Forum menu
On the other hand I find there's a Scottish bias to BBC weather. General forecast today is rain... oh in Scotland.
Mainly because they got moans for not covering Scotland enough. Now when they zoom around the map they seem to spend a lot of time up there and generalise it as weather in The North, then zoom down bypassing the actual North of England and midlands, and quick summary of The South being London.
Anyway, BBC cut backs are fine if it ditches celebrity talent shite. Just don't mess with Doctor Who. Though I feel they may budget it or even outsource it to Dave or worse America.
Everyone else is probably using the US GFS data which is free
Really? Who's 'everyone else' then?
FWIW, the Press Association use MeteoGroup's forecasts, because they're part owners, and they're one of the two preferred providers for the Beeb.
I've been using their WeatherPro app since I got my iPhone 3G, and not only is it much more polished, it's always seemed much more accurate.
The parent company is based in the Netherlands.
bbc forecaster
"heavy rain for the country today"
reality
"london gets rain"
bbc forecaster
"sunny day today..."
reality
"sunny in london"
bbc forecaster
"a serious met office red alert warning for the uk"
reality
"a snowflake drop on london
That is total and utter bollocks. Seriously. They ALWAYS tell you WHERE the weather is when they say what it's going to do, of course they bloody well do. FFS.
When there's a large chunk of weather over a lot of people they start off with something like 'it'll be nice and sunny for many of us' then they go on to explain what the weather's going to do OVER THE WHOLE COUNTRY.
How on earth could you think otherwise, unless you are deliberately trying to be a miserable git and need something to whinge about?
BBC radio 1 weather is dire you get ' it'll be cloudy in London and wet everywhere else'. Like Cornwall, Inverness and Liverpool are all covered by the same area and weather as London.
I used to love the BBC and couldn't imagine a life without it, but as every year goes by it seems less relevant and poorer quality. Too much competing with ITV and little innovation.
it'll be cloudy in London and wet everywhere else'. Like Cornwall, Inverness and Liverpool are all covered by the same area and weather as London.
You do realise that sometimes that is actually the case, right? They'll name the areas that have the same weather - so if the West, Wales, Northern England and Scotland all have the same weather, that's what they'll say. It's not bias against these areas.
Meh, I only use the BBC weather app (mostly out of habit), never bother with the broadcast version as it's a bit pants. If the app starts to go drastically downhill I will just switch to one of the many others out there.
Who does MWIS use for their forecasts, anyone know?
Anyone who says the BBC weather is inaccurate needs to watch the Countryfile forecast.
Dr finbar - PhD in palaeoclimatology
Two things spring to mind:
Met. Office is a highly commercial organisation, with a small free element. It sells added value products around the world in a competative market.
BBC is a grant aided organisation paid for by a taxation model. It has a worldwide commercial arm that tries to support of of the rest of the output. Most people use the BBC in some way and at the moment the licence fee is what funds it. Like most public bodies that are under pressure at the moment, every commercial contract MUST be tendered for.
MO is annoyed at losing the contract and takes a swipe at the BBC, so there is definitely at a bit of politics here and i do think that there is a Tory ploy to have a go at the Beeb here.
ianfitz - Member
this Norwegian forecast is by far the most acurate I've used:
That website has the position of todays frontal rain at 2200 over the Wash/Norfolk - in reality it's actually just north of Humberside.
That's pretty shit
Met Office said heavy showers over New Mills at 15:00. They arrived at 14:50. Rubbish.
Oh and the BBC knock spots of any other broadcaster.
OS maps are the best in the world.
OS maps are the best in the world
high five
there is definitely at a bit of politics here and i do think that there is a Tory ploy to have a go at the Beeb here.
Surely the issue here is that the BBC are bound by (EU mandated) law on competitive tendering? As long as it's transparent, and on a best value rather than just cheapest basis, the fact that the Met Office got beat is just the way the cookie crumbles.
We've been paying off the £97m spent on the new Met Office supercomputer in October, and will continue to do so whether the BBC use the Met Office or not
I can't see any improvement in the BBC TV weather forecast as a result of that expense and I can still do a better job with two websites and a pinecone. The BBC TV weather desperately needs to become more accurate, relevant and less about pointless graphics
OS maps are the best in the world.
