anyone citing that woeful apology for a Journalist loses all credibility in defending anyone let alone Mystic Met.

Cheers

The self styled environmental 'analyst' and scientific soundbiter for the BBC who has no appropriate qualifications for preaching and prognosticating the tripe he foists on us weekly - at or expense, whether we want it or not - thanks to the 'impartial' BBC.

If either you read the thread properly, you'll see it was the Telegraph using Harrabin as a source (but only the bits they liked). I merely pointed out that the original quote was longer and included important context) - as reported by other media outlets. I see the Telegraph has now done a volte-face and decided Harrabin is not a reliable source, unlike this morning. Likewise they were suddenly happy to believe Meto seasonal forecasts that they had repeatedly criticised in the past.

I don't work for Meto and I'm not terribly interested in defending them. I simply have enough understanding of meteorology to know it's a bloody complex business that nobody fully understands and that a forecast is nothing more than that - a forecast. What does grind my gears is the laughable hypocrisy of the media who make up stories and then accuse others of being wrong. Yet it's the Telegraph/Mail/Mirror that people prefer to tell them how to think. All this thread has demonstrated is that neither the Telegraph nor you understand the limitations of long range forecasting (in terms of probabilities of outcomes/uncertainty, not whether there is a warmist bias) nor do you appear interested in doing so when it is far easier to profit without.

'Scuse me but . . bullst.

I fully understand the limitations of forecasting, am well versed in probability theory (it's part of my job FFS) and have no 'profit' to gain by being disinterested - which I am not.

In fact it's the very obvious mendacity of those who claim to be able to do so with such public certainty in face of the myriad and real difficulties - and help make decisions on our behalf as a result - that encourages me to be critical of those you had leapt to defend, i.e. the shower of ste that is our esteemed Met Office. You've got this one totally arse about tit.

[RobDickinson]

Eric Mc said:

It seems that The Telegraph article is largely based on an article written by Harrabin for the Radio Times. It seems a steering group is being set up to investigate the accuracy of the Met Office forecasts and compare that accuracy (or lack of it) with other weather forecasting agencies. If I was the Met Office, I would be getting worried.

I'd say it was somewhat suprising that the met office didnt have any governance already but then its what I would expect

[neilr]

This bunch of clowns failed in spectacular fashion to forecast how the weather would be on ONE DAY (and managed to do so on several consecutive days when it snowed) around my way. At one point they said there wouldnt be snow until the next morning, however less than an hour later it was snowing.

What boils my urine is the fact they expect me believe they can predict the climate in 20 or 30 years when they cant get it right 40 minutes in advance. To say 'oh we knew but didn't want to panic anyone' is insulting to our collective intelligence.

Is the forcast now less accurate than ever? it certainly seems the case to me. However, there is of course the element of 'this was all fields when I was a boy / life was better when I was younger / the krays only killed their own and were good to their old mum' aspect to be taken into account I guess.

[IforB]

neilr said:

This bunch of clowns failed in spectacular fashion to forecast how the weather would be on ONE DAY (and managed to do so on several consecutive days when it snowed) around my way. At one point they said there wouldnt be snow until the next morning, however less than an hour later it was snowing.

What boils my urine is the fact they expect me believe they can predict the climate in 20 or 30 years when they cant get it right 40 minutes in advance. To say 'oh we knew but didn't want to panic anyone' is insulting to our collective intelligence.

Is the forcast now less accurate than ever? it certainly seems the case to me. However, there is of course the element of 'this was all fields when I was a boy / life was better when I was younger / the krays only killed their own and were good to their old mum' aspect to be taken into account I guess.

From my point of view, the forecasts are worse than they were 15 years ago. When I first started flying, you could rely on them pretty well and they usually matched my own interpretation of the charts, now I find I'm more often right than they are and since I'm just a dumb pilot, that doesn't fill me with much confidence.

[nelly1]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/04/the-met-offi...

[Furberger]

Predicting the future not exact science shocker!

[Pesty]

Furberger said:

Predicting the future not exact science shocker!

Yes it is! the science is settled, they keep telling us so.

[chris watton]

I like this:

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/bbc...

"BBC spins that Met Office got winter right, just kept it secret from public"

[Pesty]

chris watton said:

I like this:

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/bbc...

"BBC spins that Met Office got winter right, just kept it secret from public"

A comment on that link just remided me of the MET office spokesperson on Radio 4 saying they would have predicted it if they had access to better super computers.

So which is it, did you predict it or not. Clowns

[dandarez]

What a fighting spirit!

Against all odds, The Met its End Office still carries on (getting it wrong).