Better Than The Models ?

[VillagePlank]

Well, using moon-phases, lots of faffing around, I've managed to find an "event", here - with reference to CET temperature. This one comes a little early, though.

[Roger J Smith]

Have decided to withdraw from this thread (not from Net-weather) as it strains both my patience and my credulity.

Anyone who wants further details can PM me, I don't want to state reasons in public. I have the feeling this may be a hoax of some kind. The wind forecasts are clearly not going to verify.

[Interitus]

If anything RJS was just showing concern for you and your forecast in that if it fails significantly, although you'll see it as an oppourtunity to see where you went wrong and improve upon your method, many others won't be quite so accepting/patient to say the least.

Why the hell would it matter? It's only an internet forum for goodness sake, I think people need to get a grasp of reality and stop taking things too seriously.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Some people have forgotten making forecasts is fun.

We can decide whether MB is "just guessing" later. Even if he is, why not join the fun and hope he gets it right again and again?

12z 31 Jan looks a bit familiar.

[Buzzit]

I also agree with OldMetman and others....

In my own turn of phrase :

There is no law against making a predicative forecast of the weather

There is no law against not wishing to share a theory in depth

There is no law against choosing not to get worked up about whether a forecast verifies at 50-70-100%

Just leave the guy alone and lets see what turns up, at least its something a little different, something we can all follow, and to my mind at least more interesting than listening to most of the waffle in the model output forum. I would love to see responders in the model output forum also draw their own charts for a distant point in time and see how well they do compared to MB , RJS , etc...

RJS - I know you also forecast weather a long time ahead and have spent many years working on it, I appreciate your thoughts in the various forums on Netweather - but, in the case of this thread, it is probably best to let this one go... as you say...

[LomondSnowstorm]

I don't particularly wish to wade in on the argument at this stage, certainly not before the validation date has passed. However, the control run at 384 hours has a hint of similarity to MB's chart

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iGKjdOo_A0&feature=player_detailpage#t=196s

http://91.121.84.31/modeles/gens/run/gens-0-1-384.png?12

P1 has a similar theme, albeit with further east than the control run http://91.121.84.31/modeles/gens/run/gens-1-1-384.png?12

So how many runs are similar to his prediction? http://91.121.84.31/modeles/gens/run/gens-2-1-384.png?12

http://91.121.84.31/modeles/gens/run/gens-3-1-384.png?12

http://91.121.84.31/modeles/gens/run/gens-5-1-384.png?12 (comes in slightly earlier than forecast but definitely a major low in a similar position)

So at the moment at least it appears MB may well be very close to getting it right. I will point out that I still believe the severity will be less on verification than the forecast and that the affected areas will not necessarily be the same but I am fully prepared to be proven wrong.

[Kentish Kiwi]

I don't particularly wish to wade in on the argument at this stage, certainly not before the validation date has passed. However, the control run at 384 hours has a hint of similarity to MB's chart

LS, isn't the GFS 12z operational for the 31st, as posted further up the page, closer to MB's forecast than any of the permutations you've just posted?

Why the hell would it matter? It's only an internet forum for goodness sake, I think people need to get a grasp of reality and stop taking things too seriously.

Woahhh, excuse me? No need for that kind of hostility, maybe you need to look in the mirror before saying some people take things too seriously...

I wasn't even saying I particularly agree with RJS, just trying to clear up that I didn't think his comments were intended to be offensive, from my point of view it was positive gesture to go through the effort of offering to perform an independent verification, based on an arguably unbiased 'scoring system', for MB's forecast.

Obviously, MurcieBoy is well within his rights to do whatever he wants to in regards to his methods of how he presents, tests and validates his forecast, and I for one am very excited to see the results which are hopefully more conclusive than his Christmas day attempt. However, I agree with others that the projected wind speeds are probably unrealistic and this may count against the overall accuracy of his forecast and what people perceive of it, although if the synoptic pattern turned out to be very similar and the storm itself of a very severe nature, I'm sure people wont care too much about how accurate the exact wind speeds were. On the other hand if such wind speeds as MB has predicted were to verify (an extremely rare occurrence) it really would be a remarkable piece of forecasting, and will almost completely remove any claims of 'luck' being a factor in his (potential) accuracy. The next step would be consistency.

