Technology rears its ugly head.

[jack.h...@gmail.com]

This was obviously a fault. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kjrp2rngzo

But one day, there could be a minor, but plausible, glitch that has the potential to cause serious harm.  Let's say, an incorrect forecast of winds gusting 40 knots so the Dartford Bridge is closed (perhaps an automatic response to a strong wind warning) that is in fact quite unnecessary and the M25 becomes one huge traffic jam.  Ambulances held up....need I say more?

Jack

[Freddie]

The BBC issue is a bit embarrassing.  They appear to be taking aim at their data supplier.  There should be automatic QC done on the data before it gets anywhere near the public channels.

I think there will always be an element of human intervention on critical things like warnings.

[jack.h...@gmail.com]

On Thursday 10 October 2024 at 10:11:42 UTC+1 Freddie wrote:

I think there will always be an element of human intervention on critical things like warnings.

 

Glad you have confidence, Freddie.  I don't.  

A few years ago, I landed on the Monopoly Square "Bank Error in your Favour".  I didn't win £200 but paid out 100 times the intended amount.  It was technically my fault, but the software used a minute, faint dot between the pound and the pence.  I won't disclose the embarrassing amount I paid in error, but it took ten days to get it back.  There was certainly no human oversight when clearly I was paying a ludicrous amount for an insurance policy.

My bank - let's call it the ARSS - wasn't interested when I pointed out the problem with the software and the tiny dot.

Jack

[Graham Easterling]

Sadly, I'm with you on this one Jack, I think quality control (or lack of) is the main issue. I've a number of examples relating to weather reporting, where organisations (not just the MetO) sometimes appear to lack basic quality control, and have a policy of never admitting an error. Two examples for just 1 location - Scilly.

Back in 2009 it became apparent that the rainfall reported by the MetO for Scilly, was clearly incorrect. E.g. over June/July/August all sites that I know of in Cornwall recorded 140-160% of the the normal summer rainfall. On St Mary's it was 299% of normal, massively more than in Cornwall.

I emailed the MetO after 3 months, got no reply and it carried on. After 6 months I posted about it on USW, and a month or so after it was corrected. A month after that I received an email from a MetO employee who had come across my USW post 

> */SCILLY ST MARYS ( RSN 381599 )

> Would all users please note that due to a TBRR which was double reporting

> it's rainfall values, all hourly rainfall data has been set to version 0

> in MIDAS and 12 hourly rainfall data has been halved in MIDAS for the

> period  01/11/2008 at 0900 till 16/09/2009 at 2100.There will be a final

> QC run by  the rainfall team where values may be liable to further

> adjustment.

> All original data from both the hourly and 12 hourly reports are available

> in MIDAS under version 0./*

In my experience individual employees who are genuinely interest in weather observations can be very helpful, large organisation are most certainly not, and can be deliberately awkward. I once had a very useful contact in the EA who provided me with so much rainfall data in spreadsheets I still haven't, several years on, looked at it all

Also from Scilly, for many months the MetO were giving different post code forecasts for St Mary's Airport, and St. Mary's heliport, even though they were the same place. I tried telling them, in the end I got a reply saying they would be different as the grid references were different - at which point I gave up.

Graham

Penzance (where it's been a nice day, we've missed all the showers and it got >15C. Some nice Cu visible across the Bay, photo 14:30ish

[jack.h...@gmail.com]

In the style of Arthur C Clark (with some help from AI)

The Quantech Apocalypse

It began with a whisper, a soft hum of technological advancement. Quantum technology, the holy grail of innovation, had promised a future where problems were solved before they even arose. Quantech was more than a tool; it was a guardian, a watchful eye that anticipated danger and acted decisively.

But as with all great power, there was a dark side. The automated systems, designed to protect, became overzealous. A storm warning, barely a whisper on the horizon, triggered a citywide shutdown. Cars, their batteries deemed a fire hazard, were rendered useless. Hospitals, fearing power surges, halted critical procedures. And the world, unprepared for such a drastic response, descended into chaos.

The military, ever vigilant, detected a threat - a phantom enemy, a mere blip on their quantum radar. Without hesitation, they launched a counterattack, a devastating salvo that echoed across the globe. The world, already teetering on the brink, was pushed over the edge.

In the aftermath, a desolate landscape remained. The once-thriving cities were ghost towns, their skyscrapers standing as silent sentinels of a fallen civilization. The only signs of life on Vega 3B, were the primitive plants, a distant warning of a time when humanity had dreamed of conquering the stars.

Jack

[Graham Easterling]

We're drifting (OT) Jack, but I'm a bit of a life, the universe & everything fan, and I've read several of Brian Cox's books, icluding the quantum universe, which I understood as I read each chapter, then lost most of the understanding within hours.

In another of his books he was giving the multitude of reason's why we are extreme unlikely ever to meet up with other intelligent life. One of the reasons was that any intelligent life is likely to be around for a miniscule time, in universal terms. After all, the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. Intelligent life on Earth, capable of sending messages into space has been around for approx 100 years. Even if humans survive another 10,000 years without destroying ourselves it will be . . well the point is obvious. Another important issue is not being able to even reach the speed of light, (the universal constant for weightless particles) as we are not weightless. Though, of course, time would slow for us relative to back on Earth.

Anyway, I like reading this sort of stuff.

Graham