Jump to content

Talk:Met Office

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newspaper forecasts

[edit]

The current article's History states (with no reference) that newspaper forecasts begun in 1879, whereas there is a BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14361204) stating they begun in 1861. I have not had a chance to find a second reference to this alternative date Artemgy (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weather stations

[edit]

I recently created stubs at Penkridge weather station and Wye weather station, by lifting sections from articles about individual towns ; so that articles about may local towns can link to them. There's no mention in this article that the MO runs such stations, nor can I find a list of them. How many are there? Do they warrant a category to themselves? Can anyone help to fill out these articles, or create more, please? Or should we just list them her. or on a separate page, and have exeternal links to the data? Andy Mabbett 11:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of the UK Upper Air Network? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.165.184 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Nice to see someone has now added a comment about "upper ait stations" - but not their names (past or present).[reply]

Equally why no mention of weather ships, now sadly all in the past? Nor the Met Research Flight at Farnborough.

Supercomputers

[edit]

Is the fact that the Met Office had the worlds third most powerful computer 13 years ago still significant today? I notice that the current computer is 325 times faster and yet it doesn't appear near the top of the supercomputer list.

94.193.93.109 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard winters

[edit]

I have inserted more relevant text on the Met Office poor forecast of the hard winter of 2009/10. The replaced text was quite misleading. Peterlewis (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the text you replaced perfectly explained probabilistic forecasting. What you have inserted in a common error of those who do not understand probabilities - that if you offer a less than 1 probability of an event happening and it doesn't that there is a mistake. TBH, this will confuse US Wikipedians where probabilistic forecasting is common, so the public are not ignorant of the meaning. Nuttah (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text used weasel words to excuse the failure of the Met Office to predict the hard winter, and you are trying the same trick. Are they going to explain why they made a wrong forecast? You are the one in error I think. Peterlewis (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probabilities are not right or wrong. Remember the games at the fair where you put a coin in at the top, it bounces of pegs on the way down and eventually ends up in a slot? The chance of landing in each slot has a probability, some more likely - some less likely. However, no end state is right or wrong - just a case of probability in action. This is basic GCSE maths. There were no weasel words, the Met Office probabilistic prediction was fine, it never said there would be a good winter - that was the media spin on the forecast. Nuttah (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This not an argument about right or wrong. The problem arises from the figure of 65% probability of a mild winter. This means that it is more likely than not that a mild winter would occur. That was a misleading probability since we did in fact have a hard winter. So how did the Met office arrive at such a figure? Can we place any credibility in such figures produced by the Met Office at all? Peterlewis (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This not an argument about right or wrong." - "Are they going to explain why they made a wrong forecast?", you seem confused.
"That was a misleading probability" - no it is not. Probabilities do not assert what the end state will be, they give the likelihood of it. This is the core, basic misunderstanding of probabilities - that not ending up in the most likely end state makes the prediction wrong. Nuttah (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Text like The forecast was clearly misleading, and there has been no explanation of the discrepancy from the Met Office. is not appropriate in an article. It might be ok if recast in the form "[reliable source] stated that the forecast was clearly misleading...[ref]", but the current wording where Wikipedia's voice is used to assert a fact violates no original research, and probably neutral point of view as well. The disagreement above should be resolved by closely following wording from a source like ref 6. Re the disagreement: While Nuttah's description of the probabilities is clearly correct, I agree that a forecaster should not use language that is happy with any outcome (a dry summer [that's what we said], or a wet summer [it wasn't a promise]). However, that's just an opinion and has no bearing on what should be in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of employees?

[edit]

no mention anywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.212.2 (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hrf (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy

[edit]

There is a mention of a 1936 separation of Royal Naval services and then an implied reconnection in 'Locations'. What evidence is there for this?SovalValtos (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Met Office. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Met Office. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Met Office. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weather accuracy

[edit]

If you really feel like to be there snow and stuff when it comes met office is not always accurate geven if it's a metegorical weather to notify you it cant always be true. Cameronokso8s (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Met_Office&oldid=1194972423"