Anyway, a lot of this bickering is very tiresome and is in my opinion derailing MB's thread. Surely it will be far more productive to flesh out some of these discussions after the actual time/event in question has come.

[peterf]

I find the whole notion that you could look back on past weather data/records to accuratly forecast weather for the future quite obsurd..

The way I see it, weather patterns are just random, and with small but significant other factors coming into play like melting arctic/antartic ice caps,sun spots,sea temperatures,increasing CO2 emissions theres no way you can predict what will happen because it happend back then so by my estimations it will happen again on the 1/6/2050....

I dont want to sound harsh but if your forecast doesnt go to plan, please don't try and make exuses for why it went wrong or you didn't spend enough time to make your forecast properly... But on the other hand, if your right then I will credit you for it and will take your methods more seriously

I know we must be patient and see what happens first before crediting/discrediting your forecast but it seems to me your allready looking for an escape route if your forecast goes wrong MB.

I dont want to sound harsh but if your forecast doesnt go to plan, please don't try and make exuses for why it went wrong or you didn't spend enough time to make your forecast properly... But on the other hand, if your right then I will credit you for it and will take your methods more seriously

should he feel honoured to receive your credit lol.

maybe he couldn't care less what certain folk think.he is trying something different for gods sake, give him a chance before you nail him to the cross.

[Kentish Kiwi]

should he feel honoured to receive your credit lol.

maybe he couldn't care less what certain folk think.he is trying something different for gods sake, give him a chance before you nail him to the cross.

Well, to be honest it seems pretty obvious he cares what others think.

If he didn't and he was simply testing out his methods entirely for his own means, he wouldn't post it on various forums and welcome feedback, but rather keep such things to himself before it enters a more refined stage that he could be completely confident in and not label 'experimental'. It's fair enough that he wants to hear others opinions on the matter, and it also allows him to take credit if his forecast turns out to be significantly accurate. If he didn't post the forecast somewhere prior to the event and instead posted his results and accuracy after the forecast period had past, many would be extremely skeptical of how truthful/believable it was. This way, if he nails the forecast, no-one will be able to call him up on it, in terms of his integrity.

Just to clear up, this is no way an attack against MurcieBoy or what he is doing. (Just a disclaimer before someone misunderstands the point I'm trying to put across and jumps on me for it.)

[LomondSnowstorm]

LS, isn't the GFS 12z operational for the 31st, as posted further up the page, closer to MB's forecast than any of the permutations you've just posted?

In some ways yes, but in terms of the deepness and extent of the storm as well as the overall position predicted for the 31st I think some of those that I posted are closer to MB's forecast. But yes, the last operational was another example of a chart similar to the set up predicted by MB. The 18Z operational is another remarkably similar run http://91.121.84.31/modeles/gfs/run/gfs-0-384.png?18 though I will add for balance that the GFS at 384 hours tends to show rather extreme outcomes and this does not necessarily mean anything.

(when going back over archive charts I found this http://91.121.84.31/modeles/gfs/archives/gfs-2010120506-0-300.png?6 which verified to this http://91.121.84.31/modeles/reana/2010/archives-2010-12-17-12-0.png )

[weather eater]

I also doubt the wind speeds, but I will still be impressed if the pressure pattern is fairly close.

[pyrotech]

Come on Guys

Lets quit the bickering

This is one persons forecast and for different reasons we have an interest in what it says, methods and fact its been put on a forum.

Can i suggest we now wait before giving any critism or praise till we see the outcome.

It may be quite interesting to read here what the charts show on the run up to the date, with seasoned members who wish to do so, commenting on why the forecast is on track or not from the charts and their personnal interpretation.

