You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It being so bloody inaccurate and way off the mark? I appreciate forecasting weather is a bit hit and miss, but I do have to keep a close eye on it for work purposes, however yesterday according to the met it was going to snow and snow heavy through the early hours of this morning. There's not a single ****ing flake of snow on the ground this morning and that's after an "Amber warning"
I still think looking out the window is the best option!
Amber warnings are for later today and tomorrow.
"I still think looking out the window is the best option!"
Good luck planning your work off that.
It's an educated guess nothing more. It was supposed to snow here...it rained instead. Both forms of precipitation with only a couple of degrees between one and the other....
I guess if they predicted rain and you went out to do a concrete foundation and woke up to three feet of snow that would be more of an issue than if you woke up and it had been raining instead of snow you planned for
however yesterday according to the met it was going to snow and snow heavy through the early hours of this morning
What was the percentage they assigned to it?
Snowing here ( N.W. Northumberland ) ..starting to thicken & a light covering ..getting worse.
We weren't covered by the amber ..just yellow
We have snow and it’s still snowing, heading into the Cheviots later I expect there’ll be more.
I usually find it fairly accurate however sometimes the forecasted event happens a bit later than predicted.
Instead of the Met Office use one of the other weather forecasting services that always gets it right.
Cancelled a bmx session here this morning due to weather warnings, need it to stay a bit blowy to justify that. Pain in the backside having to make the call the night before.
It is trying to snow here in Stockport.
It was 90 percent chance to snow from 2am this morning up until 7am. The Amber warning was in force for that. It genuinely doesn't look like it's rained let alone snowed. The walk back from the pub last night was harsh admittedly but polar adventure it was Not!
Modern weather forecasting is extremely good. It has improved dramatically in the last 20 years.
Trying to predict weather for the UK is extremely difficult. We have some of the most complex weather systems on the planet.
Instead of the Met Office use one of the other weather forecasting services that always gets it right.
If that were true, any website that "always gets it right" would be worth more than Apple, Microsoft and Facebook put together.
Unfortunately the Met Office always seems to be very cautious and will was predict the "worst case", seems to be a hangover from the Michael Fish hurricane prediction.
I use commercial, site specific weather forecasts at work and then they are very good and the Met Office forecasts are never far off.
Saving that, I do like windy.com and also Meteo Group do a free Marine Weather app which is excellent for coastal stuff.
Snow on the ground just up the Derwent Valley from you.
They 'get away with it' because weather and climate science is enormously, vastly complicated, well beyond the reach of the average person. It would make your brain melt, remember they have the largest supercomputer in the country (possibly Europe) and it still can't manage to be right all the time.
I did the weather and climate module for my Environmental Geology course at uni (a proper, good top 25 in the country uni, I'm not as thick as I make out) and found that the hardest module of the whole four years. I barely scraped a pass in it.
What was the percentage they assigned to it?
^ I find the predictions from the met office to be incredibly accurate considering what they are predicting.
There’s not a single **** flake of snow on the ground this morning and that’s after an “Amber warning”
and this makes it forecast inaccurate how ? Do you understand what an Amber warning means ?
It’s an educated guess nothing more. It was supposed to snow here…it rained instead. Both forms of precipitation with only a couple of degrees between one and the other….
It's way more than an educated guess but that's at least a good way to look at the actual prediction.
You can have a red warning with a low probability... meaning it probably won't snow but if it does then it will be heavy and a couple of degrees can make all the difference as can a few miles of location.
The main problem is that the Met Office are under pressure to dumb down the forecasting because most people can't be bothered to deal with uncertainty.
seems to be a hangover from the Michael Fish hurricane prediction.
Is that when he said there wasn’t going to a be hurricane but strong gale force winds? He was right.
Snowing here ( N.W. Northumberland ) .... just yellow
had no idea it fell like that
Sun breaking through here. Cold north easterly though (East Anglia).
Snow.....none seen yet.
'Just looked out of the window forecasting'
Is that when he said there wasn’t going to a be hurricane but strong gale force winds? He was right.
The winds were hurricane force, way beyond "strong gale". You do know the definition of a strong gale?
Yes, technically it wasn't a tropical revolving storm, as it didn't occur in the tropics but the wind speed was of a similar magnitude.
