AtlanticFlamethrower
-
Posts
1,747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by AtlanticFlamethrower
-
-
18z again shows MB's pattern for Feb 3rd which would be impressive if that verifies but the detail of the forecast - namely it being windy - doesn't look close to being accurate at this stage.
-
Not a bad 18z GFS for MB. That's the new closest yet.
-
I'm not so much interested in the details as the pattern - not at this stage anyway.
00z is closest yet. Shows high to West of the British Isles and a northerly for the first week in February.
-
18z GFS
If this set-up occurred I'd consider MB's forecast useful, although next time I'd be wary about taking the details seriously as these winds wouldn't be anything exceptional.
Still FI though.
-
My point is that Corbyn forecasts seem to emphasis on spectacular weather events, this forecast is predicting a spectacular weather event. Can this technique be used to predict less than spectacular weather events?
His first forecast was of the unspectacular variety.
-
ECM 12z 240h
-
I guess, AFT, that would be a good idea, the problem has been that I have had little extra time and continue to make progress so the dream remains alive to nail down this complex problem before I pass.
And I am one of those guys who does not age much so I've just kept going at my thirties sort of pace right up to the present day (61 now) but the stark realization is setting in, I could hit the wall now, this could all amount to nothing and in the chaos of our science in its present broken-down corrupt state, there is nobody you can appeal to either, it's like being in some sort of empty hall of tombs and monuments but no living people.
I really think the answers are locked in this theoretical paradigm but the irony is, the only way to unlock them is through massive co-ordinated effort, exactly the one thing a maverick scientist working on his own cannot do.
Net-weather has been helpful on the whole because my situation and research are at least known to others now. In Canada, it is a total "omerta" (silence) situation. There is nothing here but a profound disinterest, any scheme that promises an easy life for no work is very attractive to our ruling elites.
Yes, this is true in many areas of life and when there is a fat middle class willing to pay more taxes, because they do believe everything they read in the media, these schemes can get really impressively pointless. It's not the thread to bring up examples.
Just a note on the 12z - nothing in FI. Yet, blocks have a tendency to persist longer than forecast. Could it possibly last until the end of the month and end with this Great Storm? I think by this weekend we'll have an idea which way this is going.
-
Great post by RJS. Self-publish a textbook to make your work more accessible. Stop trying to appeal to those who are already getting a salary by being fake. Pitch for the students who are still willing to learn. Announce it like it's a done deal.
As for MB's forecast, 12z and 18z today give no clue about the Great North Sea Storm (if it's going to happen).
-
This is science in action, folks. A great learning opportunity for younger readers.
Notice that MB hasn't decided his theory is right. This is the correct scientific method. Scientists don't decide beforehand whether something is right and wrong and look for data to confirm it.
An hypothesis, in this case MB's forecast method, is tested against data, that is, the reality of our weather. If it holds up to repeated testing the idea is then considered useful for further research into this reality.
It is because MB doesn't assume his method is correct that he is full of doubts. This may appear at odds to the specificness of the forecast but if you think about it that makes sense. The forecast needs to be specific because the more specific it is the more MB can learn about how to improve his method, which is not assumed to be correct.
That's how science goes.
It is why a biochemist pipettes a drop of virus into a culture that contains ingredients for a vaccine and also into one that does not. Surely the biochemist has already done a lot of work to get a vaccine and doesn't need to observe the virus grow in unvaccinated petri-dish? No. The chemist tests with the vaccine and without to observe differences that may improve the method, which is not assumed to be correct.
(Sorry to virologists out there that this example is very simplified caricature of what actually happens).
-
Some people have forgotten making forecasts is fun.
We can decide whether MB is "just guessing" later. Even if he is, why not join the fun and hope he gets it right again and again?
12z 31 Jan looks a bit familiar.
-
If he is consistently on the right lines then that would be credibility enough; how it is done is irrelevant, even if he read it in tea-leaves.
This is my view.
On a forum like this fun is the first priority.
PhDs matter if MB gets to the stage he wants to publish in an academic journal. Until then these forecasts are for everyone, for whom it's just a bit of fun... and maybe more if he gets another direct hit.
-
If the weather can be altered by say, a volcanic eruption, and the prediction made before said eruption comes good anyway, then the determining factors must have taken into account this event. Since the event ( a volcanic eruption) cannot be CAUSED by the weather, but can have an effect on the weather, there is no way any weather models could take this into account before hand. But if this new method hypothetically could, it suggests that it uses the same method to predict the Volcanic eruption as well as the weather.
If MB has a database of patterns from 1 billion years ago, or from Jupiter, it wouldn't predict anything.
The method doesn't have to suggest the cause of the weather is also the cause of geological activity. The historical patterns in MB's database obviously depend on the current configuration of the continents.
The method hasn't been tested after major volcanic activity so we don't know whether the prediction is unaffected. The factors biasing one particular outcome are obviously unaffected.
