BBC weather forecasting...

I understand that weather forecasting is not an exact science (ever since I read Hammond Innes books :hehe:) but I just don't get how the BBC can make such a mess of their forecasting.

They have input from weather stations all round the UK; a history of weather trends to factor in; latest computers and software and still they often get the prediction either totally wrong - or change their forecasts.

Take today. At 07.20, they were forecasting a high of 29C and sunny intervals. At 09.20 they have changed the forecast to a high of 26C and a chance of rain this afternoon. (Thank the Lord!). When I say 'a chance of rain', the likelihood is 19%,21%,21%,22%,20% and 13% eash hour between 12.00 and 17.00.

And this illustrates my point. Weather forecasting is not an exact science, but they make these incredibly small increments of rainfall every hour!

So, do I need to water the garden or not???????? Or take a brolly to town???????

Why not just say - "Sunny, temperatures up to 26C with a chance of rain this afternoon."

(Glad I got that off my sweaty chest :hehe:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Once U shop, U can't stop

I understand that weather forecasting is not an exact science (ever since I read Hammond Innes books :hehe:) but I just don't get how the BBC can make such a mess of their forecasting.

They have input from weather stations all round the UK; a history of weather trends to factor in; latest computers and software and still they often get the prediction either totally wrong - or change their forecasts.

Take today. At 07.20, they were forecasting a high of 29C and sunny intervals. At 09.20 they have changed the forecast to a high of 26C and a chance of rain this afternoon. (Thank the Lord!). When I say 'a chance of rain', the likelihood is 19%,21%,21%,22%,20% and 13% eash hour between 12.00 and 17.00.

And this illustrates my point. Weather forecasting is not an exact science, but they make these incredibly small increments of rainfall every hour!

So, do I need to water the garden or not???????? Or take a brolly to town???????

Why not just say - "Sunny, temperatures up to 26C with a chance of rain this afternoon."

(Glad I got that off my sweaty chest :hehe:)

---

They get their weather information from MetroGroup. They're also saying there's this chance of rain, I literally don't understand what your issue is? They're putting the likelihood of the chance, which is more accurate than what you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Once U shop, U can't stop

I understand that weather forecasting is not an exact science (ever since I read Hammond Innes books :hehe:) but I just don't get how the BBC can make such a mess of their forecasting.

They have input from weather stations all round the UK; a history of weather trends to factor in; latest computers and software and still they often get the prediction either totally wrong - or change their forecasts.

Take today. At 07.20, they were forecasting a high of 29C and sunny intervals. At 09.20 they have changed the forecast to a high of 26C and a chance of rain this afternoon. (Thank the Lord!). When I say 'a chance of rain', the likelihood is 19%,21%,21%,22%,20% and 13% eash hour between 12.00 and 17.00.

And this illustrates my point. Weather forecasting is not an exact science, but they make these incredibly small increments of rainfall every hour!

So, do I need to water the garden or not???????? Or take a brolly to town???????

Why not just say - "Sunny, temperatures up to 26C with a chance of rain this afternoon."

(Glad I got that off my sweaty chest :hehe:)

---

BBC no longer use the Met Office to provide forecasts. They went for a cheaper option. I'm convinced the forecasts (not prediction) have become less reliable since, especially regarding rainfall chances. You can always look at animated rainfall radar to see where the rain is and in which direction it is travelling. Which is OK for frontal rainfall, not so good for conventional rainfall which can brew up in relatively isolated pockets. Love lightning is useful too. If all else fails, call the dog in and see if it is wet!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanD

BBC no longer use the Met Office to provide forecasts. They went for a cheaper option.

---

My license fee is too much!

Grr, the BBC are spending too little money!

Can't win.

When I was a kid, criticising weather forecasting was a common, tedious joke. Partly because of the Michael Fish Hurricane, but partly because it genuinely was something of a lottery (if my memories as an 8 year old are correct). But it seems to have become pretty accurate over the last decade or so. I cannot remember the last time I was surprised by a rain shower that wasn't forecast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optimistic Nick

When I was a kid, criticising weather forecasting was a common, tedious joke. Partly because of the Michael Fish Hurricane, but partly because it genuinely was something of a lottery (if my memories as an 8 year old are correct). But it seems to have become pretty accurate over the last decade or so. I cannot remember the last time I was surprised by a rain shower that wasn't forecast.