You really are a bit of a pedantic dick.
The main problem is that the Met Office are under pressure to dumb down the forecasting because most people can’t be bothered to deal with uncertainty.
Is this really the case? Surely the Met’s information gets filtered through whichever medium people choose to use? So, for example, I find the BBC forecast almost useless in this part of the country because it is a general forecast for the whole area, not specifically for the tropical micro-climate here in Swansea. If I listen to Absolute 80s radio channel for instance then the forecast may be even more general - “Look out for snow in the north and wind and rain the south”.
It also doesn’t help that TV channels use doomsday predictions to up their ratings, along the lines of “Its a red warning for snow so keep checking back...” so it helps to exaggerate just a little.
I’m a supporter of the Met Office. For a government run organisation I think they’ve done a pretty good job of massive investment and qualified staff.
But we all know this bit of gravel and mud we stand on has a complex mix of both terrain and surrounded by water..
Always take the forecast with 2 pinches of salt, take a look at that seaweed hanging outside, pull up BBC weather and take a punt..
You really are a bit of a pedantic dick.
Classy.
It was never a hurricane which is what Michael claimed he was quoted for.
Do you understand what an Amber warning means ?
Well I think i have a reasonable grasp of the English language. If it says 90 percent chance of snow with the written words of "this is an amber warning of snow" id expect a little flurry at least. Would you like to further elaborate on your somewhat patronising assumptions?
t was never a hurricane which is what Michael claimed he was quoted for.
It was of hurricane force.
The winds were hurricane force, way beyond “strong gale”. You do know the definition of a strong gale?
Yes, technically it wasn’t a tropical revolving storm, as it didn’t occur in the tropics but the wind speed was of a similar magnitude.
You really are a bit of a pedantic dick.
At the level of understanding they had then, he probably looked at the pressure map and thought low pressure system, bit stormy, bit windy. And you can’t have a hurricane as we aren’t in the tropics. Perfectly reasonable assumption to make
The real damage was done by a sting jet (rapidly cooling air descending and accelerating as it does), similar to what hit the south coast of Ireland earlier this winter. Damage was pretty intense and localised.
And as for the recent warnings, all the forecasts I’ve seen have said it will be highly variable and localised. Some will get a decent covering, others very little. So the other poster not far away from the OP confirms this.
Don’t be pedantic jam bo. 😬
We've got a pedant-off!!!
gobuchul is in the lead, c'mon Drac; tell him he doesn't want to do it like that!
🙂
IT'S A THREEEEEEE-WAAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even with a supercomputer there are still so many variables it's hard to predict.
Seems some people dont understand science. We also live in a world where everyone expects an answer, they cant cope with an estimate or probability.
Forecast for Bristol was spot on.
The sting jet caused hurricane force winds. I know, it blew the roof off my house, and school and meant I got three weeks off school.
IT’S A THREEEEEEE-WAAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Giggidy!
Had a few wee flakes here in Cambs about 3am, after a yellow snow warning (s****).
When Mr Fish allegedly got it wrong, they were still relying on weather reports from ships in the Atlantic. Because they knew there was a storm in the Atlantic, there were no ships in the area, therefore, no 'accurate' reporting of what was developing out at sea occurred which was part of the problem back then.
I am amazed at how accurate weather prediction is in general, nowadays. Compared to how it was when I was young, is similar to the change in bike lights.
Well snowing here in Manchester
Well I think i have a reasonable grasp of the English language. If it says 90 percent chance of snow with the written words of “this is an amber warning of snow” id expect a little flurry at least. Would you like to further elaborate on your somewhat patronising assumptions?
Doesn't that mean that there is a 10% chance it won't snow?
I think the important phrase Michael Fish used was "don't worry.....": The UK was then hit with 115mph winds and the greatest storm the UK had seen in 300 years, resulting in 18 deaths and a repair bill of £2bn (Source: Daily Telegraph). At that point, the BBC, and their weather forecasters, decided the public as a collective are somewhat dim and therefore need to be treated with kid gloves. Ever since then, forecasts have erred on the side of caution.
