The message
from Granity contains these words:

Last night I checked today's forecast for my area, it was: Sunny
intervals up until early evening then heavy rain and thunderstorms. I
woke up this morning to thick fog and it's now raining. This means that
last nights forecast was 100% wrong, in fact I can't remember when we
last had a reasonably correct forecast in the last few months but I
suppose there must have been some.
While I appreciate it's a difficult art surely they, with all the super
computers etc they have, they could do better than this.

Forecast was spot-on for here - so far.

Looking forward to the heavy showers this evening...

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

"Granity" wrote in message
...

Last night I checked today's forecast for my area, it was: Sunny
intervals up until early evening then heavy rain and thunderstorms. I
woke up this morning to thick fog and it's now raining. This means that
last nights forecast was 100% wrong, in fact I can't remember when we
last had a reasonably correct forecast in the last few months but I
suppose there must have been some.
While I appreciate it's a difficult art surely they, with all the super
computers etc they have, they could do better than this.




--
Granity


Unable to give you a very close forecast, but I can tell you we are in for a
very warm, sunny and pleasant September :-))

In article ,
Granity writes:
|
| While I appreciate it's a difficult art surely they, with all the super
| computers etc they have, they could do better than this.

I was trying to educate some of my colleagues about this only last
week. There are three problems with weather forecasting:

1) Lack of data. Up until the 1960s, there was ONE weather ship
in the North Atlantic, and the patterns were deduced by guesswork
primarily from shore station data. That has been largely resolved
by satellite data.

2) Lack of computer power. Up until the 1970s, a reliable
forecast for 24 hours ahead took over 24 hours to calculate :-)
That has been largely resolved by modern microprocessors.

3) Insolubility of the problem. This is traditionally called
numerical instability, but has been renamed as chaotic behaviour
by the popular press. That is not possible to resolve, as it is a
mathematical restriction!

The weather forecasters said that the one consequence of global
warming that they were certain of was increased instability; that
was not published in the popular press, on the grounds that it was
too hard to explain. They were right. In the past two years, the
weather forecast for the UK has been changing faster than the weather.

Note that, in this respect, even journals like Nature may count as
"the popular press" - I haven't read it regularly in years, but it
was (at that stage) very weak on advanced statistics, mathematics and
computational theory. It probably still is.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:02:27 +0100, Granity
wrote:


Last night I checked today's forecast for my area, it was: Sunny
intervals up until early evening then heavy rain and thunderstorms. I
woke up this morning to thick fog and it's now raining. This means that
last nights forecast was 100% wrong, in fact I can't remember when we
last had a reasonably correct forecast in the last few months but I
suppose there must have been some.
While I appreciate it's a difficult art surely they, with all the super
computers etc they have, they could do better than this.


They would be more accurate just saying it'll rain every day.
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

"Granity" wrote in message
...

Last night I checked today's forecast for my area, it was: Sunny
intervals up until early evening then heavy rain and thunderstorms. I
woke up this morning to thick fog and it's now raining. This means that
last nights forecast was 100% wrong, in fact I can't remember when we
last had a reasonably correct forecast in the last few months but I
suppose there must have been some.
While I appreciate it's a difficult art surely they, with all the super
computers etc they have, they could do better than this.
--
Granity


Well, they've certainly put my gardening nose out of joint. I was going to
mow the lawn and lay some turf today. Big, fat, soggy chance now!! {:~(

Spider

In article , says...
1) Lack of data. Up until the 1960s, there was ONE weather ship
in the North Atlantic, and the patterns were deduced by guesswork
primarily from shore station data. That has been largely resolved
by satellite data.


As one of the hundreds of Britsh weather ships in the Atlantic in the
past I think you underestimate the value of the fact that virtually the
entire british merchant fleet were kitted out to submit 6 hourly weather
reports from all over the world, we used to curse it when busy
(especially the radio officers who had to get up at all sorts of odd
times as they were done on GMT) but I never recall a missed report. As
Satilites came in so the fleet shrank so that by now even if the ships
were submitting reports they would be so far apart as to not be much use
--
Charlie Pridham, Gardening in Cornwall
www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of national collections of Clematis viticella cultivars and
Lapageria rosea

In message , mogga
wrote
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:02:27 +0100, Granity
wrote:


Last night I checked today's forecast for my area, it was: Sunny
intervals up until early evening then heavy rain and thunderstorms. I
woke up this morning to thick fog and it's now raining. This means that
last nights forecast was 100% wrong, in fact I can't remember when we
last had a reasonably correct forecast in the last few months but I
suppose there must have been some.
While I appreciate it's a difficult art surely they, with all the super
computers etc they have, they could do better than this.


They would be more accurate just saying it'll rain every day.

A few years back one of the retiring TV weather men admitted that if
they just reported today's weather as tomorrow's weather they would
probably be more accurate than trying to analyse the data from any
computer model. In fact, if you watch many TV weather forecasts the
presenter will spend more time telling you about what has already
happened. On local radio the presenters will just look out of the
window.

