Post by marchesarosa on Jan 17, 2010 12:05:33 GMT
The BBC may drop the Met Office for forecasts
16.01.2010
Antony Watts says: From the London Times, signs that the Met Office might need a refresher course in basic forecasting skills and bonuses revoked. While I’m often critical of NOAA’s climate issues, the forecasts from NOAA put The Met Office to shame in terms of accuracy and detail. And, NOAA staffers don’t get bonuses, period.
Excerpts from the Times article by Steven Swinford
BUFFETED by complaints about its inaccurate weather forecasts, the Met Office now faces being dumped by the BBC after almost 90 years.
The Met Office contract with the BBC expires in April and the broadcaster has begun talks with Metra, the national forecaster for New Zealand, as a possible alternative.
The BBC put the contract out to tender to ensure “best value for money”, but its timing coincides with a storm over the Met Office’s accuracy.
Last July the state-owned forecaster’s predictions for a “barbecue summer” turned into a washout. And its forecast for a mild winter attracted derision when temperatures recently plunged as low as -22C.
Last week the Met Office failed to predict heavy snowfall in the southeast that brought traffic to a standstill. This weekend a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times reveals that 74% of people believe its forecasts are generally inaccurate.
By contrast, many commercial rivals got their predictions for winter right. They benefit from weather forecasts produced by a panel of six different data providers, including the Met Office.
Despite criticism, staff at the Met Office are still in line to share a bonus pot of more than £1m. Seasonal forecasts, such as the one made in September, are not included in its performance targets.
John Hirst, the chief executive of the Met Office, insisted last week that recent forecasts had been “very good” and blamed the public for not heeding snow warnings. He received a bonus of almost £40,000 in 2008-09.
Metra already produces graphics for the BBC, including the 3-D weather map that made some viewers feel sick when it was introduced in 2005. Weather Commerce, Metra’s UK subsidiary, has already usurped the Met Office in supplying forecasts to Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Marks & Spencer and Waitrose.
…
The Met Office was bullish, though, saying: “We have always been in the strongest position to provide the BBC with accurate and detailed weather forecasts and warnings for the UK.”
I can't help but believe that the reasons for the Met office's loss of touch with reality is that the top management is beguiled by the ideology of climatechangeism and AGW it has so publicly espoused. The staffers have to fall into line with their bosses world view. The results we have seen.
Paul Hudson is an honourable exception. He was criticised by all and sundry for presenting an alternative view and was even mentioned in the climategate emails so vast was his treachery to "the cause" perceived to be amongst the big boys of the IPCC Establishment. He now works for the BBC, not the Met. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html
The Met is now an embarrassing joke. Perhaps selling it off to the highest bidder will get it back in touch with reality? But who will take the CRU off the public payroll?
Fanciful modelling as a result of the overt politicisation of meteorology as well as climatology has become a lazy short-cut to keeping a weather eye out for the actualité. Other organisations should beware and get back to more rigorous scientific standards.
Sermon over.
16.01.2010
Antony Watts says: From the London Times, signs that the Met Office might need a refresher course in basic forecasting skills and bonuses revoked. While I’m often critical of NOAA’s climate issues, the forecasts from NOAA put The Met Office to shame in terms of accuracy and detail. And, NOAA staffers don’t get bonuses, period.
Excerpts from the Times article by Steven Swinford
BUFFETED by complaints about its inaccurate weather forecasts, the Met Office now faces being dumped by the BBC after almost 90 years.
The Met Office contract with the BBC expires in April and the broadcaster has begun talks with Metra, the national forecaster for New Zealand, as a possible alternative.
The BBC put the contract out to tender to ensure “best value for money”, but its timing coincides with a storm over the Met Office’s accuracy.
Last July the state-owned forecaster’s predictions for a “barbecue summer” turned into a washout. And its forecast for a mild winter attracted derision when temperatures recently plunged as low as -22C.
Last week the Met Office failed to predict heavy snowfall in the southeast that brought traffic to a standstill. This weekend a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times reveals that 74% of people believe its forecasts are generally inaccurate.
By contrast, many commercial rivals got their predictions for winter right. They benefit from weather forecasts produced by a panel of six different data providers, including the Met Office.
Despite criticism, staff at the Met Office are still in line to share a bonus pot of more than £1m. Seasonal forecasts, such as the one made in September, are not included in its performance targets.
John Hirst, the chief executive of the Met Office, insisted last week that recent forecasts had been “very good” and blamed the public for not heeding snow warnings. He received a bonus of almost £40,000 in 2008-09.
Metra already produces graphics for the BBC, including the 3-D weather map that made some viewers feel sick when it was introduced in 2005. Weather Commerce, Metra’s UK subsidiary, has already usurped the Met Office in supplying forecasts to Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Marks & Spencer and Waitrose.
…
The Met Office was bullish, though, saying: “We have always been in the strongest position to provide the BBC with accurate and detailed weather forecasts and warnings for the UK.”
I can't help but believe that the reasons for the Met office's loss of touch with reality is that the top management is beguiled by the ideology of climatechangeism and AGW it has so publicly espoused. The staffers have to fall into line with their bosses world view. The results we have seen.
Paul Hudson is an honourable exception. He was criticised by all and sundry for presenting an alternative view and was even mentioned in the climategate emails so vast was his treachery to "the cause" perceived to be amongst the big boys of the IPCC Establishment. He now works for the BBC, not the Met. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html
The Met is now an embarrassing joke. Perhaps selling it off to the highest bidder will get it back in touch with reality? But who will take the CRU off the public payroll?
Fanciful modelling as a result of the overt politicisation of meteorology as well as climatology has become a lazy short-cut to keeping a weather eye out for the actualité. Other organisations should beware and get back to more rigorous scientific standards.
Sermon over.