BBC Weather Forecasts and Graphics Discussion

[J10]

It the resolution on the forecast different after a couple of days, the grphics feel different, as if they are more generalised.

[Andy Bown]

These 3 words are the main text headline this evening on the BBc Weather site....

... Summer on hold .

That's a ridiculous headline IMO <_< .

Maybe something more intelligent for this weekend could have been....

... An unsettled weekend.

[The PIT]

Given the importance of news like IRA, London bombings etc. I can't say I have a problem with weather being one minute earlier. It's difficult to run a schedule precisely.

And to be fair, although I know people do have to get to work, you do have 6 opportunities to catch it on breakfast. And you can always listen to the 6.57 Today forecast, or the 6.29 or 6.59 Breakfast forecast on 5 Live.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I get around two chances to catch it or one if they shove the forecast past 6.50. I'm pretty sure if they willing they could shedule it becuase at one time they did.

Perhaps if Carol stopped wasting time talking about boats she could have given us a forecast.

[The PIT]

Not only that but the weather forecast at 7.45ish had no graphics at all!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps they were broken but more likely they just reduced the time available. More crappy BBC. <_<

[Nick H]

Perhaps if Carol stopped wasting time talking about boats she could have given us a forecast.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do have to agree with you there..

[J10]

Certainly the forecast at the weekend (with the exception of the Countryfile) has been to a lesser standard than those during the week, it has been like this for at least a year.

[J10]

I think that will be the acid test.

[TomD]

I have just visited the BBC Weather boards and I'm surprised that they are still ranting and raving about this.

Many of the posters have valid points partially in relation to the lack of thunder/lightning representation.

Since the launch of the "new graphics", I only watch 1 or 2 forecasts a week now. Where as before I watched pretty much every one.

Tom

[Thundery wintry showers]

You're right- I may have got used to the new system and thought they had improved it a lot, but I trust the forecasts under it a lot less, and find them less entertaining to watch.

[The PIT]

Well Todays Breakfast forecast was delayed slightly due to viewers been treated too watching someone washing a dog. Now thats really important isn't it.

Come on BBC fixed time please and stop wasting time on things like Big Brother and Dog washing.

[shuggee]

I think that generally, the BBC Breakfast programme is complete rubbish these days. Obscure actors/authors, pathetic celebrities or charity workers as guests - and what's worse is that you can't put News24 on in the morning nowadays to get proper news and weather.

Washing a dog - LOL.

[londonsnow]

Well Todays Breakfast forecast was delayed slightly due to viewers been treated too watching someone washing a dog. Now thats really important isn't it.

Come on BBC fixed time please and stop wasting time on things like Big Brother and Dog washing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dog washing. now that made me laugh

[Mr Sleet]

I've been watching the evening forecasts for two weeks now and there are still hardly any synoptic charts shown. How hard can it be to have a bit of a flash to denote Tstorms?

The situation has not noticeably improved.

[shuggee]

I have to agree Mr Sleet - how can there not be a thunderstorm graphic; it's like not having a graphic for snow. As we move into autumn I'm interested to see how fog will be represented...

[Andy Bown]

Shuggee: As far as I could tell the fog over Central Southern England this morning was depicted as cloud .

It was foggy here at 07.00 and the sattellite for that time showed cloud cover, which in their projected cloud forecast would be gone by mid morning.

The fog had cleared by mid morning but was not obvious on the forecast as being different to cloud cover .

[J10]

Watching S4C's Tywydd, reminded me how good the S4C weather forecasts are, also helps if you can understand Welsh weather terms.

[TomD]

I've been watching the evening forecasts for two weeks now and there are still hardly any synoptic charts shown. How hard can it be to have a bit of a flash to denote Tstorms?

The situation has not noticeably improved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I spoke to Helen Young on this subject this afternoon, and there are no plans on introducing a thunderstorm graphic yet.

Tom

[The PIT]

I spoke to Helen Young on this subject this afternoon, and there are no plans on introducing a thunderstorm graphic yet.

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No lightning No indications of fog Frost looks like rain due to the blue colour. Pretty naff to be honest.

Now wheres that dog.

[Somerset Squall]

I agree, something definately needs to be done. Unless the forecaster says the word "Thunderstorm", you wouldn't know there were going to be any, it's going to be the same with frost and fog.

[Mr Sleet]

I agree, something definately needs to be done. Unless the forecaster says the word "Thunderstorm", you wouldn't know there were going to be any, it's going to be the same with frost and fog. :lol:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just more regular synpotic charts would be nice. It seems so hit and miss. I'm sure that since Mr Grade went on Breakfast TV saying that he couldn't understand synoptic charts the frequency of their use has dropped significantly.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Tbh, that's all most people want to know. "Do I need an umbrella when I go out today or not?"

Being brutally honest, most people couldn't give a bugger about wind roses, isobars and the rest of it. And the BBC know it, too.

There have previously been discussions about that, notably some excellent posts by Terminal Moraine, who deserves credit for a lot of what I post here.

In reality (I don't normally like to segragate people into 'groups', but here goes), the British population fall into three categories.

1. Those who are really into meteorology- be it the observational side, the synoptic side, the forecasting side, or whatever. Those are the type that predominate on this site.

2. People who fall into the category Nick H described. I'm not at all convinced, from experience, that these represent the majority of the population, but they do

make up a significant proportion.

3. People who fall somewhere between 1 and 2. Most of the 'ordinary people' I have met fall into this category- typically they have just a passing interest in weather, nothing like the level of interest most of us on this site have, but enough to make them appreciate things like isobar charts, depressions, winds, and temperatures. In many cases they may not just want to know whether it will rain or not- other considerations include: will it be sunny, will it be warm, will it be windy etc.