Even if the maps they produce are only GB. They can be the best in the world, but useless if you want a map of Timbuktu.
Besides OSM are very good these days and carry a lot of extra detail that OS don't have. The cycle map layer is particularly good.
dont care where the forcast comes from so long as the presenter has a clevage you can ski down.
Met Office app on the mobile - only ever watch the BBC forecast to look at Louise Lear anyway.
[img] 
[/img]
Surely the issue here is that the BBC are bound by (EU mandated) law on competitive tendering? As long as it's transparent, and on a best value rather than just cheapest basis, the fact that the Met Office got beat is just the way the cookie crumbles.
Finally, someone says it how it is. Well done. It is not about politics or any other agenda, just straight forward procurement. I would assume most of the presenters will TUPE transfer over so we will not really see any difference.
[quote=finbar ]Anyone who says the BBC weather is inaccurate needs to watch the Countryfile forecast.
Dr finbar - PhD in palaeoclimatology
is that the meteorological equivalent of claiming to be an engineer? 😉
the met office are there for the military, the military can't afford what they want, everyone else they can sell weather forecasts to subsidises that.
We've been paying off the £97m spent on the new Met Office supercomputer in October, and will continue to do so whether the BBC use the Met Office or notI can't see any improvement in the BBC TV weather forecast as a result of that expense
well that really would be a leap forward in forecasting as:
The first phase of the supercomputer will be operational in September 2015 and the system will reach full capacity in 2017.
MWIS job done.
It may not cover the UK but I'm only really interested in where I am and where I'm going and most of the time mwis covers that.
I would assume most of the presenters will TUPE transfer over so we will not really see any difference.
Will they though - I thought the recognisable difference with the BBC is the metoffice supplied weather people that were actually meteorologists rather than just mouthpieces/dolly birds a la Ulrika Jonson. Presumably a new provider will just hire in some cheap drones wanting to make a break into nondescript TV presenting.
The politics comes in with announcing that you have lost a contract before the person awarding the contract announces who is taking over. That does not achieve anything other than creating a media story abut procurement that is spun to look like dropping the MO is unpatriotic.
FWIW I work direct with the MO as a partner in data collection and customer for their forecasting products. I can tell you that the MO will charge and extortionate for data that can be had for free elsewhere, so they have a
[quote=onehundredthidiot ]MWIS job done.
It may not cover the UK but I'm only really interested in where I am and where I'm going and most of the time mwis covers that.
From http://www.mwis.org.uk/how-we-forecast
HOW ARE OUR WEATHER FORECASTS PRODUCED?
Most of our information is from a range of weather forecast models run for example by the[b] Met Office[/b].
Will they though - I thought the recognisable difference with the BBC is the metoffice supplied weather people that were actually meteorologists rather than just mouthpieces/dolly birds a la Ulrika Jonson. Presumably a new provider will just hire in some cheap drones wanting to make a break into nondescript TV presenting.
Depends what the BBC put in its Specification. If they say that they want mteorologists to presents then the employees (current weather presnters) would have a pretty good case for transferring through TUPE.
People should realise that
#1. The met office computers are used for climate modeling as well as forcasting.
#2. The met office is considered to be one of the best in the world and last year was the best in the world.
#4. Many website atually just use the met office data
#5. Forcasts are produced with confidence intervals, that is the main difference between different websites.
#6. The uk is one of the most challengin area in the world to predict the weather. I think most of the "focasting is crap" attitude comes from a combination of conformaion bias where people remeber the times the forcast are wrong and expecting the forcast to be like a time table. When there is rain forcast in early afternoon, most of the time there is, it might start a little early at 11:30 or a little later at 14:30, but its pretty much bang on.
@jam bo
...well that really would be a leap forward in forecasting as...
half-remembered "fact" that I didn't bother to re-check, soz
http://weather.slimyhorror.com/
So how do we tell if they're right?Well, rather than scurry around the whole of the UK in order to check their weather divinations, I've chosen to take the easy route and use the BBC's own web pages. The five day weather predictions also include today's weather. I'm making the assumption that predicting today's weather is dead simple, so the BBC couldn't possibly get this wrong. So every day, a computer script reads the latest five day forecast, and compares today's weather with what the BBC said it would be in their previous forecasts.
