Met Office Seasonal Forecasts To Be Scrapped

[MR EXTREMES]

well well looks like met office have given up on longrange.

http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/8551416.stm

its been a roller coaster ride for the peeps at meto over the last few years,

but i do think it will be back when adjustments are made to the models that predict this.

also needs to be noted that net weather + weather online and two outlook done very well with there winter predictions.

so why did the meto fail.

Edited March 5, 2010 by badboy657

[Coast]

John Holmes has commented in his blog: netweather.tv

Stuart is keeping us to date here: netweather.tv/meto-uk-further-outlook-16-day-to-30-forcast

[guitarnutter]

How will we be able to ridicule the MO 4 times a year when their seasonal forecast turns out to be wrong?

[SteveB]

I think it just goes to show how difficult it is to do seasonal forecasts for the UK.

Maybe in the next 5-10yrs they might start doing them again, as the predominant theme will be for cooler weather

[Guest]

As the saying goes you should put your money where your mouth is - surely the publishing of LR forecasts must be an incentive to getting them right unless you are so thick skinned so as not to bother.

That chap Joe laminate floori over the other side of the Atlantic, despite what many people think of him, appears to have had his finger on the pulse as regards this winter - and it ain't finished yet - even down here in southern France where I am at the moment "les printemps" still look a little way off and it is cold for the time of year.

Accuweather are predicting rain and snow which we call sleet for monday morning here.

[stewfox]

I think it just goes to show how difficult it is to do seasonal forecasts for the UK.

Maybe in the next 5-10yrs they might start doing them again, as the predominant theme will be for cooler weather

As it says (which we sometimes for get on here)

------------------

Although we can identify general patterns of weather, the science does not exist to allow an exact forecast beyond five days, or to absolutely promise a certain type of weather.

--------------

So yes they dont offer any value and of course are open up to ridicule. If people read them like a horoscope then they would be fine, a bit of fun

[Marcus_surfer]

I'm glad to see this go, these long range forecasts have been very inaccruate over the past few years.

[djajb]

I am going to miss the seasonal forecast and although the winter one and for most the summer one was incorrect I find most of them interesting, The summer forecast was I fact correct last year for the SE just a shame everyone else had a poorer one and 2008 forecast was spot on with the increased chance of cooler cloudier spells. It'll be a shame, I'm going to miss the meto seasonal view!

[kold weather]

Yeah its nots easy to do forecasts long range, but clearly it can be done and I'm not quite sure why the Met office have failed so badly over and over again in the last few years, of course you are going to bust now and then but even basic long range calls such as broad temperature figures for a season or precip totals for a season have been way out quite a lot of the time.

Its not a bash at the Met office here because they do wonderful things, but if the like of GP and Joe B (both of whom really did nail this winter, esp Jan) can get those basic trends more or less correct over 3 months, then surely the Met office must be able to do so as well more often then they been doing recently.

That being said, I don't blame them for not bothering with it anymore because thier forecasts get widely published and very twisted by the media most of the time into something that barely reflects the actual forecast at all and in that situation unless you have close to a 100% record, your always going to have trouble on the horizon.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Yeah its nots easy to do forecasts long range, but clearly it can be done and I'm not quite sure why the Met office have failed so badly over and over again in the last few years, of course you are going to bust now and then but even basic long range calls such as broad temperature figures for a season or precip totals for a season have been way out quite a lot of the time.

Its not a bash at the Met office here because they do wonderful things, but if the like of GP and Joe B (both of whom really did nail this winter, esp Jan) can get those basic trends more or less correct over 3 months, then surely the Met office must be able to do so as well more often then they been doing recently.

That being said, I don't blame them for not bothering with it anymore because thier forecasts get widely published and very twisted by the media most of the time into something that barely reflects the actual forecast at all and in that situation unless you have close to a 100% record, your always going to have trouble on the horizon.

I think if the Met Office set out their seasonal forecasts and demonstrated that they took into account the raft of factors that the likes of Joe B and GP refer to in order to make up their own forecasts (ie GWO,QBO,AO,NAO ENSO state, stratosphere/ozone trends and solar) then the analysis would be so unequivocal and wide ranging for the media etc to even begin to twist their forecasts!!

They are not going to do that though because the public would not be interested in the slightest and it would go completely over most people's heads anyway!

[AderynCoch]

That being said, I don't blame them for not bothering with it anymore because thier forecasts get widely published and very twisted by the media most of the time into something that barely reflects the actual forecast at all and in that situation unless you have close to a 100% record, your always going to have trouble on the horizon.

I have a feeling this is what it came down to. The media in this country have a nasty habit of blowing things out of proportion; their reporting of meteorology to the average layman is generally abysmal.

That said, the Met Office didn't help themselves by saying we were "odds on for a barbecue summer" (their own words: http://www.metoffice...pr20090430.html): anything less and they were always setting themselves up for a massive fall.

Edited March 5, 2010 by AderynCoch

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't think the problem has been the accuracy but rather the presentation. For example, their long-range forecast for Summer 2009 indicated a "BBQ summer" only for the south of England- over much of Scotland and northern England in particular you need a large departure from the long-term average for it to be perceived by most people as a "BBQ summer". Then in the winter they appeared to over-react and gave a bare minimum of detail, making the forecast not of much use. Had they mentioned that they were envisaging a cold winter over most of Eurasia, except for western Europe, the forecast wouldn't have looked anywhere near as bad.

The winter 2005/06 forecast had about the right amount of detail and was also close to being spot on- they should've stuck with that approach.

However I can see a strong case for 16-30 day forecasts being more fruitful than these experimental seasonal ones, and from that perspective I can, therefore, also see a strong argument for this decision regardless of the relative accuracy or inaccuracy of their seasonal ones.

