Another Seasonal Forecast Goes Awry

[Coast]

Weather forecasting has been transformed by the advent of Earth-observing satellites, leaps in computing power and more advanced models of the atmosphere and oceans, but it remains a business built on uncertainty.

When the Met Office announced in April its much-criticised seasonal forecast for the summer, it declared a 65% probability that temperatures would be above average, and that rainfall would be near or below the average for the time of year.

That the weather has arguably failed to co-operate does not mean the Met Office was wrong to say we were "odds on for a barbecue summer". The forecast amounts to little more than an educated guess that the summer will be warmer and drier than usual.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/29/weather-forecasts-met-office-accuracy

Edited July 29, 2009 by Coast

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I hope I'm reading this wrong, but my impression is that in previous debates Tamara has insisted that the Met Office factors AGW into its seasonal forecasts, her arguments were refuted in those discussions and she had no answer, so she is now spinning this article and applying straw men to it in order to give herself an answer and say, "see, told you, I was right all along".

I'm afraid the points from the earlier discussions still stand as strongly as ever. Long-range forecasting is a cross between short-range and climate forecasting in many ways because it must combine consideration of modes of long-term climate variability (NAO, PDO, ENSO etc) as well as the short-range outputs from models like the UKMO, GFS and ECMWF. But the Met Office do not factor AGW into their long-range forecasts, they bear in mind the current state of the climate- which over the vast majority of the globe is at a warmer state than the mean for 1971-2000. Just like I do for my month-ahead forecasts for Britain. So when they say "a warmer winter is likely because temperatures are warmer" or whatever, that's what they are getting at, not AGW.

I think an apology "from up high" would be the morally right thing to do but in a way I can understand them not doing it, as it would be setting them up for some sensationalist twaddle in the newspapers about their forecasts being a waste of taxpayers' money.

I agree with Mr_Data that the "barbecue summer" was the biggest problem with the forecast. It always struck me as implying that they were a lot more certain about the forecast than they really were, and of course it is much harder to have a barbecue in an average summer on the Tyne & Wear coast than in the middle of London or Exeter say.

Yes you are reading this wrong. Very And that first sentence is unfair' below the belt, totally uneccessary and very untrue . In terms of having 'no answer' it brings out this ego 'touche' neanderderthal man element that seems to get introduced to these discussions. This is about a discussion, a debate, where one is free to agree or disagree not 'win' a point scoring contest.

Heaven help you if you criticise a vested party it seems.

Or perhaps it is just intended as a wind-up to test an (incorrectly) 'suspected' sense of humour. On that basis I won't get drawn into repeating those 'answers' that have already been given as this is just a booby-trapped prepared road.

Edited July 29, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Iceberg]

I'll say again Tamara, if you think the Met's long range summer forecast wrong, back it up with figures from the summer so far.

Your total refusal to do so doesn't really help in what your saying.

And before you say anything I've done that in the other thread and it appears to be pretty accurate.

[Weather-history]

This is what the headline should have been

"An improvement on the two previous summers"

Sub headline: "A bit warmer and not as wet"

[Thundery wintry showers]

No, it's because when you're shown to be wrong about something that you're defensive about (e.g. the Met Office factoring AGW into its seasonal forecasts, even though the evidence overwhelmingly and emphatically doesn't bear that out), sometimes, you are unwilling to admit to it. The earlier posts in this thread did read like a "told you so- the Met Office factors AGW into its forecasts!", which is guilty of exactly the same ego/point scoring thing that I'm being accused of.

This is indeed a discussion and debate, but while many things (like AGW and accuracy of weather/climate forecasts) are open to considerable uncertainty, in some there is a right and a wrong. I am perfectly capable of criticising the Met Office, as people will have seen from the "barbecue summer" comment, but I also think it is important to defend them when they are criticised for doing things that they don't do.

Just seen Mr_Data's post and I agree.

[Methuselah]

I hope I'm reading this wrong, but my impression is that in previous debates Tamara has insisted that the Met Office factors AGW into its seasonal forecasts, her arguments were refuted in those discussions and she had no answer, so she is now spinning this article and applying straw men to it in order to give herself an answer and say, "see, told you, I was right all along".

