Autumn and Winter discussion...

[Stratos Ferric]

1st 10 days of Jan will have potential record visits on this site :lol:

Dawlish

Unfortunately you have no proven track record...not to say you haven't got one but not on NW.. but also unfortunately your reposts come across as totally dismissive of Steve's knowledge and projections. You may not mean it...I don't think you do but shouts of 'I am right and cannot fail' and 'your stuff is pure guesswork' whiffs through the air. It may not sound nice Paul but it has come across like that and I read a lot of your posts hence why I think it is not intended. There was every chance your thoughts were echoed in the 20s and 30s and opposite thoughts at the end of the 60s and in all honesty I think you are basing your thoughts on AGW...otherwise why would one think we will continue to warm :lol: Lay out your average winter base period that you suspect winters will be above and I will assess and meet you on it :lol:

BFTP

To defend Dawlish here, not that he needs defending, facts is facts. I'm assuming you're referring to his previous post suggesting a mild winter, and that will always be the form horse in the UK, and always has been, even before the recent marked warming trend. Within that there will be some winters that are colder than trend, and even in marm winters there can be cold spells.

There are one or two on here who have a tendency to crow on about methods and efficacy of thier own forecasts, but NOBODY, and I stress, NOBODY, has as yet come up with any robust, reliable method of calling anything in even broad detail more than 5-10 days in advance. The law of large numbers suggests that amongst all the punts one or two will come up from time to time, but show me the person who repeatedly makes correct calls with each and every projection; there aren't any. You can wrap up seasonal projections in as much science or pseudo-science as you like, but at the end of the day they are little more than guesses, for all that there's always a lot of back slapping for anyone projecting cold. It's easy to make popular forecasts, but the measure of success ought to be accuracy I think, and on that basis alone Dawlsh's argument IS robust, whilst not projecting detail all he is doing is backing the climatic norm. Lest we forget, the weather will tend to do, the longer the period being considered, exactly what is written on the tin marked climate.

[Damien]

Many thanks for the reply - won't tell the children though can't stand the sad faces!

Have you told them about global warming yet? :lol:

Ohhh... I am so evil.

Interesting to keep seeing these - as far as coldlovers are concerned lets hope that the trend is maintained. Nice to see output matching up well to the early predictions we have seen in the last few days. The most encouraging aspect of all this IMO (at this early stage) is the continual hints of potential STJ dominance this winter which would make for some very interesting weather.

Looks like I have some good news for Mr. Dawlish and co.. :lol: I'll post it tomorrow (I was gonna post it tonight but found the discussion on this thread too interesting :lol: ).

Edited October 7, 2006 by Damien

[Damien]

This is from John S2 on TWO and he has a good track record IMHO. :lol:

In some ways similar to 81/82, but with the cold lasting slightly longer. Some significant snowfalls in the first half of the winter. Might warm up in February.

[SMU]

hmmmmm, perhaps i WILL tease them a little with the potential, thanks guys!!! :lol:

By the way Steve, from Bexley area myself - sister still lives off the high road, I can be often spotted drinking over there :lol:

Well mate if your ever up this way-...

S

[Polar Continental]

Wrong thread I know and will quite probably be ignored but................does anyone know when the first significant snowfalls are normally due for Lapland and Finland?

My daughter aged 11 and son aged 8 are both off there in 2 weeks with the school (5 days) and want to know about potential snow. I keep looking at that site with the Finland weather cams but alas nothing yet :lol:

Anyway, been an avid - no addicted lurker for ever - well ever since the site has been around. Only got round to joining last year and although I don't have any meaningful contributions you guys do keep me entertained with the chat and debate - so many thanks!

Love the build up to the winter by the way and the rollercoaster ride for potential snow - bring back the model tracker Steve! :lol:

Day 10 Model ensembles indicate a transition away from the Euro high towards the Scandi trough....

All is not lost yet-Keep your eyes on the dates at around the 16th Oct for the potential transition...

Steve

Morning, winter seems to be getting closer.

The GFS is begining to pick up the transition by the looks of things Steve,

Still along way out though, but maybe good news for PF's kids, possibly some strong northern blocking over Greenland around the 16th, if this happens a good deal of very cold air will be forced south through Sweden, Finland and Russia and quite a bit of snow to boot.

Paul

Edited October 7, 2006 by Paul Carfoot

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Does anybody know how Europe and Russia are doing in terms of current temp Vs. average?