Why a low will or will not deepen, why the high will be too close or sink away and the effects and track of the jetstream.

It does not matter what side of the fence you sit on, lets make it constructive, informative and descriptive.

That will make this forum much more interesting to read. I think the forecaster has a free right to broadcast the forecast, and people here have an option to read it, take part or stay away if they disagree for any reason.

[Harsh Climate]

Come on Guys

Lets quit the bickering

This is one persons forecast and for different reasons we have an interest in what it says, methods and fact its been put on a forum.

Can i suggest we now wait before giving any critism or praise till we see the outcome.

It may be quite interesting to read here what the charts show on the run up to the date, with seasoned members who wish to do so, commenting on why the forecast is on track or not from the charts and their personnal interpretation.

Why a low will or will not deepen, why the high will be too close or sink away and the effects and track of the jetstream.

It does not matter what side of the fence you sit on, lets make it constructive, informative and descriptive.

That will make this forum much more interesting to read. I think the forecaster has a free right to broadcast the forecast, and people here have an option to read it, take part or stay away if they disagree for any reason.

To be fair no one has anything against Murci boy making a forecast, its just bits like ''140mph will be reached over parts of northern england and scotland'' ''Im almost 100% confident this will happen, unforunatly I just cant see this not happening.'' that totally take the credibility away.

Firstly the chance of 140mph winds over england let alone scotland is just plain stupid to forecast, I doubt the winds over southern england reached those strengths during the great storm of 1987 . Secondly why does he call it an experiemental forecast if he's near 100% confident?? How can he be near 100% confident if this is just experimental??

I oppologise If im wrong or seem harsh, Im just saying it the way I see it. If MB hadn't allready tryed to wriggle out of his forecast going wrong (so if it goes wrong he can still try and sell a dead horse) I wouldnt have said anything and just waited to see what happens..

And for his forecast to be any where nearly right there must be atleast some kind of headline making storm in the area he has mentioned.

[LomondSnowstorm]

To be fair no one has anything against Murci boy making a forecast, its just bits like ''140mph will be reached over parts of northern england and scotland'' ''Im almost 100% confident this will happen, unforunatly I just cant see this not happening.'' that totally take the credibility away.

Firstly the chance of 140mph winds over england let alone scotland is just plain stupid to forecast, I doubt the winds over southern england reached those strengths during the great storm of 1987

The storm of 1987 only produced gusts of 122 mph in southern England. Actually, both the synoptics suggested by MB and history suggest that the northeast of Scotland has the greatest likelihood of reaching wind speeds above 140mph. This date produced wind speeds of 142 mph, the highest recorded at low levels, in Fraserburgh in Aberdeenshire http://www.wetterzen...00119890214.gif

The highest unofficial recording of 177mph was on Shetland on this date http://www.wetterzen...00119620216.gif

So while >140mph gusts are by no means impossible in parts of the UK, they are certainly very rare, but then again MB has made it clear that what he is predicting is a very severe storm which, if it came off, would deliver those kinds of wind speeds. We'll have to wait and see what actually hapens before we can evaluate the accuracy of the forecast.

edit: I missed MB's clarification earlier that his prediction for wind gusts were 110-140mph maximum around the North Sea. That is indeed fairly plausible given what I've stated above.

[Gilly]

The storm of 1987 only produced gusts of 122 mph in southern England. Actually, both the synoptics suggested by MB and history suggest that the northeast of Scotland has the greatest likelihood of reaching wind speeds above 140mph. This date produced wind speeds of 142 mph, the highest recorded at low levels, in Fraserburgh in Aberdeenshire http://www.wetterzen...00119890214.gif

The highest unofficial recording of 177mph was on Shetland on this date http://www.wetterzen...00119620216.gif

So while >140mph gusts are by no means impossible in parts of the UK, they are certainly very rare, but then again MB has made it clear that what he is predicting is a very severe storm which, if it came off, would deliver those kinds of wind speeds. We'll have to wait and see what actually hapens before we can evaluate the accuracy of the forecast.