No Ian, I don't think that you are 'reading this wrong' at all. IMO, it's this constant 'drip drip drip' of misinformation, that worries me. Give it long enough, and it might even become an 'Urban Legend'?

I'm afraid the points from the earlier discussions still stand as strongly as ever. Long-range forecasting is a cross between short-range and climate forecasting in many ways because it must combine consideration of modes of long-term climate variability (NAO, PDO, ENSO etc) as well as the short-range outputs from models like the UKMO, GFS and ECMWF. But the Met Office do not factor AGW into their long-range forecasts, they bear in mind the current state of the climate- which over the vast majority of the globe is at a warmer state than the mean for 1971-2000. Just like I do for my month-ahead forecasts for Britain. So when they say "a warmer winter is likely because temperatures are warmer" or whatever, that's what they are getting at, not AGW.

Precisely, Ian. As I asked before: what would the models spew-out, if they were supplied with 1962's data?

I think an apology "from up high" would be the morally right thing to do but in a way I can understand them not doing it, as it would be setting them up for some sensationalist twaddle in the newspapers about their forecasts being a waste of taxpayers' money.

I agree with Mr_Data that the "barbecue summer" was the biggest problem with the forecast. It always struck me as implying that they were a lot more certain about the forecast than they really were, and of course it is much harder to have a barbecue in an average summer on the Tyne & Wear coast than in the middle of London or Exeter say.

I agree with that too. But, with the proviso that, this summer has been a lot better than the last two!

[The PIT]

I'll say again Tamara, if you think the Met's long range summer forecast wrong, back it up with figures from the summer so far.

Your total refusal to do so doesn't really help in what your saying.

And before you say anything I've done that in the other thread and it appears to be pretty accurate.

And if you're saying it's totally right can you also post the figures to prove it.

For us temperature wise the Met office is going to be right while rainfall wise it's totally wrong with well above average rainfall for summer already.

Edited July 29, 2009 by The PIT

[Iceberg]

And if you're saying it's totally right can you also post the figures to prove it.

For us temperature wise the Met office is going to be right while rainfall wise it's totally wrong with well above average rainfall for summer already.

Yes but it's not for you PIT it's for the UK as a whole and rainfall rates are still below the total expected for the Jun-Aug period.

What I am really saying is that it's a summer forecast so to judge it fairly it needs to be judged over the summer.

If we take it so far then sunshine is average temperatures are around or slightly above average, 30C was exceed comfortably and on several days, it's been an improvement over the last few years.

The only one point that you could say they got wrong is rainfall, but considering we still have 5 weeks left of summer we really need to wait to see whether that it right or wrong.

So far the only think you can say they definately got wrong was the use of the "BBQ" word. If people want to judge a forecast on that alone then fair enough but it's hardly being accurate.

If Tamara things it's wrong (and she started this thread) then I think it's fair enough to ask why she thinks it's wrong or where she thinks it's wrong.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Iceberg

[The PIT]

Yes but it's not for you PIT it's for the UK as a whole and rainfall rates are still below the total expected for the Jun-Aug period.

What I am really saying is that it's a summer forecast so to judge it fairly it needs to be judged over the summer.

If we take it so far then sunshine is average temperatures are around or slightly above average, 30C was exceed comfortably and on several days, it's been an improvement over the last few years.

The only one point that you could say they got wrong is rainfall, but considering we still have 5 weeks left of summer we really need to wait to see whether that it right or wrong.

So far the only think you can say they definately got wrong was the use of the "BBQ" word. If people want to judge a forecast on that alone then fair enough but it's hardly being accurate.

If Tamara things it's wrong (and she started this thread) then I think it's fair enough to ask why she thinks it's wrong or where she thinks it's wrong.

Actually I've got too eat humble pie. Just looked at Climate UK site and indeed for most of the UK June was dry bar one or two exceptions. Taking that the temps were above average and rainfall mostly below for June means the summer forecast was correct for June anyways. All eyes on August then.

[Iceberg]

Yes Sorry from me as well PIT I wasn't trying to have ago, just getting anoyed at the flack a simple forecast has received when people don't seem to have bothered to check whether it actually has been right or wrong.!

