Autumn and Winter discussion...

[Roger J Smith]

I think everything that has been said in the above discussion (unless someone has just posted a real clanker while I'm composing this) is reasonable. Those of us who venture to make a long-range forecast are probably as aware as our critics and general audience that we're in a very experimental period of this endeavour, and that even the "massed ranks of professionals" (I think that's their stud marks on my face) aren't having an easy time of it. If they were, very few of us "dedicated amateurs" or whatever cranks are called in the UK would probably just keep our mouths shut, which as some would no doubt say would be a good idea. But my basic approach is simply this -- the orthodox approach will probably just stall out at whatever 50 to 65 per cent accuracy rate it really has in recent times, because it isn't based on anything sufficiently detailed or complex to handle the diversity of real seasonal weather, so there's a calling out there for the lone rangers among us to keep searching for improvements in our own methods which, although perhaps less favoured to succeed, at least have the advantage of being detailed and complex, so that they provide a foundation when or if each one of us happens to see an organized pattern of error results and from that, can make some kind of advance towards a greater degree of accuracy.

In my own case, I make no claims for your side of the Atlantic because I have basically just gotten my feet wet since around the winter of 04-05 when I first started to look at monthly or seasonal forecasts and make some of my own, as I have been doing for quite a long time on this side of the pond. The methodology I employ has given me some very encouraging results over North America, but this is not all that I do with my time, as the methodology is also very much applicable to severe weather forecasting so that I have tended to focus more on that area since about 1999 when the internet gave me the chance to acquire the necessary data in real time at a realistic cost. So I have rather left the LRF research lying dormant and my foray into European weather is mostly a general exploration to build up the basic parameters of the research model on all time scales. You can't learn much in this field without making forecasts, because when you don't forecast, you have a tendency to look back and think, "I knew that was probably going to happen," and thereby kid yourself into thinking that you know why "that" happened. Forecasts are a necessary evil of the evolving science, and I would readily agree that it won't evolve into a science until the forecasts are at least 80% accurate, much as the short range forecasts are expected to be.

This meteorology/climatology is an odd sort of science in general -- for one thing, it remains highly empirical at all time scales, but to the extent that you could say it is a physical science based on cause and effect, sets of equations, numerical verification of forecasts, etc, then the "science" degrades rather quickly and who's to say where forecasting stops being a science and starts being educated guesswork? Four days, six days, eight days? Somewhere in that general area, I would say five days just as a sort of rough delineation, and clearly not every forecast applied to a time period shorter than five days will meet even the haziest scientific standards.

That's where I see things as of now. I do happen to think that North American LRF results have generally been a little better over time, perhaps because we have the advantage of some stronger signals such as the ENSO, which really do have high correlations with certain outcomes. However, if the Met Office really does have a 2/3 track record, something I am in no position to assess, then that would match any reliable claims of general accuracy over here. However, in any of these programs, even if they are this successful, there is no attempt made to colour in much detail, such as month to month variations, outstanding events or spells, etc, so that even from this encouraging foundation a lot of improvement could be made without much improvement in that 2/3 accuracy benchmark.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, don't drive the road from Glasgow to Carlisle on 4 January, especially between 0300 and 0600.

[Stratos Ferric]

...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

Steve,

Good to see we're agreeing re the first line of your reply.

That first line above, though, just belies how little you know about stats. You called on two variables which can go three ways. The number of outcomes is therefore three squared, i.e. 9. All other things being equal then on that basis one forecast in nine will be correct. It would require only 27 LRFs to be made for three people to have caled it correctly. I also can't recall wo called what when last year; I'm not for one moment suggesting that anyone on here chose to follow the UKMO lead, but to keep assessment of success clean we ought to suggest that we make punts on here before the UKMO projection has been made public.

I think, to be generous to you, you're being at the very least rather audacious to even suggest that somehow you, or anyone else on here, might be better at LRFs than the UKMO. I know you place huge store in your own capabilities, but I'd be very surprised if those capabilities were better then the best at the UKMO. If not you're in the wrong job and you ought to be knocking their door down, or they yours.