---

It wasn't a hurricane...very close but technically didn't meet the criteria. Since then gaps in the data collection system have been filled (especially weather buoys out at sea), satellite technology has come on leaps and bounds and supercomputers can now crunch data and produce forecasts with greater accuracy. So, yes, forecasts have become more accurate and with climate change the probability of a hurricane hitting the more populated areas of the UK has increased. And it's too late to do anything about it apart from try to minimise further excessive negative climate change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa

They get their weather information from MetroGroup. They're also saying there's this chance of rain, I literally don't understand what your issue is? They're putting the likelihood of the chance, which is more accurate than what you want.

---

You’ve obviously never worked outdoors for a living

What can CCMB find to moan about today? How about the weather forecasters, that's a classic.

I recall the infamous Katie Hopkins state when she worked for the Met Office that their forecasts were very accurate retrospectively. Great at telling you what the weather has been like but not that great at forecasting the future. Where I live in South Devon the forecast is always totally inaccurate; we don't get much rain when it is forecast and the temperature forecasts are always out by 3 to 4 degrees C.

Now the Meteo Group are giving the forecasts accuracy has not improved. I note also that various weather forecasters give different results.Today some are forecasting thunder at Noon but others don't indicate thunder at all. I just treat forecasts with a pinch of salt and suggest others do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Since64

You’ve obviously never worked outdoors for a living

---

No but what difference does it make? He's saying he'd rather hear there's a chance of rain, surely you'd rather have a percentage chance of that rain? If there's a higher than 10% chance of rain all day, it's probably going to rain at some point during that day.

In Pembrokeshire the local radio station has a local weather forecast called the 5 past forecast

There is a chap who’s house at St Brides looks across the bay. The radio station rings him. He looks across the bay sometimes using binoculars and very accurately lets the listeners know what weather is headed their way.

Simple but effective

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanD

It wasn't a hurricane...very close but technically didn't meet the criteria. Since then gaps in the data collection system have been filled (especially weather buoys out at sea), satellite technology has come on leaps and bounds and supercomputers can now crunch data and produce forecasts with greater accuracy. So, yes, forecasts have become more accurate and with climate change the probability of a hurricane hitting the more populated areas of the UK has increased. And it's too late to do anything about it apart from try to minimise further excessive negative climate change.

---

As a side note:

I was crossing the North Sea the night of that storm, along with hundreds of other Welsh football fans who had attended the Denmark v's wales game the previous day. What should have taken us 19 hours, took 26 hours. When we arrived at Harwich, we had missed our berth and had to anchor at sea. When we finally docked there was no electricity to connect the gangway to the ferry terminal to allow us to disembark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Once U shop, U can't stop

Take today. At 07.20, they were forecasting a high of 29C and sunny intervals. At 09.20 they have changed the forecast to a high of 26C and a chance of rain this afternoon. (Thank the Lord!). When I say 'a chance of rain', the likelihood is 19%,21%,21%,22%,20% and 13% eash hour between 12.00 and 17.00.

......

Why not just say - "Sunny, temperatures up to 26C with a chance of rain this afternoon."

---

So did they say almost exactly this at 9.20 or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

What can CCMB find to moan about today? How about the weather forecasters, that's a classic.

---

It was either that or you. Weather forecasters are more interesting :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rock_Flock_of_Five

As a side note:

I was crossing the North Sea the night of that storm, along with hundreds of other Welsh football fans who had attended the Denmark v's wales game the previous day. What should have taken us 19 hours, took 26 hours. When we arrived at Harwich, we had missed our berth and had to anchor at sea. When we finally docked there was no electricity to connect the gangway to the ferry terminal to allow us to disembark.

---

Wasn't the hurricane a few months after the Zeebrugge disaster? Both in 1987 I think. So that would have been an awful experience...

https://darksky.net/app

And another thing!

I was watching the delectable Bennie (closely) at about 22.30 on the nite of the recent thunderstorms and the graphics were abysmal. Absolutely no video of how the storms would cross Wales. I was appalled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Wasn't the hurricane a few months after the Zeebrugge disaster? Both in 1987 I think. So that would have been an awful experience...

---

You're right. The Zeebrugge disaster happened in March of that year. To be honest, most of us on board had been drinking quite heavily and the storm hit us early hours in the morning, so we mostly unaffected by it. I can recall hearing the change in sound as the ship's propeller left the water every now and then, but I managed to sleep quite well (testimony to modern ship stabilisers). In the morning we saw the extent of the damage around the ferry.. there were plant pots overturned everywhere, along with broken crockery and glasses. The waves were still up to the observation deck.

