Feather Worecasting

[Michael Rogers]

I haven't been so upset since they axed Children's Hour from the BBC Home Service

[Michael Rogers]

Yes, well, an obviously unsuccessful attempt to generate a bit of discussion around the divorce of the BBC and the Met Office. I must say (which was the rather pathetic point I was trying to make) that they have been horse-and-carriage for the whole of my lifetime.

I know nothing about the economics of weather forecasting, but had always assumed that the Met O are THE experts in the UK, and that - insofar as anyone else forecasts - they use data derived from those collected by the Met O. In which case, if the Beeb ditches the Met O, the Someone Else they use will use the same data the Met O would have used, which seems a bit of a merry-go-round. So I've obviously got it wrong. I think Peter T can sort us (or me, anyway - everyone else may know what happens) out - please, Peter!

I believe various of us use various forecast sites. I'll stick with the Met O because it's what I know, and their website gives a forecast specifically for Knoll Beach at Studland, which is where my boat is now. It includes Tide times as well, which is more than handy. This summer they've been pretty good, albeit tending to under-forecast wind strength - e.g. predicting a F3-5 which turns out to be a F4-6. Wind direction has been spot-on.

Coming back to the Beeb, they could try the Daily Express's 'expert(s)' to liven things up. A tsunami or two in September perhaps?

Michael

[david]

Windyty.com.
Hi Michael,
                    The sight I find most accurate. You can look  for specific  coordinates to get the forecast. I did find knoll beach, when I searched for it on the sight. Lots of information  on this sight.  May be useful  for you.

[Matthew P]

In my opinion BBC weather forecasting went totally the wrong way when they replaced magnetic symbols on maps with computer screen presentations. Forecasting may have been less accurate but at least it was easier to pay attention. 

Does anyone remember when Michael Fish (I think it was) ended his forecast, during which the letter "F" kept falling off the "FOG" caption, by saying "Sorry about the F in Fog".  This was in a pre-punk, more genteel era when the F-word could still shock. 

Matthew
BR20 Gladys

[Michael Rogers]

I remember, because I saw it 'live', Michael Fish's reassuring 'don't worry, nothing like that is going to happen' dismissal of the 1987 storm's approach. Less than 12 hours later, and less than a mile from my house, the weather station on the Reading University campus registered a gust of (if my memory serves) over 150 mph. Next morning early, the storm had passed but I couldn't walk my dog because of uprooted trees absolutely everywhere. I remember reading that the Dover lifeboat had a particularly interesting night when the cox'n had a coronary in the middle of multiple assists to stricken ships, and they couldn't get him to hospital because all the roads were blocked with fallen trees. (He survived.)

[David Hudson]

Ah, 1987. We had the most amazing windsurfing off the north east coat. Warm heavy winds!

[David Hudson]

But seriously folks. I find the PredictWind application a useful tool.

[Peter Taylor]

if the Beeb ditches the Met O, the Someone Else they use will use the same data the Met O would have used, which seems a bit of a merry-go-round. So I've obviously got it wrong. I think Peter T can sort us (or me, anyway - everyone else may know what happens) out - please, Peter!

No Michael, you've got it right! As the national weather service, the Met Office ("MO") organises (and in many cases funds) the collection of data from official UK weather stations, ocean buoys, UK shipping, etc. All these data are shared internationally via the Global Telecommunication System (GTS) of the World Weather Watch, under the auspices of the World Meteorological organisation.  All the data collected globally (including measurements from satellite borne instruments) are used in global atmospheric simulations ("models") which are produced by agencies such as the MO using some of the world's most powerful (and expensive) computers.  These MO data and simulations are freely available to all participating met agencies but not, at least from the MO, directly to the public.

Until modern times the Met Office was fully funded in it's role by the government (coming under the RAF budget if I remember).  However nowadays they are required to have a profitable commercial arm and sell their services to diverse customers like people moving oil rigs, people selling ice cream, ...and the BBC.  If you pay them enough you will get forecasts tailored for your own specific requirements by teams of (human) forecasters who are informed by the regionally detailed output from the global computer models.

A major problem for the Met Office in trying to operate commercially is that in the USA, data and atmospheric model forecasts produced using public funding are considered "public domain".  Thus all the data (including that collected by the Met Office) and all the information from US National Weather Service global atmospheric models are available for free.  In most cases it is these NWS distributed data and model forecasts which are used by weather sites on the internet, for example xcweather and others. The NWS forecasts cover the whole globe with increasingly fine resolution.  However when you go on the web and ask for a weather forecast for a specific place, what you will get is an interpolation of results from the nearest model grid points.  (Internet sites such as iGrib are slightly different in that they tap into the stream of data on the GTS and display the "gridded binary" representations of observations and model forecasts.)

All these free data can be used by the commercial forecasting companies, who neither collect met data nor (as far as I know) run global forecasting models, but who will compete for the BBC contract.  Unlike the MO they can concentrate all their human resources into interpreting the forecasts for their users. 

Not fair you may say!  However I personally find more and more that I am disappointed with the accuracy of publicly available MO forecasts (including the shipping forecast which is paid for by the MCA).  Often I can do better for my purposes (i.e. sailing Seatern) by looking at the pressure charts and using the observations provided by xcweather on the web.  I suspect this is because the Met Office is constrained by its available resources on relying too much on the model output without bringing in the local knowledge and interpretation which, at one time, human forecasters provided.  A commercial firm forecasting for, for example  BBC South, might well do a better job than the present "weather presenters" who seem to rely purely on the MO forecast output and who are trained as TV performers rather than weather forecasters.

so, that's my rant on the subject, you did ask Michael!

