Met Office loses BBC weather forecasting contract after 93 years | UK news | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... g-contract

They're only worth checking in the morning for a rough outlook IME, and even that afternoon I've found I'm better just looking at the sky lol. Anything after the current day is usually a nonsense.

It'll be interesting to see what a new provider comes up with!

Only insofar as they'll almost inevitably get in someone who will do a worse job for a higher bill.

I couldn't care less - he weather reports are frequently hugely inaccurate.

They might as well employ Mystic Meg for all the difference it will make.

From my reading, it's just being put out to competative tender. They can still bid.

HOw will the tenders be judged. and will there be penaties if they are not accurate?

No.
I get any forecasts that I may require from my phone or iPad (the phone used to use Yahoo! but changed a couple of years ago, and on the iPad I use AccuWeather).

Mark

I used to use the Met Office weather app to determine the weather so I'd know whether it was worth getting up early to wash the car. Most of the time it was reliable.

The Dark Sky app (& their http://www.forecast.io web service) is pretty good I find. It's short term, super local rain forecasts tend to be so accurate it's almost disconcerting.

It appears from later reports that The Met Office didn't even get as a far as talking about money with the BBC - they started initial negotiations then were told that they wouldn't be a 'preferred bidder' and any further negotiation was pointless. As yet (according to the Met Office's commercial director being interviewed on the BBC) they haven't had the 'feedback meeting' that the bidding process allows them where they'll find out the basis of the decision. So they can't say and the BBC aren't saying why this actually happened.

The Met office bloke did say that, given the way weather data is shared and conglomerated around the world, whoever takes over the BBC contract will almost certainly be using their data to base the forecast on. So essentially what's going to happen is someone else is going to be producing the presentations then sub contracting The Met Office to provide the data those presentations are based on. To create a new system for gathering the data in the UK separate from the one that already exists would be prohibitively expensive.

Obvious question : do we need people who have scientific training to present the weather? Or is it acceptable that a scientist writes the words/pictures and the presenter just reads them out? That is what happens in most other forms of TV reporting...

Locally at least, the newsreader will often give a summary in the absence of the forecaster, so you could at least argue it.

I literally couldn't care less.

Same sort of thing as a journalist or a news reader I guess.

I suspect this may be the BBC having a subtle dig back at the government for their imposition of extra costs (like the World service and over 75 TV licences). The Met Office presumably received a fair amount of its funding from the BBC and if they lose it they have to get it from somewhere else (they've got a new super computer to pay for after all). As an executive agency of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills I wonder where they'll get it from.

Met Office wanted too much money from BBC, says John Kettley | Media | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/a ... hn-kettley