Best UK Weather Model?

[franksingleton]

Synoptic, o-level geography and experience is what I use. Look at the sky if you want to know what the weather is doing in the next few hours. As for tomorrow it will probably be like today. Use the synoptic to guess where the systems are moving to for the day after tomorrow.

Synoptic charts are heavily based on GRIB output. No human can beat the models. They may improve them slightly in the first 24 hours. Whilst synoptic charts give a good pictorial overview, you will get far better wind information from GRIB data. You will get useful objective guidance on lightning risk and rainfall intensity and timing.

I would also emphasise that meteorology is not covered in a geography syllabus. That is a hangover from pre-computer days. It is a mathematical physical science. That was recognised back in 1906 when Wilhelmina Bjerknes said that, in principle, weather prediction was an initial value problem in physics. A British scientist tried to test the idea during WW1 but it was not until after WW2 that there was any chance of tackling the problem realistically.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Synoptic charts are heavily based on GRIB output. No human can beat the models. They may improve them slightly in the first 24 hours. Whilst synoptic charts give a good pictorial overview, you will get far better wind information from GRIB data. You will get useful objective guidance on lightning risk and rainfall intensity and timing.

I would also emphasise that meteorology is not covered in a geography syllabus. That is a hangover from pre-computer days. It is a mathematical physical science. That was recognised back in 1906 when Wilhelmina Bjerknes said that, in principle, weather prediction was an initial value problem in physics. A British scientist tried to test the idea during WW1 but it was not until after WW2 that there was any chance of tackling the problem realistically.

Frank, just for once I'm going to differ from you - though not on anything important! Geography has two sides, physical and human, and both are (or were) taught at GCE level as parts of the same subject. Physical Geography certainly has mathematical and physical underpinning; some of the "heaviest" books on my shelf are to do with the fluid dynamics of river flow, undeniably a part of physical Geography! Of course, there's a strong overlap between physical Geography and my own subject of Geology; so much that in fact I spent most of my career involved in Geography rather than Geology. Meteorology certainly overlaps Physical Geography; the geographic effect of things like Trade Winds, the Monsoon etc. mean that there has to be such a link. Even at O-level, I had to be at least aware of such things, though of course, the mathematical treatment of them was way beyond the scope of O-level - and not well developed in the 1960s anyway! But qualitative models of things like the Monsoon and Trade winds were certainly covered when I did my O-level.

 

[Buck Turgidson]

Met was also covered in my A-level geography course and more simplistically in my ATPL.

 

[franksingleton]

Frank, just for once I'm going to differ from you - though not on anything important! Geography has two sides, physical and human, and both are (or were) taught at GCE level as parts of the same subject. Physical Geography certainly has mathematical and physical underpinning; some of the "heaviest" books on my shelf are to do with the fluid dynamics of river flow, undeniably a part of physical Geography! Of course, there's a strong overlap between physical Geography and my own subject of Geology; so much that in fact I spent most of my career involved in Geography rather than Geology. Meteorology certainly overlaps Physical Geography; the geographic effect of things like Trade Winds, the Monsoon etc. mean that there has to be such a link. Even at O-level, I had to be at least aware of such things, though of course, the mathematical treatment of them was way beyond the scope of O-level - and not well developed in the 1960s anyway! But qualitative models of things like the Monsoon and Trade winds were certainly covered when I did my O-level.

I stand corrected. I may be wrong - again - I suspect that was not the geography that Buck was thinking about. There was a time when meteorology was thought by many to be a subset of geography. Partly, this was because of such eminent people as Gordon Manley, partly, it was because in WW2, geographers had sufficient knowledge of Weather to be trained as RAF weather men and some stayed in the Met Office after the war.

 

[ghostlymoron]

Frank singleton, I've used pocket grib in the past and found it to be as accurate as any.

 

[franksingleton]

Frank singleton, I've used pocket grib in the past and found it to be as accurate as any.

PocketGrib gives the GFS and COAMPS. I use it a lot. I also use the Saildocs service for ICON and ECMWF which I then view using PocketGrib.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I stand corrected. I may be wrong - again - I suspect that was not the geography that Buck was thinking about. There was a time when meteorology was thought by many to be a subset of geography. Partly, this was because of such eminent people as Gordon Manley, partly, it was because in WW2, geographers had sufficient knowledge of Weather to be trained as RAF weather men and some stayed in the Met Office after the war.

All the Earth Sciences overlap; they couldn't not do so. As a geologist I tend to look at them as all being subsets of geology! But just to emphasize their interdependence, I was interviewed for a PhD where I would have been looking at evidence of wind direction in Quaternary volcanic deposits. Sadly, it was not to be! But by separating disciplines and putting them in separate boxes, we lose sight of the essential interconnected nature of natural systems. After all, a major influence on weather systems is the Himalayan range of mountains; the history of their formation probably has a direct impact on the drying of East Africa that many believe provided the evolutionary boost to the development of hominoids.

