BBC Weather forecast

On 12 Dec 2005 22:53:24 GMT, Nobody Here <[email hidden]>
wrote:

... >Some months ago when the BBC started its new forecasting graphics there
... >was a lot of debate on here complaining how bad it was, a sentiment that I
... >largely agreed with at the time. However, I have to say that I've
... >come to appreciate the new format now, and I prefer it to the old.
... >It seems to give a much higher resolution view of the weather - or
... >at least the forecast - than the old.
... >
... >Has anyone else come round to the new stuff?

Nope ... it looks boring and a half hearted attempt considering modern
day graphics and I am a person who welcomes change for the better.

Mike

Nobody Here said:

It seems to give a much higher resolution view of the weather - or
at least the forecast - than the old.

That makes me suspicous, how can they forecast the gaps in the cloud with
that amount of accuracy? And if it's a windy/showery day, then it would be
constantly changing anyway. I think it just looks more accurate than it
actually is, a bit like a GPS giving your grid ref to the nearest metre.

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else come round to the new stuff?

It's not that bad, but now most of the forecast is spent looking at
somewhere else. Can't beat a good old pressure chart to see what's really
going on, but we don't see those very often anymore.

Paul

Nobody Here said:

Some months ago when the BBC started its new forecasting graphics there
was a lot of debate on here complaining how bad it was, a sentiment that I
largely agreed with at the time. However, I have to say that I've
come to appreciate the new format now, and I prefer it to the old.
It seems to give a much higher resolution view of the weather - or
at least the forecast - than the old.

Has anyone else come round to the new stuff?

Not until they stick back the wind arrows, isobars and pressure fronts. It
was an excercise in dumbing down content for no good reason.

Paul Saunders said:

Nobody Here said:

It seems to give a much higher resolution view of the weather - or
at least the forecast - than the old.

That makes me suspicous, how can they forecast the gaps in the cloud with
that amount of accuracy? And if it's a windy/showery day, then it would be
constantly changing anyway. I think it just looks more accurate than it
actually is, a bit like a GPS giving your grid ref to the nearest metre.

Yes, possibly, but to my mind it's not so much the absolute cloud/no cloud
thing but some indication of the brokenness of the cloudr. I mean that if you
have a cloud cover shown with lots of little holes it's likely to be quite
variable diring the day, but a fully unbroken cloud cover is more likely
to be full overcst or there abouts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Has anyone else come round to the new stuff?

It's not that bad, but now most of the forecast is spent looking at
somewhere else. Can't beat a good old pressure chart to see what's really
going on, but we don't see those very often anymore.

But wasn't it anyway (spent looking somewhere else)? I agree about isobars
and fronts as mentioned elsewhere, but most of the population isn't
interested and those that do have far better ways of checking weather
these days than a whole-country forecast anyway, which is never going to
be particularly detailed in your region of interest.

--
Nobby

On 12 Dec 2005 22:53:24 GMT, Nobody Here <[email hidden]>
wrote:

| Some months ago when the BBC started its new forecasting graphics there
| was a lot of debate on here complaining how bad it was, a sentiment that I
| largely agreed with at the time. However, I have to say that I've
| come to appreciate the new format now, and I prefer it to the old.
| It seems to give a much higher resolution view of the weather - or
| at least the forecast - than the old.
|
| Has anyone else come round to the new stuff?

I like the new graphics, especially with the modifications they have
made, especially the addition of isobars, fronts, anticyclones etc.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Sick of Premium SMS scams,
SMS marketing, Direct marketing phone calls, Silent phone calls?
Register with http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tps/
IME they work :-)

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:30:45 +0000, Chris Street
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| Not until they stick back the wind arrows, isobars and pressure fronts.

They **have** added these. Saw them yesterday.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Sick of Premium SMS scams,
SMS marketing, Direct marketing phone calls, Silent phone calls?
Register with http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tps/
IME they work :-)

For a mountain forecast ignore the BBC and try this one:
http://www.mwis.org.uk/index.php

The message <[email hidden]>
from Chris Street <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Not until they stick back the wind arrows, isobars and pressure fronts. It
was an excercise in dumbing down content for no good reason.

Hear! Hear!

Talking of dumbing down what could be dumber than using 12pm for 12 noon.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 62 summits
New - 28 (Marilyns 14, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 34 (Marilyns 16, Nuttalls 24, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

On 12 Dec 2005 22:53:24 GMT, Nobody Here <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Some months ago when the BBC started its new forecasting graphics there
was a lot of debate on here complaining how bad it was, a sentiment that I
largely agreed with at the time. However, I have to say that I've
come to appreciate the new format now, and I prefer it to the old.
It seems to give a much higher resolution view of the weather - or
at least the forecast - than the old.

