Do We Need The Met Office?

[weather eater]

I think this is something we can all agree on. I am getting sick and tired of weather PRESENTERS like Carol Kirkwood. I know there are some proper forecasters on the BBC, but some isn't good enough, the licence fee should pay for people who know what they are talking about - not some actor who can smile nicely.

No keep Carol, get rid of Dan Corbet, the man who calls Temperatures the numbers and rain is the big swath of blue coming you way, he does the weather for 5 year olds.

[Methuselah]

Absolutely we need the Met' Office. Equally as much we need the BBC to be educated that weather forecasts are not some dispensible filler between programmes or programme news and to allocate a sufficient amount of time to the forecasts to do justice to the expertise of the Met' Office.

Using trained meteorologists to deliver all the forecasts would also be a good forward step.

I agree, TM...I rue the days of Bert Foord and Jack Armstrong et al, that have (alas) long-gone!!

[Nick L]

No keep Carol, get rid of Dan Corbet, the man who calls Temperatures the numbers and rain is the big swath of blue coming you way, he does the weather for 5 year olds.

Remember to imagine it as a big blob of treacle and you had better put your brolly in your picnic hamper!

[La Bise]

Of course it is needed.

They are one of the most respected meteorological centres in the world and the idea that they are of no use anymore because a gaggle of over-enthusiastic met geek can pull charts here and there and blog away their change of moods (I mean, come on, imagine a forecast based along the kinds of stuff you read in the model thread...you might as well present it from a roller-coaster for added fun...) for the world to behold is patently ridiculous. I enjoy a browse here to do a bit of meta-analysis of the serious posters when it comes to lrf but I'm plan my short term walks around the Met forecasts, they rarely let me down (and that just happend so no grudge from me...).

It's perfectly clear what motivates the most virulent Met Office critics on the internet anyway and (shorter term)forecast accuracy it ain't...

[weather eater]

Of course it is needed.

They are one of the most respected meteorological centres in the world and the idea that they are of no use anymore because a gaggle of over-enthusiastic met geek can pull charts here and there and blog away their change of moods (I mean, come on, imagine a forecast based along the kinds of stuff you read in the model thread...you might as well present it from a roller-coaster for added fun...) for the world to behold is patently ridiculous. I enjoy a browse here to do a bit of meta-analysis of the serious posters when it comes to lrf but I'm plan my short term walks around the Met forecasts, they rarely let me down (and that just happend so no grudge from me...).

It's perfectly clear what motivates the most virulent Met Office critics on the internet anyway and (shorter term)forecast accuracy it ain't...

I'd say that was pretty close to the mark.

[La Bise]

In fact, I've just taken this approach this week, when I started reading comments by "heavyweights" posters on here like John, GP and a few others talking about a possible HP next week, I kept a close eye on the model thread and waited for the Met to get on board before changing my plans for next week when I was due to be off the earlier part. Best of both world. Looking forward to a sunny break in the Lake District now

[mcboz]

In the industry (energy supply and generation) I work in their forecasts are vital. They are a component in how much electricity to generate, gas to store and of course trade. Having an accurate forecast can make a huge difference in monetary terms. In fact, if the Met Office forecast arrives late all hell breaks loose! The forecast isn't the only input into the forecast system, but it plays a large part.

[Methuselah]

Of course, we need the MetO...How many (more) sailors would lose their lives without it??

Sometimes, I wonder!!

[Mondy]

Sometimes, I wonder!!

About what? The poster or topic starter? The banging of a wall smilie doesn't give too much away, Pete!

Anyway, it's turned out to be a very good topic with much opinion given. Mostly in the positive for the Met O - do they get a reputation rating too?

[Phil UK]

ACBrixton...

5. They have the advantage of superior computeing power and an extensive staff;

Barbeque Summer 2009?

6. Their staff are specialist scientists with valuable experience;

Barbeque Summer 2009? And overpaid, stick their necks out and get it wrong, not one, not two, but THREE years in a row?