[Graham W]

Presumably for UK strategic, scientific and defence reasons, the MO has to collect its local data, regardless of who else uses it.  This will continue and have to be paid for by the taxpayer whether or not the BBC or other commercial contracts continue.

Then there is an different activity, which is to interpret the raw data for Joe Public.  From what Peter says, it sounds like the MO has exactly the same access to global raw data as everyone else.  They also have access to super computers and their own models and yet are perceived to be doing a somewhat inaccurate job.  We then find ourselves relying on our favourite commercial forecasters such as XCWeather or Weatherpro, especially for local forecasts. 

I think I understand the BBC's logic: why should they pay a lot of money to the MO to cross-subsidise the MO's mandatory data collection activities when what they want is better data interpretation, which can probably be sourced elsewhere and at lower cost?

[Michael Rogers]

Thanks, Peter T and Graham. I think I understand some of that and, as you say Peter, I did ask!

Another question - where do the 'human forecasters' get their training? I'm drawing a cautious parallel here (possibly erroneously) with the practice of clinical medicine, which is a mixture of art and science;  in which absolutely nothing can replace the value of experience; and for which, provided it is combined with high quality training, the more you do it the better you become as a practitioner.

I was wondering whether the Met O finds itself in the position of medical schools and the NHS vis a vis private health care - providing the training and initial experience for people who then go off and earn relative megabucks in private health care, at the expense of the NHS in terms of the cost of initial training and then loss of expertise. Apart from the Met O having to share the data it collects with anyone who wants it, does it find itself losing some of the best practitioners (i.e. forecasters) to 'rivals' who can pay more?

(I managed, I think, to restrain myself there from jumping into the saddle of a certain high horse: but I don't mind anyone knowing that I have voted for one J Corbyn.)

Michael

[Andy Dingle]

Probably not the place here to share your personal view points on a Swallow Yachts specific sailing forum Michael.

As agreed when we first set up this 'web based non-association' of Swallow Boat owners let's keep all topics strictly specific to sailing and associated subjects, thereby removing the need for moderation and policing of this site.

I can understand how easy it may seem to you to make such observations to the world, but you may find the world has surprisingly little interest in your stand on such matters, and indeed, this is a slippery path to the degeneration of what has so far been a very successful enterprise, run by enthusiastic volunteers.

It would the gentlemanly thing to do, in my opinion, to remove the last paragraph of your post of 5th Sept in the thread of 'Weather Forecasting'.

Regards

Andy
Baycruiser 23 'Equinox'

[Matthew P]

I read this forum for its technical content but also for amusement. So while I may not agree with all personal points of view, I hope that we can continue tolerating and even relishing expressions of individuality, perhaps eccentricity, that add colour and interest, provided they don't unnecessarily offend anyone.  Just my personal point of view though.

Matthew
BR20 Gladys   

[Michael Rogers]

Andy, I sincerely apologise if you think I overstepped something-or-other, and would gladly remove anything which causes you such offence (except that I don't know how to delete it). It was a silly comment, but possibly no sillier than others which appear from time to time on the forum, quite a few of them contributed by yours truly. Hmmm... where to go from here? If I promise to try harder to behave, would it be appropriate to ask you to lighten up just a bit? Lots of personal opinions get expressed here, not just mine, and I don't think the forum is the worse for that.

And I WOULD be interested in a response from someone who knows, about my query re the training of weather forecasters - provided, of course, Andy doesn't object.

Contritely              Michael

PS For goodness' sake, let's not fall out over this!

[Peter Taylor]

And I WOULD be interested in a response from someone who knows, about my query re the training of weather forecasters

Actually, I suspect that the training of forecasters is one of the Met Office's more lucrative operations! The Met Office College ( http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/training and associated pages) gets students from around the world who pay good money to be trained as forecasters. It really is a success story.

If you look at the College Prospectus (available from above link) you will get a feel for their interests.  Under "Marine Forecasting" the emphasis is on forecasting waves (for oil industry operations and ship routeing)  rather than winds (for Swallow Yachters)!

With regard to forecasts, where the human element is most important is interpreting the output from the computer models in the light of local geography.  That's one reason why all RAF bases (and I assume airports) have their own forecasting office. In the distant past you could actually phone up the duty forecaster at your local RAF base and ask for a (free) local forecast.  In those days it was probably on RAF bases that most Met Office forecasters got their practical experience following being trained at the Met Office College*.  Maybe that is still true, forecasting for the armed forces is a major reason for the MO's continued existence despite cut backs in funding (which have been made by  every flavour of government!).

With regard to forecast accuracy, the models have improved hugely in the past few years in the 5 to 7 day range.  I find it frustrating that the MO web site still does not publish the pressure charts out to that period and you have to go elsewhere to get them.

Peter

* an aside: my old Professor was a forecaster with the RAF during WWII and used to tell of how he failed to predict Lough Neagh (where he was stationed) freezing over.  The Flying Boats at their moorings were deemed insecure in those conditions and had to be continually manned.  Each day the milkman left milk bottles for the aircrew on the ice at the doors of the planes!

[Michael Rogers]

Very many thanks again, Peter. I really do feel much better informed about this whole subject. Hope others do too.

Am I right in remembering (through my contacts with a very senior Met O bloke in Reading, whose wife was a medic and worked with me in the 70s-80s) that one of the UK Olympic sailing team back then pioneered having their own forecasting boffins with them? I forget which (and therefore where) Olympics it was, but I was told the UK sailors got an edge through very detailed local forecasting which other teams didn't have. This guy wrote a technical book about it (which I didn't buy!), so maybe he was just promoting his book.

Michael