The BBC's job should be to help cater for all three categories- providing a forecast that gives the information the people in the third category want, which also covers the absolute basics that the people in the second category want. Weather enthusiasts can use the data the BBC forecasts supply to make up their own judgements and forecasts for their local region, and spot where the weather people tend to get it wrong- like I used to with the BBC forecasts between 1995 and 2000.

Providing for only people with no interest in the weather serves to alienate anyone with even a passing interest; it means that a large percentage of the population don't get the information they require. I gave up on the ITV forecasts, because their idea of "wet and miserable" could mean anything from NE'ly gales, driving rain and 8C to hot sunshine and occasional thundery showers. Similarly, a "dry and bright day" means anything from glorious sunshine to endless layers of stratocumulus.

[J10]

With regards to the change in graphics, IMO.

1. Improvements have been made on the local weather, they are much more detailed and the use of synoptic charts has improved. (I am talking specifically about the BBC Wales forecast.)

2. The Website provides much more detail than before, and I use it considerably more than before.

3. The BBC National Forecast. Up to 24-48 is better, there is more close up detail, and it is more easier to understand whether frontal rain is expected or whether it is showery, is it easier to see if it is likely to be sunny/bright, The old Sunny intervals symbol used to cover everything. Length of rain is also easier to determine, as is the likely concentration of showers. IMO, the accuracy of this part of the forecast is better than it used to be.

4. However, the bit pitfall for me is in the period after 48 hours, the graphics seem far less detailed, and this is where the loss of synoptic charts is more commonly felt. Wind speeds are rarely dealt with this far out, and generally this part of the forecast needs looking at. IMO, the accuracy here has declined somewhat.

To be perfectly honest if the re-introduction of synoptic charts even if briefly meant less time looking further out, i.e. past 48-72 hours, I think this would still be a step forward.

One final point, with the old system there was a lot of human intervention in the forecast, how much is there now, and a big question is, if there are big chances in the forecast, how quick is the new system at picking them up?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Some interesting extra points were raised in the Weather magazine, which I have often felt myself.

In the old forecast system, particularly prior to the early 00s (when they started cutting down use of things like pressure charts and temperature graphs), as well as the forecasts that were provided, there was enough additional information for people with some knowledge about weather, or the specifics of their local climates, to make up their own interperetations of the predictions, as well as noticing where the forecasters tend to get it wrong. The main source for this was the synoptic charts, although temperature maps and wind arrows could also be interpereted similarly.

Now, with the only information provided being "will it be hot or cold, wet or dry", people cannot make up their own minds, having to just accept what the forecaster says.

Another point about people being "disenfranchised" by synoptic charts. It is highly likely that most people do not fully understand them, because they are not given much grounding in them when learning meteorology at school. But the key point was, that when synoptic charts were shown, anyone with anything upwards of a passing interest in the weather would improve his or her understanding of them upon watching forecasts. And people with zero interest beyond "will it rain or not" could just ignore them- and did.

Not showing any synoptic charts will have the side-effect of reducing the general public's understanding of them- which the BBC will probably then use in a survey to show that they were "right" that people don't understand them.

[Rollo]

Some interesting extra points were raised in the Weather magazine, which I have often felt myself.

In the old forecast system, particularly prior to the early 00s (when they started cutting down use of things like pressure charts and temperature graphs), as well as the forecasts that were provided, there was enough additional information for people with some knowledge about weather, or the specifics of their local climates, to make up their own interperetations of the predictions, as well as noticing where the forecasters tend to get it wrong.  The main source for this was the synoptic charts, although temperature maps and wind arrows could also be interpereted similarly.

Now, with the only information provided being "will it be hot or cold, wet or dry", people cannot make up their own minds, having to just accept what the forecaster says.

Another point about people being "disenfranchised" by synoptic charts.  It is highly likely that most people do not fully understand them, because they are not given much grounding in them when learning meteorology at school.  But the key point was, that when synoptic charts were shown, anyone with anything upwards of a passing interest in the weather would improve his or her understanding of them upon watching forecasts.  And people with zero interest beyond "will it rain or not" could just ignore them- and did.

Not showing any synoptic charts will have the side-effect of reducing the general public's understanding of them- which the BBC will probably then use in a survey to show that they were "right" that people don't understand them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Morning TWS ,A few weeks ago I found an article by Bill Giles in the December 1989 issue of "Weather". He was replying to a letter from an Ingrid Holford,rather than quote the whole thing I will just quote what I feel is salient. "It is very difficult,if not impossible,for someone who has a knowledge of meteorology to stand back and pass judgement on weather broadcasts for majority audiences who have little or no weather knowledge.At the BBC,I believe we have the mix just right.We regilarly show and discuss synoptic charts as well as explain the weather with symbols. Ingrid Holford obviously wants a synoptic briefing and, in my opinion,there is no place for such a minority programme on the present television channels". Now Bill says on the present Tv channels,since then times have moved on ,charts have been dumbed down but we now have BBC3 and BBC 4, surely there would be room for a 10-15 minute programme each day for the minority on these channels-I believe we should make a concerted efforted to E-mail the BeeB and just possibly we all might succeed in bringing pressure to bear.

[J10]

I think it is still possible to get a feeling whether the forecast is right or wrong, particularly in regard to local weather conditions, where the forecasting of sea mist/fog seems haphazard at times.

There does appear to a slight increase in the level of synoptics charts in use particularly when frontal systems are pushing in. Hopefully this will continue during the autumn.

The level of information provided seems to vary considerably with different forecasters, and this has become more norticeable in recent times.