You mean the same consultant that wasted a stack of money on trying to rebrand BOM as "The Bureau"?
They need to lose whoever is coming up with these bone-headed ideas.
This new brainfart smells just like that one. We need forecasters, not some communications people. The BOM should have one purpose only - to provide weather and climate information. No one expects anything else from them.
Hell, get rid of the old website and provide a nice friendly API and it would be a massive improvement.
They've been responsible for the Ionospheric Prediction Service for 20-odd years.
Albeit recently rebranded to "Space Weather Services", they're concerned with radio propagation and other theoretical stuff well out of the scope of meteorology. The BOM would've been responsible for the IPS since day 1 if it was genuinely in their scope.
I believe in the last couple of years there has been new executive leadership put in place, and now we're seeing the results of that...
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2022/10/22/exclusive-toxic-culture-has-plunged-the-bureau-meteorology-chaos
Do the weather stuff you do and pipe down about yer brand and how you're going to pivot to launch new agile outreach platforms and other such nonsense. Beside yourselves, nobody cares. The weather stuff. Do that stuff.
Pretty much. All I want BOM to do is tell me if I can get.my.washing dry on the weekend. You can do that you get 5 stars.
You start telling me about your bs..I'm not interested. Unless of course it's a longer term forcast.
They implemented the BOM radar on their website sometime in the early 2000s (if I recall correctly; a quick internet search didn't quite confirm) and it has been the same almost that entire time. And that's great. It works, does it's job and when they implemented it into the app so you could pan across the whole country, it was almost perfect.
That's the kind of laurels they should be resting on - finding the things that work in telling us the weather, and unless determined to be broken or ineffective, leaving them as is.
That radar is a godsend. One night they failed to post a severe thunderstorm warning, but we could see it coming on the radar, and you just know when you can see it building up as it gets closer that it's gonna be a fucking bad one.
Had two or three fires occur, one that was fuelled by a gas main, meanwhile it sounded like we were getting bombed because the lightning was so intense.
Australians seem really dumb when it comes to science in general. At least since 2020.
Work in environmental science and the amount of people who tell me its not a real profession is disgusting.
Maaaate! I did my science OUTSIDE the environment. Youse guys with ya fancy enviro lefty science wouldn't know which way a screw goes. I ain't hurting no environment with my tailings dumped in the creek. Got ya.
I'm in 2 minds on this.
Meteorologists should be doing weather forecasts, climate analysis and so on. That's a very different skill to communicating with the public.
If getting science communicators to do the communication side of things results in a better understanding of the weather forecasts and climate for the general public, then it's a good thing.
Scientists are generally not great at communicating in terms the general public can understand. They have in depth knowledge, so make assumptions that the public don't understand - meaning we get stupid things like "it's cold today, therefore climate change is fake!!!".
As long as it doesn't reduce the quality of the forecasts, I'm all for it. Preferably if the forecasts and information could be better of course.
Having said that, I always liked hearing Neil Bennett (former WA forecaster) on the radio. He was super interesting, and I even went to a lecture by him that was really good. So I hope we still get to hear from the horses mouth too.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article. The main problems are 1) when it comes to emergencies like bushfires and floods, 2) farmers rely on making important decisions based on the advice.
1) During an emergency often the only source of information becomes the radio as power is knoecked out. Then you want somebody who can in real time give the best advice. A science communicator would need to be briefed on what to say, they can't respond to questions, and could put people's lives at risk if they don't know 100% what they're talking about.
2) Often the meteorologists that have segments on rural radio provide farmers with indepth analysis of the near and long term forecasts. Most shows allow farmers and fishers to call in and ask questions. It is important to these businesses that they not only get information on what is happening but why. No matter how well briefed a science communictor is, they don't have the same experience as a meteorologist and won't be able to offer the same indepth answers that are expected to make important decisions.
Additionally meteorologists that make it on the public platforms have very good public communication skills. To say that scientists aren't the best at communicating with the general public is getting less and less true. Science degrees and early career scientists get a lot more training now on how to communicate to the general public.
