Better Than The Models ?

[MurcieBoy]

Many thanks indeed OldMetMan; it is genuinely much appreciated. BTW, your summary of the method is accurate.

No, I shall not be discouraged, not even by one iota. I am the method's harshest critic and I have been very impressed with it so far (even though its an Experimental version).

What concerns me though is a "youngster" or indeed others new to the field being discouraged from thinking out of the box and being “pulled back†towards doing what everyone else is doing for fear of being abused/ridiculed. In this age of not discriminating against others, there still seems to be some really deep rooted shameful and spiteful prejudices, that really should haven been buried a long time ago. They have no place in a so called advanced civilised society IMO.

[OldMetMan]

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

S

Not sure what you mean Steve.

All I will say is this:

1. Compare todays ECMWF and GFS from 144hrs and note the differences. Not exactly much consensus.

2. The GFS has, as I already pointed out, suggested on at least 3 of its recent runs, an intense short-wave development between Scotland and Scandinavia within the first few days of February, so obviously such a possibility DOES exist, at least as far as the forecasting parameters within the GFS model are concerned.

3. I have already explained how an intense low pressure area could form in a position that would subsequently lead to a North Sea storm, with or without an associated surge. I have seen such developments happen in the past with very little warning (although without the storm surge) so again I say, it is still possible.

Many thanks indeed OldMetMan; it is genuinely much appreciated. BTW, your summary of the method is accurate.

No, I shall not be discouraged, not even by one iota. I am the method's harshest critic and I have been very impressed with it so far (even though its an Experimental version).

What concerns me though is a "youngster" or indeed others new to the field being discouraged from thinking out of the box and being “pulled back†towards doing what everyone else is doing for fear of being abused/ridiculed. In this age of not discriminating against others, there still seems to be some really deep rooted shameful and spiteful prejudices, that really should haven been buried a long time ago. They have no place in a so called advanced civilised society IMO.

You're very welcome MB and I quite agree with your sentiments. The world needs original thinkers now more than ever.

So whatever happens early February, just think of how many hundreds of light-bulbs Thomas Eddison invented before he made one that worked! He kept at it until he perfected it and I am so glad that you are doing the same!

[TEITS]

Have to be honest when I read this forecast it didn't look synoptically plausible to me and this still remains the case. The GEFS mean suggests quiet the opposite with HP bringing calm winds.

http://91.121.84.31/modeles/gens/run/gens-21-1-192.png?6

Although I don't agree with this forecast im appalled at some of the comments towards MB. Fair enough if you don't agree but do we really need comments such as "Jackanory". This is dreadfully rude and unfair in my opinion.

[OldMetMan]

Although I don't agree with this forecast im appalled at some of the comments towards MB. Fair enough if you don't agree but do we really need comments such as "Jackanory". This is dreadfully rude and unfair in my opinion.

Absolutely. Yet it is all too common when established beliefs are threatened. "Global Warming" - oh I'm sorry, I should give it its less contentious title "Climate Change" - this is a good example of a debate that evokes strong responses. Whether you accept that particular idea or not, one thing is for sure, we need to consider every approach to forecasting. Our very survival may depend on it.

[La Bise]

All quotes are from MB, the post number is just above. My comments are in Italics.

#58

"I could be proved wrong, but I cannot see how this forecast will not come to pass. If this forecast is not closely fulfilled, I shall spend an awful long time probably trying to work out where it all went wrong!

If my level of expectation of the 12 Nov ’10 prediction was say 75% positive; my expectation for this forecast is considerably higher.

So here it is folks, the Great North Sea Storm of 2011 that should (if it happens) go down in history"

Not much wriggle room in term of the forecast

#64

If you like, I deal in the underlying constituent waveforms that when combined produce the weather. The constituent waveforms are very easy to predict and if one knows the “weight†of each of their influence on the end product when combined, it is relatively easy to predict the “chaotic†composite waveform.

Nothing that I will write will be new. It has been known for aeons; how do I know that? Well there are clues everywhere. For example, every time I look at my watch I am reminded. Only someone who had an intimate knowledge of how nature works would divide the day into 24 equal divisions, why didn’t they choose 22 or 20? They chose 24 for a specific reason. Also, why does the watch face only have 12 divisions, why not 24? One can come up with theories all day long, but there is only one right answer and that answer can only be provided by those that have an intimate understanding of how Nature unravels. Please don’t get me wrong, I am still learning and not speaking from any lofty position.