According to reports I have read and I stand to be corrected.........These surges travel counter-clockwise around the North Sea basin, first southwards down the western side of the basin, then northwards up the eastern side. They take about 24 hours to progress from northeast Scotland to southwest Norway.

The storm on the night of 31st January, 1953 gave winds at Kinloss, gust velocities of 113 miles an hour at 9 o'clock on Saturday morning were recorded, and Grimsetter, in the Orkneys, 107 miles an hour. By midday, gusts reached a speed of 101 miles an hour at West Freugh, near the North Channel between Larne and Stranraer and northerly gales had become general throughout the country with the exception of the extreme South-east of England.

This was a dramatic storm by any standards and there have many worse scenarios wind-wise since then!

This video is forecasting and not an impossible scenario. Will it actually happen?.......Time will tell.

[MurcieBoy]

Firstly, many thanks to the voices of support on here; it is really much appreciated.

I should say that most of the cynicism expressed is wholly understandable and expected; it was the comments (and under current view) of one poster that I did not really take to heart (for whom I still have much respect, just for the sake of trying to think out of the box).

In this post would like to just clarify a few points:

#239 HC and #237 we

WINDS: The winds that I refer to in the video are GRADIENT WINDS. I clarified this on 12 January 2011 when RJS asked me to confirm whether the winds are in kph rather than mph (see #193). I also updated the video on 12 Jan (using a YouTube edit and labelled the info as an edit).

As stated in #193, “The strongest gusts (not gradient winds) over the North Sea during the 1-5 Feb 2011 are forecasted to be around 110-140 mphâ€. If you wish to refer to surface winds, feel free to quote 110-140 mph gusts over the North Sea as being the stongest winds during 1-5 Feb 2011 Forecast.

Aside from the pressure charts, yes, the minimum for the forecast to “verify†would be a newsworthy event (as mentioned by Timmytour in #178)

#235 KK

Appreciate your comment, just to clarify, I want the “method†to gain integrity not me. It should never about me; it’s always about the “methodâ€. I sincerely hope the “method†(if it works) lives on forever after we all have gone.

#223 KK – have you seen the very candid appraisal video for Xmas 2010 – re the pressure charts, makes interesting viewing!

#220 HC

Re Nature repeating itself: it does and has done so since Day1.

I learnt this concept for myself after charting the daily high/low price time chart for several decades by hand for Wheat back in the early 1990’s on a roll of graph paper 1m wide by about 30m long (blasted thing took me ages!). I could see the price/time chart cycles repeat and that they followed specific mathematical laws; there was no turning back for me after that point.

As to the weather repeating, gosh that is much easier to verify! As I have said before, weather folk are the luckiest in the world to see the repeating cycles of Nature unfold.

You may find the concept absurd, but with great respect, have you really researched this subject thoroughly over a number of years and with an open mind?

I think you asked why scientists have missed this. Good question. I believe they have not missed it all; if one knows how to read some of the great classical works you can see this understanding everywhere. It’s just that for whatever reason we are not taught this in our schools or universities.

As to the forecast going wrong: please read my posts about appraisal. I am the one asking for very tight tolerances, if it ended t*ts ups, I will accept it. Have you seen the way I appraised my Xmas 2010 forecast? That was very candid indeed. As I say, it’s all about the integrity of the method (as evidenced by the forecast) and not about me! If it comes good, that could be another “verification†for the method.

All forecasts are labelled “Experimental†because I want to be 100% sure that I have all the relevant DNA components in there. There may be stuff that I should have in there that I have missed. If the Feb 2011 forecast fails badly, then I will know the likelihood is that I have missed something major (and to a certain extent it will be back to the drawing board to find any missing DNA components). For this reason, this is a critical forecast for the current version of the method I am using.

