Caz Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 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 handlingthe low level inversion properly. As such, we've been in talks with NOAAto see how this can be corrected... And we promise to keep working onthis until we get it right.Cheers,Andrew BondSenior PartnerI'm happy that I have had a reply, but whether they strive to make the service better, remains to be seen.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OXO Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OXO Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OXO Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 I think we would be better off doing what Sonia does have your own weather Station in your own back garden.James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom.yates Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Think you could be right there James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warthog Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 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 " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinB Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonia Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Hi,Yep, apologies for this. The problem was that the model wasn't handlingthe low level inversion properly. As such, we've been in talks with NOAAto see how this can be corrected... And we promise to keep working onthis until we get it right.Cheers,Andrew BondSenior PartnerMy Bottom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.