RogerBW's Blog

Severe Weather Warnings 13 February 2016

I tend to use the weather forecasts from the Met. Office as I find them more accurate than the BBC ones (even when the BBC is using Met. Office data). However, I find the Severe Weather Warnings rather less useful.

Some of this is presentation. There's a colour-coded scale of yellow, orange ("amber"), and red for "Be aware", "Be prepared", "Take action". ("Amber" and "yellow" should never be in the same scale!) But that scale is itself the result of a two-axis evaluation, of "likelihood" vs "impact" (each on a four-point scale). A very unlikely but highly impactful event makes for a yellow warning; so does an absolutely certain but only somewhat impactful event.

(image from the Met. Office)

Now I'm one of the few fans of prediction spreads in weather forecasting; I like the PROB30/PROB40 clauses used in aviation weather forecasts ("there is a 30% chance of this happening") and wish their use would be expanded. But I think that rolling them into a severity measure like this, in the manner of a risk assessment, is something of an abuse of the approach: if you have decided to act on a yellow warning, what you might do in response to a very high probability of a heavy rain is surely different from what you'd do if presented with a tiny chance of Noah's Flood Mk II.

(And there are "warnings" and "alerts", which seem to be separate things, but there's no definition of which is which.)

Then there's the question of what you should do. For anything short of a red warning, this comes down to "pay attention to weather forecasts, and expect trouble, but don't actually do anything unusual yourself". Actually it's worse than that, because the table claims to be based on the impact level (Very Low, Low, Medium, High) but it's indexed by alert colour – and the alert colour only tells you the composite measure of likelihood and impact level. So which is it, guys?

What you should actually do, in the unlikely event of a red warning (or a high impact level?), is listed on a separate set of pages, and there finally we have some reasonable advice. It may seem basic and obvious, but it's clearly not obvious to everyone. (If you're waiting to lay in stocks of emergency food until the emergency has been declared, you're naffed, of course, because everyone else will be trying to buy them too.)

But I have been receiving Met. Office warnings for all of south-east England (the best granularity they offer) for several years, and I have never once seen a red warning. On the other hand there are yellow warnings nearly every week (total of 772 warnings/alerts in 4.5 years, though often there are several successive warnings/alerts about a single event)… of which the vast majority, naturally, come to nothing. There have been 27 amber warnings/alerts in that time, but I think only one or two of them had a direct impact on me. I can see why they warn about everything they think might be dangerous; they're scared of the Michael Fish in 1987 effect, and these days probably of being sued too. On the other hand there certainly has been severe weather (several occasions of wind) that did affect me, and which wasn't warned about. All of this means I'm less and less likely to take the things seriously.

So how would I do it differently, without magically becoming more accurate in the forecasting? First, split likelihood and impact, and keep them split. Second, remove the yellow warnings completely: issue warnings only when there's a substantial chance of significant effects. Third, allow more granularity in the warnings: I don't need to hear about storms hitting Brighton if they aren't going to reach me in Bucks. (On the other hand I'd like to be able to check for alerts along a rough line between home and wherever I'm planning to go that day.)

Comments on this post are now closed. If you have particular grounds for adding a late comment, comment on a more recent post quoting the URL of this one.

Tags 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 3d printing action advent of code aeronautics aikakirja anecdote animation anime army astronomy audio audio tech aviation base commerce battletech beer boardgaming book of the week bookmonth chain of command children chris chronicle church of no redeeming virtues cold war comedy computing contemporary cornish smuggler cosmic encounter coup covid-19 crime cthulhu eternal cycling dead of winter doctor who documentary drama driving drone ecchi economics en garde espionage essen 2015 essen 2016 essen 2017 essen 2018 essen 2019 essen 2022 essen 2023 existential risk falklands war fandom fanfic fantasy feminism film firefly first world war flash point flight simulation food garmin drive gazebo genesys geocaching geodata gin gkp gurps gurps 101 gus harpoon historical history horror hugo 2014 hugo 2015 hugo 2016 hugo 2017 hugo 2018 hugo 2019 hugo 2020 hugo 2022 hugo-nebula reread in brief avoid instrumented life javascript julian simpson julie enfield kickstarter kotlin learn to play leaving earth linux liquor lovecraftiana lua mecha men with beards mpd museum music mystery naval noir non-fiction one for the brow opera parody paul temple perl perl weekly challenge photography podcast politics postscript powers prediction privacy project woolsack pyracantha python quantum rail raku ranting raspberry pi reading reading boardgames social real life restaurant reviews romance rpg a day rpgs ruby rust scala science fiction scythe second world war security shipwreck simutrans smartphone south atlantic war squaddies stationery steampunk stuarts suburbia superheroes suspense television the resistance the weekly challenge thirsty meeples thriller tin soldier torg toys trailers travel type 26 type 31 type 45 vietnam war war wargaming weather wives and sweethearts writing about writing x-wing young adult
Special All book reviews, All film reviews
Produced by aikakirja v0.1