I have chuntered about BBC weather forecast inaccuracies since my early 20s - so it isn't just a grumpy old man thing (now I qualify!).

I do look at the BBC forecast on TV or via my phone app, but with little confidence. It may be that in some parts of the country the topography or local micro-climates make any forecasting harder - but the BBC often gets it wrong, or as the OP said it radically changes it's forecast at the last moment, just before previously unpredicted weather hits.

In lists of most accurate UK weather apps the BBC is usually shown down in 6th/7th/8th place of the most popular. Dark Sky or AccuWeather have been top of the list for a while. WeatherRadar is often good, and the Met Office's own app scores higher than the BBC.

Weather forecasting used to be much more accurate, as shown by its part in planning WW2 Operations. Older members will recall that it used to be quite reliable . It's still possible to get accurate forecasts privately but you have to pay for them, which many big industries and farming concerns do.
Unfortunately you have to use proper physics and meteorology to do that rather than "computer modelling ". Thing is though, that such actual science quickly rules out the idea of man made climate change, which is not a conclusion which can be allowed.

If we intend to perpetuate the idea of man made climate change with all the benefits that brings to rich people such as revenue, reduction of competition and a reason to legislate against freedoms, then we must use the politically defined version of science rather than the old version which relied on fact rather than commerce and control.

Therefore the BBC , like all State funded institutions must use "computer modelling" and other methods which are designed to corroborate the claims and predictions of the State and we therefore cannot expect results which are entirely compatible with scientific reality.

Science, like literature and history is now the province of the State and its dumbed down "education" system rather than those who study these disciplines objectively. This isn't new - it's happened in both Germany and the Soviet Union in the past , and it's doomed to eventual failure in the same way. However, since we appear to be content for the moment to put up with it, I'm afraid that we can't expect accurate weather forecasting any more than we can expect truthful history or the exemption of literature from censorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

I have chuntered about BBC weather forecast inaccuracies since my early 20s - so it isn't just a grumpy old man thing (now I qualify!).

I do look at the BBC forecast on TV or via my phone app, but with little confidence. It may be that in some parts of the country the topography or local micro-climates make any forecasting harder - but the BBC often gets it wrong, or as the OP said it radically changes it's forecast at the last moment, just before previously unpredicted weather hits.

In lists of most accurate UK weather apps the BBC is usually shown down in 6th/7th/8th place of the most popular. Dark Sky or AccuWeather have been top of the list for a while. WeatherRadar is often good, and the Met Office's own app scores higher than the BBC.

---

If it's rain you want to take a look at:

https://www.metcheck.com/WEATHER/radar.asp

OK at 09.20, the threat of rain at 12.00 was 19%. At 11.21 it was changed to 4%.

Someone clearly looked out of the window somewhere.

I ask again. What is the point? :-)

Just going to consult my fir cones...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

Weather forecasting used to be much more accurate, as shown by its part in planning WW2 Operations.

---

Sorry but are you saying that the weather forecast for the D-Day landings was more important than whether I should take my brolly to town this afternoon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

Weather forecasting used to be much more accurate, as shown by its part in planning WW2 Operations. Older members will recall that it used to be quite reliable . It's still possible to get accurate forecasts privately but you have to pay for them, which many big industries and farming concerns do.
Unfortunately you have to use proper physics and meteorology to do that rather than "computer modelling ". Thing is though, that such actual science quickly rules out the idea of man made climate change, which is not a conclusion which can be allowed.

If we intend to perpetuate the idea of man made climate change with all the benefits that brings to rich people such as revenue, reduction of competition and a reason to legislate against freedoms, then we must use the politically defined version of science rather than the old version which relied on fact rather than commerce and control.

Therefore the BBC , like all State funded institutions must use "computer modelling" and other methods which are designed to corroborate the claims and predictions of the State and we therefore cannot expect results which are entirely compatible with scientific reality.

Science, like literature and history is now the province of the State and its dumbed down "education" system rather than those who study these disciplines objectively. This isn't new - it's happened in both Germany and the Soviet Union in the past , and it's doomed to eventual failure in the same way. However, since we appear to be content for the moment to put up with it, I'm afraid that we can't expect accurate weather forecasting any more than we can expect truthful history or the exemption of literature from censorship.