Here in West Sussex, it was snowing when I first looked out the window, around 8am, and it seems to be getting heavier, now. Personally, I think forecasters do a pretty good job, considering it's a fairly chaotic system they are trying to predict. However, people seem to only be interested in the headlines, and not the detail, which is where a lot of the misunderstandings occur.
Is this really the case? Surely the Met’s information gets filtered through whichever medium people choose to use? So, for example, I find the BBC forecast almost useless in this part of the country because it is a general forecast for the whole area, not specifically for the tropical micro-climate here in Swansea.
Yes ... absolutely.... and ironically the dumbing down needs to be dumber because its FREE.
If you/general public had to pay for it then you would accept more training in how to use it. (bear with me and I'll explain after the next ...)
I did the weather and climate module for my Environmental Geology course at uni (a proper, good top 25 in the country uni, I’m not as thick as I make out) and found that the hardest module of the whole four years. I barely scraped a pass in it.
Another geologist here... and mostly I've done geological mathematical modelling for 30 years. Much of my early post MSc. maths was taught to me by a meterologist ...
Most of my work today is around delivering commercial predictive analytics.
This goes badly when its FREE or unless the client is really involved in the solution.... because even very educated consumers want a simple icon... when a client engages on a specific solution they understand why a nice icon won't work.. but often still need one for their boss or bosses boss...it's just human nature I suppose but exasperated by today's simple Apps etc.
Quite often the questions asked are really obvious... and really only need a bit of thought to work out why a prediction can't be 100%.
I can't list details so I'll try and explain differently.
Imagine I have a complex pump and I can predict that if the pump continues to operate at the current conditions it will fail in 3 days.
So I create an alert ... the Alert is say Amber saying that if the pump continues to operate at the current conditions it will fail in 3 days... The client (someone at the pointy end) then reduces the pump rate because they received the alert (or even stops using that pump and uses another backup)... the risk of failure or time to failure goes down... do I send a new alert or not*?
3 days later the client (someone on the managerial end but still an engineer by training) comes back saying the pump didn't fail so we reduced our pump capacity unnecessarily. (Or they reduce flow rate by 10% and the pump then lasts 5 days not 3.... etc.)
Given the right data predicting pump failure is WAY WAY less complex than weather yet still people who should know better expect some crystal ball that not only knows what will happen if they continue but also knows how they will respond to the alert.
*The answer is the engineer at the pointy end want the Alert sent or his bosses boss will complain when he took action and nothing happened... the Amber is now Green... whereas his bosses boss then receives an Alert and complains they receive too many.
Having just studied under one of the Country's most eminent earthquake geologists, I think EQs are another good analogy: You are damned if you make a prediction that then doesn't manifest, and you are damned if you don't make a prediction and a catastrophe occurs. The simple [well, quite complicated, actually] fact is earthquakes are virtually impossible to predict but most people don't understand why this is and expect the scientists to get it right every time. The weather is similar, IMO.
So, what do you do? You "manage" people's expectations by dressing up your predictions with percentages of likelihood and caveats. The problem is, people don't read the percentages and caveats.
If its any help - it looks like the snow you were forecast, but didn't arrive has just turned here, where it wasn't forecast. It arrived about the same time as the postman.
Its possible the Met Office didn't address the snow very clearly when they they were sending it. I'll mark it return to sender' and by the time it gets back to the met office and sent back out again you should have your snow by weds, or thursday at the latest.
If you're lucky they'll put a little bag of harribo in with it to say sorry.
I think the important phrase Michael Fish used was “don’t worry…..”:
Not only that, he had a silly smug smirk on his face at the ridiculousness of Mrs Smith from Walmington-on-sea's suggestion.
The level of debate is reduced considerably when you use personal insults, there's just no need.
Better still, return it using My Hermes: It'll just disappear into the ether.
He was a bit obsessed by rain.
Amber warning here for snow and not a flake on the ground.
However the next hill over (same height as us) is two miles away and fully white. How are they supposed to predict that level of local variation?
Forecast is pretty good IMO
<span style="display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.4px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">It being so bloody inaccurate and way off the mark? </span>
Well why don't you have a go? See if you can do better?
Or, why don't you gather data for lots of forecasters and compare with real weather and see which one is most accurate?
Or you could just moan that things are not perfect. Doesn't the universe know who you ARE for God's sake? Do you know how hard weather forecasting for a specific location is? I suspect not, otherwise you would not be moaning.