Just thinking about it, as Paul has picked up a good point.

I've noticed the end of the 00z run shows some cooling over most of Europe (Central and eastern). Hopefully, it can remain in the charts.

[Anti-Mild]

Does anybody know how Europe and Russia are doing in terms of current temp Vs. average?

Just thinking about it, as Paul has picked up a good point.

I've noticed the end of the 00z run shows some cooling over most of Europe (Central and eastern). Hopefully, it can remain in the charts.

Here you go Chris:

http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html

As you can see most of Europe is above average although the Russian interior is below, possibly in order to pave the way for a future frigid Easterly !

[ukmoose]

.

There are one or two on here who have a tendency to crow on about methods and efficacy of thier own forecasts, but NOBODY, and I stress, NOBODY, has as yet come up with any robust, reliable method of calling anything in even broad detail more than 5-10 days in advance. The law of large numbers suggests that amongst all the punts one or two will come up from time to time, but show me the person who repeatedly makes correct calls with each and every projection; there aren't any. You can wrap up seasonal projections in as much science or pseudo-science as you like, but at the end of the day they are little more than guesses, for all that there's always a lot of back slapping for anyone projecting cold. It's easy to make popular forecasts, but the measure of success ought to be accuracy I think, and on that basis alone Dawlsh's argument IS robust, whilst not projecting detail all he is doing is backing the climatic norm. Lest we forget, the weather will tend to do, the longer the period being considered, exactly what is written on the tin marked climate.

Stratos, I think you have hit the nail on the proverbial head here and I agree with you. If we're all honest, no-one has a clue what will happen in January. December or even November. Looking at past models is the only way to make any kind of prediction that far out but there are so many variables even that method is unreliable.

I still maintain that it is best to take the last 15 or so years and base predictions on what has happened during that period because there is an underlying pattern - milder overall, much warmer nights tending to raise the CET stats, few very cold days or severe frosts (in the south anyway) warming seas around us and a shift in major pressure belts moving the jet stream further north for longer periods. Result? Mild winters with a few short-lived cold spells (two or three days in duration). Last winter was a little different but not excitingly so and there is no suggestion that I can see that it will be repeated this year.

I'm not a forecaster and do not have the skills that many people on the forum have and I enjoy reading their thoughts and interpretations of the models - and there's always hope...

ukmoose

[Snowly does it]

There are one or two on here who have a tendency to crow on about methods and efficacy of thier own forecasts, but NOBODY, and I stress, NOBODY, has as yet come up with any robust, reliable method of calling anything in even broad detail more than 5-10 days in advance. The law of large numbers suggests that amongst all the punts one or two will come up from time to time, but show me the person who repeatedly makes correct calls with each and every projection; there aren't any. You can wrap up seasonal projections in as much science or pseudo-science as you like, but at the end of the day they are little more than guesses, for all that there's always a lot of back slapping for anyone projecting cold. It's easy to make popular forecasts, but the measure of success ought to be accuracy I think, and on that basis alone Dawlsh's argument IS robust, whilst not projecting detail all he is doing is backing the climatic norm. Lest we forget, the weather will tend to do, the longer the period being considered, exactly what is written on the tin marked climate.

Yes and no. Statistically it is reasonable, it is robust to the tune of 70%.

However it does nothing to add to forecasting in either the shorter or longer range, it tells us nothing about the why (aside from vague GW indicators and not whether that is a natural trend or man-made). It is analysis not forecasting, quite separate really, and does nothing for infrastructure and industry planning. Thats why detailed LRFs are far more important and must be pursued vigorously until their success record far outweighs the statistical probabilities based on trend.

It also remains the case that once things change (whenever that may be) and go in the opposite direction, it becomes useless as a tool with a success rate collapsing against fact.

Short term it will continue to be, in all likelihood, the most accurate expressed across a longer time period. Its not enough though.

Edited October 7, 2006 by snowmaiden

[SMU]

Yes and no. Statistically it is reasonable, it is robust to the tune of 70%.

However it does nothing to add to forecasting in either the shorter or longer range, it tells us nothing about the why (aside from vague GW indicators and not whether that is a natural trend or man-made). It is analysis not forecasting, quite separate really, and does nothing for infrastructure and industry planning. Thats why detailed LRFs are far more important and must be pursued vigorously until their success record far outweighs the statistical probabilities based on trend.

