Better Than The Models ?

[lorenzo]

Whats this one Ensemble member doing for Hamburg.... http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/MT2_Hamburg_ens.png

[Evening thunder]

GFS may raise a few eyebrows near the end of its output this morning.. of course way too far off for the GFS to be reliable.

[Coast]

Hi Coast, have read both quotes quite a few times, but cannot see where there is a contradiction. Where is the contradiction in your eyes? If you can advise, I shall try and answer.

Good Morning,

You inicate in your post above that you are factoring in the effects of variance. By your own volition (as stressed in the posts from UKWW) you want to only consider the cause not the effects. If you were to find the cause of the variance in your method, then you could quantify it (just as you have with your main method) and then factor it out rather than factoring in a variable which can lead to uncertainty and inaccuracy.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I think RJS verification process looks good and helpful.

I think let's get to the forecast period and see what happens and the result of RJS process and then Q & A MB in depth from there.

Incidentally I think that after intial retrograde mode late Jan we will be in a pattern of wave after wave of northerly blasts and as I said much earlier in this thread I think the 'general' synoptic set up looks fine to me, just the detail and ferocity. I think too that any LP diving down down will be felt more over the country....a la RJS thoughts.

BFTP

[MurcieBoy]

Hi Coast

I think you are still not reading it right mate. I shall try and explain:

You inicate in your post above that you are factoring in the effects of variance.

I am expecting the actual to be different to forecast.

By your own volition (as stressed in the posts from UKWW) you want to only consider the cause not the effects.

Correct!

If you were to find the cause of the variance in your method

But I do know the variance in the DNA - I am just waiting to see the effect of that "DNA variance" or "cause variance" in the actual weather

Just to emphasise: what I do not know is what the "actual weather effect" of the "DNA variance" is - as I say I am waiting for Nature to tell. Once I know, I will take DNA variances into account when producing the forecasts - obviously at the moment I am not

then you could quantify it

I have quantified the "DNA variance", I know exactly what it is and how big it is

(just as you have with your main method) and then factor it out rather than factoring in a variable which can lead to uncertainty and inaccuracy.

Until I factor in the "weather effect" of a known "DNA variance", my forecasts will always be called "Experimental" and will always be expected to be different to the actual. Now this is not a "cop out" its just that this is only my 4th forecast and I have not had time to look at the effect of the "DNA variances" from my last three forecasts.

As I say in #169, “It’s far too early at this stage to see the upside of the “methodâ€; as it is being “tested†and hopefully refined. You can however see the worst sides to it (at its current level of evolution).†So even with such "errors" in the forecast (ie: the forecast in its worst state), the forecasts for 12 Nov and 25 Dec have outperformed the GFS model at +384 to circa +72

Hope that helps....

[Coast]

I am expecting the actual to be different to forecast.

I think this is where I'm being dim then. If your expectations for the actual outcome are different to what you are forecasting - why don't you disclose what you think the actual outcome will be, as well as what you have put in your forecast? At least take a punt like we do!! :lol:

[MurcieBoy]

I think RJS verification process looks good and helpful.

I think let's get to the forecast period and see what happens and the result of RJS process and then Q & A MB in depth from there.

Incidentally I think that after intial retrograde mode late Jan we will be in a pattern of wave after wave of northerly blasts and as I said much earlier in this thread I think the 'general' synoptic set up looks fine to me, just the detail and ferocity. I think too that any LP diving down down will be felt more over the country....a la RJS thoughts.

BFTP

I think any forecasts put forward for appraisal must: (i) be presented sufficiently advance of the forecasted day; and (ii) be very specific.

That is, charts with clear isobar patterns need to be produced of where the lows and highs are and the time of the day that configuration is expected to arise. The magnitude of the highs and lows must also be specified. Obviously, the GFS model can provide such information (from +384).

Also, the tolerance for evaluation should be reduced from ± 2days to ±1 hour (say)

[MurcieBoy]

If your expectations for the actual outcome are different to what you are forecasting - why don't you disclose what you think the actual outcome will be, as well as what you have put in your forecast?

Because I do not know; that is the purpose of the "Experimental Forecast", to find out.

BTW, this is not a test of my abilities to guess what the outcome will be. As I have said, my aim is to take the "subjective" wholly out of the equation. The method is objective. It has nothing to do with me or what I think.

What I can say (objectively) is the following: the DNA variance in the Storm Forecast, in other cases, has had very little impact. So part of me would say, the forecast should be very close to the actual. How close, I am not going to guess. Alternatively, as each case is different, it may have a more material effect in Feb 2011 - we shall see!