I find that I can often predict the weather in the next 12 hours myself
by looking at animated satellite images.
http://www.meteox.com/gmap.aspx
(Image top right hand corner)
--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Last night I checked today's forecast for my area, it was: Sunny intervals up until early evening then heavy rain and thunderstorms. I woke up this morning to thick fog and it's now raining. This means that last nights forecast was 100% wrong, in fact I can't remember when we last had a reasonably correct forecast in the last few months but I suppose there must have been some.
While I appreciate it's a difficult art surely they, with all the super computers etc they have, they could do better than this.

In article ,
Charlie Pridham writes:
|
| As one of the hundreds of Britsh weather ships in the Atlantic in the
| past I think you underestimate the value of the fact that virtually the
| entire british merchant fleet were kitted out to submit 6 hourly weather
| reports from all over the world, we used to curse it when busy
| (especially the radio officers who had to get up at all sorts of odd
| times as they were done on GMT) but I never recall a missed report. As
| Satilites came in so the fleet shrank so that by now even if the ships
| were submitting reports they would be so far apart as to not be much use

That is true, but you reported only on a limited range of surface
observations, unless I was seriously misled when I worked (physically)
in the Met. Office. The most important data for forecasting beyond the
next 24 hours (and even to a large extent beyond the next 6) is about
the atmosphere higher up - its temperature, humidity and movement.

That is not to deprecate your work, but it helped more with warning
ships to know when to batten down the hatches than to forecast what
would hit the UK.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Alan writes:
|
| A few years back one of the retiring TV weather men admitted that if
| they just reported today's weather as tomorrow's weather they would
| probably be more accurate than trying to analyse the data from any
| computer model. ...

That's a few decades ago, actually, as far as the actual patterns go.
The other problem with forecasting is that most people want to know
if THEY will be rained on - and a forecast of patchy rainfall over an
area may be right, but isn't what they regard as right.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In message , Nick Maclaren
wrote

In article ,
Alan writes:
|
| A few years back one of the retiring TV weather men admitted that if
| they just reported today's weather as tomorrow's weather they would
| probably be more accurate than trying to analyse the data from any
| computer model. ...

That's a few decades ago, actually, as far as the actual patterns go.
The other problem with forecasting is that most people want to know
if THEY will be rained on - and a forecast of patchy rainfall over an
area may be right, but isn't what they regard as right.


What's the point of a weather forecast if it doesn't tell me what I want
to know?

With multi-channel TV you can get any forecast you want. Changing
channels and watching a second forecast within 5 minutes of the first
often gives a completely different picture of the weather, with the
forecaster with the biggest boobs being the most accurate.

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

"Spider" wrote in message
...



Well, they've certainly put my gardening nose out of joint. I was going
to mow the lawn and lay some turf today. Big, fat, soggy chance now!!
{:~(

Get rid of the grass and grow something more worthwhile!

Mary

"Granity" wrote in message
...

Last night I checked today's forecast for my area, it was: Sunny
intervals up until early evening then heavy rain and thunderstorms. I
woke up this morning to thick fog and it's now raining. This means that
last nights forecast was 100% wrong, in fact I can't remember when we
last had a reasonably correct forecast in the last few months but I
suppose there must have been some.
While I appreciate it's a difficult art surely they, with all the super
computers etc they have, they could do better than this.


Does it really matter?

Well, it might to weather geeks* but not to ordinary humanity, we'll
continue no matter what. If we live in sensitive areas we know the signs to
look out for, surely?

Life's too short and, as Jerome Klapka Jerome said, "They're not always
wrong".

Mary

*We once spent a 'holiday' with such a geek, he was very upset because all
his detailed charts showed that it should be raining in Bournemouth and it
wasn't.

In article ,
Martin writes:
| On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:06:43 +0100, Charlie Pridham
| wrote:
|
| AFAIR, there was only two British Atlantic Ocean weather ships out of the four
| European ships permanently stationed in the Atlantic.
|
| See I J and K M http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewImag...=4698&aid=2343

Ah. Possibly fading memory. But possibly I merely misunderstood my
source.

Only two of those were in positions that would be of significant help
in forecasting UK weather, and only one would have been of much use (J).
A and I are too far north to catch most of the movements, and A and C
were too close to America (too much scope for uncertainty later).


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Martin writes:
| |
| | AFAIR, there was only two British Atlantic Ocean weather ships out of the four
| | European ships permanently stationed in the Atlantic.
| |
| | See I J and K M http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewImag...=4698&aid=2343
|
| Ah. Possibly fading memory. But possibly I merely misunderstood my
| source.
|
| I can only remember I J and K being on the charts.

They would have been the only ones of any use at all in forecasting
for this country, and I and K would have been VERY marginal, at best.
The others would have been used for warning aircraft (which flew
lower then) when to take a different route.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.