![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Talking Point Can we trust weather forecasters? Your reaction <% ballot="225049" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %> Votes so far:
No, I can't trust weather forcasters. Living in Kansas where the weather changes all time, weather forcasters have a tough job telling us if there is going to be a tornado or a snow storm. The weather is just so unpredicatable. The motto in Kansas is "If you don't like the weather it will change in five minutes."
"Isolated showers" has always amused me. How can you disprove that one!!?
Weather forecasters seem obligated to keep on talking to fill up a time slot rather than disseminate factual information.
The daily forecast are pretty good. The long range forecast is still not good enough to make definite plans, but they're better than nothing. Who's my favourite weather person? Helen Young. She's a ray of sunshine on any day! Sigh.
If the forecasters say the opposite of what they predict, they have better chances to be correct in the forecast.
In the time available forecasters have to wave a large hand over a small map. Although based on reasonably sound data and experience its applicability to a particular area must leave something to be desired, especially areas with "local climates".
The weather forecasters on the BBC do a marvellous job. I think that the BBC does not realise how important to people's everyday lives the weather is. It would be making a big mistake by going to foreign companies to predict the British weather. Who other than The Met. Office has over 150 years of forecasting the British weather - certainly not the Dutch or the Americans.
Met. Office Response to John Thornes' article on Met. Office verification methods.
John Thornes has presented yet another method of verifying weather forecasts, and these are always of interest. We do consider some of his points misleading, for example, to say that an accuracy figure of 38% is more realistic than the stated 85.5% is, in our opinion, simply not true.
I find the UK weather forecasts adequate for my needs.
It looks like weather forecaster are becoming more accurate and with the improving knowledge and technique they may reach a point of supreme accuracy.
I am conducting my own private survey on just how accurate the daily forecasts are for my area of the UK.
The results so far are not impressive.
If this is substantiated I would vote that weather forecasting
cease to be broadcast on radio and TV simply because there is no added value. The MET OFFICE tell us continuously that it is difficult to forecast in the UK.
This I can accept so lets stop spending so much money on a service that does not provide any real value.
This is a ludicrous survey. The forecaster is merely presenting data put together from the Met Office Computers. It's like blaming the messenger for the message. You should really be examining the accuracy of computer forecasts rather than the individual presentation of the same data sources!
I am 96 this year and I love our British weather! It is either hot or cold and I think it is good!
Usually what is inaccurate is the timing of the weather, not the actual weather itself.
The UK's weather is so unpredictable that we need forecasts.
The pet conversation topic is the weather - including the accuracy or otherwise of forecasts - it's part of being British.
It is not their fault they can't predict the weather in this country with 100% accuracy!
England's weather is so unpredictable.
SEAWEED - you cannot predict weather using seaweed. When we were in the bush we used to use Dingoes. If they sat under trees then that meant rain. They were nearly always correct. I don't know who this Michael Fish is but if he is correct less than 44% of the time he needs some lessons!!!
I don't trust them at all. Indeed I think we should all be much more prepared to sue the met office for improper prognostications whenever they get it wrong.
Yes, they're mostly correct. I get my weather report from Britain's Bounciest Weatherman on Westminster Live TV. He's a midget who reads the weather whilst bouncing on a mini trampoline, and he predicts where the best place to party will be. He's so ridiculous that you don't pay attention to the weather report, so you don't know if he's wrong!
Weather forecasters make their forecasts based on their interpretation of the facts available at that time - trouble is, the facts are in constant change and therefore a forecast is valid when it is made - not later.
The standard of forecasting Is Poor, with weather warnings "buried" within broadcasts and not treated with the seriousness they deserve - forecasters seem to enjoy their media image of comfy pullovers and jocular talk - if they don't take their work seriously, they can hardly expect the public to.
Forecasts are easy to make - sunshine and showers just about covers most of them!
If people had an idea of the complexity of the systems that generate the weather then they would be more impressed with the accuracy.
Weather forecasters and economists all seem to have attended the same school: Voodoo U. It is a guessing game.
We get the BBC World News service by satellite. We have found that the weather report coming from the other side of the world is more accurate than the report coming from up the road! On one particular day the local forecast said 'chance of showers' and the BBC said 'It'll be hissing down in Canberra' (not exactly, but close). Guess which one was right!