More power to the elbow, fingers, or whatever of anyone indulging and progressing the art / science, and doubly so if, in addition to suggesting what the outcome is going to be, they provide some assessment of the "why". Philip manages to produce projected average surfaces for the rolling month ahead. Part of the trick, surely, is in being able to say not only what, but to give an outline of "why", otherwise one suspects that the method is incomplete and one can suspct lucky guesses, unless (as in some branches of, say, pharmacology, where we have drugs which work consistently but for reasons as yet not understood) there is absolutely irrevocable evidence that precursor(s) and outcome(s) are consistently matched.

Don't get me wrong in all of this. It's right and proper that we look to progress forecasts, let's just make sure we don't throw away sensible humility at present given that our abilities to project the long term weather are very limited. For the purposes of setting odds, as Dawlish does, you're always going to follow the climatic norm, and you would be foolish not to do the same if you wanted to make money by gambling on the weather.

[Dawlish]

I think everything that has been said in the above discussion (unless someone has just posted a real clanker while I'm composing this) is reasonable. Those of us who venture to make a long-range forecast are probably as aware as our critics and general audience that we're in a very experimental period of this endeavour, and that even the "massed ranks of professionals" (I think that's their stud marks on my face) aren't having an easy time of it. If they were, very few of us "dedicated amateurs" or whatever cranks are called in the UK would probably just keep our mouths shut, which as some would no doubt say would be a good idea. But my basic approach is simply this -- the orthodox approach will probably just stall out at whatever 50 to 65 per cent accuracy rate it really has in recent times, because it isn't based on anything sufficiently detailed or complex to handle the diversity of real seasonal weather, so there's a calling out there for the lone rangers among us to keep searching for improvements in our own methods which, although perhaps less favoured to succeed, at least have the advantage of being detailed and complex, so that they provide a foundation when or if each one of us happens to see an organized pattern of error results and from that, can make some kind of advance towards a greater degree of accuracy.

In my own case, I make no claims for your side of the Atlantic because I have basically just gotten my feet wet since around the winter of 04-05 when I first started to look at monthly or seasonal forecasts and make some of my own, as I have been doing for quite a long time on this side of the pond. The methodology I employ has given me some very encouraging results over North America, but this is not all that I do with my time, as the methodology is also very much applicable to severe weather forecasting so that I have tended to focus more on that area since about 1999 when the internet gave me the chance to acquire the necessary data in real time at a realistic cost. So I have rather left the LRF research lying dormant and my foray into European weather is mostly a general exploration to build up the basic parameters of the research model on all time scales. You can't learn much in this field without making forecasts, because when you don't forecast, you have a tendency to look back and think, "I knew that was probably going to happen," and thereby kid yourself into thinking that you know why "that" happened. Forecasts are a necessary evil of the evolving science, and I would readily agree that it won't evolve into a science until the forecasts are at least 80% accurate, much as the short range forecasts are expected to be.

This meteorology/climatology is an odd sort of science in general -- for one thing, it remains highly empirical at all time scales, but to the extent that you could say it is a physical science based on cause and effect, sets of equations, numerical verification of forecasts, etc, then the "science" degrades rather quickly and who's to say where forecasting stops being a science and starts being educated guesswork? Four days, six days, eight days? Somewhere in that general area, I would say five days just as a sort of rough delineation, and clearly not every forecast applied to a time period shorter than five days will meet even the haziest scientific standards.

That's where I see things as of now. I do happen to think that North American LRF results have generally been a little better over time, perhaps because we have the advantage of some stronger signals such as the ENSO, which really do have high correlations with certain outcomes. However, if the Met Office really does have a 2/3 track record, something I am in no position to assess, then that would match any reliable claims of general accuracy over here. However, in any of these programs, even if they are this successful, there is no attempt made to colour in much detail, such as month to month variations, outstanding events or spells, etc, so that even from this encouraging foundation a lot of improvement could be made without much improvement in that 2/3 accuracy benchmark.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, don't drive the road from Glasgow to Carlisle on 4 January, especially between 0300 and 0600.