---

This is not the climate change denial board. For that you want to click on the Politics Board (you know the way) and turn right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Once U shop, U can't stop

OK at 09.20, the threat of rain at 12.00 was 19%. At 11.21 it was changed to 4%.

Someone clearly looked out of the window somewhere.

I ask again. What is the point? :-)

Just going to consult my fir cones...

---

The point is that the closer you get to the time of the forecast, the more accurate it will be, especially where the rain is in the form of isolated showers.

Billy Connely got it right. He said in the .morning the forecaster should tell you it's going to lovely and sunny and warm so you feel good when your getting ready for work and having your breakfast because as soon as you step out the door you know its pissing down with rain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

This is not the climate change denial board. For that you want to click on the Politics Board (you know the way) and turn right!

---

"Climate change denial"

- that says it all !

In legitimate science we can and must test everything up to and including gravity in order to progress . The vilification of alternative hypotheses has nothing to do with real science and is traditionally more the province of political and religious maniacs.

What I wrote is perfectly relevant to the subject of the thread, unlike your endless unintelligent and paranoid drivel about your suspicions of dual identities on any and every thread.

That becomes quite relevant now though , because it demonstrates that you are not inclined or equipped to reach solid conclusions.

Your obsessive and entirely incorrect conclusions about my " secret identity" of WB show us all how you can take a few unconnected and coincidental observations and weave them into a narrative with some other stupid people which fits what you want to believe rather than what actually exists.

In fact, your automatic gainsaying of anything I post is based upon the your mad fantasy that I'm someone else you don't like. That's another reason why it's hard to take anything you say seriously to be frank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

Weather forecasting used to be much more accurate, as shown by its part in planning WW2 Operations. Older members will recall that it used to be quite reliable . It's still possible to get accurate forecasts privately but you have to pay for them, which many big industries and farming concerns do.
Unfortunately you have to use proper physics and meteorology to do that rather than "computer modelling ". Thing is though, that such actual science quickly rules out the idea of man made climate change, which is not a conclusion which can be allowed.

If we intend to perpetuate the idea of man made climate change with all the benefits that brings to rich people such as revenue, reduction of competition and a reason to legislate against freedoms, then we must use the politically defined version of science rather than the old version which relied on fact rather than commerce and control.

Therefore the BBC , like all State funded institutions must use "computer modelling" and other methods which are designed to corroborate the claims and predictions of the State and we therefore cannot expect results which are entirely compatible with scientific reality.

Science, like literature and history is now the province of the State and its dumbed down "education" system rather than those who study these disciplines objectively. This isn't new - it's happened in both Germany and the Soviet Union in the past , and it's doomed to eventual failure in the same way. However, since we appear to be content for the moment to put up with it, I'm afraid that we can't expect accurate weather forecasting any more than we can expect truthful history or the exemption of literature from censorship.

---

You are soooo weird

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

If we intend to perpetuate the idea of man made climate change with all the benefits that brings to rich people such as revenue, reduction of competition and a reason to legislate against freedoms, then we must use the politically defined version of science rather than the old version which relied on fact rather than commerce and control.

---

You tell 'em, mate. They probably won't even mention that the majority of the richest people/companies in the world made their money with oil. You outsmarted everyone again!

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/vLruErVSYGx8s" width="480" height="277" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/the-simpsons-fire-homer-simpson-vLruErVSYGx8s"></a></p>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

Weather forecasting used to be much more accurate

---

Lost me at this bit.

I've heard many a weather forecaster, when quizzed about whether we'd have a white Christmas, say that we'll know on Christmas day. Longer term forecasts can be totally hit or miss and should be taken with a pinch of salt. The longer ahead you want a forecast for, the less likely that it will be accurate. I get baffled by people who look at a 7-day forecast to see what the weather will be like next week. Nobody really knows. Nobody would have been any the wiser years ago, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

You tell 'em, mate. They probably won't even mention that the majority of the richest people/companies in the world made their money with oil. You outsmarted everyone again!

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/vLruErVSYGx8s" width="480" height="277" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/the-simpsons-fire-homer-simpson-vLruErVSYGx8s"></a></p>

---

Yes, quite right, and they continue to make money with oil and coal in China, where they don't take any notice of the restrictions applied to Western countries.
I suggest you look at Al Gore's companies for example - they're all registered on various stock exchanges world wide.