It also remains the case that once things change (whenever that may be) and go in the opposite direction, it becomes useless as a tool with a success rate collapsing against fact.

Short term it will continue to be, in all likelihood, the most accurate expressed across a longer time period. Its not enough though.

Nice Post SM-

A lot of this ground was covered last year & seemingly goes round in circles every Winter-

I think LRF's have been tainted before by some wild claims made in forecasts with respect to record cold- I think were over that now & things are generally becoming more professional-

For some to say it is a complete guess is rather discourteous especially as there is an obvious misunderstanding of the fundamental process of preparing a forecast-

I guess most people will make their own decisions around LRF's - hopefully they will see the rational around the decisions made & go from there-

As you say statistics are nice to use, but as you say & similarly as I pointed out to Dawlish become quite useless during periods of rapid change-

regards

Steve

Edited October 7, 2006 by Steve Murr

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

SF

What I am saying is that some put lot's of effort, research into their forecasts and produce them with projections of their research re anticipated cause and effect. They should not just be debunked because as you rightly say winter hasn't arrived yet and so no one knows so calling right or wrong at this stage is futile either way. Dawlish IMO is a good poster and produces many questions I was merely saying it 'came across as dismissive and discourteous' IMO:)

BFTP

Edited October 7, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Dawlish]

1st 10 days of Jan will have potential record visits on this site

Dawlish

Unfortunately you have no proven track record...not to say you haven't got one but not on NW.. but also unfortunately your reposts come across as totally dismissive of Steve's knowledge and projections. You may not mean it...I don't think you do but shouts of 'I am right and cannot fail' and 'your stuff is pure guesswork' whiffs through the air. It may not sound nice Paul but it has come across like that and I read a lot of your posts hence why I think it is not intended. There was every chance your thoughts were echoed in the 20s and 30s and opposite thoughts at the end of the 60s and in all honesty I think you are basing your thoughts on AGW...otherwise why would one think we will continue to warm Lay out your average winter base period that you suspect winters will be above and I will assess and meet you on it

BFTP

You've really got to read what I say before going OTT like that Blast. I have praised Steve's knowledge every single time I have replied to him. However, I question, every single time, the efficacy of individual's Long Range Forecasting, because it has very low accuracy. Not just Steve's, but yours, summer blizzard's. GP's....anyone's. It is a good bit of fun, but I regard it as no better than that. Do you really think any of these guys and gals have a better record than, say, the Met Office, whose NAO forecast accuracy is less than 2 in 3, with all the professionals they have?? If you don't like the statement that no-one's winter forecast is much better than a guess, even with a raft of knowledge that goes into it, then you have to find someone's method that has reasonable accuracy. I have never, ever said that I believe in AGW, yet you bring that one out as an accusation. I have always accepted that there will be flaws with my own gfs methods, but I have lain every single spot out to scrutiny and will continue to do so. I have failed to predict the correct warmer/colder winter about 20% of the time and will probably continue to do so.

I just do not think you understand my arguments, or you would challenge individual points instead of using such a wide, insulting brush. Also, if you level that kind of public post against me; I have every right to defend myself! Note there is nothing personal in here against you Blast and nor will there be. People will make what they make of my posts, but I will stay within the rules and always argue from a scientific perspective, which will be as accurate as I can make it - which I'm afraid that the accusations your own post are not.

Paul

Edited October 7, 2006 by Dawlish

[ukmoose]

I regret having to have to say this but if these LRF's pronounced mild would they suddenly not be 'debunked'?

And would this perception of LRF's 'and no-body knows what is going to happen' soundbites suddenly and abruply change?

Tamara

No, I don't think so SP. LRF's are fun - and last year's MO winter prediction was astonishingly accurate in as far as it went (colder than recently and drier than average). But looking a month ahead or more is still a 'guestimate' and depending on the symoptics at the time, a little easier perhaps sometimes than others.

Some people on here - yourself included - (but not me!) SM, GP cetainly (et al) are very knowledgable and it is always interesting to read their (your) forecasts - especially in the more reliable time frame of a week or so ahead. That's where the real skill of forecasting comes in; looking just ahead of what's out there now and that, for me, is what makes the forum so interesting! And you guys are good at it! LRF forecasts though....

Keep up the good work guys - it is much appreciated by all on here otherwise they wouldn't be here!

