MurcieBoy

Thank you, accepted. RJS, you are evaluating the "forecast", not me! I have never posted on any weather Forum in the world other than in the above name. In fact, you have links on this thread to ALL the posts I have ever made on the Internet. My first post on a weather forum was on 28 Oct 2010 You need not worry! I am totally new to the field of weather forecasting! ..but you volunteered! I hear where you are coming from. I am quite chilled about it, as I do not rely on the success of the “method†for my income; if it works great, let’s test again and again. If the Storm forecast does not come good, its okay, I will dig deeper to find the answer. It is the digging and the gathering of understanding that I enjoy, the forecast coming good is merely a by-product of that (and not necessarily the “main eventâ€, speaking personally). Agreed! They are “all over the place†at the moment. Don’t let it frustrate you. If it is going to happen, it will happen; never try and pre-empt Nature (she always knows best and will do things in her own time). Unless you have wide public support/understanding around the globe for your forecasts, you have no chance at all of any reform (however good your method for forecasting is). IMO just LEAD with the forecast, forget the method – never debate the method! If one can continually provide accurate forecasts, that is what is going to get the wider recognition. Never “force†the issue either, be “passiveâ€. The forecasts should always be ones “active†element. You need to conserve your energy. Once you start talking about the method, you risk sidetracking attention from the forecasts. The forecasts are the key. You will never convince many/enough/the right people when talking about the method. Key point: the mainstream cannot forecast further than say 7 days. That is their “weakest pointâ€. They cannot do what they are supposed to do – which is forecast! Stick with addressing that weak point. Ignore everything else; don’t waste time arguing with people, trying to convince them of your method. Just spend time perfecting the “method†and enjoying life – chill out! Ultimately, if one has a worthy “methodâ€, just imagine setting up a website that forecasts one month ahead (as well as say a year ahead). If those forecasts are accurate consistently, what is that going to do to the reputation of the weather forecasting “establishmentâ€? In the long run, do you think the taxpayer would vote for politicians that approved expenditure to government departments or agencies for not being able to forecast more than say 7 days ahead?

It's Friday! Just a few more hours of mundane day to day work and I shall be back with a few comments later today/tomorrow (only just read your posts since my last one). Thanks for all the positive comments and the encouraging PM's (again, will reply today/tomorrow). Glad to see you are back RJS.