Over time, as this program collects more and more of the weather predictions, we'll be able to see how often the weather forecasts were right.
What are the results?
The tables below show the accuracy of the BBC's weather forecasts, listed by time. E.g. as I write this, the table below shows that the weather forecast for Cambridge one day ahead was 53% accurate. In other words, the BBC's guess about tomorrow's weather in Cambridge was right roughly half of the time.
I'm making the assumption that predicting today's weather is dead simple
Silly assumption!
Comparing symbols is a poor way to compare accuracy too.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/who/accuracy/forecasts
Has some good figures. On rain forecasting the accuracy does not look that impressive but as they say rain can be very localised, and at the end of the day they are still considered to be the best in the world! On the rain front it could always try to appear to be more accurate by making its persibiation forecast broader but less precise, i.e. increasing its confidence interval.
Jam bo, met's is one of a range of forecasting data.
I agree with that bloke's website. The BBC/Met Office 5 day forecast is barely worth it. I can think of any number of occasions when I've been monitoring a particular day/event and the forecast changes day by day. It only ever seems to be be remotely accurate late on the night before, if then.
I like that the met office forecast the number of incidents involving people pissing themselves laughing at their forecasts in their accuracy analysis.
[img] 
[/img]
I wouldn't care less if the BBC Tv series was funded by commercials because you can pause TV or watch it when it's not live and not watch the adverts. I do like BBC radio 4 and 5's output and I absolutely cannot bare to listen to commercial radio.
can think of any number of occasions when I've been monitoring a particular day/event and the forecast changes day by day
This is common to all forecasters. They get more accurate closer to the time. Is this really a surprise?
However I also look at the 5 day forecast and it is often pretty good. You need to think and read a bit more into weather forecasts than simply look at Sunday's symbol and go "oh rain" then whinge when the weather front arrives a few hours earlier than was predicted 5 days previously and has passed through whilst you were asleep.
OS maps are the best in the world.
the old Russian military maps of the UK are far better (although based in OS data) they add significant detail and are a cartography gem
Their climate forecasts aren't any better than their weather forecasts.
This is common to all forecasters. They get more accurate closer to the time. Is this really a surprise?
I'm not saying they are particularly worse than others, but the Met Office does seem to run a good PR machine which gives the impression they are better than they are. For me, as a cyclist, the 5 day forecast is almost valueless. Since part of my job involves observing the weather which helps to provide data for the Met Office, I do understand a bit about forecasts.
but the Met Office does seem to run a good PR machine which gives the impression they are better than they are
No idea what you are talking about. I've never seen any publicity for the Met office. What I have done is read random third parties talking about them and quoting various sources that I cannot bring to mind.
I also keep an eye on the forecast and it always seems pretty good, and definitely way better than the accuweather app on my phone which is a joke. The Met Office seem to have forecast the current wet weather bang on wherever I've been - going out a day or so. Yesterday and Monday IIRC they said it'd clear up by 6 today, but in actual fact there was a clear spell around two then it rained again until about 4.30 or so, roughly.
Well, for example, they often trumpet that the three day forecast now is more accurate than the one day forecast was in 1980. But that only relates to sea level pressure. Granted, the QNH is always going to be significant, but it doesn't tell you whether they actually get the forecast correct. In my view, they largely don't as the forecast stretches away in time. At least the bloke with the website has made some attempt to gauge their accuracyand comes up with a figure in the 30% area, whci seems about right to me.
Well, the TAF is provided by the Met Office & funnily enough, doesn't really seem to be any more accurate than the BBC/Met Office forecast.
TAFs are really very accurate, within their limited scope.
More about knowing you won't be unable to land at the end of a long flight (cloud base, vis, crosswind) than forecasting the weather in terms of 'will it be sunny?' A very reliable but technical product.
That said free apps that give you worldwide TAFs are great!