rob48

Hmm. Interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/12/climate-change-curriculum-government-adviser Good. Let's end the brainwashing.

jeez. Haven't you people heard of GoreTex? Lovely day to be out and about today. All the vegetation green, fresh and vibrant. Bonus was no pampered children and doting parents about. The darlings were all kept indoors.

Heating has come on about three nights and early mornings in the last week. It's not a good idea to turn central heating boilers off for months at a time. Even in warm weather it is advisable to run combi-boilers at least once a month in order to keep fan and pump bearings lubricated. If left idle for months on end they often fail at start-up. Torrential rain all day today was lovely for walking the dog in the woods. Lit Parkray room-heater in lounge and burned a few logs for him to dry out by.

LRFs are whatever they want to be. IMO they are absolute. Once they are "amended" they cease to be.

Cheers for that Ian. If I appeared aggressive I apologise, not my intention, born of frustration most likely. I meant absolutely no criticism whatsoever at GP. I didn't know then that it was policy to update LRFs. That's cleared up now. Enjoy your beer, and your weekend.

Which is exactly the one weather12 and i were trying to make yesterday.

I wouldn't be too shocked. Joe B, Brian Gaze, PiersC and metcheck have all had some stick on here. Good of you to reply John. As it happens I agree with all of what you've put, except I am more convinced that LRF's shouldn't be amended. Isn't open dialogue much better and more constructive than whining about bans?

Thank you for that. I was unaware that LRF's were ever reviewed before they had completed. As Gavin alluded to in his post, the norm seems to be for them to remain untouched for the period in question, and John Holmes intimated the same in his comment on crewecold's LRF.

Bet these people: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-13716970 would really love a 76er!

That was my point (which has been successfully ignored) CC's winter LRF posted 20th Nov, was told he'd know the result on 1 March, no amendments there. So, surely not, in that instance. Why the difference? Edit: Just seen your reply Gavin. Thank you very much.

And were on the 2nd forecast already. Any chance my point in the locked thread comparing it to crewewcold's winter LRF will be addressed?

Agreed. But the thread title says continued which is a continuation of a thread which originally discussed a forecast that no longer appears to exist.

Too many summer forecasts to keep track of.

Perplexing that some people are craving a 76-style heatwave with food prices already due to escalate and livelihoods & wildlife at risk.

How can it be delayed, summer is well underway?

Anybody?

Some very poor comments above. I'd rather hoped someone would enable me to "get it" regarding LRF interpretation but no-one seems able.

Can someone please clarify that it is now the norm to ammend LRFs? Anyone looking at last winter's threads would notice a winter LRF, issued 20th Nov by crewecold: http://forum.netweat...lds-winter-lrf/ As far as I can discover there was no ammendment to this LRF at any stage, it stood or fell in its entirity. Indeed, and what is particularly pertinent, is Post #8, by a certain Mr J Holmes: Posted 17 November 2010 - 08:43 well explained and a lot of work gone into it-result known 1 March! Now maybe I'm a bit slow here, but that suggests to me that there won't be any changes to that LRF and it will be judged on its merits, at the END of the forecast period, over three months later. In fact, no virtues of humilty and adaptability being lauded on this one. Obviously, I still haven't "got it", but I'm sure it won't be long until the inconsistent judgements applied to this and the summer "LRF" will be explained to me.

I do not disagree with the admirable traits of humility and adaptability etc. Prehaps it's down to semantics? IMO a LRF is issued PRIOR to the time period (season) involved and is judged against subsequent events in the specified period. Once it starts to be "adjusted" it is no longer an LRF but an ongoing roll-over, shorter term prediction. This is not meant as a criticism of the original LRF, I happen to hope it's wrong for my own reasons, as previously stated, but I don't think it can be changed and still be a LRF.

That's the point I've been making. Once you start adjusting it, it's no longer an LRF, especially if you change the very first bit.

Exactly. Absolutely pontless trying to say the later parts may be correct as then it just becomes arbitrary.

Thank goodness the June forecast was wrong (to date). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/07/uk-regions-given-drought-warning

I don't understand how this argument can stand up. In a forecast for a three-monthly period the projected conditions for the third month must be dependent upon events of the second month. Similarly, the expected conditions for the second month are wholly dependent upon what takes place in the first. As it now seems to be acknowledged that the first part is wrong, with a correction issued in the first week, by definition the forecast is now wrong.

You've not yet come across Gavin D's posts I take it?