At least take a punt like we do!!

Behave!

Edited January 14, 2011 by MurcieBoy

[k19]

A very interesting outlier in FI

EDIT: Even the Operational is suggesting a drop in pressure

Edited January 14, 2011 by K.1000

[MurcieBoy]

PART 1/2 - OK, as its the end of the week, I shall catch up with some Q's:

It is a well known effect of the human brain, our capacity to blank out what does not tie up with our convictions in order to highlight what does. You only have to look at the money been made by astrologists and their haphazard, vague and banal predictions...

Same applies to so called advice the layman takes from so called "specialists" from investment banks or stockbrokers who tell them what the stock-market is going to do. It applies even more on a wider scale if/when students hardly question what they are taught and make the same mistakes as those teaching them; as has been alluded by others, some subjects have not "moved forward".

Anyway, @MB - How is your prediction looking at the moment? Is there a way in your method to "update" your forecast to see if the accuracy is holding up, or do those "DNA matches" restrict you to how often you can forecast for a set day?

Apart from the rouge DNA element that is a fair way out (as mentioned in #209), the other DNA factors have a very close (near 100%) match. There is no way I can update the match, it is fixed. The Feb 2011 forecast could have been made 50 years ago; and it would have been exactly the same forecast. Just a case of wait and see.

Some folk have been saying how uncommon certain positions of lows are etc; but that it the character/"meat" of a "rare" event. Its "make up" is not going to be common by definition.

Whilst I appreciate that you have explained you are very busy, I do think it may be prudent, if you are serious about testing your accuracy, to seriously contemplate more regular forecasts, at regular intervals and maybe not restrict to extreme events. For example, over on the model discussion forum, there is frequent argument about FI, the period of time which is technically outside the realms of reliable forecast. Would it be possible for you to perhaps forecast five/six days ahead. If you chose a set day and time to do this on a regular basis, it could be controlled and you would have the benefit of this forum to monitor and assist in terms of data collection.

This way, your accuracy could be monitored and it would give you more of an idea as to whether your method needed tweaking (or not)

Interesting points. We'll see how the Feb 2011 forecast goes. If it is widely out, then I have to reflect on things. However, if it is not widely out, I would like to do a forecast of the barometric pressure for a whole month for say London and see how the forecasted curve compares to the actual.

As you may have gathered, whether I make the forecasts 6 days, 6 months or 6 years before makes no difference; it will be the same forecast. I never look at what the weather is doing or what the models are saying or what the averages should be for the month in the forecasted day.

If his forecasts fail miserably then he has lost nothing other than time.

I think I might be in the right haystack. Each failure can provide an insight into what tools to use or not to use; so its like a process of elimination. I read somewhere that "failure is a gift" - bit of an esoteric meaning somewhere in there, but I find it is so true.

PART 2/2 – some genuine posts from other Forums where the Feb 2011 Storm video was embedded:

Listen, this guy is clearly channelling some combination of vague research paradigms and powerful Nostradamus style angst

Really?

I don't know enough about the subject to comment really

Very astute (the previous poster should take note)!

on the money for me... and this type of stuff will intensify throughout the next two years.

_________________

I have dislexcia so please exuse my gramma.

Does he know something we should know? He was on a 2012 forum!

I think it will happen... Yesterday i talk about this with a friend who lived in south France and he told me that normal people are predicting a major fllod storm to that exact time biger than the last one some years ago!!! For me this is a confirmation!

Who is this friend, this Sage?!

Eeeks. I hope it doesn't happen! I'd like to see what Piers Corbyn thinks of this. He's got an 85% accuracy rate. I'll be keeping an eye on [link to www.weatheraction.com] He has said he'd post warnings if he thinks there's going to be an extreme event.

Where is PC when you need him?

It is Edgar Cacey´s fault! He said it first.

He predicted as well WATERDOOM for the rest of the world, like the USA.

I bet it wasn't on video though!

I think this guy is the real deal !!!

Ye Gods!

My hubby's off to Norway that week!

Let's hope its not in a hot air balloon, as he might end up in Italy!

well presented video

Man of taste obviously!

seriously, why make a video with no sound or images - just text. Why not just write the darn thing so we can at least read it at our own pace.

I can't keep watching this it's giving me the sh**s.

... can't please everyone! Just because you lost the cricket!

I note the author says "Animals will be lost" Well if my cat thinks I'm going out looking for him in 140mph winds he's got another thing coming.

... here kitty!

[Roger J Smith]

When you talk about exact validation, then, you're basically ruling out all wind speeds under 100 mph for Hamburg, because a 40 mph error would be fairly significant. Also, you're ruling out pressures above 960 mbs for the central pressure of your proposed Baltic low on 3 Feb.