Has anyone else come round to the new stuff?

No.

Its still useless... All that flying around places that are irrelevant
to most viewers that have to concentrate hard to get their 3 seconds
worth.

And the charts are vital!

Rarely watch it these days - it usually comes after the "News for the
hard of thinking" Used to rely on it from pub tellys on long trips.

Usable forecasts on television are sadly missed.

Richard Webb

On 13 Dec 2005 00:36:02 -0800, "Lindsay" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

For a mountain forecast ignore the BBC and try this one:
http://www.mwis.org.uk/index.php

Good source of raw data
http://www.wetterzentrale.de

On the subject of being nice to the "thickies" (who are not as daft
as the patronising gits at the BBC like to think they are. The temp.
inversions that were keeping a lid on the Buncefield cloud was
discribed on News24 as the cloud not rising for "complicated
meteological reasons".

The broadcast media cannot tolerate science in any form. The old
forecasts were a last bastion. No wonder it had to go.

Richard Webb

Quoted message said:

these days than a whole-country forecast anyway, which is never going to
be particularly detailed in your region of interest.

Thats why we need the charts... Its an interactive process. They
provide data and we use it.

I dont give a ****** for the poor dears that dont understand. A lot
of folk dont get their programmes either. They can just put up with
it for a while and listen to the nice man. This info is literaly
vital - especially when away and with no access to online sources.

Richard Webb

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:40:08 GMT, [email hidden] (Richard Webb)
wrote:

|
| >these days than a whole-country forecast anyway, which is never going to
| >be particularly detailed in your region of interest.

If you can get the BBC digital either freeview or freesat, press red
gives you local 24 and 5 day *regional* forecasts.
I prefer the satellite version.
See gig for details.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Sat Ch4, Ch5, only GBP20
http://www.freesatfromsky.com -> "what is freesat?" -> "view T&C" ->
What will I receive "£20 ... one Viewing Card". You will also need
$ky box and dish. List of Channels at
http://www.wickonline.com/fta.htm
All BBC & ITV Channels are now FTA and do not need this card.

Richard Webb said:

Quoted message said:

these days than a whole-country forecast anyway, which is never going to
be particularly detailed in your region of interest.

Thats why we need the charts... Its an interactive process. They
provide data and we use it.

I dont give a ****** for the poor dears that dont understand. A lot
of folk dont get their programmes either. They can just put up with
it for a while and listen to the nice man. This info is literaly
vital - especially when away and with no access to online sources.

Hmmm, why do you think then that the BBC ught to give a ****** for
the specialised use to which you wnt to put the forecast? Most people,
I suspect the vast majority, want to know if it's going to be sunny
or raining tomorrow and if they should dress warmly. That's all I want
most of the time, and I find the format much easier to interpret than the
old format. If I want more detailed information, I'll look elsewhere.
Maybe that makes me a thickie. Hopefully, though, I don't come across
as a condescending [censored].

--
Nobby

Quoted message said:

Maybe that makes me a thickie. Hopefully, though, I don't come across
as a condescending [censored].

Nice language, so urw

So you are not more insulted by the inference that you are not worthy
of being shown a synoptic chart. I take the reasons for dropping it as
a gross insult, not like your pathetic little effort.
..
What special use do you want. Everyone uses the forecasts for a
specialist use. And I want to know what the weather is here, not 450
miles away while I wait for their software toy to pass by.

Just give us the information, not tell us how appropriate our uses for
it are. There is no choice here. Something has been taken and
nothing put back in return.. Therefore everyone loses.

I simply dont understand why after over 50 years, it is now considered
that this most basic information is too much for us to handle. There
is an agenda here, and it worries me, as does the loss of information
that a lot of us have grown used to getting. Wake up they are taking
the micky... and insulting us all.

Have fun

Richard Webb

Dave Fawthrop said:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:40:08 GMT, [email hidden] (Richard Webb)
wrote:

| >these days than a whole-country forecast anyway, which is never going to
| >be particularly detailed in your region of interest.

If you can get the BBC digital either freeview or freesat, press red
gives you local 24 and 5 day *regional* forecasts.

But there aren't any isobars on them just sunny clouds and raindrops.
Bugger all use for telling how the weather is going to develop. I want
a weather forecast that I can look at in a pub and get all the
infrormation I need in the one glance I'll be allowed before they turn
it over for the foottie.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Roger said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Chris Street <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Not until they stick back the wind arrows, isobars and pressure fronts. It
was an excercise in dumbing down content for no good reason.