In summary I have to say I'm still skeptical about the idea, but come February 5th, I think I will have made up my mind to a high degree. The only way I can put what I have written differently is this (Sorry but I'm going to do this in terms of markets with reference to weather instead of the other way round:
We all are skeptical. Nobody accepts unconditionally without evidence. That's what testing is for. MB should be encouraged, even by skeptics. It would be cool if he has discovered something.
-
Interesting read AFT.
It's disgusting how the Meto are behaving, they're being very ignorant and not acting in our best interest, after all it is us (the dogs body) who fund their existence, I'm really annoyed and disheartened that they're allowed to get away with it.
Then they ask for millions and millions more tax payer's money to do it better next time.
What price failure? There is no failure... at the Met O everyone's a winner, or it seems like it.
-
This snipped reposted from this site. If you want to read what Piers Corbyn said, kindly follow the link.
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/
Following on from the blog post yesterday about the Met Office’s Julia Slingo claiming the recent ‘freak weather’ (aka a cold winter) could have been predicted if only the Met Office had more supercomputing power…AM emailed respected meterology experts Joe laminate floori and Piers Corbyn to ask them what supercomputing technology they employ that helps them to generate forecasts that are consistently more accurate than those of the Met Office.
Both gentlemen, who enjoy an excellent track record for their forecasting accuracy, have very kindly replied and their answers are published in full below:
Joe laminate floori said:
I look at the models, and I do use them as input to the forecast with many other factors. However they are not Gods, and to make the excuse we need a bigger computer when in reality all they do is arrive at a solution … right or wrong … faster, and have nothing factored in about past weather events, or natural cycles, or some of the other things Piers and I use, seems to me to be blaming the model and then saying you need more of what failed in the first place.
If the Physics is not right, then forget it. Modeling for instance, relying on greenhouse gasses to warm the atmosphere will come out at a warmer solution. The UKMET model now has suddenly flipped to a cool solution across much of the world for the coming months, but well after it was obvious to us that major cooling was going to occur ( last March I said 2011 would try to return to near normal, similar to the La Nina of the late 90s and the recent one… That is because I knew before the computer a major La Nina was coming on and said so in February.. and based the high total number of hurricanes for the season on the La Nina and the very warm tropical atlantic at the time ..which has cooled since then, btw).
As someone who has no access to public funds, or grants, well I don’t have the computer they do.
Which is interesting since I think we can agree since I joined this little forecasting battle the past 3 years, I have hit the cold over in Europe. Part of the reason is the model and computer has a warm bias since the PDO ( Pacific Decadol Oscillation flipped to cool). Now I wonder why that would be?
And what will happen when the Atlantic turns cold? Throw in solar cycles, and increased arctic or tropical volcanic activity… no computer is going to handle that.
Computer models are tools to get an answer, but not the answer. There is the difference. These folks have not had the kind of forecasting experience that Piers and I have, so they put all this faith in models. We use models, but only as the icing on the cake so to speak. While both of us may have our favorite major climate driver, The ability to see all the players on the field is enhanced when one does not rely on the computer. A good forecaster has to have a visual idea of what a pattern should look like BEFORE HE BRINGS IN THE COMPUTER MODELS, and then have the models confirm or question his conclusion.. much like team mates challenge each other in competition.
To simply use the model as the number one input to ones forecast.. well then what is the need for the forecaster? Maybe that is what this is all about, getting rid of any human touch to the weather, and convincing the public its so. Either that, or saying. I give up, I cant do it, so I will let the model do it. Well I not cut from the cloth that backs away at challenges in things I was made to do, one of them forecast the weather, so I do not become a puppet of models, but instead will accept the model as a team-mate.. another source of input. But that is all it is.
A forecast for instance, for winter starts way in advance, looking at many years of past weather to understand similarities to where we are now UNDERSTANDING THE MAJOR PHYSICAL NATURAL DRIVERS that are affecting the pattern and also understanding where we are in the climate cycle and not assuming that the earth is headed in one direction.
Such open mindedness and the crucible of capitalism and competition, where if not right enough, Piers and I will get fired, makes a bigger difference than just saying I need more money for a bigger computer so I can rely on it.
Funny but true, a video I did back in March showed 11 year cycle forecasts for the summer indicating a warm US summer, while NOAAs computer had it cool for summer Guess what one was right. The 11 year cycle forecast.
Last Spring, the computer had a very warm winter for Alaska this winter, which I hammered. Well guess what is going on.
The UKMET model had a warm winter this winter. Well.
It’s not the computer, it’s the limits of the computer in trying to adjust to what only men can understand and use. I dont think you need more money to arrive at the wrong answer faster. Should put it into fighting hunger, or giving men a chance to be free enough to dream and pursue that dream… much better causes in my opinion.
Piers Corbyn said:
-
We shouldn't really pester MB with questions until this forecast has been tested. There's not much to say, other than: is it going to happen?
The idea the weather system is chaotic and exact patterns impossible to predict weeks ahead of time is current orthodoxy. A lot of highly-paid people and expensive machines proceed on the basis this is so. This way of forecasting is being challenged. I'm so glad we have posters here on Netweather who give space, time and respect to people trying out alternative forecasts that this "revolution" in forecasting could be said to begin here.