Firstly, many thanks to the voices of support on here; it is really much appreciated. I should say that most of the cynicism expressed is wholly understandable and expected; it was the comments (and under current view) of one poster that I did not really take to heart (for whom I still have much respect, just for the sake of trying to think out of the box). In this post would like to just clarify a few points: #239 HC and #237 we WINDS: The winds that I refer to in the video are GRADIENT WINDS. I clarified this on 12 January 2011 when RJS asked me to confirm whether the winds are in kph rather than mph (see #193). I also updated the video on 12 Jan (using a YouTube edit and labelled the info as an edit). As stated in #193, “The strongest gusts (not gradient winds) over the North Sea during the 1-5 Feb 2011 are forecasted to be around 110-140 mphâ€. If you wish to refer to surface winds, feel free to quote 110-140 mph gusts over the North Sea as being the stongest winds during 1-5 Feb 2011 Forecast. Aside from the pressure charts, yes, the minimum for the forecast to “verify†would be a newsworthy event (as mentioned by Timmytour in #178) #235 KK Appreciate your comment, just to clarify, I want the “method†to gain integrity not me. It should never about me; it’s always about the “methodâ€. I sincerely hope the “method†(if it works) lives on forever after we all have gone. #223 KK – have you seen the very candid appraisal video for Xmas 2010 – re the pressure charts, makes interesting viewing! #220 HC Re Nature repeating itself: it does and has done so since Day1. I learnt this concept for myself after charting the daily high/low price time chart for several decades by hand for Wheat back in the early 1990’s on a roll of graph paper 1m wide by about 30m long (blasted thing took me ages!). I could see the price/time chart cycles repeat and that they followed specific mathematical laws; there was no turning back for me after that point. As to the weather repeating, gosh that is much easier to verify! As I have said before, weather folk are the luckiest in the world to see the repeating cycles of Nature unfold. You may find the concept absurd, but with great respect, have you really researched this subject thoroughly over a number of years and with an open mind? I think you asked why scientists have missed this. Good question. I believe they have not missed it all; if one knows how to read some of the great classical works you can see this understanding everywhere. It’s just that for whatever reason we are not taught this in our schools or universities. As to the forecast going wrong: please read my posts about appraisal. I am the one asking for very tight tolerances, if it ended t*ts ups, I will accept it. Have you seen the way I appraised my Xmas 2010 forecast? That was very candid indeed. As I say, it’s all about the integrity of the method (as evidenced by the forecast) and not about me! If it comes good, that could be another “verification†for the method. All forecasts are labelled “Experimental†because I want to be 100% sure that I have all the relevant DNA components in there. There may be stuff that I should have in there that I have missed. If the Feb 2011 forecast fails badly, then I will know the likelihood is that I have missed something major (and to a certain extent it will be back to the drawing board to find any missing DNA components). For this reason, this is a critical forecast for the current version of the method I am using. #221 p As I say in the Storm video, I had to call it as I saw it. I only wish I had bit more of a track record before stumbling across such an extreme event. As I said back on 31 Dec 2010, I wasn’t going to post a forecast for a while. The method that I am working with is very precise, as Nature is very precise. It’s just that our understanding of Nature is a bit woolly that dictates that we should have ± 3 or whatever days/months of tolerance. # 228 RJS Preface: I will have to speak directly from the heart here. I feel pasionately about this subject and some of the points I make below are made to pay respect to that subject. The key issue here is not about personalities, but about accurate weather forecasting and ensuring that all that have something decent to say are not ridiculed in any way and are encouraged to come forward with new ideas. As I stated in my first post on NW (#41), I have immense respect for the work of BLAST and yourself. I value anyone who tries to row “upstream†so to speak (whatever their rational and scientific methods are). I should also add, with the greatest respect, that having read your posts on this thread and on one or two others, I do not have a clue what your method is in any great detail. If I may be so bold, because you “lead†with your method, it is vital that the reader knows exactly where you are coming from. Your post on the American Weather Forums on 8 December 2010 was a prime example of how people end up wholly confused and antagonistic (not that some need much encouraging!) from the explanations you give of your method. Also you are IMO not specific enough with your forecasts and leave too much tolerance, again leaving yourself open to suggestions that you are making the “actual†fit the “forecast†(not that I am suggesting in any way you would do that). My strategy is wholly different. I say nothing, if very little, about the method, but lead strongly with precise and clear forecasts, with specific charts and insist on very tight timing tolerances. I believe the key point about any type of forecasting (whether it is the weather or the stock market) is the forecast – not the method! To ramble on and on about the method (before it has proved itself) is like putting the cart before the horse. For me, if, and this is a big if, the method consistently verifies over the course of an extended length of time and folk widely around the world are asking to know what it is, only then will I release the system. As I know that is the right time. As it will be more than likely be implemented and be in the mainstream – which is the long term underlying aim. I would never try and ramble on and on about the method on internet forums (ending up to blinding folk with "science"); the method needs to be laid out in very clear, unambiguous terms with example after example as to how it works. If one ever gets to that stage, I will use every conceivable medium to get the point across, no one will be in any doubt as to what the method is and why it works. To write endlessly on weather forums all over the world about a half cooked method that sometimes works (perhaps vaguely with ± x days tolerance), is not the best way of going about it IMO. BTW on #11 on the Irish Forum, you quote me today as saying "it doesn't matter, the universe is full of cosmic energy" – where have I said anything hippy like that? You also keep referring to “160mph winds†– as I verified on 12 Jan 2011, the forecast is referring to Gradient Winds, why don’t you take that on board? You also say about me (or more importantly the method) “I feel like this could almost be a sort of prank being played by someone who wants to make all of us "alternative method" forecasters look badâ€, that statement could never further from the truth, with the greatest respect, IF the American Weather Forum example is anything to go by, you have managed to do a very good job of that on your own Sir. In conclusion: please stop trying to discredit the method I use; it will do that for itself, if indeed it is "a prank" as you seem to think.

#215 - KK Thanks for your post. Equally, and with the greatest respect, you may have read things wrongly too. Perhaps its me, but I just don't get why folk have to resort to ridicule if they do not understand something or something is presented in a manner that is not to their liking or does not agree to their line of thinking. All I have done it to put up clear and precise forecasts ahead of what is considered forecastable - since when has that ever been a sin? Why knock someone that tries that? Just imagine, if someone could do that accurately and consistently and warn folk of floods etc in good time for them to prevent fatalities, human misery and suffering? People should be encouraged to come up with new ideas and ways of forecasting, not subjected to ridicule for daring to suggest anything out of the norm.