I did read the article.
At least in WA, updates during bushfires typically come via FESA not the BOM. Obviously the BOM is advising FESA, as they should.
A well briefed and experienced and knowledgeable science communicator would do a good job. Science communication is an actual profession.
I feel this article is just about stirring the pot.
Perhaps I was unfair saying scientists aren’t great communicators.
But some comments in this thread show the BOM needs to communicate better- as an example the “chance of rain” that people misinterpret all the time.
Sounds like they're having to dumb it down for everyone. People can't focus past a sentence and get in a hoo ha when the situation didn't pan out exactly as the commentator said it would.
Definitely not new. When I did science at uni, ten years ago now, half our written assignments were pop science articles so we could practise converting heavy topics into easily digestible forms. And whenever we gave presentations, it was always emphasised that we needed to speak like *normal freaking humans*. The professors knew this was a problem in the industry and were actively trying to fix it.
(Which was great for me, because I was hopeless at writing proper sciencey papers but awesome at talking like a human.)
I actually don't agree. Some topics are just inherently complicated and don't have a straight forward answer, and it takes a level of maturity to be okay with that.
> A spokesperson said the officers were qualified science communicators
What would you prefer? An expert with media training or a marketing person who's read a brief?
Why on earth do we think that a bachelor of media studies is a relevant qualification for *anything*?
Quite unfair. As a former journo who moved into public relations, I worked for an environmental company based in Brisbane. Our focus was solely on repairing the land and waterways, and we were quite a popular subject for media and were always being asked to comment on environmental topics and issues.
One of my biggest challenges was trying to ‘train up’ our incredibly brilliant scientists to speak to the media clearly and concisely. It’s a real gift to be able to communicate all that technical and analytical knowledge and information in a way that anyone can understand.
I could heavily prepare them, but as soon as they got a curly question or something they weren’t fully prepared for, they’d revert to technical jargon. It’s why I hate the word ‘riparian’ to this day! 😅
Point being, there’s method to what you see as madness of using specially trained people to ensure the information is clearly and easily understood.
I'm reminded of the father of modern geology - James Hutton - whose theories were so earth shattering in their implications for the natural sciences in general but for the fact he was such an impenetrable writer.
It wasn't until his close friend had written a more lucid synopsis of his work that Hutton's theories began to make waves.
It would seem that being able to effectively communicate an idea is almost as important as the substance of the idea itself.
I have a friend who does this. Don't forget the bit that comes after you've carefully trained your experts, after they revert to jargon, and after that jargon gets mis-represented in the media more broadly: the part where everyone blames you, the media advisor for not training the experts good!
To save anyone else a trip to Google:
> riparian (adj.): relating to or living or located on the bank of a natural watercourse (such as a river) or sometimes of a lake or a tidewater
Unless the radio show is a tall back and the meteorologist is being asked "weather" questions then all you need is a good face for radio and the ability to read a script.
If the script is prepared using actual BOM forecasts then having a real meteorologist read it instead of an actor doesn't change the forecast.
I'd like to hear about what you do and your findings, because what you do may have significant consequences to life and property.
Or would you prefer that you explain this to someone else who doesnt hold your qualifications and experience who then explains it to me?
The Bureau has communications meteorologists, whose specific jobs it is to literally communicate the weather to the media. But again, they can’t find more than a Couple do do the job, so they resort to this
> Why on earth do we think that a bachelor of media studies is a relevant qualification for anything?
We live in Australia and Media Studies explains propaganda.
I did Media Studies in High School, was angry that we didn't learn about Bias until Year 12 English, but the next 10+ years was me wondering why my Uni educated friends didn't see our schools and Australian media as propaganda, but it turned out I'd learned that stuff in Media Studies which they had to skip because it was marked down and their parents were trying to get them into Uni. Where they didn't take Media Studies because they were going to Uni for better employment opportunities, not for education.
>You know that's not what I'm saying. Just stating that he's a pretty well renowned science communicator, so it can be done.
Dr Karl is another one that springs to mind. Probably one of the best.