Very good Roger. Some real sense in there. Thank you. I especially like this:

"But my basic approach is simply this -- the orthodox approach will probably just stall out at whatever 50 to 65 per cent accuracy rate it really has in recent times, because it isn't based on anything sufficiently detailed or complex to handle the diversity of real seasonal weather, so there's a calling out there for the lone rangers among us to keep searching for improvements in our own methods which, although perhaps less favoured to succeed, at least have the advantage of being detailed and complex, so that they provide a foundation when or if each one of us happens to see an organized pattern of error results and from that, can make some kind of advance towards a greater degree of accuracy."

I also feel that improvements in LRF will not come easily from the teleconnections/SSTs approach, which does not seem to be producing anything like the improvements in accuracy that I would hope for and are still little better than guesswork, despite the professional look of the forecasts and the obvious knowledge that goes into them.

Someone may, soon, come up with a better method, which would be open to peer assessment and would be capable of being duplicated, under test conditions, by other scientists in the same field. That is what I am looking for from anyone trying their hand at this. Anyone forecasting for fun - fine. If anyone is thinking more than that, they have to subject their work, at some stage, to what I've just proposed.

The forecasts I see on netweather are interesting to me, but I don't set any store by them; sorry guys and gals, but I don't. Until I really begin to see that an individual is getting consistent results, I won't. Unfortunately, it is more likely to be a forecasting agency that makes the breakthrough, if there is to be one, as they have so many more resources to hand and not an individual, though that should never mean that people should stop trying and individuals have broken the mould in many areas before!!

I wish you luck, Roger. You must detail your method and results again!

Paul

[TEITS]

Some very interesting post's on this thread about LRF's but I think we need to be clear on the different types of LRF's. Now it is my belief that LRF's that go into detail e.g week by week details of weather and synoptics are just pure guesswork when forecasting 3 months ahead because we struggle making detailed forecast's 14 days ahead!. However LRF's that just stick to whether temps/rainfall are going to be above/below average by using SST's/teleconnections for example are more realistic and it could be argued have a higher success rate than a detailed forecast for the next 14 days.

I personally enjoy reading all types of LRF's on this forum and whether these are based on instincts, hopecast's or science I find these are not just enjoyable to read but a great learning tool especially from the like's of GP/SM.

[Stratos Ferric]

Paul

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

...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 .....but I did write in my posts having got to know your style that you probably DID NOT intend that.

...

BFTP

That illustrates the point I made a couple of posts back, viz: many LRFs on here are wild guesses. There are several who put forward theories, but two pages of argument does not necessarily a cogent and robust case make. What it DOES allow us to do, however - and this is very much in the spirit of scientific advancement - is eliminate arguments along the way. If you like it's trial and error development of method, but that can only be achieved if every forecast is dissected, and the drivers of success and failure isolated and then built up or eliminated, as appropriate, from future forecasts.

[Dawlish]

Some very interesting post's on this thread about LRF's but I think we need to be clear on the different types of LRF's. Now it is my belief that LRF's that go into detail e.g week by week details of weather and synoptics are just pure guesswork when forecasting 3 months ahead because we struggle making detailed forecast's 14 days ahead!. However LRF's that just stick to whether temps/rainfall are going to be above/below average by using SST's/teleconnections for example are more realistic and it could be argued have a higher success rate than a detailed forecast for the next 14 days.

I personally enjoy reading all types of LRF's on this forum and whether these are based on instincts, hopecast's or science I find these are not just enjoyable to read but a great learning tool especially from the like's of GP/SM.

Yes! I wholeheartedly agree. As learning tool, some of them are excellent! As a means of saying, accurately, what the winter, or parts of it will be like, at this distance.........lorryload of salt time, for almost every one!

Edited October 7, 2006 by Dawlish

[Snowly does it]

How about if you guys and gals between you who are into the more serious LRF agree a format for LRF to be presented so that each one from here out can be assessed on its merit?

Seems the only way (from a NW perspective) that there can be any development, learning etc.

Otherwise, these arguments will just burn on into the next ice age

E.G a 'headline' forecast - what is normally put out, and then for those that want to play a formulaic one meeting the agreed criteria.