We're proposing a much gentler validation than that to establish at least some significance to the pattern in your forecast. If these specifics verify, it will be quite astonishing.

The "Nostradamus with angst" description is going to be quite apt if nothing much happens around the North Sea during this time period. If you want to avoid that kind of thing, develop the research privately and wheel it out when you know it is going to have some success.

[MurcieBoy]

Morning folks, in my last post, Part 2/2 was just a bit of light relief, some of it did make me laugh. Turning very brielfy now to RSJ's post:

The "Nostradamus with angst" description is going to be quite apt if nothing much happens around the North Sea during this time period.

So anyone genuinely tetsing out ideas (based upon hard research; and presenting very clear and precise forecasts) on a forum should be subjected to such ridicule?

After all that you have gone through (per your 1/11/05 post on NW), I thought you would be last person to say harsh and unsubstantiated things like that (on the Irish weather forum) and especially as you are now unilaterally proposing to undertake an "objective" evaluation of my Feb 2011 Experimental forecast. Begs the question why you volunteered out of the blue to undertake such an evaluation?

If you want to avoid that kind of thing, develop the research privately and wheel it out when you know it is going to have some success.

... now who is trying to chase someone "out of the building"?

When you talk about exact validation, then, you're basically ruling out all wind speeds under 100 mph for Hamburg, because a 40 mph error would be fairly significant.

Not sure if you have read my #193 post about wind clarification?

Also, you're ruling out pressures above 960 mbs for the central pressure of your proposed Baltic low on 3 Feb.

I had wondered why you selected 3 Feb, that's where the charts show the lowest pressure of 945mb (and therefore most likely to be wrong according to your analysis?)

We're proposing a much gentler validation than that to establish at least some significance to the pattern in your forecast.

I think it is just you that is proposing. To be fair, I do not believe that you are proposing wider tolerances to be "gentle" with me, its just that your own forecasts (however good they may be) are not precise enough

If these specifics verify, it will be quite astonishing.

They may verify closely, they may not. If they don't, so what? I am just genuinely testing out ideas, what is wrong with that?

[VillagePlank]

I am just genuinely testing out ideas, what is wrong with that?

Not a jot.

However, I have to admit that it seems that I am going to have to admit defeat, here.

If you are stoutly defending any attempts to produce a working validation and verification exercise and continue not to divulge your "method" and still claim that the test should verify 100% then there is little that any rationality can do to help you. Of course, a better test is to get you to forecast for every calendar day in February so we can catch your methods success of forecasting the normal, not much happening, weather. Perhaps too much to ask.

Nice to see confirmation bias ahead of the event though with people peering over outliers in FI.

Somehow the last two paragraphs can be melded together ...

Edited January 15, 2011 by VillagePlank

[Kentish Kiwi]

To be fair MurcieBoy, I don't think RJS's comment really deserved such a hostile retort. When I read it I didn't notice any particular malice at all, I get the feeling you might be a little too jumpy/over-defensive after what people have said on other forums. Such a state shouldn't really be neccessary on this board, especially given the relatively warm reception you've received on here.

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. Which is why he just thought it might have been a SAFER idea to pre-test your forecasting method before putting it on offer to the public on this forum. (Not saying I neccessarily agree with him but I can't really see any negative intent in what he wrote.)

[MurcieBoy]

#215 - KK

Thanks for your post.

Equally, and with the greatest respect, you may have read things wrongly too.

Perhaps its me, but I just don't get why folk have to resort to ridicule if they do not understand something or something is presented in a manner that is not to their liking or does not agree to their line of thinking.

All I have done it to put up clear and precise forecasts ahead of what is considered forecastable - since when has that ever been a sin?

Why knock someone that tries that? Just imagine, if someone could do that accurately and consistently and warn folk of floods etc in good time for them to prevent fatalities, human misery and suffering? People should be encouraged to come up with new ideas and ways of forecasting, not subjected to ridicule for daring to suggest anything out of the norm.

[k19]

Not a jot.

However, I have to admit that it seems that I am going to have to admit defeat, here.

If you are stoutly defending any attempts to produce a working validation and verification exercise and continue not to divulge your "method" and still claim that the test should verify 100% then there is little that any rationality can do to help you. Of course, a better test is to get you to forecast for every calendar day in February so we can catch your methods success of forecasting the normal, not much happening, weather. Perhaps too much to ask.

Nice to see confirmation bias ahead of the event though with people peering over outliers in FI.