Thanks.

ukmoose

[Stratos Ferric]

I regret having to have to say this but if these LRF's pronounced mild would they suddenly not be 'debunked'?

And would this perception of LRF's 'and no-body knows what is going to happen' soundbites suddenly and abruply change?

Tamara

Tamara,

I would debunk anything, and I mean ANYTHING, long range. I'm not disputing the effort that goes in to the many forecasts on here, but on the basis of historic performance who can put their hand up and say that their success rate is significantly better than a series of random guesses would have been. I could sit here now and start trying to forecast where the economy will be in five years' time, I could work very hard, and apply a lot of good theory, but I'd still be wrong. Posting an LRF on here and expecting it to come up trumps is a bit like all of us entering a sweepstake for this season's FA Cup, excpet int his latter case at least one is guaranteed to come up trumps.

SnM's points are fair in terms of planning needing reliable (i.e in terms of detail and timing) forecasts, but I think she is wrong to differentiate between statistical analysis and forecasting as if good forecasting includes no analysis (and in any case my point was with respect to Dawlish's projections and method, not a defence of this approach per se as the only forecasting tool). If you want to dispute that look no further than GFS which is run fifteen times (is it) each run in order to find the common ground, and so far as I'm aware the models aren't drawn on wallpaper á la EITS, they are run on CRAYs or something similar, which, last time I looked, were basically designed to compute (i.e. analyse) data. If the forecasting was that good the model would be run once and once only. Any forecasting, be it economic, behavioural, or scienitific, requires an understanding of why things behave as they do, and also HOW they have behaved in certain situations. Extrapolation of data may not seem as exciting as drawing isobars on a chart, but given that data is the outcome of synoptics, and synoptics follow downstream from data (i.e. actual outcomes) it is to simplistic to differentiate between the two. At present the reliability of extrapolation is so much better than attempts to plot detailed (or even general) synoptics that the results from the former will, over several seasons, always beat LRFs attempting to use synoptics alone.

I suspect an additional error that creeps in on N-W is the tendency to go looking for cold. This may seem harsh, but how else would you account for the anual tendency for MOST posters (there are a few who I would trust to e making a subjective call each and every year) on N-W who go in for such things to project a cold winter? Of the last three winters two have been mild and one has been slightly below average.

...

Some people on here - yourself included - (but not me!) SM, GP cetainly (et al) are very knowledgable and it is always interesting to read their (your) forecasts - especially in the more reliable time frame of a week or so ahead. That's where the real skill of forecasting comes in; looking just ahead of what's out there now and that, for me, is what makes the forum so interesting! And you guys are good at it! LRF forecasts though....

Keep up the good work guys - it is much appreciated by all on here otherwise they wouldn't be here!

Thanks.

ukmoose

I agree. Not that it isn't fun plaing at LRFs, but to my mind that is what it is and will remain until somebody starts to prove consistent success in projecting even the broad outcomes for any stated periods.

Weather sometimes gets stuck in short term cycles, and it's possible to make calls for general patterns for 2-3 weeks ahead, but more often than not the pattern beyond +240h flaps more than a cheap suit.

[SMU]

Tamara,

Posting an LRF on here and expecting it to come up trumps is a bit like all of us entering a sweepstake for this season's FA Cup, excpet int his latter case at least one is guaranteed to come up trumps.

I really think SF that you should gave a little more credit to the people that work on these forecasts-

If its a simple as tossing a coin people like myself/ GP would toss a coin rather than spend hours combing the data-

I often see accuracy percentages thrown around on here- 70... blah blah blah-

But whos actually measuring what against what-

Temperature & Precipitaion- thats all you can measure against- Numbers wise-

The one that we try to nail is the Pressure anomalies but to mark that one is very difficult-

And I havent really contemplated how yet-

Needless to say- Im at work & havent got long to post in this thread- But it is frustrating to say the least to hear that the likes of Myself / Ian Brown/ GP who ALL went for a colder winters last year ( My first Winter forecast/ GP's first Winter Forecast) against the backdrop of continual Warming- are still put in a box marked 'Guess work'

I cant speak for the Sites like TWO/ METCHECK ETC- who have prepared & ramped up historic forecasts- but I think at the START of this Winter wen ALL the forecasts are issued a PINNED thread with what we are measuring against will go a long way towards getting rid of these arguements that go round each Autumn-

Last Winter - Met Office/GP/IB & I All went for Colder Winters So I guess its 1/1- which isnt bad-

The November outlook will be much anticipated from the METO as will be GP & Ian Browns outlook-

If People like Roger/SB get involved then I urge them to finalise on the 2 Measured Parameters & comment on Pressure anomalies....