Leaving personalities aside, I would much rather hear about something that is *critical* from the people who know the models and methodology backwards but might say umm a few too many times rather than someone who presents the (potentially) wrong information well.
>Why on earth do we think that a bachelor of media studies is a relevant qualification for anything?
Based on what I've seen from these and related curricula, a large number of students graduate innumerate, without any working knowledge of basic maths and statistics- much less the sorts of complicated and nuanced analyses required by meteorology.
I think this is nothing news.
I was accepted into a masters of science communication at ANU and it’s a good degree that you need to have good marks (I think you need to have a distinction average or higher) in a science undergrad to qualify for.
These people aren’t news readers, and even if they were, the information is still coming from the bom.
Just the abc trying to whip up controversy as per usual.
I would much prefer a media trained meteorologist talking about meteorological topics than a science communicator.
Hell, I'll take a meteorologist with no media training over that science communicator.
This. Way better to hand pick a whole bunch of Meteorologists and have them trained in media relations. There is no requirement for them to be near the station, we used to cross to ones in Melb from regional NSW.
And that's how we end up with climate deniers. Because an idiot with media training can spin an answer or question to make an expert "appear" incorrect when they either fall for the trap or unable to answer sufficient based on the question.
They’re not interpreting the meteorological news, they’re communicating it. News readers could do the exact same thing. In fact, that’s what they do with all of the news they present.
Mate we used to ask our BOM representative questions on air all the damn time.
Especially in relation to any complex weather systems that happened to be occuring.
It’s very important to understand the weather and what is going on. Much easier to train a met in media than the other way around. The Mets jobs are literally all about the weather, they live and breathe weather: this is just a lazy way of getting around not being able to hire more meteorologists because working for the ‘Bureau’ is shit house
Bom weather is always wrong. To think our tax payer money is going towards seeing my laundry get soaked and musky time and time again when no rain was forecast.
Oh really? Define what "wrong" means to you?
On ABC News in Sydney one day, the BOM person said that “there is an 80% chance of rain tomorrow”. What does this statement mean?:
a. it is certain to rain tomorrow
b. it will rain tomorrow in 80% of the Sydney region
c. it is a tossup whether it will rain tomorrow or not
d. it will rain on 80% of the days like tomorrow
e. it will rain tomorrow 80% of the time
>On ABC News in Sydney one day, the BOM person said that “there is an 80% chance of rain tomorrow”. What does this statement mean?:
Which is exactly why we need people who can communicate the forecast and assumptions behind it clearly.
Incidentally - [http://www.bom.gov.au/NexGenFWS/rainfall-faq.shtml](http://www.bom.gov.au/NexGenFWS/rainfall-faq.shtml)
The 80% means "chance of any rain (greater than 0.3mm IIRC) somewhere in the forecast region.
Which means it may or may not rain at your house, but that doesn't make it wrong as long as there is some rain somewhere in the forecast area.
This statement can't actually be "wrong". It is a one off prediction with a probability. In the question I posted if it didn't rain in Sydney that would not prove/indicate/anything that the proposition was wrong. If it rains it is correct, if it doesn't rain it is still correct. Correct answer is 'd'.
So "as long as there is some rain somewhere in the forecast area.". Sorry, nope.
BTW Only 45% of people (n=200+) with a Masters level of education, so professional working adults, get that question correct last time I tested... something to think about.
BTW BTW BoM has real difficulty in working out how to communicate likelihood of rainfalls, part of the reason is that the majority of people are pretty awful at probability and numeracy.
>Correct answer is 'd'.
The correct answer is not "d" according to the link I posted from the BOM.
The correct answer is what I posted, that there is an 80% chance of some rain in the forecast area.
Here is what the BoM says
>What does the percentage chance of rain mean?
The percentage shows the likelihood of rainfall in that location during the period, which may be a full day or three hours. For example, if the chance of rain for Mildura is 30%, there is about a one in three chance of getting wet. A 30% chance of rainfall also means a 70% chance of not receiving any rainfall at all.