Morning folks, in my last post, Part 2/2 was just a bit of light relief, some of it did make me laugh. Turning very brielfy now to RSJ's post: The "Nostradamus with angst" description is going to be quite apt if nothing much happens around the North Sea during this time period. So anyone genuinely tetsing out ideas (based upon hard research; and presenting very clear and precise forecasts) on a forum should be subjected to such ridicule? After all that you have gone through (per your 1/11/05 post on NW), I thought you would be last person to say harsh and unsubstantiated things like that (on the Irish weather forum) and especially as you are now unilaterally proposing to undertake an "objective" evaluation of my Feb 2011 Experimental forecast. Begs the question why you volunteered out of the blue to undertake such an evaluation? If you want to avoid that kind of thing, develop the research privately and wheel it out when you know it is going to have some success. ... now who is trying to chase someone "out of the building"? When you talk about exact validation, then, you're basically ruling out all wind speeds under 100 mph for Hamburg, because a 40 mph error would be fairly significant. Not sure if you have read my #193 post about wind clarification? Also, you're ruling out pressures above 960 mbs for the central pressure of your proposed Baltic low on 3 Feb. I had wondered why you selected 3 Feb, that's where the charts show the lowest pressure of 945mb (and therefore most likely to be wrong according to your analysis?) We're proposing a much gentler validation than that to establish at least some significance to the pattern in your forecast. I think it is just you that is proposing. To be fair, I do not believe that you are proposing wider tolerances to be "gentle" with me, its just that your own forecasts (however good they may be) are not precise enough If these specifics verify, it will be quite astonishing. They may verify closely, they may not. If they don't, so what? I am just genuinely testing out ideas, what is wrong with that?

PART 1/2 - OK, as its the end of the week, I shall catch up with some Q's: Same applies to so called advice the layman takes from so called "specialists" from investment banks or stockbrokers who tell them what the stock-market is going to do. It applies even more on a wider scale if/when students hardly question what they are taught and make the same mistakes as those teaching them; as has been alluded by others, some subjects have not "moved forward". Apart from the rouge DNA element that is a fair way out (as mentioned in #209), the other DNA factors have a very close (near 100%) match. There is no way I can update the match, it is fixed. The Feb 2011 forecast could have been made 50 years ago; and it would have been exactly the same forecast. Just a case of wait and see. Some folk have been saying how uncommon certain positions of lows are etc; but that it the character/"meat" of a "rare" event. Its "make up" is not going to be common by definition. Interesting points. We'll see how the Feb 2011 forecast goes. If it is widely out, then I have to reflect on things. However, if it is not widely out, I would like to do a forecast of the barometric pressure for a whole month for say London and see how the forecasted curve compares to the actual. As you may have gathered, whether I make the forecasts 6 days, 6 months or 6 years before makes no difference; it will be the same forecast. I never look at what the weather is doing or what the models are saying or what the averages should be for the month in the forecasted day. I think I might be in the right haystack. Each failure can provide an insight into what tools to use or not to use; so its like a process of elimination. I read somewhere that "failure is a gift" - bit of an esoteric meaning somewhere in there, but I find it is so true. PART 2/2 – some genuine posts from other Forums where the Feb 2011 Storm video was embedded: Really? Very astute (the previous poster should take note)! Does he know something we should know? He was on a 2012 forum! Who is this friend, this Sage?! Where is PC when you need him? I bet it wasn't on video though! Ye Gods! Let's hope its not in a hot air balloon, as he might end up in Italy! Man of taste obviously! ... can't please everyone! Just because you lost the cricket! ... here kitty!

If your expectations for the actual outcome are different to what you are forecasting - why don't you disclose what you think the actual outcome will be, as well as what you have put in your forecast? Because I do not know; that is the purpose of the "Experimental Forecast", to find out. BTW, this is not a test of my abilities to guess what the outcome will be. As I have said, my aim is to take the "subjective" wholly out of the equation. The method is objective. It has nothing to do with me or what I think. What I can say (objectively) is the following: the DNA variance in the Storm Forecast, in other cases, has had very little impact. So part of me would say, the forecast should be very close to the actual. How close, I am not going to guess. Alternatively, as each case is different, it may have a more material effect in Feb 2011 - we shall see! At least take a punt like we do!! Behave!

I think any forecasts put forward for appraisal must: (i) be presented sufficiently advance of the forecasted day; and (ii) be very specific. That is, charts with clear isobar patterns need to be produced of where the lows and highs are and the time of the day that configuration is expected to arise. The magnitude of the highs and lows must also be specified. Obviously, the GFS model can provide such information (from +384). Also, the tolerance for evaluation should be reduced from ± 2days to ±1 hour (say)