I do trust the integrity and professionalism of meteorologists. However, weather is influenced by innumerous variables so, a weather forecast is just that, a forecast. Expecting anything more, is surely just a symptom of mankind's arrogance and ego. If we develop more powerful means for observing the minutiae that influence weather wouldn't the observation itself have an impact on that being observed?
Or does that only apply in quantum physics - the weather being a commodity bought at Safeway
They're certainly better than no prediction at all, and I value their
advice.
Rating individual forecasters is a bit silly - it's like judging newsreaders on the basis of the amount of good news they give! The BBC presenters all get their information from the same place - the Met Office. Since the hurricane in 1987, forecasters have erred on the side of caution and tend to give pessimistic forecasts. Given the amount of criticism they endured because of the damage caused by the storm (which would have been just as severe if the forecast had been accurate!), you can hardly blame them for this.
Certainly we can trust the forecasters. At the end of May, as soon as it has stopped raining on the Victoria Day holiday, it will be hot and humid. Until the middle of September, just after it has stopped raining on the Labour Day holiday, when it will be cold with red leaves.
Oh, you mean in England? Well, that's different. Anybody who purports to forecast weather that varies hourly must be kidding.
The atmosphere and its motions are
incredibly complex. It is absolutely
impossible to have a truly accurate
forecast unless we had infinite data
and an infinitely large computer.
I believe that with the quality of
information presented, satellite
photos, rainfall radar etc, we have
better information now than we've
ever had and we shouldn't knock it.
Mother nature will always have the
upper hand in deciding what happens
next!
Weather forecasters are better now
than ever due to the improvement of satellites.
Here in the US we have found them to be about 100%
accurate. But, because they are occasionally wrong, we
can discount that to about a 98% accuracy rate. The men
and women in the area of forecasting the weather are well
trained and seldom wrong.
No you can`t trust the weatherman. The only way to know the weather is to step outside and forecast it for yourself. If you get wet it is raining , if you need sunglasses it is sunny.
We must remember that the weather is something that we cannot control only attempt to predict. If it wasn't for the meteorologists that we have today then we would have even less of an idea than we already have. So I guess really we must trust them as there is no-one else to tell them. Yes they get it wrong but after all like everyone else they're only human!
We are a rural school in East Sussex and check the weather forecast daily via the Net. More often than not the forecast is spot on, temperatures too!
They do a good Job. BBC Forecasts are of a high standard, have you seen the ITV forecasts recently? Isn't the British weather an institution anyway?
Is it just me or has the weather forecasting this year been worse than previous years?
For something as absolutely chaotic as the weather, a success rate of 10% is, when you think about it, amazing. How many people have a that sort of success rate with the lottery - indeed, there is more chance of winning the lottery than getting the weather forecast absolutely spot on, and yet, more often than not, they do indeed get it more or less accurate.
Anyway, if they always managed to get the forecast 100%, what would we have to moan about?!
I studied meteorology at the University of Stockholm and my professor there swore by studying a piece of seaweed on his office wall, he could predict the next day's weather. It turned out to be accurate 44 percent of the time, not as good as Suzanne Charlton admittedly, but noticeably better than Michael Fish!
I studied meteorology at the University of Stockholm and my professor there swore by studying a piece of seaweed on his office wall, he could predict the next day's weather. It turned out to be accurate 44 percent of the time, not as good as Susanne Charlton admittedly, but noticeably better than Michael Fish!
We have our trustworthy favorites. One who comes out of retirement (who has flown solo through the eyes of hurricanes-Nash Roberts) when a wicked storm is threatening (he stated that we would be 'saved' by ONE DEGREE during the 'Georges' catastrophe when all of the weather services were predicting otherwise, and he was again absolutely correct; another, who is so accurate (Bruce Katz) that I do my gardening by his forecasts, and yet another who is so accurate (Rose Stabler) that she was snapped up by a national news firm from our local station, and we sure do miss her! These individuals are complete professionals, trustworthy, and celebrities to us. There are definitely good people out there who are willing to do their jobs, and lucky for us!
The real issue is can we trust the forecast, not the forecaster - he or she is just the messenger.
I believe on the whole we can trust the forecast though the Met Office often seem to underestimate the seriousness of severe weather. It seems too that presenters often play down the more serious weather in an attempt to hedge their bets, possibly as a result of the infamous 'hurricane' of 1987.
None of us can predict weather.
Whether it be here or back home in UK, forecasters seem to have an unenviable record for getting it wrong.
They do seem to be the only profession who can so consistently get things wrong, and still keep their job.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||