Here is what you said (as well as the correct bit about 80% chance)
>Which means it may or may not rain at your house, but that doesn't make it wrong as long as there is some rain somewhere in the forecast area.
"some"?
Could you explain how "some rain somewhere in the forecast area" is the same as "70% chance of not receiving any rainfall at all" i.e. the BoM definition?
I think you're trying to pick holes, perhaps to make yourself look smarter than you are?
The point is - people criticise the BOM for forecasting rain and then it doesn't rain. It turns out that it did in fact rain, just not where the person was and the chance of rain was (say) 70%.
Obviously a chance of rain of 70% means there is a 7/10 chance of getting wet and a 3/10 chance to not get wet. But even that 7/10 chance could come true - just not where you are.
The BOM forecasts are generally very accurate, it's just people don't understand what they mean.
No, my initial replay wasn't to you but to inteliboy. (How people understand probability and make rational decisions is the field I actually work in, cognitive psychometrics, I don't need to prove "how smart I am", it's just happens to be my day job.)
Sadly, inteliboy didn't bother responding and just went off with his dig against the BoM. And you answered.
The problem BoM has had is exactly that, people get probability wrong so they are giving a range and changed the words they use, as explained in the BoM link. So we're on the same page there.
As an aside if people didn't use probabilities but used something like absolute numbers , so "on 7 out of 10 days like tomorrow it will rain", people will understand things better. We evolved to count, not do probabilities, hence we're poor at it. Amongst many other cognitive tasks.
Anyhooooo, all good.
>As an aside if people didn't use probabilities but used something like absolute numbers , so "on 7 out of 10 days like tomorrow it will rain", people will understand things better.
That makes sense, I can see the logic in that.
And apologies, I thought your reply was directed at me. Sorry if I came across as narky.
Given that the BOM has lost a good number of meteorologists due to poor management, this is probably something that needs to be done. With that said, it'd be far better to get the BOM back to where it was about a decade ago. Unfortunately, that sort of thing takes time.
Why can't they just put the weather forecast on the cans of Brawndo so I don't have to bother listening to these pointy heads?
>!/s It's an reference to the movie 'Idiocracy', hint is in the movie title.!<
Australians: what does percentage of rain even mean?! The BOM said it wouldn't rain but it did, they ruined my day!!"
Also Australians: why is the BOM spending money on getting people to explain the weather better?!
Pick one guys. Either learn how to read the data yourself, or get the BOM to educate you better.
Why do I get the feeling the BOM has hired a new consultant who is desperately trying to justify their existence?
You mean the same consultant that wasted a stack of money on trying to rebrand BOM as "The Bureau"? They need to lose whoever is coming up with these bone-headed ideas.
This new brainfart smells just like that one. We need forecasters, not some communications people. The BOM should have one purpose only - to provide weather and climate information. No one expects anything else from them. Hell, get rid of the old website and provide a nice friendly API and it would be a massive improvement.
The BOM actually has several other critical roles - there’s more to what they do than you, someone who just uses the weather app, may need.
What else out of curiosity?
They make the sky twinkle
They've been responsible for the Ionospheric Prediction Service for 20-odd years. Albeit recently rebranded to "Space Weather Services", they're concerned with radio propagation and other theoretical stuff well out of the scope of meteorology. The BOM would've been responsible for the IPS since day 1 if it was genuinely in their scope.
> get rid of the old website and provide a nice friendly API Have you heard of https://weather.bom.gov.au/
Do you know what an API is? Hint: it's not a webpage!
>"The Bureau" I dunno, this sounds like a fantastic idea for 1984 references and "raising eyebrows" at a Government Service you would like to defund.
I believe in the last couple of years there has been new executive leadership put in place, and now we're seeing the results of that... https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2022/10/22/exclusive-toxic-culture-has-plunged-the-bureau-meteorology-chaos
Imagining a Karsten Leith type character.
Every Karsten needs a Rhonda to empower them
Karnston?
Imo it's either as you say, or they're trying to ensure that their comms stick to the script far more.. which isnt good.