Take one on the theory behind the forecast. Answer is available to some initiates, the 24h division of the day put forward by the Egyptians aquire a mystical symbolism. I suggest to google "Circadian cycle" to understand the significance of 24. Basic science.

#83

Well the ancients for example built the Great Pyramid of Giza and we still don’t know how they did it.

Complete dog biscuits, we know perfectly well how they built it, it's not rocket science to pile up stones.

In answer to your questions, everything that happens within the Earth’s atmosphere (ie: weather, lottery numbers, the financial markets, wars, the twists and turns of one’s life) is wholly predictable; nothing is chaotic.

Just as it says on the tin! Let's happily put forward insane notions, all you need is enough "open minded" people and off you go...

Without going too much off in a tangent, the validity of this assertion can never be accepted/understood if one observes Nature from the point of view of the third dimension; one needs to raise one’s level of consciousness to see the unravelling of Nature from a higher dimension, such as the fourth. It’s a bit like a garden 10ft high hedge maze, it’s easier to find your way out if you could see it from a live real time camera giving you a bird’s eye view from above.

More of it.

In my view, the enlightened ancients may not have had Sky HD 3D TV’s, mobile i phones or the internet; but they didn’t need any of that, they used much faster and better means of communicating (and most importantly, gathering understanding of Natures Laws). What we have now is a “crystal set†version of what they had at their disposal. I believe, we have it too, but we have lost the art of using it.

And another layer on top of it...An ancient civilisation with means of communications of such advanced nature our current setup is a mere toy...

I was talking to a friend yesterday about what if the forecast does not come good; in such a scenario, it would open the door to hopefully seeing the even longer cycles within Nature. However, as I have said in the video, I cannot see how the forecast cannot come to pass near to what has been forecasted. One of the “checks†I referred to in #59 was the storm we had on 10 March 2008; that happened via the same “methodâ€, that was one “validation†of the 1-5 Feb 2011 forecast.

Still pretty certain although an element of doubt has been introduced, something that has steadily crept into MB posts upon realising his forecast is not going to pass. Going for the sympathy vote, a bit of drizzle and a breeze will have enough people "convinced" there is some validity in that "theory".

[MurcieBoy]

In this age of not discriminating against others, there still seems to be some really deep rooted shameful and spiteful prejudices, that really should haven been buried a long time ago. They have no place in a so called advanced civilised society IMO.

[SMU]

Not sure what you mean Steve.

see post #352

Sorry TEITS but we have the same every year-- as I think I mentioned- how many pages did we have of ken ring before he went to ground-

Its a bit long in the tooth-

If this 'method' is worthwhile or at the very least worth following up it certainly wouldnt lead you to a forecast that has ZERO chance of varification-

just step back for a minute & read whats being written in the forecast, take away the forecast method for a moment & you soon realise it isnt going to happen no matter whos delivering it or whatever method of communication- yes nice to see something a bit better than robert drew up the other year, but either way it still amounts to the same thing-

If MB is sure of a 'method' where he has arrived at an output for X date he should have blended it with 'real world event'- because as it is it has no credibility-

However the way i see it is that if someone has taken such a short amount of time to consider what 'reallity' looks like V the forecast then i have no doubts that there is little or nothing to underpin the forecast

S

Edited January 26, 2011 by Steve Murr

[OldMetMan]

Still pretty certain although an element of doubt has been introduced, something that has steadily crept into MB posts upon realising his forecast is not going to pass. Going for the sympathy vote, a bit of drizzle and a breeze will have enough people "convinced" there is some validity in that "theory".

Ah La Bise, so certain are you.

As someone who has always had a "scientific" approach to how life works, I learned many years ago that if that approach hardens into dogma, then you are doomed, in exactly the same way religious dogmatists are. The best we have to work with in our understanding of how and why things happen as they do, and I am not just talking about weather here, are working theories. Anyone who claims otherwise has not asked enough questions.

