Better Than The Models ?

[SMU]

People are really being led up the garden path here:

feb 1 160 MPH winds over iceland- OK then... Combined with a 960 MB low over the Northern coast of Norway-

Ok then...... How the hell do you get a depression with a core central pressure of 960 MB to have a windfeild of~ 1500 miles-

What do we think this is the day after tomorrow??- wheres the science behind that-

feb 2 950 low has moved into Sweden- So its deepened another -- How many 950 lows have been over sweden....??

& if there was such an intense storm there would have to be a ridge of high pressure behind it- not a conveyor belt of lows-

Also on the same day a 970 low over iceland V a 950 low @ sweden- where do you develop enough jet energy to create 2 storms of such depth in such close proximity- you cant- there needs to be high pressure between- which is at odds with the video -also saying that iceland drops to -20 intimates that the system is east of iceland making even less likely to be in such close proximity to a deep low over sweden-

feb 3- low moves from iceland to sweden & drops to 940 MB- Find me a jet streak that has even done that to a system & going W>E

940 MB... lol- 45mb deeper than 1953....

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/archive/ra/1953/Rrea00119530201.gif

feb 4- low pressure over finland 950 Mb STILL!!! what is it a self perpetuating storm- wheres all the energy coming from??

Over land 1 day should have filled to nearly nothing- hence Day +1 after the 1953 storm-

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/archive/ra/1953/Rrea00119530202.gif

Without being blunt im all for a bit of fun & some excitment however this is utter nonsence, irrespective of whats being touted it cant happen - & isnt even underpinned with any science....

May be nicely presented on YT- that however doesnt make it any more believable...

This is Jackanory.....

S

Edited January 26, 2011 by Steve Murr

[jethro]

This is Jackanory.....

S

So are many other forecasts.

[Alan Robinson]

So are many other forecasts.

They don't beat this one though....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/balamory/stories/weatherstory/

[MurcieBoy]

A really inaccurate summary of what I am supposed to have said there (beggars belief why someone would waste their time writing such “utter toshâ€). And as to the very recent slagging off of the Storm Forecast by one poster, why wait till just a few days before the event - the forecast has been there since 31 Dec 2010?

To preserve certain egos, let’s hope no one comes up with any alternative/better methods for forecasting the weather. Yes, let’s keep the current method and continue to witness enormous human loss and suffering around the globe each year through adverse weather (that was never forecasted in sufficient time to properly warn people). Afterall, what is the value of a few thousand lives around the globe each year, compared to the value we place in the protection of our egos?

[SMU]

A really inaccurate summary of what I am supposed to have said there (beggars belief why someone would waste their time writing such “utter toshâ€). And as to the very recent slagging off of the Storm Forecast by one poster, why wait till just a few days before the event - the forecast has been there since 31 Dec 2010?

To preserve certain egos, let’s hope no one comes up with any alternative/better methods for forecasting the weather. Yes, let’s keep the current method and continue to witness enormous human loss and suffering around the globe each year through adverse weather (that was never forecasted in sufficient time to properly warn people). Afterall, what is the value of a few thousand lives around the globe each year, compared to the value we place in the protection of our egos?

Everything in my post is quoted from your forecast on you tube word for word-

At the end of the day we dont need to wait for your forecast date as it cant physically happen as you describe-

I think you need to get a grip.

S

[Coast]

could be very stormy at some point between 6th and 10th feb if the spreads on ecm and naefs are anything like accurate. not the same set up as forecast but if we get a big winter storm first half feb, what kind of statistical support would that have - kevin ???

But that is totally outside of the forecast period under scrutiny here of course.

[Evening thunder]

I haven't posted here yet, but I'm quite surprised that what are supposed to be 'respected' people on NetW are the first to just slag off a forecast and person (almost rudely) and say it cant happen before the forecast. I'm not saying that I think it will happen, because even if it were a method of forecasting I believe it would have to be tried, tested and modified many more times first.

Anyway he did happen to get the November forecast correct though.

Personally I can't see it being correct yet, but mind you, throughout history what usually happens to new theories at first?

[Coast]

People are really being led up the garden path here:

You may be right Steve, but we should wait until the start of the forecast period to make comments and comparisons on the actual data for the day and Nick's Forecast surely?

The 28th will be the first one for comparison and has been predicted as:

[MurcieBoy]

Just in case anyone is remotely interested in the forecast, if the GFS latest run (compared to the previous) is to be believed:

[La Bise]

Do I detect a note of sarcasm here?

I do not think you actually read his initial posts (or his posts on other forums) or you wouldn't be so rude about his methods. Besides, what you have just posted only proves my point that MB is speaking heresy as far as some are concerned.

What cannot be understood is ridiculed, it's been happening for centuries.

I have actually read his initial posts, you clearly haven't because what is mentionned in my piece above is something MB has come up himself. At least I'm glad you detected the sarcasm in my post...I wish you were equally good at distinguishing between open mindedness and open mouthed gullibitliy...