Just a thought

Edited October 7, 2006 by snowmaiden

[yido]

As a member looking at his third winter on here I'm afraid to say I'm still baffled by a lot of the terms on this site. What continues to grab my attention is the fantastic amount of knowledge that exists from some.

To be honest though nothing has left me more baffled than this thread. I'm completely lost at the moment.

I think I have read most of the posts correctly and it's seems as if people are writing in different languages.

From SM I saw a post about the -NAO in August and September and what this could mean in line with other areas he is looking at. From this he has drawn a conclusion as to the 'possible' outcomes. And this is what I fail to understand as some seem to have no ability to see that it is 'possible' outcomes. I have not read anywhere unless I have missed it that these outcomes are not 'possible', they are accurate forecasting. Perhaps I'm wrong here but in the past SM has looked at data and told all us cold lovers it looks mild, if that's what he thinks could be the possible outcome then so be it but he has never said this will happen. To me this is just fantastic knowledge and understanding held by very few and I for one am glad he shares this knowledge.

As for the counter argument I'm really lost. One, because I haven't seen anyone post information from current data that points them to believing it could possibly be mild or warm. If someone does then that WILL hold just as much truth for me as again it would be one persons opinion. WIB did this fantastically well at times and I hope he is back posting soon.

Secondly the counter argument seems to be based on nothing more than statistics, the very things that people posting a LRF are berated for. The odds on a mild winter etc, etc. I could do that but it would have absolutely no point as it's a guess. It's been + 9/10 of the last winters so it will be again. And? I just don't see where this gets people like me who are keen to learn.

The only other thing I have to add is that LRF will become accurate one day and to say they won't is pretty narrow minded I think. The same as people laughed when fools said the world wasn't flat and the sun didn't circumnavigate the earth. We must keep developing and thanks to some 'fools' we will.

[tugmistress]

well said Yido

i was trying to think of how to put something similr myself, but you have made an excellent post and i thoroughly agree

[Cal]

How about if you guys and gals between you who are into the more serious LRF agree a format for LRF to be presented so that each one from here out can be assessed on its merit?

Seems the only way (from a NW perspective) that there can be any development, learning etc.

Otherwise, these arguments will just burn on into the next ice age

E.G a 'headline' forecast - what is normally put out, and then for those that want to play a formulaic one meeting the agreed criteria.

Just a thought

Just a thought guys/girls, why the need for knocking LRF's? Ok accuracy may not be there at present whatever the method of prediction, i think these guys should be applauded for what they are trying to achieve , maybe a few years down the line people will understand a little better where these people where coming from!

[SMU]

As a member looking at his third winter on here I'm afraid to say I'm still baffled by a lot of the terms on this site. What continues to grab my attention is the fantastic amount of knowledge that exists from some.

To be honest though nothing has left me more baffled than this thread. I'm completely lost at the moment.

I think I have read most of the posts correctly and it's seems as if people are writing in different languages.

From SM I saw a post about the -NAO in August and September and what this could mean in line with other areas he is looking at. From this he has drawn a conclusion as to the 'possible' outcomes. And this is what I fail to understand as some seem to have no ability to see that it is 'possible' outcomes. I have not read anywhere unless I have missed it that these outcomes are not 'possible', they are accurate forecasting. Perhaps I'm wrong here but in the past SM has looked at data and told all us cold lovers it looks mild, if that's what he thinks could be the possible outcome then so be it but he has never said this will happen. To me this is just fantastic knowledge and understanding held by very few and I for one am glad he shares this knowledge.

As for the counter argument I'm really lost. One, because I haven't seen anyone post information from current data that points them to believing it could possibly be mild or warm. If someone does then that WILL hold just as much truth for me as again it would be one persons opinion. WIB did this fantastically well at times and I hope he is back posting soon.

Secondly the counter argument seems to be based on nothing more than statistics, the very things that people posting a LRF are berated for. The odds on a mild winter etc, etc. I could do that but it would have absolutely no point as it's a guess. It's been + 9/10 of the last winters so it will be again. And? I just don't see where this gets people like me who are keen to learn.