Hi Coast I think you are still not reading it right mate. I shall try and explain: You inicate in your post above that you are factoring in the effects of variance. I am expecting the actual to be different to forecast. By your own volition (as stressed in the posts from UKWW) you want to only consider the cause not the effects. Correct! If you were to find the cause of the variance in your method But I do know the variance in the DNA - I am just waiting to see the effect of that "DNA variance" or "cause variance" in the actual weather Just to emphasise: what I do not know is what the "actual weather effect" of the "DNA variance" is - as I say I am waiting for Nature to tell. Once I know, I will take DNA variances into account when producing the forecasts - obviously at the moment I am not then you could quantify it I have quantified the "DNA variance", I know exactly what it is and how big it is (just as you have with your main method) and then factor it out rather than factoring in a variable which can lead to uncertainty and inaccuracy. Until I factor in the "weather effect" of a known "DNA variance", my forecasts will always be called "Experimental" and will always be expected to be different to the actual. Now this is not a "cop out" its just that this is only my 4th forecast and I have not had time to look at the effect of the "DNA variances" from my last three forecasts. As I say in #169, “It’s far too early at this stage to see the upside of the “methodâ€; as it is being “tested†and hopefully refined. You can however see the worst sides to it (at its current level of evolution).†So even with such "errors" in the forecast (ie: the forecast in its worst state), the forecasts for 12 Nov and 25 Dec have outperformed the GFS model at +384 to circa +72 Hope that helps....

Hi Coast, have read both quotes quite a few times, but cannot see where there is a contradiction. Where is the contradiction in your eyes? If you can advise, I shall try and answer.

My word! I go away for a few days...... Many thanks Roger for the effort you have obviously put into this; I do welcome such an appraisal from a third party. As invited, I thought I would make just a few short feedback points: The forecast is “out there†so folk can do as they wish in its review, but please remember this is only an “experimental forecast†that actually only took less than half an hour “thinking time†(ie: less time than to write some of these posts!). I could have spent more time trying to factor in the effects of the DNA variances (and there are variances; and a material one in the case of one of the DNA constituents). I should say that one of the reasons I did not alter the Feb 2011 forecast (to accommodate these DNA variances) is that I am trying to let Nature tell me what the impact of the variances actually is. The same with the Xmas 2010 forecast, I did not adjust for the DNA variances at all (which were much more material and in more than one DNA constituent); but as you can see there were some significant successes in that forecast (see #2 appraisal video). So folks, as I stated in #3 Storm video, (i) I do not expect the “actual†to be 100% the same as the “forecastâ€; and (ii) it would be the “degree of intensity†of the forecast that should be the subject of my follow up appraisal video; that is, the “degree of intensity†of the lows, the wind speeds and the sea surges. I do however expect the forecast to be close to the actual (...how close? We shall see!). In #169, I stated: “It’s far too early at this stage to see the upside of the “methodâ€; as it is being “tested†and hopefully refined. You can however see the worst sides to it (at its current level of evolution).†The refinement that I am referring to here is in factoring DNA variances into the forecast. If possible, the same validation procedure should be applied to the earliest GFS output – after all, the heading of this thread is “Better than the Models?†Degree of tolerance: as I have discussed already in #169, I would like the validation procedure (applied to all forecasts put forward) to be tightened. That is, the event has to happen on the date (and within an hour, say, of the given time) of the forecast. Wind speed: as requested, I am able to clarify the wind speeds that I refer to in the forecast are in mph and refer to the Gradient Winds. The strongest gusts (not gradient winds) over the North Sea during the 1-5 Feb 2011 are forecasted to be around 110-140 mph. I hope this clears up any confusion that may have arisen, for which I apologise (I wanted to get the forecast out before the Bells!) Just one final thought, hope this does not turn out to be a version of the "Spanish Inquisition!" Its only an "Experimental Forecast" based upon less than a year's weather research. Please reflect on AF's valid point in #183

Paul (#159) I hear what you say. Seriously, I would not claim a “hit†if it was not there, no point. I have no commercial angle on this, my interest is in getting it right and failures need to be met head on. By the way, the Xmas forecast posted on here (#15) is the one first one I posted up on ukww, there was another issued a few days later with charts etc. It is covered in the #1 Video. Paul, have you had a squint at the #2 Video which is the candid appraisal of the Xmas forecast? There is also an interesting comparison with the GFS model charts which started 27 days after my forecast. It’s far too early at this stage to see the upside of the “methodâ€; as it is being “tested†and hopefully refined. You can however see the worst sides to it (at its current level of evolution). Re error range: it has to happen on the day forecasted. None of this airy-fairy nonsense “it can happen ± 3½ days from the day forecastedâ€. If it has not happened on the day forecasted it’s a fail! As it’s rightly pointed out, the “method†has been derived from a need to trade in Dow futures, where timing is everything.

