BBC Weather Forecasts and Graphics Discussion

[A Gower Guy]

Hopefully with the warm weather later this week the BBC will use the temperature contours on the map as the temperatures could well be wide ranging.

Also there were some complaints on Points of View about outside weather broadcasts and the size of the map during those forecasts.

Edited April 30, 2006 by button-wales

[Cloudburst]

I think some areas of the graphics have improved but the radar is useless. it seems theres either blue or yellow, bring back the old radar prediction system with most of the colours of the spectrum, and remember those muggy summer nights, where the forecast showed the thunderstorms with those spark symbols moving about. - Great.

Edited April 30, 2006 by ¤CloudBurst¤

[multi cellular thunderstorm]

Yes that's one thing I will miss. I wonder if they have any replacement lined up for that.

[Cloudburst]

Yes that's one thing I will miss. I wonder if they have any replacement lined up for that.

Have you noticed on the bbc website the thunder symbol has gone from yellow to blue :blink: Why?

[A Gower Guy]

Have you noticed on the bbc website the thunder symbol has gone from yellow to blue :blink: Why?

Looks more dramatic than yellow

Nice to see the lightning on the starting globe in the Countryfile forecast, hopefully they will use it more this week.

Edited April 30, 2006 by button-wales

[Cloudburst]

Looks more dramatic than yellow

:blink: Yes i suppose so, dont get me wrong they have made some great improvements but some areas could have been better.

[A Gower Guy]

The idea of the summary at the beginning is to give a broad headline as to the general weather theme, rather like the Headline sting on the news. As to the point of it - well, it is also there for warnings so I suppose there may be some point.

MB

Well over the weekend, I've noticed that the summary at the start has been changed, its position is now towards the top with the top line in red (eg. Tonight) and the actual summary below that. I suspect this tweak will also make it to weather warnings, allowing more space for details.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, I posted this in another thread, but it also has relevance to this topic.

Personally, I still prefer the old-style forecasts. However, I'm developing the opinion that this may not be the fault of the new graphics, but rather the new style of forecasts that has come with them- there just seems to be less in the way of context and information provided, whether rightly or wrongly.

It's hard to explain; I just feel that BBC forecasts are more similar to the ITV ones than they used to be, whereas before I always regarded them as vastly superior.

[J10]

My thoughts are similar to what I have said before, and I think the new forecasts are an improvement, but the forecasts could be exceptional, there is still so much potential available.

The new graphics show synoptic charts being used frequently on regional forecasts, which are very much better now, so there really is potential for an excellent forecast to be provided, the countryfile forecast shows what can be done, this should be the standard on every BBC1 forecast.

However, over the Christmas break I was staying away from home, without internet access, and many people will remember that there was a cold snap. I did find it frustrating as to the synoptic development of the weather and in this aspect I did feel disappointed as to the BBC forecast.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Actually, the above illustrates a good point that I totally forgot about- I certainly agree that the regional forecasts are a substantial improvement over the old ones.

I was talking specifically about the national forecasts, for which my above paragraph still stands, but I can certainly see that the new graphics could be used to make the national forecasts better than the old ones. Unfortunately, though, with a combination of time schedule constraints and the desire to avoid "disenfranchising" people with virtually no interest in the weather, I'm not sure that they will, except on Countryfile.

I can't deny that all forecasts have improved all-round since May last year though.

[GTUK]

I have no problem with the majority of the new graphics.

One problem i do have though, is when they forecast rain or showers (especially the latter) for more than 48 hours out. They just show very light coloured or pale blobs of blue randomly scattered with virtually no comment on them as well as a consistent lack of any projected idea of their predicted intensity (i.e. they always appear as the same intensity and the same light blue colour).

[shuggee]

Has anyone else noticed how the top left hand corner of the new forecast maps now is shaded blue with a diagonal strip. The graphics used to cover the whole rectangular screen - but now there is this blank area. That is until the forecast moves onto 2 or 3 days ahead when suddenly the graphics are shown across the entire screen once again...

Very strange.

[J10]

Very disappointing that the new show on BBC1 starts at 6.55pm cutting valuable time from the regional weather forecast.

[A Gower Guy]

Derek at the end of his forecast tonight mentioned that there will be more weather in half an hour (7:25).

[J10]

Derek at the end of his forecast tonight mentioned that there will be more weather in half an hour (7:25).

Cheers for that, Just off to watch it now.

[A Gower Guy]

Not a bad 7:25 forecast, showing the UK tomorrow, then a town/city summary of tomorrow for North, Mid and South Wales followed by the 5 day summary.

[multi cellular thunderstorm]

Something I have noticed in a few recent forecasts including the 10:35 forecast tonight is that they often only go to 16:00 the next day.

This seems silly to me because most people do outdoor stuff on evenings after work and after 4pm!

This seems crazy to me, anyone agree or disagree?

Mark.