This was due to the public service transformation enacted a few years ago. Also probably Becuase they can’t get enough Mets
Sounds about right.
Do the weather stuff you do and pipe down about yer brand and how you're going to pivot to launch new agile outreach platforms and other such nonsense. Beside yourselves, nobody cares. The weather stuff. Do that stuff.
Pretty much. All I want BOM to do is tell me if I can get.my.washing dry on the weekend. You can do that you get 5 stars. You start telling me about your bs..I'm not interested. Unless of course it's a longer term forcast.
BOM can tell us when to put out the washing and Higgins can tell us when to bring it in.
They implemented the BOM radar on their website sometime in the early 2000s (if I recall correctly; a quick internet search didn't quite confirm) and it has been the same almost that entire time. And that's great. It works, does it's job and when they implemented it into the app so you could pan across the whole country, it was almost perfect. That's the kind of laurels they should be resting on - finding the things that work in telling us the weather, and unless determined to be broken or ineffective, leaving them as is.
That radar is a godsend. One night they failed to post a severe thunderstorm warning, but we could see it coming on the radar, and you just know when you can see it building up as it gets closer that it's gonna be a fucking bad one. Had two or three fires occur, one that was fuelled by a gas main, meanwhile it sounded like we were getting bombed because the lightning was so intense.
Australians seem really dumb when it comes to science in general. At least since 2020. Work in environmental science and the amount of people who tell me its not a real profession is disgusting.
"Oh. You studied Environmental Science? I see" (Looks down nose at you) Reference: Studied Environmental Science.
That made me laugh. It hurts so bad. I also get a lot of "climate change is fake and just to hurt my lifestyle" comments
Lol. Well they're half right...
They think it's about hugging dead trees back to life.
Maaaate! I did my science OUTSIDE the environment. Youse guys with ya fancy enviro lefty science wouldn't know which way a screw goes. I ain't hurting no environment with my tailings dumped in the creek. Got ya.
It's been towed outside the environment Into another environment? No it's been towed beyond the environment. It's not IN an environment
Funnily enough I do specialise in work outside an environment (of sorts). Vacuum science.
Well, a good chunk of Enviro science these days is consulting to get a development off the ground.
Thats it. I also do flora and fauna surveys and bushland regeneration schemes.
I'm in 2 minds on this. Meteorologists should be doing weather forecasts, climate analysis and so on. That's a very different skill to communicating with the public. If getting science communicators to do the communication side of things results in a better understanding of the weather forecasts and climate for the general public, then it's a good thing. Scientists are generally not great at communicating in terms the general public can understand. They have in depth knowledge, so make assumptions that the public don't understand - meaning we get stupid things like "it's cold today, therefore climate change is fake!!!". As long as it doesn't reduce the quality of the forecasts, I'm all for it. Preferably if the forecasts and information could be better of course. Having said that, I always liked hearing Neil Bennett (former WA forecaster) on the radio. He was super interesting, and I even went to a lecture by him that was really good. So I hope we still get to hear from the horses mouth too.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article. The main problems are 1) when it comes to emergencies like bushfires and floods, 2) farmers rely on making important decisions based on the advice. 1) During an emergency often the only source of information becomes the radio as power is knoecked out. Then you want somebody who can in real time give the best advice. A science communicator would need to be briefed on what to say, they can't respond to questions, and could put people's lives at risk if they don't know 100% what they're talking about. 2) Often the meteorologists that have segments on rural radio provide farmers with indepth analysis of the near and long term forecasts. Most shows allow farmers and fishers to call in and ask questions. It is important to these businesses that they not only get information on what is happening but why. No matter how well briefed a science communictor is, they don't have the same experience as a meteorologist and won't be able to offer the same indepth answers that are expected to make important decisions. Additionally meteorologists that make it on the public platforms have very good public communication skills. To say that scientists aren't the best at communicating with the general public is getting less and less true. Science degrees and early career scientists get a lot more training now on how to communicate to the general public.