I go away for a couple of hours..... Right first things first, many thanks for the supportive posts, they are very much appreciated. Thanks also to Coast for his reply to my last post. As I have always said, and I think we all agree here, any method for weather prediction should be judged by its results and not by anything else. That is why my forecasts are very detailed, precise and clear. I don’t want the focus at this stage to be on me or any method I may be using, I want the focus to be on the forecasts. I want the forecasts to do all the talking. Also, as I have always said, if/when I am happy the forecasts have proved accurate and consistent, I will start to write the book. I am not writing it now (or talking about it in any detail), as the forecasts have proved nothing. I don’t think anything will change my mind, sorry folks. As to giving up on the method if I get a major failure, I don't believe that I will ever give up the research (as it is my passion; and has been for a very long time).

I posted the Feb 2011 forecast on here because I was asked by AF #46 and Snooz #45 to offer more forecasts. OK if your view is the wider feeling on here, that is my last forecast that I will post. I don't want to risk being suspended from another forum. All the best

OK quick reply (as I'm going to lunch!). In the video I said: "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." That is true, I am almost 100% confident based upon "my current level" of understanding. I currently cannot see how it will fail; BUT as I say above, I am still learning, I could be wrong. That is why it is an "Experimental Forecast"; "testing" out forecasts (based upon my current level of understanding). Hope that clears it up for you.

I seriously have loads of work to do in my day to day work this month (I have fallen behind). However, I will respond to Coast’s questions. With respect, please, please do not flood me with more questions, as I do not have time to answer them and you may be wasting your time asking them, as the “method†may fall flat on its face by 5 February and we are simply talking about hot air. 1) Are you the founder/inventor of this methodology? I don’t have a final “methodology†as such; as it is the process of testing. If the Feb 2011 forecast fails badly, then it may mean wholesale changes to some of the fundamental aspects of the “methodâ€. I suspect the ancients had this down to a fine art, so I will never be the founder/inventor; whatever the final “method†turns out to be (if indeed I get to having a “method†that works well consistently). 2) If not, how many other people or organisations are studying it do you think? Honestly, I do not know. You will only know if they exist if they are producing months or years in advance very detailed daily or even hourly forecasts (that actually come good). 3) When was the method first discovered/theorised? I suspect thousands of years ago by the ancients. 4) How did you first become interested in the method with regard to it's potential for weather forecasting? I had been working for years in developing a system for trading futures on the Dow Jones. About 5 years ago, I forecasted the move in the Dow from around 10,000 to over 13,000, but was unhappy at not being able to predict what the market would do within a week or day. So being a bit of a perfectionist, I abandoned my trading and set to work on trying to understand how to achieve what I could not do. The breakthrough in my “method†came last summer when I began to write down key obstacles that I needed to overcome and with some lateral, out of the box if you like, thinking, I have a “method†that I am testing. It may fall flat on its face in February 2011, I must re-emphasise! NB: the method for the Dow was gleaned from scraps of sometimes conflicting information gained from reading hundreds of books over the last 22 years. So please do not ask me to name books, as (a) it was a long time ago; and (b ) no single book or a few books will give anything valuable. For those that are interested, the key is undertake your own extensive reading (picking up books that suit you) and then step back, stay calm, do not rush and try and piece the jumbled jigsaw of pieces together; and then test it to see if it works. Be prepared to keep making wholesale changes to the “method†5) It has been mentioned that other natural phenomena can be predicted, can you expand on which ones? I haven’t been able to predict the weather yet! Re other stuff, my hunch is that anything within the Earth’s atmosphere is predictable. Apart from the Dow, I have not tried to predict anything else. 6) Will you (or others practising the method) be submitting it for independent scrutiny by any organisations or for scientific analysis when you are comfortable with its success rate? Yes, that is one of the objectives of writing a book. I would like it to be as scientific as I can make it, so it can come under the most severe scrutiny. Naturally, accurate and consistent forecasts made months ahead are the most vital part of the book. Can you imagine releasing the “half-cooked†unproven “method†now, it will be torn to shreads in seconds. It’s far too early to think of anything like that. As I keep saying, the “current version of the method†may fall flat on its face by 5 February! 7) Do you (or others) see it as a commercial enterprise ultimately, or would it be passed on for all to use free of charge (for the 'greater good')? The aim is for it to be available free of charge for all the world to use. I am working totally alone on this (and have been all my life), my motivation has always been to get to grips with understanding how Nature works. If I was financially motivated, I would specialise in the Dow and not the weather; or simply abandon my study and concentrate on my profitable business interests Obviously, if your method is proven, you will be challenging hundreds of years of scientific research into weather and natural phenomena by thousands of professors / scientists around the world and by Governments who have committed hundreds of millions of Dollars, so I fully appreciate why you are keeping a lid on it. If the “method†can prove itself, I believe it will be merely reiterating what the ancients knew all along. It is for others to answer why they are not using the “method†I repeat again, the “method†has not proved itself at all yet; its far too early. If you have found the 'magic key', then I could imagine the immense commercial interest in it. But even more important is the ability to save lives in countries all around the world by organising growing seasons, avoiding natural disasters (moving people away from predicted floods, drought, earthquakes etc) - the spin off's could prove to be the biggest impact made to the life of modern humans and their environment. I have to say again, I have no “magic keyâ€. However, it’s the saving of lives that appeals to me and also in giving people an opportunity to understand for themselves how Nature works (humans are of course a part of Nature) I'm looking forward with interest to how this one pans out. So am I. This is a critical forecast. If it broadly succeeds it will be a major verification of the “methodâ€; if it fails, well, there may still be big positives, as I may be able to learn something new for further enhancement of the “method†– which is the ultimate objective of this “testing stage†of its evolution. If it succeeds I will not be able to learn anything new, as I already have that knowledge. Like I say above, always be prepared to make wholesale changes to the “method†(there is no shame in getting things wrong, so long you can learn from the failure). This is not a race, a workable method may take longer to find than we anticipate (I learnt this point about 21 years ago!).