Instead of dismissing ideas out of hand because they don't sit well with your current beliefs, you might try investigating any number of alternate theories as I have done, then you might come to the conclusion that NO-ONE has a monopoly on truth.

MB might be wrong on this occasion or he may be right. But he is definitely onto something. His 2 previous forecasts showed this, however inaccurate you consider them to be.

[TEITS]

I do agree with you Steve with regards to the forecast which is why I haven't replied on this thread until today. All im saying is we can disagree with the forecast without having to be make rude comments. I suppose im going to be defensive because I remember recieving a rough time when I first joined this forum.

My advice to anyone using alternative forecasting techniques is don't post them on a forum. Wait and see how reliable your method is and if proven successful then post on a forum.

[pottyprof]

Sorry TEITS but we have the same every year-- as I think I mentioned- how many pages did we have of ken ring before he went to ground-

Its a bit long in the tooth-

So rather than ignore it, you thought you'd get involved?

While I can understand your frustration when someone questions something that you have long held to be true, is there really any harm in someone trying to further the science of meteorology? Surely, if he has genuinely found some sort of connection, then think about how much better the forecasts would become.. If there is no connection, he has taken up a few megabytes of space on a forum. No harm done.

True scientists forever question observations and methods. Nothing is wrong unless it is proven to be wrong.

[SMU]

you totally miss the point--

whats the point of a 23 page thread on something that cant happen- I didnt say someone couldnt identify a new forecasting method did I?-

questions something that you have long held to be true

the forecast doesnt question me it defies science- post 352 I said a broad outline of white it cant/wont happen-

But for fear or repeating the same thing over again whats the point if your method makes you arrive at something that wont happen-

Wheres the headbang smiley- I need to give this thread a wide birth now its taking up to much work time

S

Edited January 26, 2011 by Steve Murr

[pottyprof]

you totally miss the point--

whats the point of a 23 page thread on something that cant happen- I didnt say someone couldnt identify a new forecasting method did I?-

the forecast doesnt question me it defies science- post 352 I said a broad outline of white it cant/wont happen-

But for fear or repeating the same thing over again whats the point if your method makes you arrive at something that wont happen-

I never said it will happen and you don't have a time machine....

[Paul Sherman]

There you go 6 of the best for you :lol:

[Candice]

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.

Erm, excuse me but you mentioned looking for data to match the 1953 storm on the pistonheads forum last year so you were actively looking for it - now who's being just a little bit naughty?

"Re the floods of 1953 (30 Jan-1 Feb), I shall try and look at the DNA for that period of time and see when it will repeat if in the near future. It would be interesting to know... Nov 2010

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=468933&d=11269.29108&nmt

Edited January 26, 2011 by Candice

[MurcieBoy]

Erm, excuse me but you mentioned looking for data to match the 1953 storm on the pistonheads forum last year so you were actively looking for it - now who's being just a little bit naughty?

"Re the floods of 1953 (30 Jan-1 Feb), I shall try and look at the DNA for that period of time and see when it will repeat if in the near future. It would be interesting to know... Nov 2010

Yes, the key words are "I shall try"; but I never did. As soon as the 12 Nov 2010 forecast was over, I went onto the Xmas 2010 forecast.

All DNA matches that I do are recorded and I never looked at 1953. Even if I had done so back in mid November, by 30 December 2010 when I did the forecast, the 1953 weather was never in my mind. It was never considered in making the actual Feb 2011 Storm forecast at all.

Good God, now someone has the gall to tell me what I have done and I haven't in my own time. What planet are you on? How rude? You have gone to all the trouble of digging out such a post just for the sake of trying to mock someone? Ye Gods! Defies belief.

Instead of trying to support someone who is trying to advance understanding you try to mock and ridicule. What sort of a person are you? You send me offensive PM's and are now posting the same on here. Disgraceful.

Edited January 26, 2011 by MurcieBoy

[full_frontal_occlusion]

I will always strongly defend anyone's right to put out new, radical ideas..........

If anyone were to review the literature and scientific texts on forecasting.......... why it happens sometimes and not others is far from clear.

Couldn't agree more OMM. Science (and hence meteorology) is built entirely on the foundation of phyiscs which itself is good at describing properties and behaviour in mathematical terms to a point. But ask any scientist to explain why fundamental particles or the forces between them exist at all let alone what they are and they cannot.

