...   Remembering the past Sunday newspaper forecasts used a wording, General Situation for the coming week which I read and end results all came off of any type of weather, never recalled a back track, delayed, downgrade,s or failed to turn up.   

Originally Posted by: Jiries 

I've been following these comments with regard the supposed better accuracy of forecasts back in the days of Ceefax and Oracle/Teletext ltd with interest. I followed Ceefax etc from its inception in Sep 1974 to its demise in Oct 2012. My recollection is that it was frequently wrong, and, except under the most static of high pressure systems the weather for the week ahead in newspapers was not worth the paper printed on. I'm sorry but the rose tinted spectacles you are using when trying to assure us that in the golden days of Ceefax the forecast was never wrong and even substantially better than now is incorrect.
Lets look at some facts from when I was working in weather forecasting field.
1972. We moved to an all singing all dancing 10 level model with a 300 km grid.
1982. Upgraded to 15 level 200 km grid, which was later resolved to 150 km grid
1987. The Great Storm of 15/16 October 1987.
We were using the above model for Global Forecasting (15 levels, 1 to 2 runs per day, 150 km grid.) There was also a regional (mainly local to the British Isles finer mesh model which was used experimantally for topographically induced wind fields and local visibilities) The model had placed into it from buoys, ships, aircraft and satellite some 1200 observations over 24 hours. This was processed at around 4 million calculations per second.
And because of the lack of observation in the area of the storms development, plus late arrival of key data, the track and rapid intensification of the storm were missed.
Nowadays I believe (cos I'm now retired and dont get to see all the latest stuff!) that UKV can resolve convective weather to 1.5 KM resolution and soundings through the whole thickness of atmosphere.
The Cray XC40 supercomputer is the one I belive is now in use and has 46000 cores, and top speed of processing of 16 Petaflops (1 petaflop = 10 to the 15 calcs per second.)
Well I could go on and bore everyone, but I think it is safe to say the the assertion that the models were better and more accurate back in the days of good old CEEFAX, are ..well. silly. If you want a good read about Met Office devlopments since the 1950's Try here... it gives tha facts rather tahn rose spectacled opinions. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/computer-models/history-of-numerical-weather-prediction 
 

Originally Posted by: Bow Echo 

Talking of surprises, anyone in Belgium who doesn't watch weather forecasts could be in for a surprise. From 20C on Thursday to heavy snow on Sunday, if GFS is correct!

Originally Posted by: Rob K 

Absolutely this.

Forecasts today are extraordinarily accurate compared to just 20 or 30 years ago. It's easy to forget that Forecasts of the past were not only less accurate they were also much, much less detailed. 
In truth I miss them a little as there are less surprises now than once there were .

Originally Posted by: scillydave 

If they were more accurate why they are backtracking, constant delays and downgrading too frequently even in very short range as well.  

Originally Posted by: Jiries 

Yes, indeed.

It reminds me of October 1986. It was generally quiet, dry and settled for first 17 days with abundant sunshine, and mostly quite warm, in fact very warm on 1st with max temperatures exceeding 22 C in Lincoln where I was living. 

However, for last 14 days, it turned very unsettled and wet, often windy, and on some days notably cold; it was only 9 C in Lincoln according to my thermometer on 22nd. The current model output (released on 15 Oct) resembles that of 2nd part of October 1986.

Originally Posted by: ozone_aurora 

I've been following these comments with regard the supposed better accuracy of forecasts back in the days of Ceefax and Oracle/Teletext ltd with interest. I followed Ceefax etc from its inception in Sep 1974 to its demise in Oct 2012. My recollection is that it was frequently wrong, and, except under the most static of high pressure systems the weather for the week ahead in newspapers was not worth the paper printed on. I'm sorry but the rose tinted spectacles you are using when trying to assure us that in the golden days of Ceefax the forecast was never wrong and even substantially better than now is incorrect.
Lets look at some facts from when I was working in weather forecasting field.
1972. We moved to an all singing all dancing 10 level model with a 300 km grid.
1982. Upgraded to 15 level 200 km grid, which was later resolved to 150 km grid
1987. The Great Storm of 15/16 October 1987.
We were using the above model for Global Forecasting (15 levels, 1 to 2 runs per day, 150 km grid.) There was also a regional (mainly local to the British Isles finer mesh model which was used experimantally for topographically induced wind fields and local visibilities) The model had placed into it from buoys, ships, aircraft and satellite some 1200 observations over 24 hours. This was processed at around 4 million calculations per second.
And because of the lack of observation in the area of the storms development, plus late arrival of key data, the track and rapid intensification of the storm were missed.
Nowadays I believe (cos I'm now retired and dont get to see all the latest stuff!) that UKV can resolve convective weather to 1.5 KM resolution and soundings through the whole thickness of atmosphere.
The Cray XC40 supercomputer is the one I belive is now in use and has 46000 cores, and top speed of processing of 16 Petaflops (1 petaflop = 10 to the 15 calcs per second.)
Well I could go on and bore everyone, but I think it is safe to say the the assertion that the models were better and more accurate back in the days of good old CEEFAX, are ..well. silly. If you want a good read about Met Office devlopments since the 1950's Try here... it gives tha facts rather tahn rose spectacled opinions. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/computer-models/history-of-numerical-weather-prediction 
 

Originally Posted by: Bow Echo 

and will surely put to bed these silly posts stating that forecasts were more accurate 30-40 years ago.

Originally Posted by: Gusty 

Thank you. This post is very welcomed and will surely put to bed these silly posts stating that forecasts were more accurate 30-40 years ago.

Originally Posted by: Gusty 

Not silly if the models kept back tracking, push backs, delayed or cancelled in the last minute as they done many times, the frequently are too much now so difficult to make plans as there no reliable source of forecasting that can be really accurate.   We not gone to Wales now because of the stupid models backtracked the settled to unsettled week.   In future will check the weather from the window and then go somewhere if nice.  

Originally Posted by: Jiries 

Do you think the Met Office research that Bow Echo (and myself previously) shared with you is inaccurate? Are their statistical analyses incorrect or flawed? Models changing with regularly updated input data do not mean they are flawed, simply that the data have been updated. Would you prefer in any situation for forecasts to stick to their original position when more data become available?

Originally Posted by: doctormog 

I'm surprised that this hasn't gotten some attention on here 😕

From the extended met office forecast:

"Temperatures are more likely to be above average, but perhaps trending closer to normal. Cooler later into November when blocking high pressure and easterlies are more likely. That said, as temperatures fall, particularly over the near continent, any winds from this direction may bring colder spells as the month progresses - perhaps more likely in northern and eastern areas."

Originally Posted by: picturesareme 

Surprising to see that narrative at such range. Easterlies are hard to be confident about, but perhaps the general picture later next month will end up being a repeat of May this year ie a true persistent easterly pattern which seemed very reluctant to budge. 

Originally Posted by: White Meadows 

Too frequent backtracking nad push backs which is the main problem and not acceptable on today technology which should minimise that than in the early 2000's when backs track or push backs up to 1 week to 10 days was much less frequent.  I leave it there now as I am not changing my views about this.

Originally Posted by: Jiries