(not that I am saying you didn't bother)

[ANYWEATHER]

Actually I've got too eat humble pie. Just looked at Climate UK site and indeed for most of the UK June was dry bar one or two exceptions................... AHHH, actually some places in June did have above average rainfall, mainly due to heavy showers such as our area, average rainfall for us is about 64mms, recorded 87.9mms so certainly some regional variations!

Edited July 29, 2009 by ANYWEATHER

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

The solar cycles are perhaps the most pertinent factor that might be being under stated. As you allude to,we already know how David Hathaway has not been able to read the progress of C23/C24 very well. And it pits the spotlight on C25 even more strongly and how that might pan out. METO might point to the fact that it is not their speciality but all factors and feedbacks have to be taken into account if they are going to put themselves forward as a global leader in climate change research.

the point I find most interesting is that Hathaway et al. at NASA were prdicting a slowdown in Cycle 25, so for the number of sunspots to fall off a cliff so soon shows that because a model can be regressed to fit what happened doesn't mean that it can then be used to predict the future. In the NY Times a few days ago, Hathaway admitted we may be heading for a Dalton Minimum or similar, that will at least give scientists a chance to see what effect a quiet sun really has.

Observations so far seem to suggest that although visible and Infra red wavelength output from the sun has changed by a fraction of a percent downwards, extreme UV has dropped by 8%, therefore the atmosphere around the earth is a little less excited, and therefore there is less drag on satellites in low orbit as there are less air molecules at those heights.

Both the Dalton and Maunder minima had a fairly harsh effect on Europe, not forgetting that Continental US was seem as a frozen and inhospitable land in the 17th Century.

Radio flux from the sun is on an upward trend, so would tend to suggest that we are at least in cycle 24, perhaps we out to take bets on what the sunspot number will peak at, My bet would be between 35 and 40, which is much lower than Hathaway's 90

[❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️]

I don't know why they bother to make seasonal forecasts. It's not like you can do anything based on them being correct, and they have to be so vague that even if they are really wrong they can still claim they weren't far off.

[Solar Cycles]

No, it's because when you're shown to be wrong about something that you're defensive about (e.g. the Met Office factoring AGW into its seasonal forecasts, even though the evidence overwhelmingly and emphatically doesn't bear that out), sometimes, you are unwilling to admit to it. The earlier posts in this thread did read like a "told you so- the Met Office factors AGW into its forecasts!", which is guilty of exactly the same ego/point scoring thing that I'm being accused of.

This is indeed a discussion and debate, but while many things (like AGW and accuracy of weather/climate forecasts) are open to considerable uncertainty, in some there is a right and a wrong. I am perfectly capable of criticising the Met Office, as people will have seen from the "barbecue summer" comment, but I also think it is important to defend them when they are criticised for doing things that they don't do.

Just seen Mr_Data's post and I agree.

Why is Tamara wrong? Have you eveidence that the MetO don't factor AGW into their forecasts? Having listened to the chief Met officer speak with fork tongue, regarding how their previous 2 summer forecasts were right. I'm now even more convinced, that they are that engrossed in climate models, that they forgot to look at what is happening, right outside their windows. Real world observations v climate models, one is actually happening, the other belongs in the realms of fantasy! Edited July 29, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Thundery wintry showers]

AGW is factored into their long term climate projections, not their long range forecasts (the two are different things). Long range forecasts use current atmospheric conditions as a base not the premise that AGW is happening. Nobody is suggesting that the climate will change dramatically within the space of a single season due to AGW!

Edit: take a look at their official line on the lines of argument used behind their forecasts:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/

No mention of AGW there!

Edited July 29, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[Solar Cycles]

AGW is factored into their long term climate projections, not their long range forecasts (the two are different things). Long range forecasts use current atmospheric conditions as a base not the premise that AGW is happening. Nobody is suggesting that the climate will change dramatically within the space of a single season due to AGW!

Edit: take a look at their official line on the lines of argument used behind their forecasts:

http://www.metoffice...ahead/seasonal/

No mention of AGW there!

I know they are different, but directly or indirectly, AGW is factored into either the forecasts, or the presentation of them!