7. Unlike a number of amateurs it may be safely assumed that the MO review and consider data objectively.

Some 'amateurs' are more reliable locally than those nationally. For example... 15th April 2009, early morning thunderstorms across the Midlands, they failed to spot that trough intensify.

Let's go back a bit further shall we?

1st February 2009. Snowstorms that left most of London to a standstill. Not predicted, but it happened!! First time since 1947 if my history is correct.

Now I've got no multi-million pound computer system that can detect forthcoming weather events, but rest assured, I've been in this weather game long enough to know exactly what to look for and IF, and when such weather events may occur.

And on that happy note... See ya late September. (Will try to get some nice pics from Exmouth!)

Phil.

[La Bise]

Set up your own weather forecast office then chap, you have the gift apparently...

[Mondy]

Set up your own weather forecast office then chap, you have the gift apparently...

Trouble is LB, he doesn't have £30m set aside at his disposal for a super-computer ( I don't think he has!) and if Phil UK did, would he admit, as the Met Office have, that [although] their new computer system is more powerful than 100,000 PC's, it may still get a forecast wrong.

At 30million quid, I'd want to know the sea state of my local pond at least one week from now;-)

Edited September 3, 2009 by Mondy

[Mondy]

I'd like to add this snippet

[Cookie]

yes we need the met office, I agree with most posts on here that are in favor of the met office.

[Guest]

1. They successfully saw the weather window which allowed the "D" landings to take place in June 1944 with only a fraction of the information of what is available today.

2. Despite the advances that have been made I believe that any forecast made in advance of 72 hours in this country where we are subject really to a maritime climate is only probable and even then get it wrong escpecially when a seondary low suddenly pops up.

The best anyone can hope for is to look for the trends and based on the various sea temps around the world, the current weather.

In other parts of the world it is probably easier because the climates follow a more fixed pattern but even then they can be caught out.

It reminds me of the story that I heard about two scientific assistants from the Met Office being stationed in an arid area of the middle east.

They got so bored out of their tinies, (the weather was exactly the same each day) that the decided to write the obs up for a couple of days in advance (I suppose they got the teleprinter wallah to sent them through at the appropriate times), then go to the local town for a bender. That is when the storm struck!

Edited September 4, 2009 by mike Meehan

[Methuselah]

The MetO has certainly forecast the effects of ex-Danny very well!

[J07]

I'd like to add this snippet

Very interesting read. Pilots often complain about the forecast, regardless of the country. Swap "Met Office" for "Met Service" or "Bureau of Meteorology" and you have yourself a realistic conversation that may take place in NZ or Aus.

I did have a snigger at this though

"the weather forecasts on telly these days are presented by a bunch of meterosexuals who couldn't plot a tephigram if their life depended on it"

considering the thread that we already have complaining about weather presenters!

The Met Office is indispensable. I trust in meteorologists more than I will ever trust in amateurs, no matter how experienced or skilled. This is just because I know meteorologists know their stuff from the ground up, the basics - no matter how dry and boring, are likely ingrained in their minds. Now tell me this - how many "met geeks" would carry on doing what they do if they had to derive the vorticity equation on a few sheets of A4 paper? Probably not that many. And fair enough, because it's pretty damn boring. But it is important for a grasp of the fundamentals.

There's something to be said for an understanding of the fundamental physical processes that occur in the atmosphere - yes I am talking about thermodynamics and fluid dynamics - and being able to take those up through levels of complexity when considering an analysis or forecast. I'd take that skill any day over a "model watcher", and really that's the way it's likely to be always.

[Guest Shetland Coastie]

Speaking from the point of view of someone who uses/broadcasts the Meto forecasts every day - yes, absolutely they are needed.

It might be fun for those who have that particular bent, to make up their own forecasts using all the resources available on the net, but I and my colleagues, and indeed the maritime community we serve, certainly don't have the time or the inclination.

