A RESPONSE FROM METCHECK...

[Caz]

Yesterday I sent *beep*check some feedback, and today I have had a reply, albeit a brief one, they say and I quote:

Hi,

Yep, apologies for this. The problem was that the model wasn't handling

the low level inversion properly. As such, we've been in talks with NOAA

to see how this can be corrected... And we promise to keep working on

this until we get it right.

Cheers,

Andrew Bond

Senior Partner

I'm happy that I have had a reply, but whether they strive to make the service better, remains to be seen....

[OXO]

It's nice to see you get a Reply and good on them for that but i would say a good workman never blames his tools..

James

[OXO]

I expect there complaints box is going NOVA Caz, it's extremely hard to forecast the weather and the forecasters and there colleagues come across as what they say it's going to be like today/tomorrow as written in stone when infact it's a waste of time IMHO going by there percentage of getting right(from what i have seen).

[OXO]

I think we would be better off doing what Sonia does have your own weather Station in your own back garden.

James

[tom.yates]

Think you could be right there James

[The Warthog]

I find that Environment Canada's forecasts for the next 48 hours seem to work, but the more you move away from today, the more likely that the weather seven days from now will be the opposite of what theya re predicting. "When I needed sunshine, I got "

[MartinB]

I think their response is pretty fair. They have had a specific problem which hopefully will be addressed. Will be interesting to see how their cloud probability forecasting works out.

Martin

[Sonia]

Hi,

Yep, apologies for this. The problem was that the model wasn't handling

the low level inversion properly. As such, we've been in talks with NOAA

to see how this can be corrected... And we promise to keep working on

this until we get it right.

Cheers,

Andrew Bond

Senior Partner

My Bottom!