The statistical gang of course can have prepare their forecasts although it will probably look something like this-

Dec- Mild & wet-

Jan- Mild & Wet-

Feb Mild & Wet-

Steve

[Dawlish]

I really think SF that you should gave a little more credit to the people that work on these forecasts-

If its a simple as tossing a coin people like myself/ GP would toss a coin rather than spend hours combing the data-

I often see accuracy percentages thrown around on here- 70... blah blah blah-

But whos actually measuring what against what-

Temperature & Precipitaion- thats all you can measure against- Numbers wise-

The one that we try to nail is the Pressure anomalies but to mark that one is very difficult-

And I havent really contemplated how yet-

Needless to say- Im at work & havent got long to post in this thread- But it is frustrating to say the least to hear that the likes of Myself / Ian Brown/ GP who ALL went for a colder winters last year ( My first Winter forecast/ GP's first Winter Forecast) against the backdrop of continual Warming- are still put in a box marked 'Guess work'

I cant speak for the Sites like TWO/ METCHECK ETC- who have prepared & ramped up historic forecasts- but I think at the START of this Winter wen ALL the forecasts are issued a PINNED thread with what we are measuring against will go a long way towards getting rid of these arguements that go round each Autumn-

Last Winter - Met Office/GP/IB & I All went for Colder Winters So I guess its 1/1- which isnt bad-

The November outlook will be much anticipated from the METO as will be GP & Ian Browns outlook-

If People like Roger/SB get involved then I urge them to finalise on the 2 Measured Parameters & comment on Pressure anomalies....

The statistical gang of course can have prepare their forecasts although it will probably look something like this-

Dec- Mild & wet-

Jan- Mild & Wet-

Feb Mild & Wet-

Steve

Just a 70% chance of being warmer than average, Steve. 20% colder. Forget the wet. No idea. I don't even try. Terribly boring, but success often is. :lol:

On a personal level; please don't ever think I don't appreciate the knowledge and effort that goes into the preparation of yours and others' forecasts, because I do - it is others that have said that I don't and they haven't read my posts carefully enough and they misquote me dreadfully as a result. You have - and you know that to be true. On the other hand, the knowledge and experience that goes into those % long-term predictions, in my signature, is equally good. It has taken years to refine and realise those predictions and to have terrific confidence in their substantiability. At this distance from the winter, a forecast of 7/2 warmer than the long-term Manley mean is as valid as any detailed forecast, using any range of well-understood techniques (telecommunications, pattern matching, analogues, whatever) and over 10 years, I'd back my prediction to outperform anyone else's, because long range forecasting, at the present time and in my opinion, is just not accurate enough, to do better.

Paul

PS I'm not part of a statistical gang. I don't know of a single other person that does this kind of forecast on a UK weather site and talks about forecasting interms of odds. There is no "gang".

Edited October 7, 2006 by Dawlish

[Stratos Ferric]

I really think SF that you should gave a little more credit to the people that work on these forecasts-

If its a simple as tossing a coin people like myself/ GP would toss a coin rather than spend hours combing the data-

I often see accuracy percentages thrown around on here- 70... blah blah blah-

But whos actually measuring what against what-

Temperature & Precipitaion- thats all you can measure against- Numbers wise-

The one that we try to nail is the Pressure anomalies but to mark that one is very difficult-

And I havent really contemplated how yet-

Needless to say- Im at work & havent got long to post in this thread- But it is frustrating to say the least to hear that the likes of Myself / Ian Brown/ GP who ALL went for a colder winters last year ( My first Winter forecast/ GP's first Winter Forecast) against the backdrop of continual Warming- are still put in a box marked 'Guess work'

I cant speak for the Sites like TWO/ METCHECK ETC- who have prepared & ramped up historic forecasts- but I think at the START of this Winter wen ALL the forecasts are issued a PINNED thread with what we are measuring against will go a long way towards getting rid of these arguements that go round each Autumn-

Last Winter - Met Office/GP/IB & I All went for Colder Winters So I guess its 1/1- which isnt bad-

The November outlook will be much anticipated from the METO as will be GP & Ian Browns outlook-

If People like Roger/SB get involved then I urge them to finalise on the 2 Measured Parameters & comment on Pressure anomalies....

