Better Than The Models ?

[MurcieBoy]

Dont look at the latest charts MB.

Why not, shouldn't we take GFS+192 as Gospel?

...maybe to eventually bring out a book or something and make some money out of it..

Really? I must be short then?

..... according recent posts: I am quackers, a fantasist, an ancient civilisation hero worshipper and now I could be broke!

Well, I had worse over at ukww I suppose, just for predicting the low of 12 Nov 2010 ahead of the models. Must have been pure blasphemy on my part in some of the posters eyes over there - daring to make a precise forecast ahead of the models. The only way they could cope was by saying how lucky I must have been.

Let's hope the Feb 2011 forecast is widely out on ALL fronts, as I think some on here might have seizures otherwise!

[OldMetMan]

Just to compare GFS output between yesterday and today, with the runs less than 24 hours apart, I think it shows just how "fluid" the forecasts have been.

It may have escaped everyone's notice but on the other side of the Atlantic we had a 948mb low off Nova Scotia only yesterday, I don't think any of the models saw THAT coming.

Edited January 26, 2011 by OldMetMan

[snowray]

Just to compare GFS output between yesterday and today, with the runs less than 24 hours apart, I think it shows just how "fluid" the forecasts have been.

It may have escaped everyone's notice but on the other side of the Atlantic we had a 948mb low off Nova Scotia only yesterday, I don't think any of the models saw THAT coming.

Yes your quite right, some of the ingredients are certainly there, how about this chart then from tonights ECM.

[minus 9]

Yes your quite right, some of the ingredients are certainly there, how about this chart then from tonights ECM.

agree good luck mb. dont worry about the snipers. been reading this thread for a while now.ecm 240 shaping up nicely.

[MurcieBoy]

Here's the 3 Feb 2011 12:00hrs + 192 and comparison with Storm Forecast:

[peterf]

aye good luck MB,whatever happens it's been a good thread to follow.

[weatherguy]

The ECM does look very interesting for your prediction MB...I've stayed very quiet in here really, and simply can't believe that many people who were probably taking the aura of waiting to see what happens, suddenly criticising you and saying there's no chance of it happening.

As with any other forecast, we should judge this after the event time period has passed. I'm not saying whether it will or won't happen, but it should be given a chance to see what happens, just the same as it seemingly was a few weeks ago. Goodluck MB, I still sincerely hope that you're onto something.

[MurcieBoy]

Just to compare GFS output between yesterday and today, with the runs less than 24 hours apart, I think it shows just how "fluid" the forecasts have been.

It may have escaped everyone's notice but on the other side of the Atlantic we had a 948mb low off Nova Scotia only yesterday, I don't think any of the models saw THAT coming.

Yes your quite right, some of the ingredients are certainly there, how about this chart then from tonights ECM.

agree good luck mb. dont worry about the snipers. been reading this thread for a while now.ecm 240 shaping up nicely.

aye good luck MB,whatever happens it's been a good thread to follow.

The ECM does look very interesting for your prediction MB...I've stayed very quiet in here really, and simply can't believe that many people who were probably taking the aura of waiting to see what happens, suddenly criticising you and saying there's no chance of it happening.

As with any other forecast, we should judge this after the event time period has passed. I'm not saying whether it will or won't happen, but it should be given a chance to see what happens, just the same as it seemingly was a few weeks ago. Goodluck MB, I still sincerely hope that you're onto something.

Many thanks indeed for the above.

Yes, interestingly, we are, in some of the runs, seeing the lows heading south a wee bit from the Arctic (as predicted in the forecast to occur from 30 Jan 2011). Still we are +192 out (3 Feb)

Edited January 26, 2011 by MurcieBoy

[Roger J Smith]

Moving on with an actual validation (as opposed to the heated speculation) ...

We are now at day 8 counting down to 3 Feb, and here are the summaries.

GFS (day 8.) continues to show strong (1041 mb) high pressure near the Channel and now has a pair of lows, one west of Iceland and one in northern Finland. The flow generally between the high and these lows is moderate SW to WNW as one moves east. This map correlates well with the previous GFS (0.77) and now correlates at +0.60 with the "RJS" effort (see post 190). It is randomly correlated with the MB forecast (0.06).

ECM (day 8.) has begun to stress a high pressure ridge NNE-SSW through Sweden as its main centre of high in the grid, as well as Atlantic high pressure near the Azores and a deep low west of Iceland, with mainly weak trough features in the vicinity of the UK, and yet has maintained a 0.65 correlation with its previous day's run. This map correlates at 0.31 with the RJS map and at -0.2 with MB. The two models (GFS and ECM) have a 0.55 correlation which has fallen slightly from yesterday (indicating that model consensus is falling slightly).

Trends here are not all in the same direction. The GFS is shifting slightly towards the MB while the ECM is shifting slightly towards the RJS especially in the Baltic sector of the map.