The only other thing I have to add is that LRF will become accurate one day and to say they won't is pretty narrow minded I think. The same as people laughed when fools said the world wasn't flat and the sun didn't circumnavigate the earth. We must keep developing and thanks to some 'fools' we will.

Thanks Yido-

Back to the Replies earlier-

SF- being at work rushed me into replying with messages that were not really correct & now after a few 'tipples' I will probably be just as inconsistent...

I guess what is missing- and to knit the community back together again is WHY..............

Whydo the people preparing the LFR's make that decision to call mild/Cold- Wet or Dry-

I know for a Fact GP spends a long time puzzling over the data & the decisions as do I-

I will invest as much time this year in presenting a forecast that includes as much content around thought process as it does around actual data -

Often we see outlooks high on assumptions but little in terms of data analysis & conclusions-

Anyway- this thread is excellent & its got input from a wide spectrum of people & long may that continue-

best regards

Steve

[Damien]

I would debunk anything, and I mean ANYTHING, long range..

Well then let's put your theory to the test. Here's the ECPC October winter forecast - a "fly in the ointment" if ever there was one:

A mild December; a mild January but slightly cooler (albeit still above average) in the South-East; mostly above normal again in February, though properly mild Atlantic air to our north and south-west; an above average March also as the "coolest" month of the season - once again. Central and Eastern Europe are the coolest parts as always but a mild winter this time around for Eastern Siberia.

Precipitation:

Slightly drier than average on land but slightly wetter than average by sea (could be promising if we do get an easterly even on these mild winter charts though ), until March which is expected to be even very wet for parts of the far South. The Atlantic winning this winter looking by those charts. Kind of reminds me of Ian Currie's mid-February forecast from last winter.

Edited October 7, 2006 by Damien

[Stratos Ferric]

Going on from both SM's and SnM's replies, I'm not sure that being over prescriptive about standards for LRFs wouldnt be TOO restrictive, but at least explaining clearly the rationale for a particular forecast would open up to general scrutiny, critique and build any particular approach, so I heartily agree with the direction of proposal. For this to be possible the forecasts do need to be written in a reasonably accessible way, something that isn't consistently achieved I suspect.

Yido, one slight nit pick with your reply. When you suggest that ...

From SM I saw a post about the -NAO in August and September and what this could mean in line with other areas he is looking at. From this he has drawn a conclusion as to the 'possible' outcomes. And this is what I fail to understand as some seem to have no ability to see that it is 'possible' outcomes. I have not read anywhere unless I have missed it that these outcomes are not 'possible', they are accurate forecasting.

your last line is rather bizarre, and exactly the kind of nonsense that some of us on here get irritated by. How can a forecast be accurate before it has ben tested? Steve's (or anyone else's) attempts at forecasting may be thorough, but that is not to say they are correct or accurate. Until such time as the period being forecast has been and gone how can any such assessment be made?

Well then let's put your theory to the test. Here's the ECPC October winter forecast - a "fly in the ointment" if ever there was one:

Not quite sure why you say it's a "fly in the ointment", anyway, are you honestly telling me you would back the accuracy of every point on that global map for each of the months projected. When you've thought about it come back to me and let me know how much yo'll be willing to wager on it being, and I'll willingly take you up.

The one pattern I'd support is the overall global tendency to be warmer than norm, but there's no news in that. The smart thing is being able to project precisely where and how much. Anyone can plot fancy coloured plots, but ability to plot and ability to forecast accurately are different things. I work wit a lot of clients who believe that because they see a number with 7 significant figures it's precise data. Ability to compute detail does not mean accurate computation.

[Cecil Hogmanay Melchett]

A quite fascinating thread and congratulations to those involved in it,a lot of that to be frank goes way over my mortal head!