Out of interest what was the % chance of snow in your forecast? Did you check?
It's actually snowing pretty hard here now, only a few miles from wrightyson's place. Given the warnings cover entire counties it turns out it was accurate.
Well done Metoffice.
So, the difference between snow and rain is what ? half a degree or less ?
Free weather forecasts and some people are still not happy.
Having just studied under one of the Country’s most eminent earthquake geologists, I think EQs are another good analogy: You are damned if you make a prediction that then doesn’t manifest, and you are damned if you don’t make a prediction and a catastrophe occurs. The simple [well, quite complicated, actually] fact is earthquakes are virtually impossible to predict but most people don’t understand why this is and expect the scientists to get it right every time. The weather is similar, IMO.
True ...
Not only that but the public are not interested in differentiating an after shock from a primary EQ.
It gets even more Schrodinger when very low M EQ's are considered. I did some work on recorded M1.5-M2 (on borehole geophones)... Now these are measured the public now seems to expect they should in themselves be should be predicted rather than be data for predicting something lie M3+ let alone filtering the M1.5 from a bus or train passing.
The irony perhaps being filtering out the noise would be easier if the bus and train times could actually be predicted!
How are they supposed to predict that level of local variation?
Looking at one of the amber warnings they did. They specifically state its probable that some parts will get very little snow whereas others will experience heavy snow.
I find forecasting pretty accurate, if youre planning activity from it a responsible person would have looked at a few and taken into account some variation.
Op sound like a bit of fool tbh, the sort who gets most things wrong but blames someone else.
test
I find forecasting pretty accurate, if youre planning activity from it a responsible person would have looked at a few and taken into account some variation.
Op sound like a bit of fool tbh, the sort who gets most things wrong but blames someone else.
Ya got me!
I blame everyone else.
But in this case my groundworker has cancelled a 24 m3 pour using a 60m boom which is one of only 3 in the country due to the forecast. The forecast that showed a double snow symbol with 90 percent probability under it for the early hours of this morning, coupled with an "Amber warning"
It's ****ing bone dry and sunny at the moment outside. Yes it's a free service, yes it's a forecast but **** me it's waaaay off today.
Blamers and tools keep on blaming and tooling. Cheeky ****!
Should have listened to Farmer’s forecast ...
“I can’t believe my groundworkers try turn up today after he amber warning last night, now he’s stuck in the snow with 24m3 of pour.”
Maybe the detractors of the Met should gather thier weather forecast from the Daily Express or the WhailyDaily..
They love a bit of forecasting headlines.
Don't forget, the BBC don't use the Met Office anymore.
90% chance of snow and no snow means the forecast was correct 😉
Obviously a few daily express readers in today!
and as above, BBC forecast is not from the Met office
It might not be snowing where you are now but it's absolutely battering it down in Matlock, and it might well be where your concrete pump is coming from. Sounds like they made the right call. Sounds like the amber warning is correct and you are wrong.
And it's not the end of the world, your pump will turn up next week and life will go on. I work in the construction industry and am always baffled by the way construction people think whatever they are doing is the most important thing in the world. It isn't, the building will still get built, if you have quoted properly (allowing for a few predictable delays, like stuff not happening when it snows in winter) everyone will make money and the customer will get their building.
And the met office will still be right, probably and against all odds stacked against them.
Good inch fallen here this morning and a wind that would cut you in half. We don't get our Amber warning until tomorrow though so be interesting to see how that looks. Sheep due to start lambing any second 🙂
We weren’t covered by the amber ..just yellow
Remember, don’t eat the yellow snow... 🤪
Ya got me!
I blame everyone else.
But in this case my groundworker has cancelled a 24 m3 pour using a 60m boom which is one of only 3 in the country due to the forecast. The forecast that showed a double snow symbol with 90 percent probability under it for the early hours of this morning, coupled with an “Amber warning”
It’s * bone dry and sunny at the moment outside. Yes it’s a free service, yes it’s a forecast but * me it’s waaaay off today.
Blamers and tools keep on blaming and tooling. Cheeky ****!
