MurcieBoy

Thanks for the comments. Yes, we shall see as to the "Storm". As I said in the video: "The degree of intensity is the factor that should be the subject of my follow up appraisal video."

Thanks for your comments. Well, what a day to start reading the thread! I love Italy too, I enjoy driving the Murcie back to its birthplace in Bologna. Last time I drove to Italy I stayed up in the hills in Montepulciano for part of the time and also at Lake Como (in a lovely hotel where they have classic car concours) - Italy is truly an amazing place; and yes, the skies were stunning! One of the aims in posting on forums is to get people thinking; so be open minded and follow what you feel is right. Through testing you will get a feel for what works. I always take myself out of the evaluation and allow Nature to verify whether I am on the right lines. Using Nature as your "rail" or "guide" you cannot go wrong. As you can see, my forecasts are very precise. I need to make them precise, as they are my ruler to compare with the actual. The "variances" will tell me a great deal.

Many thanks again. Please, you have no need to take any reponsibility. Yes, let's see what fruits the models bring tomorrow!

Paul S, Well, I have, as you may know, written to the Mods and basically I have been told I have a right to reply. They do not see anything wrong with what has been dished out to me. For weeks I have had to put up with abuse (look at the abuse of just today); and when I give, nowhere equal, back there is now an issue. As I said to the Mods, I am happy to leave the thread.

Ah, another one from the same charm school. You're back I see - I thought you said you had gone. You are as consistent as the models. Make your mind up! If you bothered reading the thread, rather than trying to be abusive, you will know I just post these graphical representations in advance of RJS doing his bit - I post these each day. Is that OK? I could be wrong, but I am increasingly getting the feeling there is more likelihood of 250mph winds next week than you posting something sensible.

Many thanks indeed for the above. Yes, interestingly, we are, in some of the runs, seeing the lows heading south a wee bit from the Arctic (as predicted in the forecast to occur from 30 Jan 2011). Still we are +192 out (3 Feb)

Here's the 3 Feb 2011 12:00hrs + 192 and comparison with Storm Forecast:

Why not, shouldn't we take GFS+192 as Gospel? Really? I must be short then? ..... according recent posts: I am quackers, a fantasist, an ancient civilisation hero worshipper and now I could be broke! Well, I had worse over at ukww I suppose, just for predicting the low of 12 Nov 2010 ahead of the models. Must have been pure blasphemy on my part in some of the posters eyes over there - daring to make a precise forecast ahead of the models. The only way they could cope was by saying how lucky I must have been. Let's hope the Feb 2011 forecast is widely out on ALL fronts, as I think some on here might have seizures otherwise!

Thank you. It is appreciated

Yes, the key words are "I shall try"; but I never did. As soon as the 12 Nov 2010 forecast was over, I went onto the Xmas 2010 forecast. All DNA matches that I do are recorded and I never looked at 1953. Even if I had done so back in mid November, by 30 December 2010 when I did the forecast, the 1953 weather was never in my mind. It was never considered in making the actual Feb 2011 Storm forecast at all. Good God, now someone has the gall to tell me what I have done and I haven't in my own time. What planet are you on? How rude? You have gone to all the trouble of digging out such a post just for the sake of trying to mock someone? Ye Gods! Defies belief. Instead of trying to support someone who is trying to advance understanding you try to mock and ridicule. What sort of a person are you? You send me offensive PM's and are now posting the same on here. Disgraceful.

Many thanks indeed OldMetMan; it is genuinely much appreciated. BTW, your summary of the method is accurate. No, I shall not be discouraged, not even by one iota. I am the method's harshest critic and I have been very impressed with it so far (even though its an Experimental version). What concerns me though is a "youngster" or indeed others new to the field being discouraged from thinking out of the box and being “pulled back†towards doing what everyone else is doing for fear of being abused/ridiculed. In this age of not discriminating against others, there still seems to be some really deep rooted shameful and spiteful prejudices, that really should haven been buried a long time ago. They have no place in a so called advanced civilised society IMO.

With respect, I am happy to be questioned. What I have complained about is rudeness and ridiculing. Some of the stuff that has been dished out here.... I think upon a review of all my posts, one would agree that I am not asking anyone to accept the method or the Experimental forecast. All I had done is to present an Experimental Forecast (at the request of two Forum members). That is all! I suspect, you would be even more frustrated if I presented an unproven, half cooked method now. What is the point of presenting such an incomplete/untested method? I have always said, the method is just being tested by me. If/when it proves its worth over an extended period of time and folk widely want to know it, I will publish in a manner that would do justice to the subject.

I am tending towards losing the will to live here! If folk can read, they would have read: "Given my current level of understanding (which I accept has not reached its ultimate level of maturity), I am almost 100% confident this Great Storm will take place." and also "I do not expect the forecast to be exactly 100% accurate" ... why on earth quote things out of context? Why waste yours and my time?