[Methuselah]

Why is Tamara wrong? Have you eveidence that the MetO don't factor AGW into their forecasts? Having listened to the chief Met officer speak with fork tongue, regarding how their previous 2 summer forecasts were right. I'm now even more convinced, that they are that engrossed in climate models, that they forgot to look at what is happening, right outside their windows. Real world observations v climate models, one is actually happening, the other belongs in the realms of fantasy!

Hi Solar.

You, Tamara and just about everyone-else, have accepted that today is warmer than 30 years' back, have you not? (0.6C or thereabouts - whether it be natural or AGW doesn't really matter?) All a model needs is today's data...It really doesn't need pre-prgrammed AGW to be programmed in (+0.6C in --> +0.6 out - near as damn it) to predict temps above the 30-year rolling average.

As I said to Tamara earlier, it is the Solar Cycles that present the greatest problem. Even Hathaway et al don't know what's coming next!

[Solar Cycles]

Hi Solar.

You, Tamara and just about everyone-else, have accepted that today is warmer than 30 years' back, have you not? (0.6C or thereabouts - whether it be natural or AGW doesn't really matter?) All a model needs is today's data...It really doesn't need pre-prgrammed AGW to be programmed in (+0.6C in --> +0.6 out - near as damn it) to predict temps above the 30-year rolling average.

As I said to Tamara earlier, it is the Solar Cycles that present the greatest problem. Even Hathaway et al don't know what's coming next!

Two words Pete, Chaos theory!

[Methuselah]

Two words Pete, Chaos theory!

Make that three, Solar - Complexity!

[J10]

Looking at ths summer so far, June was better than average generally, and May had some very good early summer weather, July has been very wet, but this hides a bigger than normal regional anomoly in the weather, Western areas have been much wetter than their regional avarages with the westerly dominated airflow of this month, whereas sheltered Eastern areas have faired better. Indeed some parts of western Britain have already received more than entire average rainfall this summer, it was reported on Wales today on Monday that a location in Carmarthenshire had received 290mm of rain up until monday in July alone.

This summer IMO is on a knife-edge, a good August and overall it's been a good summer, but a bad August and it's been a disappointing summer. Even after this hopefully September can be nice.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I know they are different, but directly or indirectly, AGW is factored into either the forecasts, or the presentation of them!

Indeed SC. That is the simple point I have made. I know I am not going as mad as a few are making out.

Yes i started this thread and I stated the simple point as above. I also have repeatedly at least twice praised their short term forecasting.

Thundery Wintry Showers, please desist with this rubbish about me not admitting I am wrong, and, frankly, grow up. There are far worse things believe me to have to 'back down on' than some silly internet discussion anyway, so why I should be resisting doing an alleged u-turn on something such as this beggars belief. And you are not going to coerce me into saying something/anything I don't believe. Respect it or tough luck. Disagree with me by all means and say why you disagree with me by all means to but then keep quiet and stop putting words in my mouth and telling me what i think and what my motives are. You have made your point, you always do on most things, and some of the stuff, not all, that you write, i find equally unacceptable - but going round in circles harranging someone for better explanations and accusing them and trying to undermine them through suggestions of running scared in terms of what they have said is quite ridulously absurd and pretty insulting too.

I don't know how many times I have said that obviously the METO use short term seasonal tools to make their seasonal forecast, but in terms of assigning climate change into their seasonal forecasting (and which is clearly in the print that they do) if that comes from a based belief in AGW as the mechansim principle behind climate change (which it indisputably does) then it is perfectly acceptable and logical that this can be seen as interpreted in seasonal trend and seasonal forecast as a background factor. I spelt out quite clearly the differentiation between cyclical and natural factors and AGW in terms of the implication of that trend. I don't need to say more. If one disagrees then fine - but do not try and impose that disbelief on me please by trying to force some other explanation out of me.

In terms of the shorter term forecasting tools etc I have never read Thundery Wintry Showers forecasts - and usually follow what the likes of GP, BFTP and CH have to say along with my own very modest thoughts. And I tally them up with what the METO updates say, which are very good for short term periods.