Ye Gods, I go away for 5 minutes.... Where do I start? A book is a long way off from being written, let alone published! The “method†(for the nth time) has not proved anything or itself. I am just testing, that’s all; and in the very early stages at that. If (and that is a very big if) the method got to being anything close to half decent and people were seriously interested in the method, I would prefer to write a book rather than write articles in magazines or write on internet forums. Why? The only reason: because it would be a lot easier to explain things in a book and do justice to the subject. .... right, I'm off for a curry and to watch the football. Up the Spurs!

Thanks to BFTP and Roger for their posts, it is genuinely appreciated. Roger, from what you say there is no chance of my 1-5 February 2011 forecast coming good; I am most happy to bow to your far superior knowledge. It is clear your command of the subject spanning some 30 years is far beyond the miserly scraps of knowledge I may have gleaned in less than a year’s part-time self-study of the weather. Maybe my three forecasts that have been “successful†have been “lucky strikes†as some folks have suggested; it is possible, I suppose. As I have said at the outset, there is no point in talking in detail about my method until its worth has been proved. I really don’t want to waste people’s time talking about a method that I am still testing, which may prove to be useless. Even if the method is proved worthy, as I have always said, the only place I would discuss it in detail would be in a book, so as to give the reader and the subject my greatest respect. All I can say is that any method for weather prediction should solely be judged on its results and not how good the method sounds or who advocates it. That is why I say nothing in detail about the method at this stage but focus totally on making sure my forecasts are very specific, as detailed as I can make them, very clear and not open to misunderstanding. As AF alludes to in #91, let’s see what 1-5 February 2011 brings!

Roger, as you are in a different time zone I shall respond to your post tonight. Firstly, many thanks for taking the time and trouble to go thorugh my Storm forecast and providing your response. In order to do justice to the information behind the links you kindly provided, it will take me some time to go through, so perhaps I can ask some more detailed questions in due course. In the meantime, I wonder if you can clarify one quick point. I have placed in bold above your reference to "energy" levels. Do these relate to the number of sunspots? Please correct me if I am wrong. Am I understanding this correctly: because we have a low sunspot count (currently 38), this is providing a low enegy level? I see from a historical chart that the number of sunspots can peak at above 250 (as in the late 1950's). Thanks

Hello folks, thanks for your feedback; here are some quick comments to yesterday’s posts: Harsh Climate (#85): wholly agree; as I say in the videos (and elsewhere) one needs a significant number of accurate forecasts over a long period of time to start to begin to give credence to the method. My forecasts so far are only “testsâ€. Think of it like a F1 team bringing out a new car, they have to go through hundreds of laps of testing, so they know the “character†of the car and understand its strengths and weaknesses. The fact that so far my forecasts have outperformed the models is encouraging, but as you imply it’s far too early to say anything more than that - and I am certainly not requesting folk to say anything more than that. LomondSnowstorm (#86): thanks for pointing that out. The Feb 2011 forecast is very unique in many ways, not least because of the length of the storm forecasted (over a period of 5 days). K.1000 (#89): I have not done any testing on the Dow. However, my hunch would be to say yes to your question. Candice (#80): you read it correctly – BTW I am referring to your message #80. Re your #78: yes, wholly agree, Nature does encompass a “ hell of lot of different variablesâ€, but only when viewed from the third dimension; when viewed from say the fourth dimension, the variables can be counted on one hand and it becomes much easier to understand Nature. I really wish I could say more about these smaller number of variables on here; but with respect to the reader and the subject matter, lets agree that we can discuss in greater detail (in a book) once the method has proved itself. It really would be pointless discussing any further, especially if the method falls flat on its face by early February 2011 Barbmac (#93): I really don’t feel brave at all. It is what I suppose I “signed up to†when I embarked on this journey. I have to call it as I see it (as I said in the video). If I am wrong, so be it – it was a precise and detailed forecast based upon clear principles and knowledge that I have sweated to get over the last 22 years; it is no “stab in the dark†just for the sake of predicting something shocking for the goal of attention seeking. If I am right, it wouldn’t surprise me; its business as usual, loads more work to do to build up the track record. VillagePlank (#92): wholly agree, objective “critical curiosity†should be encouraged and is welcomed. Thanks for making that point clear via the edit. What I did take exception to in the other place was for a Moderator committing a cynical and remorseless “professional foul†(to use a football term) with an undercurrent of “sheer nastiness†against the method, before it had failed badly (in calling the weather for Xmas Day 2010). AtlanticFlamethrower (#91): you made a really key point there. The right answer is not provided by the person who has the “better discussion technique but how well the predictions verifyâ€.