In the end, who is right won't be down to who has the better discussion technique but how well the predictions verify. The truth might be somewhere in between: the weather may be more chaotic than pattern/observation forecasters realise but less chaotic and more predictable than traditional number-crunch forecasters have supposed.
-
1.7C
-
All very interesting. It would be fun if you made an appearance with the other forecasters in the Model Discussion thread every now and then this winter, if only a short note on what you expect to occur next.
They're use to posters who take a variety of approaches so I'm sure they won't bite - you might even be thought of as normal
:D -
Hello
Registered to join Netweather a couple of weeks ago and have enjoyed reading the posts on this thread (you have been much kinder to me than some of those in the other place!).
I must say at the outset, having only read a small sample of their posts, I am fan of Roger J Smith and BFTP. I did read one of Roger’s first posts from 1 November 2005 and many aspects of that post resonated with me – especially about being “chased from the building by the high priestsâ€
In the two weeks to the run up to Xmas, I always logged on to read OON’s hilarious introductory remarks opening the thread on the day’s feeds. As I am not a weather person, I had no idea what folk were talking about most of the time, but it was very entertaining nonetheless
As you know, following my forecast of the low on Friday 12 November 2010, I was challenged to come up with a forecast for Xmas 2010 before 20/11/10. I’ve learnt an awful lot from doing that forecast and hope to put that into more accurate forecasts in the future.
In the meantime, I provide a link below to a short 6 minute video that candidly compares my forecast to the actual and also to the GFS feeds that started on 9 December 2010. I thought it might be of interest:
Welcome to Netweather. I'm going to add you to the large list of frequent forecasters I check out on the forum.
I think your youtube videos are a great way to present your forecasts! Perhaps others could learn to do this... one tip though, I find reading the words hard when the music in the background is a song that has spoken words, so I had to turn the music off.
Is it possible to embed youtube videos?
-
I think his "forecast" is not a bad effort at all. The pressure chart isn't a million miles away from reality considering that it could be completely different, and maybe the weather forecast didn't take into account conditions in the preceding days - the pressure pattern imposed on our average climatology might give conditions similar to those suggested.
That is fairly remarkable or lucky.
Looks like his main errors are the exact position of the low and high pressures being 24 hours out (26th looks like it will match up better than 25th) and the high pressure that is much much lower than he expected. Also he did not predict the expected ice day - his temps were as high as 7C in some places. He would seem to be getting the gales in the NW islands right.
He's done enough to keep people interested in his forecasts but certainly he can learn a lot more to make them more accurate.
Merry Christmas everyone.
-
Why don't we stop spending billions adapting to global warming and instead spend some of it on preparedness for cold winters?
-
There doesn't appear to be any support for his December predictions from any of the models at the moment.
Maybe he has some refining to do on his model.
-
-
Will be interesting to see how much of a difference the CET will be the months end compared to 4th November. I said it would be a month which got progressively colder but I had not anticipated what is about to happen.
Will likely go down as one of the classic switcharound months..
I'd say. For the first half of the month I worried my guess was far too low. For the second half of the month I'm worrying my guess is far too high.
-
The Atlantic signal is up for grabs. I suspect that a mean solution is ridge not trough, particularly given the underlying SSTA and other tropospheric signals (mainly angular momentum). But that's for another thread.
This might also be for another thread but I notice the below image of seasonal model output and your analogue basket here are pretty similar. The set up doesn't rule out snowy cold snaps, but I'm getting the impression of a consensus from multiple sources that overall the UK winter should not be as cold as last year.
:D
Better Than The Models ?
in Spring Weather Discussion
Posted
When the time is right the research will be written up for a scientific journal. Please stop trolling this thread with your pompous assertions as to what science is or isn't. He who laughs last laughs hardest. Save yourself for the day. From the look of the models there is no reason to think MB will be exactly right.
MurcieBoy, when Roger J Smith first joined this forum many years ago his first threads were greeted with more indignation than yours have been. Hard to believe it's worse than you are getting but it was for this reason: in contrast with you, Roger faced questioning from almost everyone: "laymen" interested in learning meteorology as well as serious amateur and professional meteorologists.
That must have been especially galling for Roger, because people like me knew barely anything about meteorology and we were passing judgement over Roger who understood both meteorological science and the method he invented himself. Perhaps we did that because we came to netweather to learn something about traditional meteorology (which the newbies hadn't done by then). Either way, today there is a much larger pool of readers who are willing to explore alternative theories.
BTW: I think I speak for many when I say I'm willing to take you (and Roger) at your word(s) that your approach is scientific, and is intended for publication in a peer-reviewed science journal. If I thought you were a hoaxer I could easily ignore the thread.
18z... again similar to your synoptic high pressure / low pressure pattern - broadly the theme is still supported. But as far as a weather forecast for a "Storm" it would fail because the high is too dominant, too far north and east, and there is no wind. Perhaps things will shift south and west by the day