My opinion,fwiw,is that GW has made a *massive*difference to our winters in particular.The domainance of the AZH and Icelandic low has been truely horrific for the cold lovers in this country during the winter months.Have to say i am firmly in the sceptics camp wrt LRF's,I dont believe in them at all.Gegraphically speaking the UK is not in a good spot for sustained cold,obviously we have the Atlantic to thank for that,one thing that does stand out for me personally is the lack of cold or polar NW'lys during the post 1988 era,anybody have any theories as to why these synoptics rsrely rear their wonderful head nowadays?

[pottyprof]

Nice to see all corners agreeing to disagree before the winter, rather than after..

You guys all work hard at producing the forecasts and the spots.. I've enjoyed the read..

I just hope some will have a little more respect for others points of view without everyone going around in circles as it can get very confusing..

I look forward to reading everyones part of discussion and to see how each method fits in regarding accuracy..

I do note that there is a certain lack of discussion as to why some method failed.. there has to be reasons behind that happening.. I would find it interesting to see follow ups.. it could also help patch holes in ideas and make methods more reliable..

Just a thought..

All the best to you all

Paul

[WhiteFox]

A right old ding-dong!

On the subject of LRFs, I think the accuracy is currently debatable. There are some very interesting concepts though; I'd never heard of teleconnections beyond the NAO before reading Net-Weather.

An interesting case in point with regards to accuracy is to look at the hurricane season forecasts for this year. The team in the US predicted substantially above average activity in the Atlantic basin back in May.

At the beginning of September they scaled back the forecast significantly. Last week, they scaled it back once more to 'average'.

As Steve says in his signature, it is better to adapt a wrong forecast and try and work out what went wrong. The guys at the hurricane centre are pinpointing excessive wind shear fuelled by a minor el-nino event. No doubt they will try and incorporate this next year. As it stands, their forecasts were highly inaccurate this season with no major hurricances (so far) making landfall in the US.

[Damien]

Not quite sure why you say it's a "fly in the ointment", anyway

Because this historically poorly performing forecast has gone against the majority of "below average" winter forecasts that are now coming out - such as those of the Met Office and the respected (if not infallible) Wolfgang Roeder.

, are you honestly telling me you would back the accuracy of every point on that global map for each of the months projected. When you've thought about it come back to me and let me know how much yo'll be willing to wager on it being, and I'll willingly take you up.

What's there to think about? I neither said nor insinuated such crap - stop putting words into my mouth.

Anyone can plot fancy coloured plots, but ability to plot and ability to forecast accurately are different things.

That's very true - but there is "method to this madness" - such as some cooler conditions (albeit still slightly above average conditions) being forecast in those charts in the Eastern European "sandwich", compared to milder conditions in Western Europe and Scandinavia, indicating a rational continuation of the recent wintertime (and to some extent in the other seasons) synoptic situation.

At the end of the day would you trust the above dynamic or the Met Office dynamic, with it's "white" January period anomaly for most of the UK?

[Dawlish]

At the end of the day would you trust the above dynamic or the Met Office dynamic, with it's "white" January period anomaly for most of the UK?

The choice leaves out a third option.......why on earth would you "trust" either?

Paul

Edited October 8, 2006 by Dawlish

[Gray-Wolf]

The Precipitation averages are ok as it is a 'solid' result (less than average/more than average) but the temps are different as an average. I have an idea that we could find Dec/Jan/Feb months of wide temperature extremes but then, when averaged out, it'll probably come in at a little above average.

In this 'average' figure lie buried Polar Blasts and African plumes. The little El-Nino will result in more TM airmasses reaching here over the shortest (land and time) route (due to a slackening in the 'trades') and these plumes will displace the polar air which must 'rush in ' to fill the void (rather 'Lava lampesque') and the LRF's, dealing in 'averages', will show nothing of these prospects yet will remain 'correct'.

Edited October 8, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, don't drive the road from Glasgow to Carlisle on 4 January, especially between 0300 and 0600.

Roger

Something like this in mind

Edited October 8, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[yido]

Going on from both SM's and SnM's replies, I'm not sure that being over prescriptive about standards for LRFs wouldnt be TOO restrictive, but at least explaining clearly the rationale for a particular forecast would open up to general scrutiny, critique and build any particular approach, so I heartily agree with the direction of proposal. For this to be possible the forecasts do need to be written in a reasonably accessible way, something that isn't consistently achieved I suspect.