To preserve certain egos, let’s hope no one comes up with any alternative/better methods for forecasting the weather. Yes, let’s keep the current method and continue to witness enormous human loss and suffering around the globe each year through adverse weather (that was never forecasted in sufficient time to properly warn people). Afterall, what is the value of a few thousand lives around the globe each year, compared to the value we place in the protection of our egos?

Usual martyr syndrome, another one...

[Great Plum]

I would appeal for some calm on here... Let's see how things are after the forecast date...

[Coast]

Ladies and gents.

In the interests of fairness and respect to all sides (for, against and fence sitters like me!!) can we please try and stick to comparison of data, charts, prediction of very strong winds, floods etc, not personal jibes and comments.

It is inevitable that there will be a huge void between the opinion on one side and that of the other and that something as radical as Nick's ideas would be strongly challenged. But just like the model thread, please back up your position with comparative data or wait until each day of the forecast period to draw your conclusions as to whether the forecast is correct, not correct or close/not close enough.

Cheers!

[Weather-history]

For me, even if the general pattern comes off but the "event" doesn't, it should be seen as somewhat a failure because a specific weather event is being forecast here and that is the danger with these "sensationalistic" forecasts. You could get the general pattern right but its nowhere near as severe as suggested. I would have been a lot more comfortable if you went for a general pattern with a suggestion of a possible event rather than going all out for a major weather event.

The Stockholm ensembles don't suggest a deep depression around the early February period, The mean is over 1010mb.

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/MT2_Stockholm_ens.png

Edited January 26, 2011 by Mr_Data

[SMU]

Ladies and gents.

In the interests of fairness and respect to all sides (for, against and fence sitters like me!!) can we please try and stick to comparison of data, charts, prediction of very strong winds, floods etc, not personal jibes and comments.

It is inevitable that there will be a huge void between the opinion on one side and that of the other and that something as radical as Nick's ideas would be strongly challenged. But just like the model thread, please back up your position with comparative data or wait until each day of the forecast period to draw your conclusions as to whether the forecast is correct, not correct or close/not close enough.

Cheers!

Fair enough coast-

Just to be clear- My references are to the fact that whats posted CANT happen to the depth & severity of the forecast, as I said whats been presented doesnt abide by the science that its purporting to-

If there is some form of cyclical method forecasting underneath it then something akin to a real scenario would have been much more appropriate-

My comments at least come underpinned with the reality of what can & cannot happen in the atmosphere- & the 4/5 day day representation on you tube will not happen & be sustained over that period of time-

If people want to believe or not believe its almost irrelevant im afraid-

As above 100% agree with mr D- our posts are all but the same

S

Edited January 26, 2011 by Steve Murr

[Coast]

The infamous January 1953 storm also showed a broadly similar pattern, but on both those occasions there was slow moving low pressure over N and E Canada.

For reference:

[MurcieBoy]

And as to the very recent slagging off of the Storm Forecast by one poster, why wait till just a few days before the event - the forecast has been there since 31 Dec 2010?

Why couldn't you have said this earlier; why wait till a few days before the event?

[SMU]

from my view- because ive just seen the link on TWO 2 days ago-

I dont go on UKWW, havent been on here for 3 weeks & happened to be browsing the superstorm thread over their- if Id have seen the thread sooner I would have posted sooner-

Also my first post was at a point where the models had no clarity around day 11/12 so my timing had no bearing either way

S

[Paul Sherman]

Was Not going to get involved until after the event as Coast says.......But

I never knew of this 1953 Storm and just 1 question from the Charts posted above by Robin.

Surely this Forecast is down to some type of Pattern Matching ?? Although not 100% identical to the above archived charts pretty bloody close and almost the same dates as well.

With Nick not letting us onto "The Method" I guess we will never know but I am pretty sure he has stated 100% that it IS NOT Down to Pattern Matching in any shape or form ?

I can also see where Smurf is coming from though from a Synoptic Point of View, A Storm of that Magnitude could not happen the way it is set out, yes a Northerly As laid out in those 1953 charts but not with the ferocity of the Storm Forecasted, I think the Sensationalist style of the Original Forecast is Underpinning what has been laid out here which is a shame as some parts of the Forecast as not too far away synoptically being shown on the +8 Days Models with High Pressure near the Uk and a Depression to our North.

Paul S

[MurcieBoy]

I never knew of this 1953 Storm and just 1 question from the Charts posted above by Robin.

Surely this Forecast is down to some type of Pattern Matching ?? Although not 100% identical to the above archived charts pretty bloody close and almost the same dates as well.

With Nick not letting us onto "The Method" I guess we will never know but I am pretty sure he has stated 100% that it IS NOT Down to Pattern Matching in any shape or form ?

In the 30 minutes that it took to make the forecast, I did not know anything about the 1953 storm at all.

The method used to make the Feb 2011 storm forecast did not use ANY data relating to the 1953 storm.

I do NOT pattern match at all.

I only referred to the 1953 storm in the narrative to place the forecast in the perspective.

I think the Sensationalist style of the Original Forecast is Underpinning what has been laid out here which is a shame as some parts of the Forecast as not too far away synoptically being shown on the +8 Days Models with High Pressure near the Uk and a Depression to our North.