What concerns me though is a "youngster" or indeed others new to the field being discouraged from thinking out of the box and being “pulled back†towards doing what everyone else is doing for fear of being abused/ridiculed.

Don't be too concerned MB, there are few who are capable or willing to take personal risk in the pursuit of truth.

Your method, as I see it, is no less valid than the emerging science of teleconnections - albeit still only in the realms of amateur meteorology and not statistically proven.

I may not agree with the timing or intensity of your forecast but I wish you every success all the same.

ffO.

Edited January 26, 2011 by full_frontal_occlusion

[MurcieBoy]

I may not agree with the timing or intensity of your forecast but I wish you every success all the same.

Thank you. It is appreciated

[VillagePlank]

With all due respect.

The 'events' mentioned can be mathematically deduced from moon-phases using techniques no more complicated than a normal maths A-level student could muster. See here for how to do it.

I might be good at spreadsheets, say, but I did it in 4 hours. No years of dedication, no pandering to the "ancients"

Nothing special, nor magic, nor some massive alternate forecasting technique, here.

Moving on, then ...

Edited January 26, 2011 by VillagePlank

[La Bise]

It is quite incredible to read that MB high quackery is put alongside the work of GP as FFO aludes above...

GP works his socks off, alongside many others, to put in a place a method that could indeed represent an important step into predictive meteorology, working with observable data, published material, an entire body of work that can be reviewed.

Obviously it is the same that some fantasist that believes he is tapping into some ancient civilisation advanced knowledge and that, with time, could predict every event on Earth, as some kind of God of Nature.

[Harsh Climate]

gfshttp://www.wetterzen...s/Rtavn1441.png

http://www.wetterzen...s/Rtavn1921.png

ecm

http://www.wetterzen...cs/Recm1441.gif

http://www.wetterzen...cs/Recm2161.gif

Dont look at the latest charts MB.

I honestly think hes tryed to pull the wool over our eyes, maybe to eventually bring out a book or something and make some money out of it..

The reality was, the storm MB forecast was scientifically near impossible, plus anyone with an ounce of meteorological understanding kind of knew it was never gunna happen!

I hope when we get past the date MB realises that the whole concept is just wrong and not that 'he may have missed something out'......Ive enjoyed this thread but anymore on this subject will become very piers corbynesque

Edited January 26, 2011 by Harsh Climate

[Coast]

The reality was, the storm MB forecast was scientifically near impossible, plus anyone with an ounce of meteorological understanding kind of knew it was never gunna happen!

Whilst I can see your perspective, can I also add that nothing has actually happened yet either way? - it's just that you are writing in the past tense?

[Harsh Climate]

Whilst I can see your perspective, can I also add that nothing has actually happened yet either way? - it's just that you are writing in the past tense?

Yes but lets be honest, it would take a swing of biblical proportions to get anywhere near what MB has forecast.. And like SM says, if there is to be this huge storm, where's the energy going to come from?

[PLANET THANET]

I think MBs motives, whatever they are, whether he is doing it as a learning process, some kind of capital gain as some think or being silly, he should not be ridiculed. If you dont agree or think its down right daft you have the option of not reading the thread after all there are plenty of other threads availiable and with all due respect I believe a lot of people on here seem to be "ganging up on him".He is not forcing his ideas on anybody.

[Coast]

Yes but lets be honest, it would take a swing of biblical proportions to get anywhere near what MB has forecast..

Shall we wait and see what happens then and make the judgement on the validity and success (or otherwise) of MurcieBoy's forecast when we have all the applicable daily data published from the 28th January to the 5th February?

I'm not saying it will be right or wrong, cigar or none, but I will know very soon....

if there is to be this huge storm, where's the energy going to come from?

All the hot air in this thread?!! :lol:

[Harsh Climate]

Shall we wait and see what happens then and make the judgement on the validity and success (or otherwise) of MurcieBoy's forecast when we have all the applicable daily data published from the 28th January to the 5th February?

I'm not saying it will be right or wrong, cigar or none, but I will know very soon....

All the hot air in this thread?!! :lol:

Ye, that probably would be just enough energy!

Ok il wait till the dates have been passed, its only fair