Some interesting posts today. I shall try to answer as best I can. Naturally, the ultimate way is by writing the book, but that will not be written, as I have said, until the method consistently proves itself. OldMetMan (#67): yes, I agree, we human beings don’t like change, but in time, we do adapt. So if the method proves itself, it will be absorbed if one writes the book well and it is released at the right time. I believe the key is to lead with the prediction track record of the method and then follow up with how it is done; to do it otherwise will meet greater resistance – it’s like putting the cart before the horse. mesocycle (#68): the beauty about being self-taught is that you can spend as much time as you like fermenting your ideas, especially if you have a separate income away from the subject you are studying; then, there is no pressure to come up with an answer quickly or to suit an employer or grant provider. Well the ancients for example built the Great Pyramid of Giza and we still don’t know how they did it. K.1000 (#69 and #77): well, I am impressed that you have looked into my other threads. In answer to your questions, everything that happens within the Earth’s atmosphere (ie: weather, lottery numbers, the financial markets, wars, the twists and turns of one’s life) is wholly predictable; nothing is chaotic. Without going too much off in a tangent, the validity of this assertion can never be accepted/understood if one observes Nature from the point of view of the third dimension; one needs to raise one’s level of consciousness to see the unravelling of Nature from a higher dimension, such as the fourth. It’s a bit like a garden 10ft high hedge maze, it’s easier to find your way out if you could see it from a live real time camera giving you a bird’s eye view from above. La Bise (#70): you have made some astute posts in this thread. Like I said in #65, we can debate this until the cows come home. Its like guessing what’s in a sealed box that has not been opened in 5,000 years; until it is opened, all opinions are pure conjecture and its difficult to convince folk one way or another (so I will not try). The answer will be revealed when we (hopefully) have the box wide open; then we can see who is right or wrong; and more importantly, we can all benefit from what is inside. In my view, the enlightened ancients may not have had Sky HD 3D TV’s, mobile i phones or the internet; but they didn’t need any of that, they used much faster and better means of communicating (and most importantly, gathering understanding of Natures Laws). What we have now is a “crystal set†version of what they had at their disposal. I believe, we have it too, but we have lost the art of using it. Re #79 – perhaps we should get Russell Grant and Mystic Meg involved in this thread? weatherguy (#71): re issue of dilemma - I suppose if the forecast does come true, the “regular†Met Offices around the world will give folk advance warning within 5 days? However, that does not eliminate the risk to life. I was talking to a friend yesterday about what if the forecast does not come good; in such a scenario, it would open the door to hopefully seeing the even longer cycles within Nature. However, as I have said in the video, I cannot see how the forecast cannot come to pass near to what has been forecasted. One of the “checks†I referred to in #59 was the storm we had on 10 March 2008; that happened via the same “methodâ€, that was one “validation†of the 1-5 Feb 2011 forecast. Great Plum (#72): gosh, that’s towards our east coast; its bound to be windy! LomondSnowstorm (#73): well, organic life has been on this planet for thousands of years. The Met Office has only been around for around 150 years, there is no way it would have reached its ultimate level of understanding in that time. All sciences are in the “early learning†stage. Think about it, it was only 40 years ago dentists were filling our teeth with mercury, now they use protective “space suits†to take the stuff out. VillagePlank (#74): very interesting post there. I could be wrong, but from what I know, the value of Fourier analysis is in “breaking up†the overall waveform into its constituents. That is to realise the unravelling of Nature is made up of constituent cycles. Once you realise that, you then abandon Fourier and concentrated on understanding what drives those underlying cycles. That will give one the answer to the future overall waveforms. As to alternative methods, here’s my take on it. For me, the “alternative methods†are the methods that are transient. That is, those that are advocated by scientists in the “early learning†stage of humanity; they keep changing over time. They have to change because they are wrong. The true method or the “true establishment method†is the one based upon a sound understanding of how Nature works and gives accurate and consistent results all the time, century after century. lorenzo (#75): that is a long list of lows! jennyjane (#76): wholly agree – well said! Candice (#80): you read it correctly. Harsh Climate (#81): part of me hopes you are right. Please don’t take offence, but which one of the three accurate forecasts (re pressure) that I made was “pot luckâ€?