The statistical gang of course can have prepare their forecasts although it will probably look something like this-

Dec- Mild & wet-

Jan- Mild & Wet-

Feb Mild & Wet-

Steve

Steve,

I'm sorry, but your response typifies the problem on here; go and read my last paragraph again please, then have a think before responding from the heart. This place gets like the "X factor" auditions come silly season (roughly October - March), with contestants bleating at the slightest criticism (or perceived criticism), however valid that might be.

If all we can measure against is whether the winter is warmer / colder and wetter / drier then we're a long way away from Snow Maiden's grail of an LRF. At most that gives about nione possible variants for winter (adding in "normal"), say 27 if you produce a forecast fopr each month. Staistically, therefore, one person in 27 on here is going to call it correct: guess? science? Like I keep saying, show me the method that year in year out (or even more often than not) prodcues a reasonable usefully detailed forecast and I will dof my cap to it, but let's judge on the basis of results not effort. My sweepstakes analogy is just fine; we all hope our forecasts win, we all support our teams; is the Doncaster supporter any less fanatical than the Man U supporter? Of course not, it's just that one is being more realistic than the other when they say "we'll win the cup this year". Like Dawlish says, do you honestly believe anyone on here has a better ability than the massed ranks of the UKMO, who, after all, are professional forecasters with rather more training and expertise behind them than anyone on here.

I can't remember who forecast what last year, but like Messchersmitts shot down in WW2, there always see to be far more (often self-proclaimed) succesful "hits" called for winter forecasts than there were correct forecasts actually made.

Don't get me wrong. The first successful heart transplant was certainly not the first time the operation was attempted. Likewise, there will be many years, perhaps decades, of effort before we get close to a reliable and useful LRF (to clarify here, saying winter will be colder than normal covers a whole plethora of variations, which, as Snow Maiden would put it, aren't any use for planning purposes - unless you're purchasing gas in bulk, say, or tins of soup maybe). I'm not denegrating yor efforts, or anyone else's, but let's not delude ourselves that we're in any way capable of producing reliable LRFs that would stand up to measured scrutiny as being in any way reliable.

And for those who's occasional retort is "at least they try", I say fair enough, but there are more fruitful pastimes than trying to force a river to flow uphill with a straw. I have no problem with the forecasts, my problem tends to be with the people who defend them as if they are / were invariably absolutely reliable and correct.

FOOTNOTE

In this regard the analysis of CET forecasts posted on the CET trophy thread makes interesting reading, and these are guesses made generally at no more than one month's lead time. There are one or two people, out of a hundred or so, who are maintaining some sort of consistent form, but the chances of someone making five successful directional guesses in five months are 1 in 243, so in a field of 100, having one or two people performing well at this stage is no better than would be expected statistically for such a field size.

[Snowly does it]

SnM's points are fair in terms of planning needing reliable (i.e in terms of detail and timing) forecasts, but I think she is wrong to differentiate between statistical analysis and forecasting as if good forecasting includes no analysis (and in any case my point was with respect to Dawlish's projections and method, not a defence of this approach per se as the only forecasting tool).

Fair point and I would just say that I would anticipate the 'holy grail' LRF as you say to include a degree of statistical analysis (as opposed to raw statistics on their own). Having said that, a degree of this would be inbuilt when LRFs are pitched against a rolling 30 year mean, but perhaps in an accepted warming trend, the LRF should be pitched against a 20 year rolling mean, I really don't know.

[phil nw.]

I don`t mind too much how accurate poster`s LRF`s are.

I enjoy reading all of them and the debates that ensue.

I also appreciate the work and time that are put into their preparation.

Although i `m a veteran of the 62/63 winter and have maintained a lifelong interest in Meteorology,especially the Pressure Charts,i still have alot to learn.

I am thankfull to regular and more knowledgable posters like SM,GP,SF,Brick. and others(apologies for any ommisions)for

their contributions,which help me to understand a little more each year.

Kind Regards to you all.

Edited October 7, 2006 by phil n.warks.