Like most or all the climate change gurus , he's shifted his investments to China whilst making sure the West can't compete because they're trying to slay a dragon he told them about. That's why they make iPhones for 28p in China and sell them to you for £800 you see, but I mean, as long as you're happy and it makes you feel clever to please them, I don't want to burst your bubble .

I've long given up trying to argue with people on this. We'll just have to watch our economy and status wither to third world status and hope that whoever eventually takes over the ruins can build the place up again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

I've long given up trying to argue with people on this. We'll just have to watch our economy and status wither to third world status and hope that whoever eventually takes over the ruins can build the place up again.

---

I thought you supported Brexit?

OP is Wales Bales :thumbup:

Who gives a shit what the weather is, I wasn't listening...
https://www.google.com/search?q=yane...&bih=737&dpr=1

Pissing it down here! Didn't see that coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

I've long given up trying to argue with people on this. We'll just have to watch our economy and status wither to third world status and hope that whoever eventually takes over the ruins can build the place up again.

---

So you don't believe climate change is real?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

Yes, quite right, and they continue to make money with oil and coal in China, where they don't take any notice of the restrictions applied to Western countries.
I suggest you look at Al Gore's companies for example - they're all registered on various stock exchanges world wide.

Like most or all the climate change gurus , he's shifted his investments to China whilst making sure the West can't compete because they're trying to slay a dragon he told them about. That's why they make iPhones for 28p in China and sell them to you for £800 you see, but I mean, as long as you're happy and it makes you feel clever to please them, I don't want to burst your bubble .

I've long given up trying to argue with people on this. We'll just have to watch our economy and status wither to third world status and hope that whoever eventually takes over the ruins can build the place up again.

---

You've been watching too much Infowars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

So you don't believe climate change is real?

---

Yeah of course climate changes but our ability to effect that is almost negligible , if not actually negligible in reality .
It's a case of people attaching data to their political and financial agendas to describe a situation which they can't demonstrate other than with predictions and other stuff we can't check on.
Basically it's a very old scam where you tell the peasants there's a gold eating dragon in some unreachable place they can't visit to see, then charge them money and get them to obey you so you can protect them from it. If anyone objects you call them a witch or something and the really stupid people , ( who've been told they're clever and rewarded for believing it ), will gang up on them and burn them at the stake !

No point in arguing with those people really because they don't understand logic and they don't think for themselves, but rely on what
" clever people" tell them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

Yeah of course climate changes but our ability to effect that is almost negligible , if not actually negligible in reality .
It's a case of people attaching data to their political and financial agendas to describe a situation which they can't demonstrate other than with predictions and other stuff we can't check on.
Basically it's a very old scam where you tell the peasants there's a gold eating dragon in some unreachable place they can't visit to see, then charge them money and get them to obey you so you can protect them from it. If anyone objects you call them a witch or something and the really stupid people , ( who've been told they're clever and rewarded for believing it ), will gang up on them and burn them at the stake !

No point in arguing with those people really because they don't understand logic and they don't think for themselves, but rely on what
" clever people" tell them.

---

This is the best (and worst) thing I've ever read. Never change WB, never change.

Also, if you want to tell everyone how clever you are, it might be an idea to use punctuation correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

Yeah of course climate changes but our ability to effect that is almost negligible , if not actually negligible in reality .
It's a case of people attaching data to their political and financial agendas to describe a situation which they can't demonstrate other than with predictions and other stuff we can't check on.
Basically it's a very old scam where you tell the peasants there's a gold eating dragon in some unreachable place they can't visit to see, then charge them money and get them to obey you so you can protect them from it. If anyone objects you call them a witch or something and the really stupid people , ( who've been told they're clever and rewarded for believing it ), will gang up on them and burn them at the stake !

No point in arguing with those people really because they don't understand logic and they don't think for themselves, but rely on what
" clever people" tell them.

---

I think the figure is something 2-3%. The typical western world person need something to angst about - what they eat, drink, their waste/rubbish, the rising seas [!].

Re. weather forecasting commercial pilots have access to the most reliable source. I was looking at it last night. It's basically several rows of letters and numbers for every airport in the world updated every minute. Difficult to read as a laymen but miles better than the met office and meteo, who are basically P.R. for the climate change lobby and H&S executive[s]..