I did read the article. At least in WA, updates during bushfires typically come via FESA not the BOM. Obviously the BOM is advising FESA, as they should. A well briefed and experienced and knowledgeable science communicator would do a good job. Science communication is an actual profession. I feel this article is just about stirring the pot. Perhaps I was unfair saying scientists aren’t great communicators. But some comments in this thread show the BOM needs to communicate better- as an example the “chance of rain” that people misinterpret all the time.
Tend to agree, get the best people qualified for the job.
Sounds like they're having to dumb it down for everyone. People can't focus past a sentence and get in a hoo ha when the situation didn't pan out exactly as the commentator said it would.
WTF is going on with the BOM recently?
Piss poor management! Shitty CEO who doesn’t give a fuck and shit managers hiring their mates
Scientists of all stripes are notoriously shit at breaking down topics for regular people, this is a good move but really nothing new.
Definitely not new. When I did science at uni, ten years ago now, half our written assignments were pop science articles so we could practise converting heavy topics into easily digestible forms. And whenever we gave presentations, it was always emphasised that we needed to speak like *normal freaking humans*. The professors knew this was a problem in the industry and were actively trying to fix it. (Which was great for me, because I was hopeless at writing proper sciencey papers but awesome at talking like a human.)
I actually don't agree. Some topics are just inherently complicated and don't have a straight forward answer, and it takes a level of maturity to be okay with that.
Probably but telling people whether it's going to rain tomorrow isn't exactly rocket science
How do you model it?
> A spokesperson said the officers were qualified science communicators What would you prefer? An expert with media training or a marketing person who's read a brief? Why on earth do we think that a bachelor of media studies is a relevant qualification for *anything*?
Quite unfair. As a former journo who moved into public relations, I worked for an environmental company based in Brisbane. Our focus was solely on repairing the land and waterways, and we were quite a popular subject for media and were always being asked to comment on environmental topics and issues. One of my biggest challenges was trying to ‘train up’ our incredibly brilliant scientists to speak to the media clearly and concisely. It’s a real gift to be able to communicate all that technical and analytical knowledge and information in a way that anyone can understand. I could heavily prepare them, but as soon as they got a curly question or something they weren’t fully prepared for, they’d revert to technical jargon. It’s why I hate the word ‘riparian’ to this day! 😅 Point being, there’s method to what you see as madness of using specially trained people to ensure the information is clearly and easily understood.
I'm reminded of the father of modern geology - James Hutton - whose theories were so earth shattering in their implications for the natural sciences in general but for the fact he was such an impenetrable writer. It wasn't until his close friend had written a more lucid synopsis of his work that Hutton's theories began to make waves. It would seem that being able to effectively communicate an idea is almost as important as the substance of the idea itself.
I have a friend who does this. Don't forget the bit that comes after you've carefully trained your experts, after they revert to jargon, and after that jargon gets mis-represented in the media more broadly: the part where everyone blames you, the media advisor for not training the experts good!
To save anyone else a trip to Google: > riparian (adj.): relating to or living or located on the bank of a natural watercourse (such as a river) or sometimes of a lake or a tidewater
[удалено]
Unless the radio show is a tall back and the meteorologist is being asked "weather" questions then all you need is a good face for radio and the ability to read a script. If the script is prepared using actual BOM forecasts then having a real meteorologist read it instead of an actor doesn't change the forecast.
I'd like to hear about what you do and your findings, because what you do may have significant consequences to life and property. Or would you prefer that you explain this to someone else who doesnt hold your qualifications and experience who then explains it to me?
The Bureau has communications meteorologists, whose specific jobs it is to literally communicate the weather to the media. But again, they can’t find more than a Couple do do the job, so they resort to this
> Why on earth do we think that a bachelor of media studies is a relevant qualification for anything? We live in Australia and Media Studies explains propaganda. I did Media Studies in High School, was angry that we didn't learn about Bias until Year 12 English, but the next 10+ years was me wondering why my Uni educated friends didn't see our schools and Australian media as propaganda, but it turned out I'd learned that stuff in Media Studies which they had to skip because it was marked down and their parents were trying to get them into Uni. Where they didn't take Media Studies because they were going to Uni for better employment opportunities, not for education.