A final note, the GFS beyond day 12 continues to show very strong low pressure near Iceland.

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

These comments are more on the thread now than the validation.

Some late comers here have missed the discussion we already had about unrealistic pressure and wind forecasts. Most of us are more interested in a correlation of the pressure pattern which seems more realistic than the numerical forecast suggestions. It was pointed out that if one took a less extreme pressure gradient of 3 mbs instead of 5 for the isobars shown, and thereby had more realistic central pressures, the wind speeds would also drop considerably. Not only would you have the 40% reduction by pressure interval, you could factor in a further drop from an original error in estimating wind speed from isobar separation even at the gradient being used. So I think it's fair to say that a reasonable wind forecast from these maps would be in the vicinity of half what was stated, and even that would be fairly extreme and could cause potential damage and very high tidal surges.

Also getting lost in this discussion is the fact that a second alternate forecast was made in this thread and that this one is correlating at a significant level with the two main models despite being made over 20 days before the event time. There are no extreme events predicted in the second alternate forecast, but then neither are there any implied in the current model output. Take it or leave it, the correlation of the average of GFS 8 and ECM 8 with RJS 20+ is 0.55, while the two separate correlations are 0.60 and 0.31. So maybe there is a story here after all.

I should comment on the VP assertions about four hour research programs. This may be true for the postulate that pressure patterns or anything else depends solely on lunar phase or orbit. Problem is, there are several other groups of identified factors in the RJS model that are non-lunar and therefore require a few extra hours of research to identify and model. Had one known what they all were at one given time, the number of hours might expand to 200 or so, but not knowing what they were took an additional three decades. I'm sure there is an answer to all this, but equally sure it is not simple, nor confined to one set of equations. Something few people think about in approaching this sort of research, but the grid itself is not fixed. The earth's magnetic field is constantly shifting, so just because you have data and can crunch it, does not mean that the data will then apply to a given point on the earth's surface afterwards. You might actually need to crunch data from different points in a shifting grid. (whoops)

Edited January 26, 2011 by Roger J Smith

[Pie Man]

And your point is what exactly? Clearly there's little in common between these three. Shows how long range forecasts are usually little better than guesswork.

Look atthe pressure gradient between Iceland and Norway; you have it falling towards Norway, the ECMWF has it rising and the GFS shows little gradient.

Pieman

Here's the 3 Feb 2011 12:00hrs + 192 and comparison with Storm Forecast:

Edited January 26, 2011 by Pie Man

[La Bise]

Call my cynical, but how many of the MB fan's club member here are fond of calling into question the competence and/or integrity of meteorologists and climatologists at the Met Office? Maybe the Met guys/gals should start to use tea leaves or frog's entrails, no doubt they will be lauded for their bravery and open mindedness...

[MurcieBoy]

And your point is what exactly?

Ah, another one from the same charm school.

You're back I see - I thought you said you had gone. You are as consistent as the models. Make your mind up!

If you bothered reading the thread, rather than trying to be abusive, you will know I just post these graphical representations in advance of RJS doing his bit - I post these each day. Is that OK?

Call my cynical, but how many of the MB fan's club member here are fond of calling into question the competence and/or integrity of meteorologists and climatologists at the Met Office? Maybe the Met guys/gals should start to use tea leaves or frog's entrails, no doubt they will be lauded for their bravery and open mindedness...

I could be wrong, but I am increasingly getting the feeling there is more likelihood of 250mph winds next week than you posting something sensible.

[Paul Sherman]

Mb

If you read the last 5 pages of your replies you are also being VERY Agressive if someone does not agree with anything regarding your forecast, but when others laud you up then you repeatedly re-quote there posts in self congratulatory style.

Members on here are allowed there opinion, granted some of the replies earlier from Steve were over the line but Pieman is entitled to say what he just said.

Do not try to run the doubters out of town on this thread, it is an open forum for debate on both sides.

And no before you re-quote me this is not an aggresive post just from someone who Mods on here trying to keep the Topic from getting into a Slanging match

[peterf]

Call my cynical, but how many of the MB fan's club member here are fond of calling into question the competence and/or integrity of meteorologists and climatologists at the Met Office? Maybe the Met guys/gals should start to use tea leaves or frog's entrails, no doubt they will be lauded for their bravery and open mindedness...

what exactly do you mean by fan club members?i find that remark offensive if i'm honest.

i'll quite simply sit and wait until the plotted timescale arrives.then i will find out if he is right or wrong,i'm in no fan clubs whatsoever thanks.

[crazy_diamond]

Ah, another one from the same charm school.

You're back I see - I thought you said you had gone. You are as consistent as the models. Make your mind up!

If you bothered reading the thread, rather than trying to be abusive, you will know I just post these graphical representations in advance of RJS doing his bit - I post these each day. Is that OK?