As I said in the video, I called the forecast as I saw it. I wasn't thinking as to whether it was sensationalist or not. I called it as I saw it.

What do folk expect me to say? That is what I saw...

I did clearly head the forecast "Experimental" and I did say that this was my 4th forecast and that I had been involved in weather research for just a year and that I was testing out my understanding. Really, what is all the fuss about? Can't folk read?

[SMU]

problem is people can read & analise - You also posted near 100% confidenceof it occuring - which if it was experimental shouldnt really be anywhere close to that-

In terms of pattern matching / using the earth / moon phasing process etc- its unlikely that anything could point to such a superstorm without having significant repercussions elsewhere around the NH-

S

[MurcieBoy]

I am tending towards losing the will to live here!

If folk can read, they would have read:

"Given my current level of understanding (which I accept has not reached its ultimate level of maturity), I am almost 100% confident this Great Storm will take place."

and also

"I do not expect the forecast to be exactly 100% accurate"

... why on earth quote things out of context? Why waste yours and my time?

Edited January 26, 2011 by MurcieBoy

[jethro]

In the 30 minutes that it took to make the forecast, I did not know anything about the 1953 storm at all.

The method used to make the Feb 2011 storm forecast did not use ANY data relating to the 1953 storm.

I do NOT pattern match at all.

I only referred to the 1953 storm in the narrative to place the forecast in the perspective.

As I said in the video, I called the forecast as I saw it. I wasn't thinking as to whether it was sensationalist or not. I called it as I saw it.

What do folk expect me to say? That is what I saw...

I did clearly head the forecast "Experimental" and I did say that this was my 4th forecast and that I had been involved in weather research for just a year and that I was testing out my understanding. Really, what is all the fuss about? Can't folk read?

To be fair MB, you can't really expect to make a forecast on a weather forum and expect not to be questioned. If you had forecast a less extreme event in a particular time period rather than specific date, by an established method, you wouldn't attract so much criticism.

You haven't divulged your methods, you're perfectly at liberty not to do so, but it's a tad unfair to expect others to accept that at face value. I'm happy to sit and wait to see if this forecast verifies but I don't spend time watching the models and forecasting weather, if I did, I think I too would be frustrated at your decline to explain your methods.

[MurcieBoy]

To be fair MB, you can't really expect to make a forecast on a weather forum and expect not to be questioned.

With respect, I am happy to be questioned. What I have complained about is rudeness and ridiculing. Some of the stuff that has been dished out here....

You haven't divulged your methods, you're perfectly at liberty not to do so, but it's a tad unfair to expect others to accept that at face value.

I think upon a review of all my posts, one would agree that I am not asking anyone to accept the method or the Experimental forecast. All I had done is to present an Experimental Forecast (at the request of two Forum members). That is all!

I think I too would be frustrated at your decline to explain your methods.

I suspect, you would be even more frustrated if I presented an unproven, half cooked method now. What is the point of presenting such an incomplete/untested method?

I have always said, the method is just being tested by me. If/when it proves its worth over an extended period of time and folk widely want to know it, I will publish in a manner that would do justice to the subject.

[OldMetMan]

I don't want to put any more fuel on the fire than I already have here, with my comments on how certain posters so want MB's forecast to fail, but I just want to make my position clear:

I would be amazed if the drastic weather event forecast by MB were to happen exactly as he said. But even if it were roughly similar, in terms of the overall synoptic pattern but without the great intensity of pressure gradient, I would still consider that to be a result. As MB keeps repeating, this is a method that is under development and in the process of being refined.

I will always strongly defend anyone's right to put out new, radical ideas as that is how progress is made, if there hadn't been such brave people in the past who were always persecuted and ridiculed, then we would still be living in a flat-earth society and burning witches.

As far as the models are concerned, there is still notable changes occuring from run to run, especially the GFS, so no clear trend has been established beyond 3-4 days. Heck even the small disturbance that is currently running down across England wasn't picked up by the models until several days before it happened so what chance is there for picking up what MB has forecast?

As I have already said, the only model I would put any faith in is the UKMO so it will be interesting to see what today's 120hrs shows.

Regarding MB's actual methods, I have been interested in weather and climate long enough (44 years) to know that weather pattersn DO repeat themselves. MB has always said that what he does is not pattern matching, it is using certain parameters to create an index value and then searching for matches to this in the past, and THEN seeing what the weather pattern for those matches are (MB correct me if I am wrong!).

If anyone were to review the literature and scientific texts on forecasting rapid cyclogenesis (and there is a fair amount online) then they would realise that, even with the advanced models of today, such events are still difficult to foresee in advance, even 24-48 hours in advance, as although some of the apparent prerquisites for it to happen are known (e.g. short-wave upper trough phasing with a frontal wave, close to the right-entrance of a strong jet), why it happens sometimes and not others is far from clear.

Don't be discouraged MB even if this particular forecast is off the mark because I believe what you are doing is important, whatever the cynics say.

[SMU]

You cant get a jet streak long enough in that area to validate this forecast

S