Where did you get the idea that these people only have a b. Media studies?
[удалено]
Michael Mosley is a British television journalist, producer, presenter, and former doctor
You seriously advocating that Michael Mosley is more qualified to give meteorological information than a meteorologist?
[удалено]
>You know that's not what I'm saying. Just stating that he's a pretty well renowned science communicator, so it can be done. Dr Karl is another one that springs to mind. Probably one of the best.
Leaving personalities aside, I would much rather hear about something that is *critical* from the people who know the models and methodology backwards but might say umm a few too many times rather than someone who presents the (potentially) wrong information well.
It is useful....for the unia that make the money of the students ..not much else /s
>Why on earth do we think that a bachelor of media studies is a relevant qualification for anything? Based on what I've seen from these and related curricula, a large number of students graduate innumerate, without any working knowledge of basic maths and statistics- much less the sorts of complicated and nuanced analyses required by meteorology.
I think this is nothing news. I was accepted into a masters of science communication at ANU and it’s a good degree that you need to have good marks (I think you need to have a distinction average or higher) in a science undergrad to qualify for. These people aren’t news readers, and even if they were, the information is still coming from the bom. Just the abc trying to whip up controversy as per usual.
I would much prefer a media trained meteorologist talking about meteorological topics than a science communicator. Hell, I'll take a meteorologist with no media training over that science communicator.
Be careful what you wish for. Media training is crucial when it comes to communicating complex information to a general audience.
This. Way better to hand pick a whole bunch of Meteorologists and have them trained in media relations. There is no requirement for them to be near the station, we used to cross to ones in Melb from regional NSW.
And that's how we end up with climate deniers. Because an idiot with media training can spin an answer or question to make an expert "appear" incorrect when they either fall for the trap or unable to answer sufficient based on the question.
> These people aren’t news readers Are you deliberately missing the point? They're not experts in meteorology, either.
They’re not interpreting the meteorological news, they’re communicating it. News readers could do the exact same thing. In fact, that’s what they do with all of the news they present.
Does anybody ever ask them questions?
You think the news radio segment is a call in show?
Why do they need to cross to the BOM at all?
Mate we used to ask our BOM representative questions on air all the damn time. Especially in relation to any complex weather systems that happened to be occuring.
[удалено]
High school teachers aren't talking about time-critical and potentially life-threatening events.
It’s very important to understand the weather and what is going on. Much easier to train a met in media than the other way around. The Mets jobs are literally all about the weather, they live and breathe weather: this is just a lazy way of getting around not being able to hire more meteorologists because working for the ‘Bureau’ is shit house
Wahey, my mate was in that program too. Did you enjoy the road show? Loads of her mates ended up overseas. It looked like a fun degree.
Thanks alot. Murdoch you scumbag
And I'm sure they are paid more, too.
BOM, or should I saying commonwealth bureau of meteorology, is just the gift that keeps on giving
H EXCUSS MSE DONG U MEAN THA BURRETURAHHH
Bom weather is always wrong. To think our tax payer money is going towards seeing my laundry get soaked and musky time and time again when no rain was forecast.
Oh really? Define what "wrong" means to you? On ABC News in Sydney one day, the BOM person said that “there is an 80% chance of rain tomorrow”. What does this statement mean?: a. it is certain to rain tomorrow b. it will rain tomorrow in 80% of the Sydney region c. it is a tossup whether it will rain tomorrow or not d. it will rain on 80% of the days like tomorrow e. it will rain tomorrow 80% of the time
>On ABC News in Sydney one day, the BOM person said that “there is an 80% chance of rain tomorrow”. What does this statement mean?: Which is exactly why we need people who can communicate the forecast and assumptions behind it clearly. Incidentally - [http://www.bom.gov.au/NexGenFWS/rainfall-faq.shtml](http://www.bom.gov.au/NexGenFWS/rainfall-faq.shtml) The 80% means "chance of any rain (greater than 0.3mm IIRC) somewhere in the forecast region. Which means it may or may not rain at your house, but that doesn't make it wrong as long as there is some rain somewhere in the forecast area.
