The Met. Office is backtracking over the forecast it published earlier in the year, the one promising "a barbeque summer".
Despite low temperatures and much rain, the Met. Office insists that its forcast wasn't actually inaccurate, because the temperatures in June were a whole degree Celsius above average and rainfall was below the average for the period.
What the Met. Office is saying now: "When we are looking at seasonal forecasts, we are looking at the season as a whole, not a specific day or week". What it said on 30 April (not, as might be imagine, April 1) was: "Summer temperatures across the UK are likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or below average for the three months of summer". So both the forecast and the backtrack are considering the season as a whole.
Following a change in Consumer Law in the UK in 2008, fortune-tellers are required to advise customers that their predictions are not "experimentally proven". Isn't it time the Met. Office was required to do the same? Or perhaps it should sell off its expensive equipment and invest in some seaweed.
What the Met. Office is saying now: "When we are looking at seasonal forecasts, we are looking at the season as a whole, not a specific day or week". What it said on 30 April (not, as might be imagine, April 1) was: "Summer temperatures across the UK are likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or below average for the three months of summer". So both the forecast and the backtrack are considering the season as a whole.
Following a change in Consumer Law in the UK in 2008, fortune-tellers are required to advise customers that their predictions are not "experimentally proven". Isn't it time the Met. Office was required to do the same? Or perhaps it should sell off its expensive equipment and invest in some seaweed.
No comments:
Post a Comment