Met Office Winter Forecast

[Don]

In a way I think that the Met Office forecast isn't too badly set out. They clearly don't know how the winter is going to play out which is why there isn't a proper forecast as such - in some years they've said things like 'a colder December is likely'. I think they said that for December 2007? So rather than say they haven't a clue and leave people completely in the dark, they set out the %chance of mild, average and cold etc. so that people can review it and get an idea for themselves. I'm sure people would be more angry if they said 'signals are too weak to make a forecast', or something along the lines of that

It was for December 2008 that they thought was likely to be colder than average (which it was) with a milder January and February, which weren't!

[keithtod43]

I seem to remember the Met' Office usually issue a preliminary winter forecast around this time of year, based on various parameters in May.

Does anyone know when it's due out, or indeed if there's going to be one at all?

Its out now but its a joke.talk of hedging ones bet better off sticking to netweather and other websites.ALL in pretty much agreement a cold and wintry winter especially january.

[grab my graupel]

Well, given how extremely difficult it can be to forecast what the weather

has in-store for us, even a week ahead, any long-range forecast should be taken

as suggestion rather than fact.

I don't see what else the Meto could have said.

[KTtom]

I don't see what else the Meto could have said.

It would have been nice to hear the reasoning behind their forecast. At least we could learn which of the many factors which govern a seasonal weather pattern they pay most credance to.

Its like they want to keep the science to themselves.

[grab my graupel]

It would have been nice to hear the reasoning behind their forecast. At least we could learn which of the many factors which govern a seasonal weather pattern they pay most credance to.

Its like they want to keep the science to themselves.

I suppose, because most of us on here are weather enthusiasts, we'd welcome a more

detailed forecast, but for the average person, and don't forget the Meto have to

satisfy a lot of people, the more simplified the forecast is, the better.

[Alex95]

It would have been nice to hear the reasoning behind their forecast. At least we could learn which of the many factors which govern a seasonal weather pattern they pay most credance to.

Its like they want to keep the science to themselves.

Yes that is something I've always wanted from the METO. As not to fill the forecast page with information like that which people just after a quick forecast won't be interested in, they could have a link to a separate page with all the reasoning behind the forecast on it. Perhaps if people knew how to produce a LRF for themselves they would put the METO out of business!

[Nick L]

Think I will stick to the Netweather forecast, at least that explains it!

[DAVID SNOW]

Think I will stick to the Netweather forecast, at least that explains it!

Spot on.

What a vacuous forecast it is this year from the met office.

No mention of precipitation,because they do not know.

No mention of individual months,because they do not know.

They have covered all bets this time.

Super computers my a@@e

[Evening thunder]

Some people are never satisfied! :yahoo:

I agree with the likes of Pete Tattum, TWS and GMG that have commented so far.

The MetO forecasts generally have to be for the general public that wants to know what the weather is likely to be. Any in depth analysis like the NW winter forecast would go right over most peoples heads! and perhaps thats how it should be, because where else can they get more generalised easier to understand forecasts for non-weather enthusiasts. Us weather enthusiasts that can easily find more in depth sites like NetWeather to satisfy our needs.

If there really is no clear signal for some things, showing how borderline it could possibly be, then its better to say so than basically lie IMO?

Of course were likely to find what they think interesting, as there forecasts are probably overall as accurate as anyones in my opinion, but sorry im just a bit fed up that many people seem to have to be automatic Met Office bashers.

[Mondy]

Spot on.

What a vacuous forecast it is this year from the met office.

No mention of precipitation,because they do not know.

No mention of individual months,because they do not know.

They have covered all bets this time.

Super computers my a@@e

Agree. They focus far too much on "Climate Change" nowadays for me to take them seriously. I have lost all faith in all things weather/climate/forecasting/models and tend now to try forecast and observe myself without being spoon-fed crap from the "establishment".

[Nick L]

Some people are never satisfied!

I agree with the likes of Pete Tattum, TWS and GMG that have commented so far.

The MetO forecasts generally have to be for the general public that wants to know what the weather is likely to be. Any in depth analysis like the NW winter forecast would go right over most peoples heads! and perhaps thats how it should be, because where else can they get more generalised easier to understand forecasts for non-weather enthusiasts. Us weather enthusiasts that can easily find more in depth sites like NetWeather to satisfy our needs.

If there really is no clear signal for some things, showing how borderline it could possibly be, then its better to say so than basically lie IMO?

Of course were likely to find what they think interesting, as there forecasts are probably overall as accurate as anyones in my opinion, but sorry im just a bit fed up that many people seem to have to be automatic Met Office bashers.

Well they could at least have a stab at explaining it, or tell the truth and say they simply don't know!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Thing is, I don't agree with the idea of removing information from the forecast in order to cater for the lowest common denominator (people with no interest in, or understanding of, weather who just want to know whether it will be wet or dry, warm or cold). Going too far towards that end, across weather presentation in general, results in more of the masses being uneducated and caters for one subset of the population at the expense of everyone else.