I could be wrong, but I am increasingly getting the feeling there is more likelihood of 250mph winds next week than you posting something sensible.

Don't rise to the bait, MB. There are a lot of silent lurkers, too lacking in knowledge to comment, but are intruiged nonetheless.

CD

I include myself as a silent lurker!

Edited January 26, 2011 by crazy_diamond

[MurcieBoy]

Paul S,

Well, I have, as you may know, written to the Mods and basically I have been told I have a right to reply. They do not see anything wrong with what has been dished out to me.

For weeks I have had to put up with abuse (look at the abuse of just today); and when I give, nowhere equal, back there is now an issue.

As I said to the Mods, I am happy to leave the thread.

Edited January 26, 2011 by MurcieBoy

[shotski]

I to am a silent lurker

it is to be applauded that you have stuck your neck on the line with this forecast, lets see how it pans out.

Why dont you do a regular post on the model thread using your technique and we can see how they pan out.

Lets see how things look on the 3rd

[La Bise]

Let me consult the Ancients from the vantage point of the 4th dimension MB and I'll get back to you with something sensible...

[Paul Sherman]

Paul S,

Well, I have, as you may know, written to the Mods and basically I have been told I have a right to reply. They do not see anything wrong with what has been dished out to me.

For weeks I have had to put up with abuse (look at the abuse of just today); and when I give, nowhere equal, back there is now an issue.

As I said to the Mods, I am happy to leave the thread.

Nick

No-one wants you to leave the thread, With such a brave forecast you must expect praise and also people questioning it is only human nature, you are also entitled to reply in what way you seem fit, I am sure if the Blue Mods think others slagging have crossed the line they will deal with it (Coast is very Impartial) But please if someone does not agree with you why the recent annimosity when in early January you quoted them with a level headed reply.

Like I said I will not question the forecast until after the date(s) has/have passed. Can we all try to have some good debate without the need to start hiding posts

Paul S

Let me consult the Ancients from the vantage point of the 4th dimension MB and I'll get back to you with something sensible...

Lets try to cut out the winding up, as this type of post is just baiting

The dates have not passed yet, there will be plenty of time to reply and banter next week La Bise

[La Bise]

Sorry Paul...

[OldMetMan]

Paul S,

Well, I have, as you may know, written to the Mods and basically I have been told I have a right to reply. They do not see anything wrong with what has been dished out to me.

For weeks I have had to put up with abuse (look at the abuse of just today); and when I give, nowhere equal, back there is now an issue.

As I said to the Mods, I am happy to leave the thread.

Please don't leave the thread MB, as this is exactly what the cynics and naysayers want. Personally, I don't think you have been aggressive, but defensive as you have every right to be in the face of such out-and-out rudeness from some quarters.

I feel quite a measure of responsibility for the exchanges today because I suggested late yesterday that certain posters want your forecast to fail, because of what it would mean to their belief systems if you were right. It's only too clear to me now that this is indeed the case. What bugs me more than anything is arrogance, especially of the so-called scientific kind, whose perpetrators are never wrong - in their own eyes.

So, I shall try to restrict my comments henceforth to the model changes and their relevence to MB's forecast.

Incidentally, La Bise, I used to work for the Met Office. I have a great respect for their expertise and skill.

[peterf]

i'm pleased thats sorted.now can we get back to the topic in hand.

[MurcieBoy]

Please don't leave the thread MB, as this is exactly what the cynics and naysayers want. Personally, I don't think you have been aggressive, but defensive as you have every right to be in the face of such out-and-out rudeness from some quarters.

I feel quite a measure of responsibility for the exchanges today because I suggested late yesterday that certain posters want your forecast to fail, because of what it would mean to their belief systems if you were right. It's only too clear to me now that this is indeed the case. What bugs me more than anything is arrogance, especially of the so-called scientific kind, whose perpetrators are never wrong - in their own eyes.

So, I shall try to restrict my comments henceforth to the model changes and their relevence to MB's forecast.

Incidentally, La Bise, I used to work for the Met Office. I have a great respect for their expertise and skill.

Many thanks again.

Please, you have no need to take any reponsibility.

Yes, let's see what fruits the models bring tomorrow!

[La Bise]

Excellent OldMetMan, I'm glad to read that.

I'd love to reply but I've promised to behave (not as the result of a complaint I hasten to add, my own decision). If you are really, really keen ( you never know...) to hear as to why I think you are completely wrong re your comment about belief system, message me otherwise, good day to you Sir

[Pie Man]

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

What bugs me is a wild assertion about possible future events which is not based on testable explanations (or at least not in a transparent way). This offends the scientific principle.

Pieman

What bugs me more than anything is arrogance, especially of the so-called scientific kind, whose perpetrators are never wrong - in their own eyes.