Wind Warning for Dublin, Wexford, Wicklow, Galway, Clare, Cork, Kerry, Limerick and W

MJohnston

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

What 'context' are you on about though? There was a yellow warning given. The question is, did this 'storm' warrant such a warning? I am genuinely not sure as haven't had time to look at yesterday's wind states. I do recall, however, that there was mention on the Met site of 'severe winds' along the east coast for yesterday. Did this come to pass?'

The context was that some models showed the depression passing along the centre of the country, some showed it further to the south, and it ended up further to the south. So the context is understanding how small differences can reduce the effect of storms.

Again, as Gaoth points out, Yellow warnings are pretty minor and given out all the time, which is why they're not enough to trigger a storm naming.

Whether you accept it or not, most people are going to take what a Met service is going to tell them at face value (as is the press) Most people are too busy with other things in the lives to have the time put such forecasts into some sort of illusionary 'context'.

That'd be great if I was referring to the general public, but I'm not, I think it's pretty clear I'm talking about posters to this forum specifically, who certainly do have enough information and time to understand the context.

Oneiric 3

MJohnston wrote: »

The context was that some models showed the depression passing along the centre of the country, some showed it further to the south, and it ended up further to the south. So the context is understanding how small differences can reduce the effect of storms.

Again, as Gaoth points out, Yellow warnings are pretty minor and given out all the time, which is why they're not enough to trigger a storm naming.



That'd be great if I was referring to the general public, but I'm not, I think it's pretty clear I'm talking about posters to this forum specifically, who certainly do have enough information and time to understand the context.

Is Danno not a member of the general public?

We on this forum follow models out of genuine interest in the whole topic of meteorology, 99.9% of the public don't, and rely on a public service such as Met Éireann to interpret complex model variance into a reasonable forecast based on their professional expertise.

There seems to be an subtle attempt by you here to place established institutions above basic commentary and criticism by the 'general public'.

MJohnston

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

We on this forum follow models out of genuine interest in the whole topic of meteorology, 99.9% of the public don't, and rely on a public service such as Met Éireann to interpret complex model variance into a reasonable forecast based on their professional expertise.

Sure, but I'm talking about the 0.1% that DO post here and follow the models.

I honestly don't know why you're talking about what the 99.9% (who I refer to as 'the general public' merely out of shorthand) are aware of, I have said nothing about them.

I guess I'll restate it without using the words 'general public' if that offends - I think if you're going to post on this Weather forum after a storm event is over and want to criticise the levels of weather alerts that were supplied because of it, you should only do so with awareness of why those alerts were supplied.

fraxinus1

Weathercheck wrote: »

Can we review your post in 24 hours?

Have you reviewed my post yet?

Oneiric 3

MJohnston wrote: »

Sure, but I'm talking about the 0.1% that DO post here and follow the models.

I honestly don't know why you're talking about what the 99.9% (who I refer to as 'the general public' merely out of shorthand) are aware of, I have said nothing about them.

I guess I'll restate it without using the words 'general public' if that offends - I think if you're going to post on this Weather forum after a storm event is over and want to criticise the levels of weather alerts that were supplied because of it, you should only do so with awareness of why those alerts were supplied.

You are really just back to square one with this line of argument. All you are saying is that Danno, simply because he posts on this forum, should have been armed with vast model research before posting his observations? Your original retort to him still sounds as meaningless now as it did when I commented on it, despite your subsequent attempts to put it into 'context'.

Danno

Yesterday the predictions were for up to 110km/hr gusts and Storm Aileen was used by the Irish Met Office. The yellow warning covered much of the south of Ireland.

While forecasting is complex, I feel that the forecast used was too confident in how it was conveyed. As others here have pointed out, there was disagreement in the models right up to the event.

The uncertainty was not conveyed to the public. It should have been. It is high time our national forecasting service started using % risk in their forecasting.

If they had said 50% risk of gusts exceeding 100km/ph across counties A, B and C with a 90% risk for counties X, Y and Z then there would be less complaints.

Regarding the use of "Aileen" for this breezy affair, I think the Irish Met Office would have been better off not using the name in their forecasts for here and just reference that Aileen will only become a storm over the UK to avoid confusion.

Having offered suggestions above I think the overall handling of this "Storm" by the Forecast Service was less than satisfactory when compared with their quite often fine track record.

MJohnston

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

You are really just back to square one with this line of argument. All you are saying is that Danno, simply because he posts on this forum, should have been armed with vast model research before posting his observations? Your original retort to him still sounds as meaningless now as it did when I commented on it, despite your subsequent attempts to put it into 'context'.