But the "covering their backsides against the trigger-happy, misquote-happy tabloids" argument is a stronger justification. I don't think it's a good thing, but I can understand why they may be more probabilistic and remove information for that reason.

[DAVID SNOW]

Well they could at least have a stab at explaining it, or tell the truth and say they simply don't know!

Would seem so, but why the hell then are they saying what the weather will be like in 30 years time, when they have not a clue(no signals) what will happen in the next 3 months :unsure:

[paul tall]

I'm looking forward to their later back patting appraisal of their forecast in a couple of months.

You know, the one that said it might be warmer than average, might be average or might be below average temperatures, and might be wet, average, or dry.

They have not given a forecast at all!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The Meto are probably absolutely gutted that cold chances have increased. Yes a very underwhelming forecast, if that is what one can call it.

BFTP

[Methuselah]

Tbh, I'd rather see a seasonal forecast that genuinely reflects the current understanding of meteorology than one that pretends to have knowledge that (arguably) doesn't exist...

Unlike with the MetO (computers or not) the media always forgets about the loons who, year-in, year-out, predict the next '47 or '63 based on berries, hedgehogs, waxwings, grebes, sheep or whatever...

That said, I agree - this year's 'forecast' is a little odd. Maybe a tad too defensive methinks??

[Nick L]

That's a point though, they are eager to splash the cash into making predictions for our future climate, releasing publication after publication - but still only give a half-arsed 3 month forecast!

[Methuselah]

That's a point though, they are eager to splash the cash into making predictions for our future climate, releasing publication after publication - but still only give a half-arsed 3 month forecast!

But weather and climate are two entirely different things...

[Mondy]

Indeed they are. Or should be. Wasn't long ago on this very forum I was informed Global Warming and weather were two entirely different subjects. Suddenly, and quite blatantly, Global Warming shifted to Climate Change, which now apparently includes all things weather.

Like the BBC, I can't be bothered with the Meto anymore. Both corporations in each others pockets when it comes to Climate Change, and run by alarmists.

It would be a breath of fresh air if a rival MetO surfaced and was less biased. Or just plain neutral !

[Methuselah]

It would be a breath of fresh air if a rival MetO surfaced and was less biased. Or just plain neutral !

Such as who? Corbyn, Foggit, Joe 'the snow'???

[Mondy]

Such as who? Corbyn, Foggit, Joe 'the snow'???

Like it says. Someone/institute less biased or neutral. Pete Tattum perhaps? But, then you or any of the above are not organisations or institutes.

Three cheers for a new United Kingdom Bureau of Meteorology - your friendly, neutral, honest and modernMet Centre.

[Paul]

I know you have your views on the meto on other subjects Mondy, but since we're talking about the winter forecast in this thread I don't know how you can possibly suggest bias, it's pretty much as unbiased as it's possible to be!!

[Mondy]

Paul. I understand it's the winter forecast area and apologies for going OT, but the Met O are not unbiased. They champion climate change, which used to be known as Global Warming - that's my gripe..look at other posters in this thread - some more or less say "it's a lax forecast, but what do you expect from the Met Office who generally believe in warming trends.."

I digress

Sorry. I couldn't help not post this gem :lol:

I say no more

[Methuselah]

Nice vid, Mondy. But what does it have to do with the MetO's winter forecast?

[Roger J Smith]

Uncertainty in long-range forecasting is something I can relate to.

All I take from this MetO winter forecast is that they are leaning towards a slightly milder than "average" three months, assuming that the average they have in mind is the most recent 30 years, that means a bit milder than what is already a bit milder, so if it comes in something like 6,4,5 (CET) for the three months, I would say they are about centre of the fairway (it's a wide fairway they choose, granted).

The net-weather LRF as well as the effort from Fred and yours truly are both perhaps a shade colder than long-term averages, so we are both (all) probably looking for one or two significant cold spells, some decent snowfall, and maybe one month that impresses with a lower than average mean, something in the 3s for CET perhaps or even lower (can it be?).

These are not vastly different forecasts given that all of them speak of uncertain signals. People who aren't spending much time doing seasonal forecasts may think this is all a lot of fudge factor at work, but in general, the signals in any working paradigm this winter are mixed due to the west-based El Nino. There are not very many analogues of moderately strong west-based El Ninos combined with the low solar activity and recovering ice factors, so no matter what variables you choose for your forecast paradigm, you don't have a wide selection. It's sort of like betting on a friendly football game between Hungary and Costa Rica, they've never met before, nobody knows what's at stake, and there is no form to really consider. So anything might happen, whereas in a case where Austria is travelling to play Mexico, you might be much more confident of betting on Mexico.

That's how I would explain the uncertainty, people actually doing this without trying to impress gullible tabloids and their readers are being quite up front with their assessment of greater than usual uncertainty in a "science" that is admittedly just a step up from being an art form at this point in time.

(PS ours is better).