Hello folks, I am really pleased to get positive comments thank you. I shall now try and go through the questions/points raised: Barbmac (# 52) Regarding uncertainties, I agree with you, it would be nice if I were able to quantify the parameters that I believe the forecast would be out by. The purpose of the “test forecasts†(and this is what they are) is that I can get to a position where I can provide the tolerances at the time of the forecast. Yes, you are right, there are larger (very long) cycles that also operate at the same time; so yes, the weather is not exactly the same. Still, being 95% accurate is all one needs to be, especially when predicting very adverse weather conditions. mesocyclone (# 55) Gosh, you are first person to say that my forecasts, so far, may better at the Models at the range of say a month ahead. Thanks. As to the methods that I use, it will be a lot easier for me to discuss if/when the method really proves itself. As Neil says (#63) if the Feb 2011 forecast proves to be accurate or near accurate the issue about “luck†may be removed a wee bit. Incidentally, if some posters in another place are to be believed, I should win something on the lottery every time I do it, as I am “so luckyâ€! As a sound engineer you would be familiar as to how separate/individual sounds (waveforms) can be combined to produce a “composite†cycle or waveform. The composite cycle or waveform may appear to be chaotic, but if one knows the constituent cycles or waveforms, it is a lot easier to predict the composite and therefore realise that it is not chaotic. If you like, I deal in the underlying constituent waveforms that when combined produce the weather. The constituent waveforms are very easy to predict and if one knows the “weight†of each of their influence on the end product when combined, it is relatively easy to predict the “chaotic†composite waveform. I have a deep respect to the need to get this information out at the right time; the right time will only be if/when the method proves itself totally. To release it piecemeal beforehand will not show respect to the reader or to the vastly important subject in hand. So OldMetMan (# 56), I will publish, it is my prime objective, but only when I know what I write is a proven fact backed up with example after example of how the method works. The “testing†that I am doing at the moment is part of the groundwork therefore to the book. I really don’t want to spend the rest of my life arguing with people about what is objective truth or science, I will just give them the method with all the backup, which they can test to the nth degree and they can hopefully see it for themselves. If that can happen, we will see the end to the way weather forecasting is undertaken around the world. You can see from my video #2 how the models are found wanting, trying to forecast a day more than 7 days ahead. To quote Roger J Smith from 1 November 2005 “if we built bridges and airplanes the way we make weather forecasts, a lot of people would refuse to get on a plane or drive a carâ€. Nothing that I will write will be new. It has been known for aeons; how do I know that? Well there are clues everywhere. For example, every time I look at my watch I am reminded. Only someone who had an intimate knowledge of how nature works would divide the day into 24 equal divisions, why didn’t they choose 22 or 20? They chose 24 for a specific reason. Also, why does the watch face only have 12 divisions, why not 24? One can come up with theories all day long, but there is only one right answer and that answer can only be provided by those that have an intimate understanding of how Nature unravels. Please don’t get me wrong, I am still learning and not speaking from any lofty position. Thanks for your comments to the video Timmytour (#64); as you know, I am no good at predicting snow, so can't say if there will be snow in Herts! BTW, I thought your post #28 was pure genius!!!

The actual crux of the forecasting of this event took about half an hour, as I wanted to undertake certain checks. Writing up the narrative, compiling the charts and the video took about 18 hours! Part of me wants this forecast to be totally wrong. I could be proved wrong, but I cannot see how this forecast will not come to pass. If this forecast is not closely fulfilled, I shall spend an awful long time probably trying to work out where it all went wrong! If my level of expectation of the 12 Nov ’10 prediction was say 75% positive; my expectation for this forecast is considerably higher. So here it is folks, the Great North Sea Storm of 2011 that should (if it happens) go down in history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iGKjdOo_A0

Gosh, many thanks again for the comments; I will provide a fuller reply to Old MetMan and mesocyclone sometime tomorrow. The foecast is done with all the charts; and the video is currently being uploaded onto YouTube. Will post on here as soon as its ready. Happy New Year everyone!

Thanks for your responses - gratefully received. Gosh... these charts are taking ages to do! Doing them by hand (as too complex; and they cover whole of north and west Europe, Scandinavia and Iceland) and then will scan. Just done four and there are three to go! Need a break for a lunch!