In the 30 minutes that it took to make the forecast, I did not know anything about the 1953 storm at all. The method used to make the Feb 2011 storm forecast did not use ANY data relating to the 1953 storm. I do NOT pattern match at all. I only referred to the 1953 storm in the narrative to place the forecast in the perspective. As I said in the video, I called the forecast as I saw it. I wasn't thinking as to whether it was sensationalist or not. I called it as I saw it. What do folk expect me to say? That is what I saw... I did clearly head the forecast "Experimental" and I did say that this was my 4th forecast and that I had been involved in weather research for just a year and that I was testing out my understanding. Really, what is all the fuss about? Can't folk read?

Why couldn't you have said this earlier; why wait till a few days before the event?

Just in case anyone is remotely interested in the forecast, if the GFS latest run (compared to the previous) is to be believed:

A really inaccurate summary of what I am supposed to have said there (beggars belief why someone would waste their time writing such “utter toshâ€). And as to the very recent slagging off of the Storm Forecast by one poster, why wait till just a few days before the event - the forecast has been there since 31 Dec 2010? To preserve certain egos, let’s hope no one comes up with any alternative/better methods for forecasting the weather. Yes, let’s keep the current method and continue to witness enormous human loss and suffering around the globe each year through adverse weather (that was never forecasted in sufficient time to properly warn people). Afterall, what is the value of a few thousand lives around the globe each year, compared to the value we place in the protection of our egos?

The GFS were back on form the next day at +192:

Maybe, but what are the chances GFS is right at +216? Here's their Xmas 2010 effort:

Here's a graphical representation to supplement RJS's work:

Your posts have been extremely useful to my further analysis/evaluation of the likely outcome.

We know that +180 is a long way out (and the models do tend to move about a lot), but (for what it's worth) here's my comparison of the latest GFS for 12:00 on 1 Feb 2011.

WINDS Whatever the outcome of the Storm Feb 2011 Forecast, there will be, as before, a very candid follow up appraisal video, so I have been collecting data from various sources as the target days approach. Here are the UK outlooks that I saved from the UK Met Office web site. I have placed in bold their reference (if any) to winds: It is interesting to read the gradual ramping up of the tone: from "sometimes windy" to "stronger winds" to "strong winds" to "gales" on their outlook from today. HOW STRONG WILL THE WINDS BE? TWO KEYS FACTORS I shall give my "layman's" take on this. In the 28th January 2011 chart from the Storm Feb 2011 video one can see the strong 1040mb pressure over the UK; which is of course here now. The vital questions are how long it will last over the UK and where it will go? The models have been showing it going further north on several runs, causing the low pressures to be around 10° or more further north than my forecast (which will of course mean the Storm Forecast will fail). For the forecast to come good: Part 1: It is going to be critical for the strong high pressure over the UK, from the 28th January, to (i) remain strong and high; and (ii) go slightly south (and slightly west) of the UK (as shown in the video); and Part 2: Very low pressures to be in Scandinavia in the region 62°N to 66°N (as shown in the video) In the above scenario, we shall have the High Pressure just to the south/south west of the UK and deep low pressure over in Scandinavia, which will cause the UK and North Sea to have tight isobars. The UK and the North Sea will be effectively the “middle of the sandwichâ€. For me, this is what the forecast boils down to from now. This is what will determine the strength of these winds and the verification of the forecast. The indications are that Part 1 of the forecast may come good; we shall see if Part 2 comes close to the forecast. It will be interesting to see how it unravels...

You need to “clear the screen†so to speak and just forget about the others. Try and treat each one separately, I know we all like to generalise. Perhaps it would be easier to explain as follows: imagine going back 400 years in time and talking to a scientist in that era about the possibility of being able to speak to and to see someone live on the other side of the world. They would probably think it was arrogant of you to just think along those lines. It is always a mistake to judge by our current level of (imperfect) understanding. I wholly agree. Nothing at all to do with the date something happens Stop it! I’d say we PROBABLY will! I do not use any form of "statistics"; I aim to use the whole picture and not just one piece Seriously, it won’t take an Einstein! Spot on! “Failure is a giftâ€. Let’s see what happens with the Feb 2011 Storm forecast, I am up for any type of objective/scientific analysis of the forecast. Gosh, I must say I didn’t separate the two; both will apply. No, it has to be “front page†stuff and one of the leading topics on UK TV news (this is what I mean of a “newsworthy†event) Spot on! You have not included all the other major storms around the UK (eg: 1987) Not by anyone on this thread! BTW, did you get my Tornado forecast sent via PM two weeks ago? Spot on! Yes. I am sure what the reaction would be if a posted a weather forecast that was average for that particular month – irrespective of whether it was 100% accurate! I am not forecasting an extreme event to get hits to a website or generate business income. I posted the forecast to see what happens and see how it compares to the models.