[pottyprof]

have to agree but considering the forecast will be updated overnight then its not bad.. or perhaps its just down to confidence levels??

[shuggee]

I noticed tonight that at the beginning of the forecast it says 'In association with the Met Office and the World Meteorological Organisation'. Has it always said this - or is it new?

[WindWatcher]

I wish forecasters on the TV wouldn't invent new weather terms. I know Francis Wilson used to use "Thorms" and get away with it, but a regular and very able new forecaster to our screens Tomasz Schafernaker insist on using the term "sprinkles" what the hell are they? Surely light showers would be understood by the dumbed down masses they are appealing to and weather followers alike!

I just hope he doesn't continue this trend and replaces a dusting of snow with "some twinkles"

[Thundery wintry showers]

I've seen a few regional forecasts over the past two weeks- they certainly seem vastly improved relative to those a couple of years ago. The "splodges" on the graphics seem quite well suited to telling the weather story for a local area.

[Terminal Moraine]

I agree TWS, the local forecasts have improved more with the new graphics, relative to what went before, than the national forecasts.

There is a similar time allocation, but covering a much smaller area, to the national forecast and this allows the forecaster/ presenter to go into much more detail. The Atlantic pressure charts are used quite regularly, with animation, this never happened in the past.

My main criticism of the local forecast, in my area at least, is the terminology used by the presenters and their seeming lack of understanding of basic meteorological processes and parameters.

For instance they seem to blur or ignore the distinction between showers and continuous precipitation or contradict themselves by saying something along the lines of 'an area of rain will move from the west and these showers will fall heavily at times'.

There are many more but it seems pointless to make a comprehensive list.

With regard to the national forecast the main problem is my pet subject and that is the lack of time allocated to the forecast. The graphics are a definite improvement on those first presented after the changeover, the forecasters are, by and large, excellent; the only thing lacking is an extra 90 seconds, oh go on then 2 minutes. This seems unlikely to change anytime soon as it seems more emphasis is placed on trailers for forthcoming programmes than on the weather forecast.

So rigid is the fomat that, even if something devastating were imminent, I imagine the unfortunate forecaster would have to convey the relevant message in the same time as if the whole country were covered in a dull and benign anticyclonic gloom.

In quiet but frustrated resignation,

T.M

Edited September 28, 2006 by Terminal Moraine

[The PIT]

Yes the time allocation is a problem. Worse is the variabilty on the breakfast show. The time spot moves backwards and forwards which is annoying. Also it's very annoying when they say it's cold/chilly when it isn't. Gggrrrrrrr.

[The Enforcer]

I find that the use of the slot when time is limited is increasingly inefficient. The order of priority seems to be:

1 - Micro-detail countrywide at 8am

2 - 2 days weather in main cities

3 - Progression through the coming day

4 - Progression through the following couple of days

5 - Synoptic charts

So, in a shortened time slot, only 1 & 2 get done (sometimes the latter is flashed up very quickly at the end) and to be honest that is very poor. I would scrap 1 altogether and go through 3 4 5 then have 2.

I don't understand this obsession with 8am, either. My mate isn't at all interested in synoptics or the hows and whys of the weather, but he could understand the synoptic charts were showing what was on the way. Can't remember the last time I saw a High or Low on there.

Edited October 14, 2006 by The Enforcer

[Thundery wintry showers]

Just seen the above post. In fairness I think there's been some improvement in those areas over the past month (I even saw a forecast at 10:35 recently that had a detailed 3 day outlook and showed an actual synoptic chart), but the points are still valid.

I'm guessing that the emphasis on 8am is so that people will know what the rush hour for work will be like, but not everybody works indoors 9am-5pm Mon-Fri; what about the people who differ from that in any way? It's fair enough putting some emphasis on rush hour conditions (indeed like they used to, even before the graphics were changed), but it shouldn't take up half the forecast period.

It might be that the BBC's research shows that people want to know the precise weather in micro detail at 8am, but I don't trust the research. E.g. their research did correctly point out that most people don't fully understand synoptic charts, but it seemed to miss the fact that most people do have a basic understanding of them, e.g. that low pressure generally brings unsettled weather. Overuse of synoptic charts can confuse some people, but there's little harm in showing two charts or progressions: one to set the scene for the next 1-2 days, and one for the long term outlook.

The other problem I'm still seeing is that after a day or two, they revert to using city forecasts, which is a worse system than use of weather symbols; instead of getting a broad picture of about 20 sites in Britain, you only get four. The aforementioned 10:35pm forecast, with use of a synoptic chart and a very generalised map of Britain's expected weather using the blobs for rainfall, seemed to work a lot better (and probably better than the old symbols did). I think that should become more common; better to risk "disenfranchising" people than to provide them with next to no information.

I don't think the graphics are a problem any more; it's the national forecasts themselves that seem to be the problem now, as illustrated by the much-improved regional forecasts.

Edited November 15, 2006 by Thundery wintry showers