#221 p

As I say in the Storm video, I had to call it as I saw it. I only wish I had bit more of a track record before stumbling across such an extreme event. As I said back on 31 Dec 2010, I wasn’t going to post a forecast for a while.

The method that I am working with is very precise, as Nature is very precise. It’s just that our understanding of Nature is a bit woolly that dictates that we should have ± 3 or whatever days/months of tolerance.

# 228 RJS

Preface: I will have to speak directly from the heart here. I feel pasionately about this subject and some of the points I make below are made to pay respect to that subject. The key issue here is not about personalities, but about accurate weather forecasting and ensuring that all that have something decent to say are not ridiculed in any way and are encouraged to come forward with new ideas.

As I stated in my first post on NW (#41), I have immense respect for the work of BLAST and yourself. I value anyone who tries to row “upstream†so to speak (whatever their rational and scientific methods are).

I should also add, with the greatest respect, that having read your posts on this thread and on one or two others, I do not have a clue what your method is in any great detail. If I may be so bold, because you “lead†with your method, it is vital that the reader knows exactly where you are coming from.

Your post on the American Weather Forums on 8 December 2010 was a prime example of how people end up wholly confused and antagonistic (not that some need much encouraging!) from the explanations you give of your method.

Also you are IMO not specific enough with your forecasts and leave too much tolerance, again leaving yourself open to suggestions that you are making the “actual†fit the “forecast†(not that I am suggesting in any way you would do that).

My strategy is wholly different. I say nothing, if very little, about the method, but lead strongly with precise and clear forecasts, with specific charts and insist on very tight timing tolerances. I believe the key point about any type of forecasting (whether it is the weather or the stock market) is the forecast – not the method! To ramble on and on about the method (before it has proved itself) is like putting the cart before the horse.

For me, if, and this is a big if, the method consistently verifies over the course of an extended length of time and folk widely around the world are asking to know what it is, only then will I release the system. As I know that is the right time. As it will be more than likely be implemented and be in the mainstream – which is the long term underlying aim.

I would never try and ramble on and on about the method on internet forums (ending up to blinding folk with "science"); the method needs to be laid out in very clear, unambiguous terms with example after example as to how it works. If one ever gets to that stage, I will use every conceivable medium to get the point across, no one will be in any doubt as to what the method is and why it works.

To write endlessly on weather forums all over the world about a half cooked method that sometimes works (perhaps vaguely with ± x days tolerance), is not the best way of going about it IMO.

BTW on #11 on the Irish Forum, you quote me today as saying "it doesn't matter, the universe is full of cosmic energy" – where have I said anything hippy like that? You also keep referring to “160mph winds†– as I verified on 12 Jan 2011, the forecast is referring to Gradient Winds, why don’t you take that on board?

You also say about me (or more importantly the method) “I feel like this could almost be a sort of prank being played by someone who wants to make all of us "alternative method" forecasters look badâ€, that statement could never further from the truth, with the greatest respect, IF the American Weather Forum example is anything to go by, you have managed to do a very good job of that on your own Sir.

In conclusion: please stop trying to discredit the method I use; it will do that for itself, if indeed it is "a prank" as you seem to think.

[Interitus]

Woahhh, excuse me? No need for that kind of hostility, maybe you need to look in the mirror before saying some people take things too seriously...

I wasn't even saying I particularly agree with RJS, just trying to clear up that I didn't think his comments were intended to be offensive, from my point of view it was positive gesture to go through the effort of offering to perform an independent verification, based on an arguably unbiased 'scoring system', for MB's forecast.

Sorry, I wasn't having a go at you, I was referring to the "many others won't be quite so accepting/patient to say the least."

I'm not sure what to make of RJS' verification offer then subsequent withdrawal. Unfortunately it's obvious who is the established member of the forum and who is the newcomer.

[Harsh Climate]

Firstly, many thanks to the voices of support on here; it is really much appreciated.