But, I repeat, if AGW isn't being factored into the equation of seasonal forecasting as Thundery Wintry Showers and Iceberg and PT claim, and yet the METO clearly state that climate change forms part of the assessment for seasonal forecasting along with the seasonal forecasting tools AND it is an undisputable fact that the METO place AGW as the very principle mechansim behind climate change - then how can you make such a claim that AGW has nothing to do with seasonal forecasting? Directly or indirectly AGW must be a factor. It might not indeed affect one season in terms of outcome - but if climate change (AGW in this context)is used in part as principle mechansim behind seasonal forecasting but doesn't affect one season then would it not be better to completely withdraw the actual clause about climate change being part of the assessment in seasonal forecasting??? As I keep saying - which is it? If it is a factor then in how many seasons time does it start to reflect itself as a factor? Longe range forecasting is indeed different to climate forecasting - so, on that basis the METO should withdraw their indication that climate change is used in seasonal forecasting!

I am obviously banging my head on a brick wall in repeating this exhaustedly and the trolling comments about 'not admitting I am wrong' on this subject are not helping this thread at all and appear to be a deliberate attempt at getting me to repeat myself ad nauseam.

Disagree with it/me by all means, as much as you like - but the thread was for debate, not backing anyone into a corner and going round in circles - whichever view one has. It has taken yet another twenty minutes of time I could be doing other things just to reply to this nonsense about my supposed lack of backtrack.

Meantime other posters like North Norfolkweather are coming up with constructive comments in the thread about other aspects such as Solar forcings which is one of the factors I have also cited as being less well represented. I am sorry that at present I am left with no time to respond to those and others too.

[Thundery wintry showers]

But, I repeat, if AGW isn't being factored into the equation of seasonal forecasting as Thundery Wintry Showers and Iceberg and PT claim, and yet the METO clearly state that climate change forms part of the assessment for seasonal forecasting along with the seasonal forecasting tools AND it is an undisputable fact that the METO place AGW as the very principle mechansim behind climate change - then how can you make such a claim that AGW has nothing to do with seasonal forecasting? Directly or indirectly AGW must be a factor. It might not indeed affect one season in terms of outcome - but if climate change (AGW in this context)is used in part as principle mechansim behind seasonal forecasting but doesn't affect one season then would it not be better to completely withdraw the actual clause about climate change being part of the assessment in seasonal forecasting??? As I keep saying - which is it? If it is a factor then in how many seasons time does it start to reflect itself as a factor? Longe range forecasting is indeed different to climate forecasting - so, on that basis the METO should withdraw their indication that climate change is used in seasonal forecasting!

The MetO say that climate change forms part of the assessment because climate has changed relative to the reference period that they are using. The fact that they believe AGW is largely responsible for this change is irrelevant, because they are merely factoring in the recent temperature change- if it turns out that AGW isn't behind it, it won't make any difference to the fact that the change has already happened.

The rest of the post strongly bears out what I was saying, I'm afraid.

[Solar Cycles]

The MetO say that climate change forms part of the assessment because climate has changed relative to the reference period that they are using. The fact that they believe AGW is largely responsible for this change is irrelevant, because they are merely factoring in the recent temperature change- if it turns out that AGW isn't behind it, it won't make any difference to the fact that the change has already happened.

The rest of the post strongly bears out what I was saying, I'm afraid.

An the fact that the MetO, have produced busted seasonal forecasts, after busted seasonal, makes no difference as to why they get slated? They factor a theory in, and then get burnt fingers when it goes the way of the pear! I can't wait for the excuses to come thick and fast, when they realise that AGW was way way over estimated!!! And that natural forcings were always the dominant factor!! Edited July 29, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Thundery wintry showers]

Read some of the earlier posts. The fact that the seasonal forecasts haven't been good recently has nothing whatsoever to do with AGW. AGW is the basis behind their long-term climate forecasts.

AGW has been seriously overestimated in your opinion. They cannot "realise" that something is true if it hasn't yet been proved true.

[Solar Cycles]

Read some of the earlier posts. The fact that the seasonal forecasts haven't been good recently has nothing whatsoever to do with AGW. AGW is the basis behind their long-term climate forecasts.

AGW has been seriously overestimated in your opinion. They cannot "realise" that something is true if it hasn't yet been proved true.

Major flaw in your argument. AGW, hasn't been proved true either! So what I stated still stands!

Edited July 29, 2009 by Solar Cycles