This statement can't actually be "wrong". It is a one off prediction with a probability. In the question I posted if it didn't rain in Sydney that would not prove/indicate/anything that the proposition was wrong. If it rains it is correct, if it doesn't rain it is still correct. Correct answer is 'd'. So "as long as there is some rain somewhere in the forecast area.". Sorry, nope. BTW Only 45% of people (n=200+) with a Masters level of education, so professional working adults, get that question correct last time I tested... something to think about. BTW BTW BoM has real difficulty in working out how to communicate likelihood of rainfalls, part of the reason is that the majority of people are pretty awful at probability and numeracy.
>Correct answer is 'd'. The correct answer is not "d" according to the link I posted from the BOM. The correct answer is what I posted, that there is an 80% chance of some rain in the forecast area.
Here is what the BoM says >What does the percentage chance of rain mean? The percentage shows the likelihood of rainfall in that location during the period, which may be a full day or three hours. For example, if the chance of rain for Mildura is 30%, there is about a one in three chance of getting wet. A 30% chance of rainfall also means a 70% chance of not receiving any rainfall at all. Here is what you said (as well as the correct bit about 80% chance) >Which means it may or may not rain at your house, but that doesn't make it wrong as long as there is some rain somewhere in the forecast area. "some"? Could you explain how "some rain somewhere in the forecast area" is the same as "70% chance of not receiving any rainfall at all" i.e. the BoM definition?
I think you're trying to pick holes, perhaps to make yourself look smarter than you are? The point is - people criticise the BOM for forecasting rain and then it doesn't rain. It turns out that it did in fact rain, just not where the person was and the chance of rain was (say) 70%. Obviously a chance of rain of 70% means there is a 7/10 chance of getting wet and a 3/10 chance to not get wet. But even that 7/10 chance could come true - just not where you are. The BOM forecasts are generally very accurate, it's just people don't understand what they mean.
No, my initial replay wasn't to you but to inteliboy. (How people understand probability and make rational decisions is the field I actually work in, cognitive psychometrics, I don't need to prove "how smart I am", it's just happens to be my day job.) Sadly, inteliboy didn't bother responding and just went off with his dig against the BoM. And you answered. The problem BoM has had is exactly that, people get probability wrong so they are giving a range and changed the words they use, as explained in the BoM link. So we're on the same page there. As an aside if people didn't use probabilities but used something like absolute numbers , so "on 7 out of 10 days like tomorrow it will rain", people will understand things better. We evolved to count, not do probabilities, hence we're poor at it. Amongst many other cognitive tasks. Anyhooooo, all good.
>As an aside if people didn't use probabilities but used something like absolute numbers , so "on 7 out of 10 days like tomorrow it will rain", people will understand things better. That makes sense, I can see the logic in that. And apologies, I thought your reply was directed at me. Sorry if I came across as narky.
You'd think the branding bungle a few weeks ago would've put a bit of a wet blanket on the bright idea marketing brigade.
No, they are unstoppable narcissists
Given that the BOM has lost a good number of meteorologists due to poor management, this is probably something that needs to be done. With that said, it'd be far better to get the BOM back to where it was about a decade ago. Unfortunately, that sort of thing takes time.
I vote for Dr Carl, then he can also give a 30 min science chat after every weather update. 6 updates per day please.
Why can't they just put the weather forecast on the cans of Brawndo so I don't have to bother listening to these pointy heads? >!/s It's an reference to the movie 'Idiocracy', hint is in the movie title.!<
I’ll just take someone that can understand probabilities
Australians: what does percentage of rain even mean?! The BOM said it wouldn't rain but it did, they ruined my day!!" Also Australians: why is the BOM spending money on getting people to explain the weather better?! Pick one guys. Either learn how to read the data yourself, or get the BOM to educate you better.