I should say that most of the cynicism expressed is wholly understandable and expected; it was the comments (and under current view) of one poster that I did not really take to heart (for whom I still have much respect, just for the sake of trying to think out of the box).

In this post would like to just clarify a few points:

#239 HC and #237 we

WINDS: The winds that I refer to in the video are GRADIENT WINDS. I clarified this on 12 January 2011 when RJS asked me to confirm whether the winds are in kph rather than mph (see #193). I also updated the video on 12 Jan (using a YouTube edit and labelled the info as an edit).

As stated in #193, “The strongest gusts (not gradient winds) over the North Sea during the 1-5 Feb 2011 are forecasted to be around 110-140 mphâ€. If you wish to refer to surface winds, feel free to quote 110-140 mph gusts over the North Sea as being the stongest winds during 1-5 Feb 2011 Forecast.

Aside from the pressure charts, yes, the minimum for the forecast to “verify†would be a newsworthy event (as mentioned by Timmytour in #178)

Hi MB, I totally respect you for putting so much time and effort into an idea you believe in . And I would like to be open minded and think its possible.

The problem I have is though, there have been lots of forecasts like yours in the past that just strike you as 'sensationalist' and you kind of know that there just never going to come to fruition..

And in your video forecast it just didn't seem right that you could be nearly 100% confident of this great storm happening, a forecast beyond 7 days is only usually with 40-60% confidence so I found it a little arrogant that you could claim near 100% confidence in forecasting something as dramatic as you have over a month away..

Also yes weather patterns do repeat themselves but when they repeat themselves they just happen randomly. Like if the storm of 1987 had very similar characteristics of a storm that happened in like the 16th centurary, its only because the storm would have developed in a similar way (a deepening area of low pressure in the south coincided with a 'sting jet') which is obviously a recipe for disaster.. Just like when we get our worst weather in winter, it usually comes from a 'text-book' set-up like a scandinavian high or a greenland high... These just dont happen on a certain date because they happened on a certain date in the past,. Like novembers cold spell happened because all the ingredients were in place at the right time, not because that is the date it was due.

And on a whole meteorology is not an exact science, we will PROBABLY never be able to forecast beyond a week let alone a month with near 100% accuracy as theres just too much going on

To add to that I see this as a battle of statistics v mathmatics, with you being the statician and the more current methods of forecasting as the mathmatics. The problem is I see statistics as only a small piece of the jigsaw rather than the person using mathmatics and equations to put the jigsaw together.. And for you to be right and change the way weather forecasting is done you would have to be like an einstein figure or isaac newton, someone who defies all logic and ridicule to come to a whole new means with very little to work with. Some how I just cant see that happening as people like that maybe come along once a century...

[john w]

lies lies lies and statistics.

It is quite amazing how such a topic can cause such grievance, I wonder if the ECMWF and GFS boys have the arguments AND nit picking that has gone on on this thread which has touched elements of science I used to begin to get excited about and I am sure have also caused many arguments in the underworld of professional science.

Nethertheless, the forecast and what it entails has to come over the two first lines and for those who think I am having a dig then I am not.

I have followed the forecast with interest, great interest in fact. Full credit to MB for willing to test (and if it proves correct) warn some of the danger such an event could have. I am confident that MB, actually, is more than up to accepting false positives and negatives that may or may not come out of this forecast and then use them to refine the method. If youve traded the indices of the world, you learn from your mistakes.

On the rest, the method of verification testing put forward by RJS actually seems reasonable, but needs to be done a number of times with different weighting for each of the factors and then a average of the many tests performed....what would be even better would be to acquire the testing and verification maths used to test the global models performance out and apply it to this model...of course there may be a number of variables used in those which have not been predicted by MB...cloud cover, humidity for example. Some interpolation of that may be needed therefore, but I am sure some would agree to do it.

Another element I also feel would be good would for another independant on here and I am inclined for a number of reasons towards John Holmes on this...to start to from the event being at +T240...to do a model analysis and forecast based purely on model analysis every 24 hours. To enhance reporting further, we then would be good to have people acquire the METORS from airports and buoy's to verify the forecast. All that would both add to confidence and also presumably the method?