Yido, one slight nit pick with your reply. When you suggest that ...

your last line is rather bizarre, and exactly the kind of nonsense that some of us on here get irritated by. How can a forecast be accurate before it has ben tested? Steve's (or anyone else's) attempts at forecasting may be thorough, but that is not to say they are correct or accurate. Until such time as the period being forecast has been and gone how can any such assessment be made?

Not quite sure why you say it's a "fly in the ointment", anyway, are you honestly telling me you would back the accuracy of every point on that global map for each of the months projected. When you've thought about it come back to me and let me know how much yo'll be willing to wager on it being, and I'll willingly take you up.

The one pattern I'd support is the overall global tendency to be warmer than norm, but there's no news in that. The smart thing is being able to project precisely where and how much. Anyone can plot fancy coloured plots, but ability to plot and ability to forecast accurately are different things. I work wit a lot of clients who believe that because they see a number with 7 significant figures it's precise data. Ability to compute detail does not mean accurate computation.

I have said nothing about it being accurate at all and this is my whole point. People arguing against LRF's are finding this word accurate. I haven't read anything that says the word accurate, just possible. If it turns out to be the mildest winter ever I for one will not be tapping on SM or SB's door saying you said it would do this etc because they haven't said it WILL do anything.

[Stratos Ferric]

I have said nothing about it being accurate at all and this is my whole point. People arguing against LRF's are finding this word accurate. I haven't read anything that says the word accurate, just possible. If it turns out to be the mildest winter ever I for one will not be tapping on SM or SB's door saying you said it would do this etc because they haven't said it WILL do anything.

Yido, one of us is suffering delusions: unless I'm very much mistaken your post (no. 200) included the EXACT line..

have not read anywhere unless I have missed it that these outcomes are not 'possible', they are accurate forecasting

You clearly are placing a different interpretation on the use of the last four words in your script above.

You miss my point. You were stating that a forecast made for a period yet to pass is/was accurate. Accuracy can ONLY be assessed AFTER the period in question has passed.

Edited October 8, 2006 by Stratos Ferric

[Stratos Ferric]

Because this historically poorly performing forecast has gone against the majority of "below average" winter forecasts that are now coming out - such as those of the Met Office and the respected (if not infallible) Wolfgang Roeder.

What's there to think about? I neither said nor insinuated such crap - stop putting words into my mouth. :lol:

That's very true - but there is "method to this madness" - such as some cooler conditions (albeit still slightly above average conditions) being forecast in those charts in the Eastern European "sandwich", compared to milder conditions in Western Europe and Scandinavia, indicating a rational continuation of the recent wintertime (and to some extent in the other seasons) synoptic situation.

At the end of the day would you trust the above dynamic or the Met Office dynamic, with it's "white" January period anomaly for most of the UK?

Damien, I'm still not quite sure what the theory is that you're suggesting in the previous post that we put to the test. Given the lack of clarity in your post, I was assuming you weer suggesting that the LRF you present was therefore a reliable forecast against which we assess the accuracy of LRFs. Why pick just this one?

If we're going to test properly then, as White Fox starts to suggest, lets look at ALL the forecasts, understand why they're suggesting what they do, and then monitor them for accuracy of results - and not just this year, but over several years. Lets be careful to make sure that positives aren't just false positives either (i.e. correct outcome but for the wrong reasons). If some of the time spent on here crowing about success (real or not) was instead diverted to understanding both success and failure, then we might be some way to marshalling resources to improve performance over time, rather than just keeping on recycling the same ineffective methods.

[The Eagle]

Another good 06z - as usual especially at the end. It looks good to me atm. Certainly seeing the GH in such great form has me chuffed :lol:

[Snowyowl9]

Another good 06z - as usual especially at the end. It looks good to me atm. Certainly seeing the GH in such great form has me chuffed :lol:

As long as it keeps doing so over the winter then we`ve got something to smile about just one month too early for my liking but very interesting sypnotics never the less..