Hear! Hear!

Talking of dumbing down what could be dumber than using 12pm for 12 noon.

The dumb can never remember which is which. 12pm and 12am are best
written as noon and midnight.

--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:11:41 +0000, Phil Cook
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
| >On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:40:08 GMT, [email hidden] (Richard Webb)
| >wrote:
| >
| >| >these days than a whole-country forecast anyway, which is never going to
| >| >be particularly detailed in your region of interest.
| >
| >If you can get the BBC digital either freeview or freesat, press red
| >gives you local 24 and 5 day *regional* forecasts.
|
| But there aren't any isobars on them just sunny clouds and raindrops.
| Bugger all use for telling how the weather is going to develop. I want
| a weather forecast that I can look at in a pub and get all the
| infrormation I need in the one glance I'll be allowed before they turn
| it over for the foottie.

It needs more than a glance to tell what the weather will be. One
needs to know which direction a front is moving.

But the BBC weather forecasters *now* show isobars, fronts,
anticyclones, wind arrows and the like on top of new graphics. I saw
them only yesterday.

If you watch BBC1 regional news programs at about 13:45 and 18:50 you
get local weather forecasts, complete with fronts.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Sick of Premium SMS scams,
SMS marketing, Direct marketing phone calls, Silent phone calls?
Register with http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tps/
IME they work :-)

Dave Fawthrop said:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:11:41 +0000, Phil Cook
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| Dave Fawthrop wrote:

Quoted message said:

| >If you can get the BBC digital either freeview or freesat, press red
| >gives you local 24 and 5 day *regional* forecasts.
|
| But there aren't any isobars on them just sunny clouds and raindrops.
| Bugger all use for telling how the weather is going to develop. I want
| a weather forecast that I can look at in a pub and get all the
| infrormation I need in the one glance I'll be allowed before they turn
| it over for the foottie.

It needs more than a glance to tell what the weather will be. One
needs to know which direction a front is moving.

You get that from the bumps and triangles on it and the isobars.

Quoted message said:

But the BBC weather forecasters *now* show isobars, fronts,
anticyclones, wind arrows and the like on top of new graphics. I saw
them only yesterday.

I'll have to pay more attention...

Quoted message said:

If you watch BBC1 regional news programs at about 13:45 and 18:50 you
get local weather forecasts, complete with fronts.

The weather woman on BBC News 24 this morning had a lot of front in an
expecting kind of way :-)
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Nobody Here said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It seems to give a much higher resolution view of the weather

That makes me suspicous, how can they forecast the gaps in the cloud
with that amount of accuracy?

Yes, possibly, but to my mind it's not so much the absolute cloud/no
cloud thing but some indication of the brokenness of the cloudr. I
mean that if you have a cloud cover shown with lots of little holes
it's likely to be quite variable diring the day, but a fully unbroken
cloud cover is more likely
to be full overcst or there abouts.

Fair enough, but it still seems to imply that one bit will be sunny while a
nearby bit will be cloudy. The previous sun/cloud symbol was far simpler,
but did effectively the same job. At least that didn't imply great
accuracy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not that bad, but now most of the forecast is spent looking at
somewhere else. Can't beat a good old pressure chart to see what's
really going on, but we don't see those very often anymore.

But wasn't it anyway (spent looking somewhere else)?

No, they showed the whole country at the same time, so you could concentrate
on your little bit while the forecaster chatted away.

Quoted message said:

I agree about
isobars and fronts as mentioned elsewhere, but most of the population
isn't interested

So those who are have to do without? Pathetic.

Quoted message said:

and those that do have far better ways of checking
weather these days than a whole-country forecast
anyway, which is never going to
be particularly detailed in your region of interest.

Better ways if they are accessible to you, but if you're just catching a
quick glimpse of the forecast in a pub while you're away for a few days, you
may not have anything better. Besides, if you have the synoptic overview,
you don't need regional detail, you fill that in for yourself with the aid
of local knowledge, or simply educated guesswork based on topography.

The synoptic chart isn't a forecast (although it can be), it's a map of
current conditions. The forecasters then interpret that to give you their
own particular interpretation of it and how it will develop. I like to play
the "make my own forecast" game and compare mine to the experts'. When we
disagree, it's interesting to see which of us turns out to be correct. I,
at least, can take local conditions into account, which is relevant if I'm
heading into the hills, whereas the general forecast is for the general
urban sea level population.

Paul