On the fluvial systems and flooding quoted in the forecast I only have one slight concern along the lines of what if a fluvial flood occurs as a result of significant catchment wide rainfall as opposed to a tidal surge. I.e if river levels ar high, a surge would be exacerbated even more than if one occured off say a weaker than predicted storm. I was wondering MB if you expected fooding to be worse as a result of both of those factors and if, of course, you will be following the fluvial side of things as well as the sea levels and any surge that may occur. My only other main gripe is in respect to newsworthyness and the 'level' that is applied. Im thinking for this event, it has to be front page stuff but also...has to be reasonable on the agenda internationally. A few high winds in the evening standard I dont think will quite suffice, but then thats the interpretation by me of one test [back to that old lies lies lies and statistics again]

Other than that, I think its an extremely novel forecast and one which if it proves correct will certainly get people talking. Personally, I think you would certainly want to predict and test a number more before any method got released and I absolutely see why you would do that. I also wish you every luck.

I think i will stay broadly as a reader on this thread but will certainly, as I am sure others will, be keeping my eye on conditions 1-5 of feb.

John

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

This is science in action, folks. A great learning opportunity for younger readers.

Notice that MB hasn't decided his theory is right. This is the correct scientific method. Scientists don't decide beforehand whether something is right and wrong and look for data to confirm it.

An hypothesis, in this case MB's forecast method, is tested against data, that is, the reality of our weather. If it holds up to repeated testing the idea is then considered useful for further research into this reality.

It is because MB doesn't assume his method is correct that he is full of doubts. This may appear at odds to the specificness of the forecast but if you think about it that makes sense. The forecast needs to be specific because the more specific it is the more MB can learn about how to improve his method, which is not assumed to be correct.

That's how science goes.

It is why a biochemist pipettes a drop of virus into a culture that contains ingredients for a vaccine and also into one that does not. Surely the biochemist has already done a lot of work to get a vaccine and doesn't need to observe the virus grow in unvaccinated petri-dish? No. The chemist tests with the vaccine and without to observe differences that may improve the method, which is not assumed to be correct.

(Sorry to virologists out there that this example is very simplified caricature of what actually happens).

[Roger J Smith]

I think my main concern is that it goes against scientific principles to do research and validation under assumed names, and I suspect that "Murcie boy" is a new name for a more recognizable weather forum poster -- having that much inside knowledge about boards.ie of course makes me suppose it could be somebody regularly posting there. This puts me in a bind because I feel conflicted about trying to validate work when I am not sure the other party is playing by the usual rules of science. For example, I would not bother trying to validate Ken Ring's forecasts as some have done because I reached a decision point on his work at the point where he stated that the moon was the sole cause of weather variations and that you could make accurate forecasts by selecting one past year and shifting the dates to keep full and new moon aligned with this year's dates. I know from my research that there are many other complex factors besides lunar-atmospheric in play, that the Moon is causing some but not all of the observed variability, so whenever I'm asked to comment on research that does not lay out a clear statement of cause and effect hypothesis, I feel that I am being used to some extent since the end result of that process cannot really help true alternate science to develop -- it will just stay in some shadow world of enthusiasts who may dabble in astrology or other quasi-sciences, and perhaps have commercial applications, but my main focus is on doing credible, transparent research and ultimately seeing that recognized as valid. I have to admit that my lifelong efforts in that regard have so far resulted in absolutely nothing but immense frustration and a bit of anger that I know spending vast amounts of money to make global models do the impossible will be fortunes wasted.