[SMU]

Steve,

If all we can measure against is whether the winter is warmer / colder and wetter / drier then we're a long way away from Snow Maiden's grail of an LRF. At most that gives about nine possible variants for winter (adding in "normal"), say 27 if you produce a forecast for each month. Staistically, therefore, one person in 27 on here is going to call it correct: guess? science? Like I keep saying, show me the method that year in year out (or even more often than not) prodcues a reasonable usefully detailed forecast and I will dof my cap to it, but let's judge on the basis of results not effort. My sweepstakes analogy is just fine; we all hope our forecasts win, we all support our teams; is the Doncaster supporter any less fanatical than the Man U supporter? Of course not, it's just that one is being more realistic than the other when they say "we'll win the cup this year". Like Dawlish says, do you honestly believe anyone on here has a better ability than the massed ranks of the UKMO, who, after all, are professional forecasters with rather more training and expertise behind them than anyone on here.

I can't remember who forecast what last year, but like Messchersmitts shot down in WW2, there always see to be far more (often self-proclaimed) succesful "hits" called for winter forecasts than there were correct forecasts actually made.

Don't get me wrong. The first successful heart transplant was certainly not the first time the operation was attempted. Likewise, there will be many years, perhaps decades, of effort before we get close to a reliable and useful LRF (to clarify here, saying winter will be colder than normal covers a whole plethora of variations, which, as Snow Maiden would put it, aren't any use for planning purposes - unless you're purchasing gas in bulk, say, or tins of soup maybe). I'm not denegrating yor efforts, or anyone else's, but let's not delude ourselves that we're in any way capable of producing reliable LRFs that would stand up to measured scrutiny as being in any way reliable.

And for those who's occasional retort is "at least they try", I say fair enough, but there are more fruitful pastimes than trying to force a river to flow uphill with a straw. I have no problem with the forecasts, my problem tends to be with the people who defend them as if they are / were invariably absolutely reliable and correct.

Sadly you cannot reach a holy grail of anything without first taking basic steps -

Basic steps in this case being the highlighted as the Temperature & precipitation measures-

This is obviously going to take some time- Perhaps a number of years- so to not OVER complicate things like I said above- one step at a time-

The pressure anomalies are are a good tool to use to point out where a forecaster sees the 500 Heights differing from the Norm-

But again I suspect that will be considered as guesswork as well--

The problem I have as ever with the numbers game you always throw in ( Apart from the glass is always half empty approach addopted by yourself & a few others) is that your intimating that out of all 27 people ( if we ever reach that number) are all wandering about in the dark with no informatiom & just picking numbers at random- after all thats what 'guessing' is all about-

Its not the case im afraid- We have only ONE years worth of what I would call Winter LRF's- to which as I keep insisting ALL called for Colder 05/06 Winter- Now One year DOESNT prove anything as its a small data source however its strange that of the people I highlighted above ALL called it colder & Dryer-

Now IF we were ALL guessing like you say then that is an AMAZING fluke that we ALL said the Same thing-

As for the METO office Neither You or I are in a position to say with 100% clarity where the 'mass ranks' stand- especially as our knowledge in terms of their investment into seasonal forecasting isnt made public- However I can tell you this- Forecasting with MAY SST's for a Winter NAO pattern will NEVER reach more than a 66% probability of occurence- take that whatever way you wish.....

So we reach the same ineviable stalemate we did last year-

You dont believe it cant be done- to any degree of reliabililty- I believe over the next few years we will see some excellent results-

We will see how this Winter pans out- especially when we review the forecasts.....

S

Edited October 7, 2006 by Steve Murr

[WindWatcher]

I don`t mind too much how accurate poster`s LRF`s are.

I enjoy reading all of them and the debates that ensue.

I also appreciate the work and time that are put into their preparation.

Although i `m a veteran of the 62/63 winter and have maintained a lifelong interest in Meteorology,especially the Pressure Charts,i still have alot to learn.

I am thankfull to regular and more knowledgable posters like SM,GP,SF,Brick. and others(apologies for any ommisions)for

their contributions,which help me to understand a little more each year.

Kind Regards to you all.

:lol:

What a boring world it would be if LRF's were accurate, I too enjoy everyones efforts in sticking their neck on the line and suggesting their forecasts for everyone to scrutinise and criticise. Keep up the great work guys and gals, I learn something new from each of them.

Thanks

Steve.

[Les Penniston]

Theres nothing wrong with LRF that predict a pattern, but predicting types of weather on certain weeks in one to two months ahead is a bit silly.

