Twee R4 prog on Met Office-

[NickRobinson]

'What's the point of the Met Office' (currently on, 9:15 Wed am)

Though rather relevant as holed up in Pwllheli but the 70's 'no sex please, we're British' delivery by the jobbing posh boy presenter defeated me....

 

[JumbleDuck]

A Twee R4 programme? What other sort is there?

 

[franksingleton]

It was a load of crap. But, what do you expect if you try to get a Daily Mail hack to take a sensible look at anything.

I think that the Met Office should have put up someone more convincing than their lady seemed to be. Also, there was no balance on the climate issue. Piers Corbyn was wheeled out. Peter Lilley traded on the Cambridge physics degree but still did not give credit to some good scientists actually working in the field. Several non-Met Office people could have been used.

October 87 yet again. Does the BBC not realise that forecasts have moved on out of sight since then? As a sailor, I know that I can plan days ahead. Impossible 20 years ago.

Privatising the Met Office is a dead duck but I have always thought that there should be some way of accommodating a viable private sector. The problem here is that Treasury will not play ball. A private sector would have to get much data and forecasts from the Met Office. In other words at the taxpayer’s expense. There should be a way around this but nobody has yet found it.

All this is, of course, way above the intellectual level of the Daily Mail

 

[Biggles Wader]

October 87 again.Does the BBC and everyone else not realise that Michael Fish did forecast severe weather but absolutely correctly said there would be no hurricane.Hurricanes are geographically specific and we dont have them in Europe.

 

[jdc]

October 87 again.Does the BBC and everyone else not realise that Michael Fish did forecast severe weather but absolutely correctly said there would be no hurricane.Hurricanes are geographically specific and we dont have them in Europe.

Wasn't Michael Fish an employee of the BBC not of the MO? Inconvenient for the BBC of course to have to admit that. I was on the boat in the R Orwell that night and listened to the shipping forecast: F11 and 12 predicted for all channel areas.

 

[franksingleton]

Wasn't Michael Fish an employee of the BBC not of the MO? Inconvenient for the BBC of course to have to admit that. I was on the boat in the R Orwell that night and listened to the shipping forecast: F11 and 12 predicted for all channel areas.

No. He was Met Office. It was a very near thing. I could give all the background if anyone is really interested. I cannot say that it will never occur again. All I can say is that it is unlikely to do so. Models are far better now. Forecasters are better at using them.

 

[alant]

It was a load of crap. But, what do you expect if you try to get a Daily Mail hack to take a sensible look at anything.

I think that the Met Office should have put up someone more convincing than their lady seemed to be. Also, there was no balance on the climate issue. Piers Corbyn was wheeled out. Peter Lilley traded on the Cambridge physics degree but still did not give credit to some good scientists actually working in the field. Several non-Met Office people could have been used.

October 87 yet again. Does the BBC not realise that forecasts have moved on out of sight since then? As a sailor, I know that I can plan days ahead. Impossible 20 years ago.

Privatising the Met Office is a dead duck but I have always thought that there should be some way of accommodating a viable private sector. The problem here is that Treasury will not play ball. A private sector would have to get much data and forecasts from the Met Office. In other words at the taxpayer’s expense. There should be a way around this but nobody has yet found it.

All this is, of course, way above the intellectual level of the Daily Mail

What is the Daily Mail reference?

 

[JumbleDuck]

October 87 again.Does the BBC and everyone else not realise that Michael Fish did forecast severe weather but absolutely correctly said there would be no hurricane.Hurricanes are geographically specific and we dont have them in Europe.

We do have "Hurricane Force 12" fairly regularly, though.

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

Privatising the Met Office is a dead duck but I have always thought that there should be some way of accommodating a viable private sector. The problem here is that Treasury will not play ball. A private sector would have to get much data and forecasts from the Met Office. In other words at the taxpayer’s expense. There should be a way around this but nobody has yet found it.

Its getting there. Global data is free and improving in resolution. Computing power is still reducing in cost. So high resolution local data is within reach of private sector. What is still required are forecasters that take the local data and maintain a level of sanity. Met Check recently (6 months/1 year ago) migrated to a new global data source, they are just about returning to sane after getting to grips with the new model.

 

[franksingleton]

What is the Daily Mail reference?

Quentin Fletts

 

[franksingleton]

Its getting there. Global data is free and improving in resolution. Computing power is still reducing in cost. So high resolution local data is within reach of private sector. What is still required are forecasters that take the local data and maintain a level of sanity. Met Check recently (6 months/1 year ago) migrated to a new global data source, they are just about returning to sane after getting to grips with the new model.

I hope that it does get there. The cost of getting more and better data is one problem. I cannot see satellite sensing getting cheaper. Global models will always require massive computing power.

There is certainly room for better local forecasts. To what extent these can be produced by local models is uncertain. But, these local models will still need global input. The further ahead – say beyond 12 hours the greater is the need for large computing power. Deterministic prediction has its limits. The need is very real to use ensembles to give warnings of such events as the Boscastle storm. That is beyond many computing systems.

There are, of course, many other aspects of work with weather that requires a large centralised organisation. It is the interaction between such an organisation and the private sector that is the problem in HMT’s mind.

My time in the Met Office dated back to when much was provided free to whoever asked for it. Weather centres were set up. I worked in and later headed a branch that provided basic data and data services to a wide range of private individuals, firms, businesses, professions etc. All at no cost. The situation was unsustainable; we just could not get the staff resources. Something had to change. Rayner (Thatcher’s efficiency guru) made a close study of the Met Office leading to the current situation. Far from perfect, I agree. But, nobody has yet come up with a better solution that meets UK needs nationally.

 

[franksingleton]

We do have "Hurricane Force 12" fairly regularly, though.

When Beaufort was finalising his scale of winds he was, as had long been done, using names for the various forces. Scales using numbers as well as names were already in use. Beaufort did not, in fact,, invent a scale but built on collective experience to produce a scale recognisable and acceptable to sea going naval officers. His achievement was to get that scale accepted by their Lordships at the Admiralty for standardised use across the RN.

In his 1836 version, he had, at the high end, 7 – moderate gale, 8 – fresh gale, 9 – strong gale, 10 – whole gale. 11 –storm. He had to have a name for 12 defined as “That which no canvas could withstand.”.

He well knew that typhoons, hurricanes and tropical cyclones did not occur in our latitudes. He also knew that winds anywhere could reach strengths found in hurricanes etc. That is why he used 12-hurricane..

Nowadays in forecasts we hear Gale 8, Severe gale 9, Storm 10, Violent storm 11, Hurricane force 12. Note the use of the word force. Sailors understand the significance; many in the general public do not. Mike Fish was unwise to use the word hurricane but he was not wrong to do so. He was quite correct to say there would not be a hurricane.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Nowadays in forecasts we hear Gale 8, Severe gale 9, Storm 10, Violent storm 11, Hurricane force 12. Note the use of the word force.

Note that I was careful to use it too. I don't expect a cyclone when the forecast says "cyclonic" either.

 

[franksingleton]

Note that I was careful to use it too. I don't expect a cyclone when the forecast says "cyclonic" either.

I did notice. Which is why I replied. The book on the Beaufort scale history is well worth reading. "Gale Force 10" I think is the (inaccurate) title.