[Iceberg]

Agree with many of the comments on here, I think the METO have generally been better than Joe B, personally (wrt to winter, he's being forecasting a cold winter ever since I can remember every year).

As to why they arn't doing it ?, simply why should they ?.

They don't gain anything by issuing a 3 month forecast,as many have said it's often taken out of context anyway by the media. 3 month forecasts tend to fall in a realm of climatic forecasting at least with NWS where it goes into NCEP and CPC areas.

Are they any good at LRF's ?, I have to admit probably not tbh, presentation poor ?, yes definately IMO.

[La Bise]

They are right to give up, not because they are any worse than others but because the way the ghastly UK media twist everything they say to suit their agenda. You don't end up providing half of the world airlines with meteo data AND being a rubbish forecaster.

As for that old chestnut about Joe B, all he does is forecast cold winters, as some point even a broken clock ends up right.

[Mondy]

, as some point even a broken clock ends up right.

...much like a supporter of AGW, but that's for elsewhere.

Very happy to see the LRF forecasts go. They admit here clearly why:

It said the UK is one of the hardest places to provide forecasts for due to its "size and location", making it "very hard to forecast much beyond a week".

For those who still believe LRF have a place and can "clearly be done", please provide a little substance/proof. The MetO have admitted they are wrong, therefore shouldn't the fantasist amateur LRF'ers do the same too?

BTW, not one LRF I read all those months ago mentioned continious cold for Scotland, which pretty much up until today, lasted over three months (or quarter of a year). A 1/4 of a year is a lonnng time in weather forecasts..particularly when not one LRF picked up on this fact.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Mondy

[Gowon]

The reason why they kept getting it wrong is because they had a science is settled mentality.

This is their statement, "Although we can identify general patterns of weather, the science does not exist to allow an exact forecast beyond five days, or to absolutely promise a certain type of weather.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Higrade

[Thundery wintry showers]

I knew a couple would try to smuggle something in about AGW, but long-term weather forecasting and long-term seasonal forecasting requires a different set of modelling. The accuracy of their seasonal forecasts has absolutely nothing to do with science being settled, it is most likely primarily because their models picked up inaccurate signals.

[kold weather]

For those who still believe LRF have a place and can "clearly be done", please provide a little substance/proof. The MetO have admitted they are wrong, therefore shouldn't the fantasist amateur LRF'ers do the same too?

BTW, not one LRF I read all those months ago mentioned continious cold for Scotland, which pretty much up until today, lasted over three months (or quarter of a year). A 1/4 of a year is a lonnng time in weather forecasts..particularly when not one LRF picked up on this fact.

As much as some people have commented on Joe B, he did make a STUNNING call with regards to Jan, moan all about the broken clock stuff he nailed not just our area this winter but pretty much everywhere from 55-30N in the N.hemisphere.

Of course no one would have progged what Scotland had, that would mean someone having the bottle to forecast a 62-63 repeat, which for Scotland it pretty much was just that...I'm not sure many of the massive cold rampers would have even gone for something that extreme. The fact that the Arctic went utterly mental with how powerful the blocking was its not surprising you guys did so well, I know for a fact GP and others did make big mention of northern blocking this winter but as I just said, if it was say November 1946, would you call for one of the coldest Feb's ever?

Probably not is the answer and for you guys 09-10 was one of the more extreme winters in not just recent history but prehaps since the last 'mini ice age', in the 20th century for example only 62-63 was JUST colder...

It's all about being realistic mondy, the best you generally can get I find is temps/precip and pressure anomalies based on global set-up and maybe to give general ideas about timings but its all VERY hard stuff...but it can be done.

Long range forecasts are a percentage game, I'd have thougt if you were to get say 75% of it right you'd be very pleased with the call, the problem is the media have this fantasy that any LRF WILL happen and as we all know, even the greatest of all calls will never get 100% of it right, even if they do nail the basics like IMO GP/Joe.B have done this winter...

[The Eagle]

To be honest my view is that while it is of course right to advance forecasting as much as possible in range the organisation was losing credibility with every forecast it was giving. It should never been made available at this stage to the general public given it's highly dubious experimental nature.

[Mr_Pessimistic]

yet the ipcc think they can predict the global climate for the next 50 years!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Far too much climate change influence in terms of how the METO envisage our seasons are changing invaded the thinking behind the forecasts. On that basis alone they had to be scrapped. Ian Brown was quicker to realise than the METO that northern blocking in winter is not the casuality to winter that AGW has supposedly inflicted on us. They were still in disbelief that it was actually happening during the first week of January when virtually all of the UK was snowbound. The extremely embarrassing 'This Week' interviewer very effectively brought all that home with the METO chief left in small pieces. Next to the 1987 storm, one of the METO's worst moments.

Other than the love-in with made made climate change, only ENSO factors and a tenuous basis for predicting the NAO state six months ahead were made available to us all as evidence of their methodology. Although there had to be more going on than that. Too much taking the public as dim I guess. However, there was no evidence of any of the use of detailed technical factors that the likes of GP use and has has clearly demonstrated more than once, the effectiveness of such tools. No LRF is going to be totally accurate but there is always room for improvement.

They should now stick to what they are extremely good and professional at: short term forecasting.

[Solar Cycles]

Looks like I was late to the ball with this one. My views on the MetO LRF are well documented on here, so a few maybe surprised to hear that I voted for them to be given more time. That way they'll slowly come to understand how futile it is, to issue a LRF factoring in AGW. Off course a few here state otherwise, but the proof is in the pudding, when they constantly remind us of other background factors to be considered! No LRF is ever going to be totally accurate, but as GP as shown, you don't need to factor in any warming bias to issue a LRF!

Edited May 1, 2010 by Solar Cycles