I'll make it simple - if you're going to say a weather warning was exaggerated, and you're going to do after the event is over, you should be prepared to explain why.

Danno

MJohnston wrote: »

I'll make it simple - if you're going to say a weather warning was exaggerated, and you're going to do after the event is over, you should be prepared to explain why.

See previous post with suggestions on improvement.

Oneiric 3

MJohnston wrote: »

I'll make it simple - if you're going to say a weather warning was exaggerated, and you're going to do after the event is over, you should be prepared to explain why.

Danno just did...

Really not sure what you are trying to defend here, but it is a fruitless mission you are on.

MJohnston

Danno wrote: »

Yesterday the predictions were for up to 110km/hr gusts and Storm Aileen was used by the Irish Met Office. The yellow warning covered much of the south of Ireland.

While forecasting is complex, I feel that the forecast used was too confident in how it was conveyed. As others here have pointed out, there was disagreement in the models right up to the event.

The uncertainty was not conveyed to the public. It should have been. It is high time our national forecasting service started using % risk in their forecasting.

If they had said 50% risk of gusts exceeding 100km/ph across counties A, B and C with a 90% risk for counties X, Y and Z then there would be less complaints.

See, to be honest, if you'd made this post at the start, I'd have had no argument, because it's perfectly reasonable!

The only thing I'd say is that I don't believe a lot of the public are able to understand what % risk would actually mean* and that it's safer (although the risk was low in this case) for M.E. to simplify their forecasts for them.

*I'm not trying to get political, but look at what happened with Trump's election. I followed a stats based site (538) that uses a model to predict a percentage chance that a candidate will win. The day before the election, they had Trump at a low 20% or so. But that was still significantly higher than pundits who were simplifying the data to 'Clinton will win'. Then Trump wins, and their comments section is flooded with people complaining that they predicted he would lose. People, even fairly well educated people, genuinely don't understand what a 20% chance actually means.

Regarding the use of "Aileen" for this breezy affair, I think the Irish Met Office would have been better off not using the name in their forecasts for here and just reference that Aileen will only become a storm over the UK to avoid confusion.

Maybe this is true, but the conditions under which they and the UKMO created the naming system determined that either country could invoke the naming. I'd imagine that the majority of storms named by Ireland don't affect the UK, and this is a rare case where it's the other way around.

Having offered suggestions above I think the overall handling of this "Storm" by the Forecast Service was less than satisfactory when compared with their quite often fine track record.

Perhaps this is true, but I disagree with some who have said that because they got it wrong, it means they were exaggerating or hyping things. It was a weather forecast with a particular % of likelihood, and they got it wrong, it happens and doesn't have to be attributed to (for want of a better word) malice.

MJohnston

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Danno just did...

Really not sure what you are trying to defend here, but it is a fruitless mission you are on.

Yes, and I just replied to him accepting that. Are you prepared to understand that the original post that I replied to did not contain any such explanation?

Oneiric 3

MJohnston wrote: »

Yes, and I just replied to him accepting that. Are you prepared to understand that the original post that I replied to did not contain any such explanation?

You asked him, and I quote: "Another one! Where were your predictions before the event? "? You did not ask him for an 'explanation' about his observation, but for his predictions before the event.

Am I wrong?

Danno

MJohnston wrote: »

See, to be honest, if you'd made this post at the start, I'd have had no argument, because it's perfectly reasonable!

Thank you! Often it is hard to convey a message on boards in more detail during working hours!

MJohnston wrote: »

The only thing I'd say is that I don't believe a lot of the public are able to understand what % risk would actually mean* and that it's safer (although the risk was low in this case) for M.E. to simplify their forecasts for them.

I don't think you are giving the Irish public much credit here. % risk is at times used in the UK and we're very much culturally aligned.

MJohnston wrote: »

*I'm not trying to get political, but look at what happened with Trump's election. I followed a stats based site (538) that uses a model to predict a percentage chance that a candidate will win. The day before the election, they had Trump at a low 20% or so. But that was still significantly higher than pundits who were simplifying the data to 'Clinton will win'. Then Trump wins, and their comments section is flooded with people complaining that they predicted he would lose. People, even fairly well educated people, genuinely don't understand what a 20% chance actually means.

Apples and Oranges, the weather might be as fickle as the public mood, but storms are not governed by emotions, or votes, or likes!