Even without the snow, wouldn't temperature be a factor? You can't pour concrete below certain temps (5 deg C, I believe).
wrightyson - I'm just up the way from you as you know
Clearly some snow in the night on the cars, it's been blizzarding on and off all morning. What more did you want?
Snow?
Hang on a minute, that guy Stagg who predicted the forecast for the morning of Tuesday 6 June 1944 had no access to a super computer, and i'd say he got it spectacularly spot on. I don't think he had a crystal ball either so how did he know there was going to be a break in the weather?
I bet he had a dry mouth at breakfast too.
The forecast that showed a double snow symbol with 90 percent probability under it for the early hours of this morning, coupled with an “Amber warning”
It’s * bone dry and sunny at the moment outside. Yes it’s a free service, yes it’s a forecast but * me it’s waaaay off today.
That's hardly spectacularly wrong though is it?
From the sounds of it the snow was just up the road ... and you're talking about 1 day in the year.
I use the met office app and website regularly and mostly I can turn up to ride at a certain time based on their forecast .. it's right a lot more than it's wrong and that is down to the hour or so of when it will rain or snow.
Quite often it will predict for example constant rain here and the rain stopping at a certain time just 10 miles West or East... and I go and ride, come back and find out both were correct.
when living in the uk , i always found the bbc good .
WeatherPro by Meteo Group seems pretty good to me. I use it plan my commuting, photoshoots and model plane flying. Worth paying a few quid a year for. They provide the BBC with their weather now.
Add in xcweather and windguru.cz and you're golden.
So, with 10% chance they could be wrong, but if it did happen then there would have been severe disruption. If, like the business I work in, you need a more accurate forecast for your exact location then you invariably have to pay for it. Even then we get just as many heavy cloud warnings as entirely accurate forecasts.
Your decision to cancel the work was based on the best available advice and you took a precautionary approach. All good so far. I think that was probably the best result as the consequences of you ignoring that may have been the loss of one of three appliances in the country that can do the job for you. From what I can see it was still the right decision and you get the day off in the dry to go and ride.
Win, win there 🙂
The forecast that showed a double snow symbol with 90 percent probability
...
It’s * bone dry and sunny at the moment outside. Yes it’s a free service, yes it’s a forecast but * me it’s waaaay off today.
The forecast said there was a 10% chance of no snow, and you've got no snow, so they were on the money. You know how percentages work, right?
If they'd said there was a 100% chance of snow, I'd be right there with you on your complaint.
Hang on a minute, that guy Stagg who predicted the forecast for the morning of Tuesday 6 June 1944 had no access to a super computer, and i’d say he got it spectacularly spot on. I don’t think he had a crystal ball either so how did he know there was going to be a break in the weather?
He didnt know. It was a prediction that turned out to be correct. If it wasn’t I’m pretty sure there would be a thread whinging about it.
Its usually pretty accurate for a large area. Your own experience of local conditions and ability to read a pressure chart makes it even more accurate. All forecasting compnies have been spot on since January - In Truro the other night they were accurate within an hour for rainfall over a 9 hour period.
Both Met and BBC spot on here. Snow came during the hours they predicted, and didn't snow during the break they predicted. Amazing. I love science, even when it doesn't/can't result in 100% correct predictions… it just so happens, that today, the experts got things unbelievably accurate for here. Amazing. Good skills.
I’ve always found the Met Office app to be pretty accurate, certainly better than the BBC.
Until a month or so ago, the BBC used metoffice forecasts and forecasters.
IT’S A THREEEEEEE-WAAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Giggidy!
Hey, that's my line...
As eddiebaby says, Meteogroup and their mobile app WeatherProHD are really good, I’ve been using the app since it appeared in the AppStore, six or seven years ago, although I pay the yearl subscription for hourly forecasts.
Draw whatever conclusions you want, but if you’re paying attention to the Beeb telly forecasts, you’ll see MeteoGroup instead of The Met Office as weather info supplier.
Was about right on MetOffice for here in Surrey.
Anyway, surely everybody checks every single weather forecast they can find (BBC, MetO, xc, yr.no, MetCheck, Accu, ECMWF, etc, etc) until you find one that's good enough to give you hope and just go out and do what you planned anyway? Or is it just me....?
I also can't help but chuckle slightly about Yellow Snow warnings.
Just watch out where the huskies go...