[SMU]

Theres nothing wrong with LRF that predict a pattern, but predicting types of weather on certain weeks in one to two months ahead is a bit silly.

Hi Les-

If you are predicting a pattern for the Winter- ( Obviously the one that is going to be MOST prominent) then the the associated weather will be the most prominent- from that you would deduce what the steer is for Colder/dry weather is going to be-

Its not quite as straight forward as that- but you get the gist-

SF- Just an after post- I will endevour when producing the Winter forecast add in as much content to do with the unbiased thought process as I can-

S

Edited October 7, 2006 by Steve Murr

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

You've really got to read what I say before going OTT like that Blast. I have praised Steve's knowledge every single time I have replied to him. However, I question, every single time, the efficacy of individual's Long Range Forecasting, because it has very low accuracy. Not just Steve's, but yours, summer blizzard's. GP's....anyone's. It is a good bit of fun, but I regard it as no better than that. Do you really think any of these guys and gals have a better record than, say, the Met Office, whose NAO forecast accuracy is less than 2 in 3, with all the professionals they have?? If you don't like the statement that no-one's winter forecast is much better than a guess, even with a raft of knowledge that goes into it, then you have to find someone's method that has reasonable accuracy. I have never, ever said that I believe in AGW, yet you bring that one out as an accusation. I have always accepted that there will be flaws with my own gfs methods, but I have lain every single spot out to scrutiny and will continue to do so. I have failed to predict the correct warmer/colder winter about 20% of the time and will probably continue to do so.

I just do not think you understand my arguments, or you would challenge individual points instead of using such a wide, insulting brush. Also, if you level that kind of public post against me; I have every right to defend myself! Note there is nothing personal in here against you Blast and nor will there be. People will make what they make of my posts, but I will stay within the rules and always argue from a scientific perspective, which will be as accurate as I can make it - which I'm afraid that the accusations your own post are not.

Paul

Paul

My post obviously got under your skin..and obviously too much. I will try to quantify.

The 'accusation' of you believing in AGW firstly isn't an insult at all many do many don't. The reason i brought that in is that if the world is warming naturally and in a cycle then IMO and views of astro-physicists, astronmers etc is that the Gleissberg Minima will bring global cooling. maunder, Wolf, Dalton etc all brought global cooling...why not now? The only spanner would be AGW IF it really is happening. So with the approach of the minima [a biggy too] why are you forecasting continued warmth for next 10 years at least? I should have posed this question to you rather than the way I put it...sorry no offence intended.

You do state that LRF is guesswork. Now maybe strictly speaking it is as LRF are trying to predict the future. However, Jan will be bitterly cold with roaring easterlies because 'I feel it, I just feel it' is pure guesswork. What Steve, GP, IB, SB, Roger J SMITH etc do is somewhat better prepared and far more educated than that. With the teleconnections states and with their research they predict on the basis of what the cause/effect of these teles are [you clearly know that but I want to be as explanatory as possible]. I was merely pointing out to put their LRFs in the guesswork category is putting it in the same section as my example and that is clearly unjust. I was obviously too robust but in essence that is what came across in your posts, NOTE 'came across in your posts' [which I did say in my earlier post]. I am not the only one who read it like that Paul :lol: .....but I did write in my posts having got to know your style that you probably DID NOT intend that.

I do understand your arguments to a point but your answer to the 1st above will clarify it totally.

Re comparing records to say METO, unfair Paul but what I will say is that the MET O September update mirrored the early projections of the LRF folk mentioned.

If you were/are offended Paul 'I beg your pardon' and if I were able to rewrite it I would and it would be like this post.

Mods slightly off topic but public post rather than PM to show that I did not intend to offend Paul [Dawlish].

Very educated guess...yes Guesswork...No

BFTP

Edited October 7, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Les Penniston]

Hi Les-

If you are predicting a pattern for the Winter- ( Obviously the one that is going to be MOST prominent) then the the associated weather will be the most prominent- from that you would deduce what the steer is for Colder/dry weather is going to be-

Its not quite as straight forward as that- but you get the gist-

SF- Just an after post- I will endevour when producing the Winter forecast add in as much content to do with the unbiased thought process as I can-

S

Steve

Last years forcast for a cooler winter was pretty good. Some people use prediction on past winters, but how many winters are spoken about because of snow events than winters that were colder with less snow.

Les