MJohnston wrote: »

Maybe this is true, but the conditions under which they and the UKMO created the naming system determined that either country could invoke the naming. I'd imagine that the majority of storms named by Ireland don't affect the UK, and this is a rare case where it's the other way around.

Irish Met Office should have noted that the UK are naming the storm as it's most likely to affect them worse than Ireland would be a perfectly reasonable explanation to convey to the Irish audience.

MJohnston wrote: »

Perhaps this is true, but I disagree with some who have said that because they got it wrong, it means they were exaggerating or hyping things. It was a weather forecast with a particular % of likelihood, and they got it wrong, it happens and doesn't have to be attributed to (for want of a better word) malice.

Less room for error using a % risk - in fact it's an insurance policy on your forecast because you're right no matter the outcome! As regards malice, perhaps too hard a word to use, but influenced by media reporting of Harvey and Irma looks very like it played a part.

MJohnston

Danno wrote: »

I don't think you are giving the Irish public much credit here. % risk is at times used in the UK and we're very much culturally aligned.

Apples and Oranges, the weather might be as fickle as the public mood, but storms are not governed by emotions, or votes, or likes!

I guess I was probably a bit misleading with my words before - it's not that I think the public would be confused by the % risk necessarily, but I think they would subconsciously modify their reaction because of it.

So, if they see that there's a 60% chance of a red-level storm event, they might unintentionally downplay that in their heads because it's not more certain? The reason I brought up the Trump story is merely because it suggests that people have a contorted internal understanding of percentages - 20% gets rounded down to 0 kind of thing. Similarly people see a movie that's 79% on Rotten Tomatoes and write it off as crap!

I'll state again that I am generally for the idea of forecasts being accompanied by a kind of confidence percentage, I'm just thinking out loud about why this isn't done, and why it might be risky when you're dealing with severe weather.

Irish Met Office should have noted that the UK are naming the storm as it's most likely to affect them worse than Ireland would be a perfectly reasonable explanation to convey to the Irish audience.

Less room for error using a % risk - in fact it's an insurance policy on your forecast because you're right no matter the outcome! As regards malice, perhaps too hard a word to use, but influenced by media reporting of Harvey and Irma looks very like it played a part.

Well here you're getting onto the topic of media interpretation of what the Met Office's release, which is a different kettle of fish. The Irish media is deeply incompetent, so it's no surprise that they would muddle the message about why a storm was named.

Oneiric 3

MJohnston wrote: »

I guess I was probably a bit misleading with my words before - it's not that I think the public would be confused by the % risk necessarily, but I think they would subconsciously modify their reaction because of it.

So, if they see that there's a 60% chance of a red-level storm event, they might unintentionally downplay that in their heads because it's not more certain? The reason I brought up the Trump story is merely because it suggests that people have a contorted internal understanding of percentages - I'll state again that I am generally for the idea of forecasts being accompanied by a kind of confidence percentage, I'm just thinking out loud about why this isn't done, and why it might be risky when you're dealing with severe weather.



Well here you're getting onto the topic of media interpretation of what the Met Office's release, which is a different kettle of fish. The Irish media is deeply incompetent, so it's no surprise that they would muddle the message about why a storm was named.[/20% gets rounded down to 0 kind of thing. Similarly people see a movie that's 79% on Rotten Tomatoes and write it off as crap!

A lot of 'mights' going on here to build up a very absolute opinion.

How do you know that the public 'might' not take necessary caution at a 60% risk of a disruptive storm? Do you speak on behalf of the public?

MJohnston

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

A lot of 'mights' going on here to build up a very absolute opinion.

How do you know that the public 'might' not take necessary caution at a 60% risk of a disruptive storm? Do you speak on behalf of the public?

Where did I state an absolute opinion in that post? I'm largely thinking out loud, discussing things on a discussion forum, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

Gaoth Laidir

Anyway, in Europe this storm is called Sebastian. Let's refer to it as Sebastian from now on to avoid this Aileen in a teacup.

MJohnston

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Anyway, in Europe this storm is called Sebastian. Let's refer to it as Sebastian from now on to avoid this Aileen in a teacup.

It does seem to have done enough in the UK to have warranted their naming of it though!

Gaoth Laidir

MJohnston wrote: »

It does seem to have done enough in the UK to have warranted their naming of it though!

Yes

Oneiric 3

MJohnston wrote: »

Where did I state an absolute opinion in that post? I'm largely thinking out loud, discussing things on a discussion forum, so I don't know where you're getting that from.

Ahhhh right...