So that's where I'm coming from here, and unless these forecasts are startlingly accurate, then we just have basically nothing and certainly nothing that will have any application to the only question that really interests me, scientific proof for all these postulates. You see in my research, the lunar energy can be timed and located reasonably well but you need to assess these other non-lunar factors to know where the blocking or jet stream positions will be, and to get some idea of track, then using conventional meteorology to assess the real intensity of systems in that set of circumstances. I've noted in the past that when the set-up is correctly forecast, the lunar energy part follows along and delivers good details within the successful pattern forecast. If the pattern forecast is off, then the lunar details will be worthless, you can't get the energy to go through the middle of a blocking high or race along 2000 miles from the nearest jet stream.

But I apologize for any seemingly OTT comments, here or elsewhere, I should of all people know how difficult it is to do this kind of forecasting over the event horizon and will keep an open mind as to what this set of forecasts really says about method. It would help to understand what the method is, but I can also understand proprietary interests. I sort of gave up on that concept around ten years ago figuring that it was my duty to get the lifetime of research into the sort of form that would at least allow it to outlive my working life, and you can't be sure that you can keep working every day until you die either, that would be the preferred route perhaps (absent recognition) but health can deteriorate and at my age you realize that at any point you might not be making further progress, so I tend to judge these things by what effect they will have on the larger picture -- will the science ever come around to accepting this general field, which at the moment is a clear no (but remember, this is the science that prematurely rushed into global warming half-truths and outright fantasies), and if so, how does that come about? I suspect it won't be helped by widely publicized spectacular misses, which is why Fred and I tend to be rather conservative by our former standards in some of the statements in our LRFs.

I also would add, there's no point in comparing either MB's forecast or my forecast to 16-day GFS output, we almost expect 16-day to 10-day GFS output to be quasi-random and it would not surprise me if either of us did better. I might start taking notes at about day 10 when we also have the ECM output. This validation doesn't need any more detail than the regular weather charts, this business about mysterious things happening out of sight over the ocean is largely an urban legend in weather forums, satellite imagery, ship reports and the general fluidity of the atmosphere all tend to work it out that the maps we see drawn up are accurate to within 2 mbs over the mid-oceans. This isn't the nineteenth century where people could sail into hurricanes without knowing they were there.

[Timmytour]

To be fair no one has anything against Murci boy making a forecast, its just bits like ''140mph will be reached over parts of northern england and scotland'' ''Im almost 100% confident this will happen, unforunatly I just cant see this not happening.'' that totally take the credibility away.

I don't know about taking credibility away but statements like this take my breath away!!!!

Surely the only thing from MB's forecast that will "totally take the credibility away" is if what he has actually forecast doesn't come to pass?

Seems perfectly clear to me but maybe I'm missing something?

[Kentish Kiwi]

I don't know about taking credibility away but statements like this take my breath away!!!!

Surely the only thing from MB's forecast that will "totally take the credibility away" is if what he has actually forecast doesn't come to pass?

Seems perfectly clear to me but maybe I'm missing something?

I think the point is that synoptically MB's forecast could verify absolutely perfectly and yet the forecast wind speeds could still be off the mark.

A question for MB, just to clear things up, what do you actually mean when you refer to 'Gradient wind speeds'? How do these differ from actual surface wind speeds and gusts (if at all)?

[Paul Sherman]

UK Outlook for Wednesday 2 Feb 2011 to Wednesday 16 Feb 2011:

This period looks to start mainly dry and settled across the UK, with cloudier, milder conditions in the north and colder, drier conditions in the south. Overnight frost and fog patches could continue for many parts of England and Wales. Meanwhile, spells of rain or drizzle are more likely further north across Scotland and Northern Ireland, but hill-snow is also possible here.

Updated: 1200 on Tue 18 Jan 2011

Well it will certainly be Interesting to see what will happen in 2-3 weeks time as the Meto MRF Is not really expecting much if anything weatherwise to happen until at least the Middle of February.

Let's see wether the Meto start to change there tune in the next week or so

[VillagePlank]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient_wind#Gradient_flow

A question for MB, just to clear things up, what do you actually mean when you refer to 'Gradient wind speeds'? How do these differ from actual surface wind speeds and gusts (if at all)?