 

[franksingleton]

All the Earth Sciences overlap; they couldn't not do so. As a geologist I tend to look at them as all being subsets of geology! But just to emphasize their interdependence, I was interviewed for a PhD where I would have been looking at evidence of wind direction in Quaternary volcanic deposits. Sadly, it was not to be! But by separating disciplines and putting them in separate boxes, we lose sight of the essential interconnected nature of natural systems. After all, a major influence on weather systems is the Himalayan range of mountains; the history of their formation probably has a direct impact on the drying of East Africa that many believe provided the evolutionary boost to the development of hominoids.

Throughout my time in the Met Office, someone applying for a job as a scientist, had to have a good honours or post-grad qualification in maths or physics. A geographer with A level maths/physics would only have been appointed in a supporting role. Nowadays, the Hadley Centre might well look for a broader background but, possibly, on short period contracts. I am too far removed to know what is the current recruiting policy For mainstream meteorologists.

 

[lustyd]

Let's hope they changed that policy, hiring maths and physics post grads with honours has clearly not led to accurate weather data. Possibly the same issue we have in my profession - being good at university doesn't always (or even usually) translate to being useful doing the work.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Throughout my time in the Met Office, someone applying for a job as a scientist, had to have a good honours or post-grad qualification in maths or physics. A geographer with A level maths/physics would only have been appointed in a supporting role. Nowadays, the Hadley Centre might well look for a broader background but, possibly, on short period contracts. I am too far removed to know what is the current recruiting policy For mainstream meteorologists.

We seem to have got at cross purposes! I wasn't suggesting that a meteorologist could possibly manage without a good maths/physics background; I've seen enough of it to know that; we used the example of potential vorticity as an example of a parametric coordinate system when I worked on ISO 19111 and I'm glad we did have a meteorologist on the team to write that bit! All I'm saying is that all the Earth Science disciplines are strongly interrelated and that qualitative knowledge of weather is a part of other disciplines, even if the detailed modelling is not. And I think it is qualitative (not quantitative) understanding that people are referring to when they talk of using synoptic charts to make their forecast. Similarly, I wouldn't expect a meteorologist to be able to discuss the detail of the evolution of magma by fractional crystallization and outgassing, and the various compositions involved in a volcanic eruption. But the meteorologist would probably have enough understanding of the different styles of vulcanism to know that some volcanoes are far more likely than others to inject dust into the upper atmosphere (e.g. Eyjafjallajokul and Mauna Kea). And vulcanism can have severe effects on meteorology - "The Year without a Summer" in 1816, for example, and the eruption of Laki in 1783

 

[franksingleton]

Let's hope they changed that policy, hiring maths and physics post grads with honours has clearly not led to accurate weather data. Possibly the same issue we have in my profession - being good at university doesn't always (or even usually) translate to being useful doing the work.

On the contrary, forecasting is immeasurably better now than when I jouned the Met Office. There has been a continual improvement since the first models became operational. Understanding of satellite sensing is contributing to forecasting. The atmosphere is immensely complex and forecasts will never be precise. The atmosphere is not precise.
Understanding climate and climate change has been led by meteorologists. These and many more aspects of meteorology only advance through the application of high intellect - much above mine.

 

[franksingleton]

We seem to have got at cross purposes! I wasn't suggesting that a meteorologist could possibly manage without a good maths/physics background; I've seen enough of it to know that; we used the example of potential vorticity as an example of a parametric coordinate system when I worked on ISO 19111 and I'm glad we did have a meteorologist on the team to write that bit! All I'm saying is that all the Earth Science disciplines are strongly interrelated and that qualitative knowledge of weather is a part of other disciplines, even if the detailed modelling is not. And I think it is qualitative (not quantitative) understanding that people are referring to when they talk of using synoptic charts to make their forecast. Similarly, I wouldn't expect a meteorologist to be able to discuss the detail of the evolution of magma by fractional crystallization and outgassing, and the various compositions involved in a volcanic eruption. But the meteorologist would probably have enough understanding of the different styles of vulcanism to know that some volcanoes are far more likely than others to inject dust into the upper atmosphere (e.g. Eyjafjallajokul and Mauna Kea). And vulcanism can have severe effects on meteorology - "The Year without a Summer" in 1816, for example, and the eruption of Laki in 1783

I fully agree. This began when I reacted to Buck’s comment about him using synoptic o-level Geography. I pointed out that meteorology is a mathematical physical science. I admitted to being too dismissive of geographers. I was thinking primarily of operational weather prediction. I agree that meteorology is an environmental science and must interact with other earth sciences and, more widely, planetary sciences.