To the maritime community these forecasts are absolutely vital and there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that they have saved lives. You wouldn't believe the amount of phone calls we get from members of the public requesting the latest forecast and the moaning we get if, for any reason, we miss one of our regular broadcast slots (sometimes we will not put out the weather forecast if, for example, we are incident working).

We broadcast these forecasts every 3 hours on VHF and MF and I guarantee a large number of mariners tune in to theses broadcasts. Furthermore, the weather information we get from the Meto is vital to search planning and helicopter operations.

Indeed, certain information we get from the Meto, e.g Gale Warnings, are considered vital safety information and such broadcasts are transmitted with the safety prefix "Securite" and are normally transmitted as soon as they are received, outwith the normal broadcast times.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Yes I think we certainly do need the Met Office. The example from Shetland Coastie above is one very good example of why we need them. I also think for short term forecasting in general, for which I think they are as good as can be expected, they are a vital source of information for the community in general from ordinary folk to businesses to transport and road networks. Their warnings system, whilst it can never be bombproof and at times might over-exaggerate conditions, is essential in this regard too.

The areas I feel very much less complimentary about are the seasonal and climate areas - but in terms of priority for the here and now they at least have that right for people's plans and activities today, tomorrow and reliable enough for the next week or so.

[Nick L]

Eh! I must be missing something here, have I read it wrong? Met Office forecasted that event accurately days in advance of happening. They issued an 'severe weather' warning and then updated it to an 'Extreme weather' warning. There was so much talk of it on the news prior to the snow falling over the far SE. Honestly, that was one of the Met Office's better periods in severe weather forecasting.

Am I alone on this one, do others think that the exceptional snowfall in the SE this year was not predicted?

Yeah you are right. Sorry Phil but I think you are wrong on this one!

Everybody down the south-east on here were going a bit crazy because it was the first time we saw an "extreme" weather warning for snow. I heard the word "extreme weather warning" numberous times on the BBC for the 1st/2nd Feb event in London - it was very well forecasted. I can't comment on the rest of the cold spell, but I definitely don't remember the very heavy snow in the south west on the 6th forecasted - the one where Okehampton got 50cm!

Edited September 4, 2009 by nick2702

[Cheese Rice]

Eh! I must be missing something here, have I read it wrong? Met Office forecasted that event accurately days in advance of happening. They issued an 'severe weather' warning and then updated it to an 'Extreme weather' warning. There was so much talk of it on the news prior to the snow falling over the far SE. Honestly, that was one of the Met Office's better periods in severe weather forecasting.

Am I alone on this one, do others think that the exceptional snowfall in the SE this year was not predicted?

Yeah it was very well forecasted, and probably the most accuratley forecaste ever by the meto, they issued warnings 3 days prior to the event and the forecast didn't change at all. If only i could say the same for the rest of the Uk on that day.

[Solar Cycles]

I've slated the MetO many times for their LRF abilities, as many on here are aware! So my proposal would be for the MetO to be privitised, thus saving the taxpayers millions, on over inflated wages and egos! A trimmed down MetO with no agendas, and doing what they do best. Forecasting the weather on a daily basis, without the dreaded words that Delta said not to use!

[Gavin P]

We do need the Met, but I'd like to see it opened up much more and much more information made avaliable. That goes for ECM, too. When you think of all the information we get from the GFS. All of that kind of information should be made made avaliable from the Met and the ECMWF model as well.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Gavin P

[osmposm]

I've slated the MetO many times for their LRF abilities, as many on here are aware! So my proposal would be for the MetO to be privitised, thus saving the taxpayers millions, on over inflated wages and egos! A trimmed down MetO with no agendas, and doing what they do best. Forecasting the weather on a daily basis, without the dreaded words that Delta said not to use!

But they already run an operating profit - £12.7m in 2007-08. And if the private organisation that replaced them had to pay full price for the vast infrastructure they use - everything from computers to weather buoys - they could only be more expensive, whatever their salary levels. Perhaps, too, you could enlighten us on what these 'inflated wages' you talk of are exactly?

Think you're barking up the wrong tree there, Solar.

[La Bise]

We are waiting Solar...