That might have been so when I first joined the Met Office. By the early 1970s it had all changed. Try reading Behind the Forecast - Franks-Weather - The Weather Window.Frank Singleton sits in his little cubby-hole and fiddles with his slide rule until he gets the numbers he wants and then announces doom and gloom to the rest of us.
That would go badly for us.long since learned that the best way of forecasting the weather is to assume that tomorrow is the same as today. Wont be right all the time but that isnt the issue. The issue is whether its nearer right than the met office and the answer to that is yes.
the weather at our local weather station is near enough exactly what it was 24 hours ago - 22kngusting 31 compared to 24kn gusting 32
That may be true for your location in Wales, but not in the area affected by the storm. Stornoway was SW 9kts gusting 13 yesterday morning; this morning it was SSE 32kts gusting 43. As for barometric pressure, John O'Groats recorded 977mb at mid-day today, so the MetOffice was pretty much spot on with the forecast.long since learned that the best way of forecasting the weather is to assume that tomorrow is the same as today. Wont be right all the time but that isnt the issue. The issue is whether its nearer right than the met office and the answer to that is yes.
the weather at our local weather station is near enough exactly what it was 24 hours ago - 22kngusting 31 compared to 24kn gusting 32
Provide statistical confirmation.long since learned that the best way of forecasting the weather is to assume that tomorrow is the same as today. Wont be right all the time but that isnt the issue. The issue is whether its nearer right than the met office and the answer to that is yes.
the weather at our local weather station is near enough exactly what it was 24 hours ago - 22kngusting 31 compared to 24kn gusting 32
As opposed to confirmation bias, indeed. Conversation about our changeable weather is a part of the fabric of society. It’s different every day, is it not?Provide statistical confirmation.
The nonsense about persistence forecasts was kicked into touch longer ago than I can remember. And that is a long time ago.As opposed to confirmation bias, indeed. Conversation about our changeable weather is a part of the fabric of society. It’s different every day, is it not?
So a bit shy of a couple of hundred iterations of calculations based on a set of initial values. Sounds like huge scope for compounding any errors (even just rounding errors) in those initial values. I'd guess there must be a bit more to it.That might have been so when I first joined the Met Office. By the early 1970s it had all changed. Try reading Behind the Forecast - Franks-Weather - The Weather Window.
Before I was born possibly. We are our club’s weather nuts. I’ve just had some practice in looking at the forecasts, and remembering what that’ll mean locally. The last bit is quite easy, it’s working out what the weather will do more than a day or 2 ahead that seems to be challenging. And whilst it seems as if we get a F5 south westerly to blow over every spring ebb, I think that’s just the law of sod in action. Anyway, tomorrow’s weather will be nothing like todays. Which tends to reinforce your point.The nonsense about persistence forecasts was kicked into touch longer ago than I can remember. And that is a long time ago.
You are clearly blissfully unaware of the research that has gone into model development dating back to the first electronic computers, the development of satellite sensing back to the 1970s, the R&D into use of these many and varied data. But, yes there is always scope for a glitch in the data or model formulation. One of the benefits of having models run by major weather services. Just occasionally, one will differ from the rest. The similarity between models even out to 5 or more days is encouraging. So is the ability to give days warnings of severe events even though the detail will never be perfect/So a bit shy of a couple of hundred iterations of calculations based on a set of initial values. Sounds like huge scope for compounding any errors (even just rounding errors) in those initial values. I'd guess there must be a bit more to it.
Hence my question!You are clearly blissfully unaware of the research that has gone into model development dating back to the first electronic computers, the development of satellite sensing back to the 1970s, the R&D into use of these many and varied data.
I read your post as a statement which is how it is phrased.Hence my question!