Somehow the last two paragraphs can be melded together ...

If it was confirmation bias it certainly isnt anymore. Although now the charts look like a mish mash of different outcomes, there are a significant amount of outliers going for low pressure around that time.

[OldMetMan]

I am finding the criticism of what MB is doing here tiresome.

As I see it, if the pressure pattern is broadly similar during the first few days in February, regardless of whether the severe weather event materialises or not, that alone would be an astonishing achievement, given how long ago it was created. We are amazed here if any of the models get it approximately right beyond 5 days!

Even at this point in time, 2 weeks away, given the synoptic development we currently have, and have had, then MB's scenario is entirely possible.

I fear that the validation proposed for the event is more likely to try and negate than validate.

Whatever criteria MB uses to generate his predictions in the first place will continue to be refined through experience. He has consistently stated the experimental nature of what he is doing and has wisely refused to be drawn on detail, this is exactly what I would do if I had been clever enough to come up with such a potentially history changing method of weather forecasting. You may think that description too strong but I don't think so because, from what I understand of its basis, it would undermine a considerable amount of accepted science, not just forecasting science.

I think posters should back off and instead simply watch the progress of current models as we approach February.

[peterf]

I am finding the criticism of what MB is doing here tiresome.

As I see it, if the pressure pattern is broadly similar during the first few days in February, regardless of whether the severe weather event materialises or not, that alone would be an astonishing achievement, given how long ago it was created. We are amazed here if any of the models get it approximately right beyond 5 days!

Even at this point in time, 2 weeks away, given the synoptic development we currently have, and have had, then MB's scenario is entirely possible.

I fear that the validation proposed for the event is more likely to try and negate than validate.

Whatever criteria MB uses to generate his predictions in the first place will continue to be refined through experience. He has consistently stated the experimental nature of what he is doing and has wisely refused to be drawn on detail, this is exactly what I would do if I had been clever enough to come up with such a potentially history changing method of weather forecasting. You may think that description too strong but I don't think so because, from what I understand of its basis, it would undermine a considerable amount of accepted science, not just forecasting science.

I think posters should back off and instead simply watch the progress of current models as we approach February.

i agree,carry on MB a lot of us are watching with great interest.peter

[Harsh Climate]

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.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Harsh Climate

[pyrotech]

Well if nothing more this has began some interesting debate.

2 weeks away and it looks plausable that pressure will be in right areas or approx which is indeed rather good in accuracy.

However, rather bravely the forecast is for atleast a signifigant storm, so thats what would really be needed for forecast to verify.

If the forecast had been just to show and talk about pressure positions, then it could verify as being rather accurate, but the forecaster has really raised the stakes by talking about a severe storm , so at least a signifigant storm, would now be needed for people to give praise.

This is a rather bold and either foolish or very clever for Murcie boy to go so deep into the detail, but lets remember that different people use different methods to look into and beyond Fi in the model thread, they too are sometimes wrong.

I like your style, showing all your cards on this, if it starts to verify then i think alot on here will be interested in your methods, if not then you may well be put in the same box as Piers Corbyn.

Personally i think its a brave forecast and like many i am very interested in seeing if it verifies at all, for me personally i would expect something fairly signifigant for forecast to be concluded as accurate, It would have been easier to get accuracy by going into less detail, talking about possible stormy conditions etc, but then it would not stand out like it has.

I wish you all the luck with your forecast and will check how its going daily.

[Barbmac]

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

I think in MB's defence, he has been studying such data for some time, have you? Because you think it's absurb, doesn't mean there isn't something of value in it.

Well, would you believe it ...

I've think I might have found evidence of a link between the moon and the weather (particularly temperature) - I know, I know, I nearly fell of my chair, too.

<snip>

So, what about MB's predictions? Well, the 1st Feb's moonphase index is 7, and rest are all .... 0's - so the conclusion from empirical data is that he has a reasonable chance of getting at least out of the ordinary temperatures. I think it's reasonable to assume, then, that the moon has something to do with the "method" given references to the "ancients"

This doesn't surprise me as I can't really think of any other way to pinpoint an exact day in the future for a certain event/pattern unless you are taking into account the positions of lunar/solar/planetary bodies whose positions can be calculated well in advance. Looks fascinating, will be very interested to see how that pans out.

[pottyprof]

Link to VP's project..

[topher41]

cant say as i have ever realy linked the moon cycles to weather

thinking logicaly about it it makes perfect sense I think all would agree that the sea's pay a large part in our global weather

all would agree that the earth is 70% + water

the moons gravity gives us tides all that mass of water moving has got to influence the weather

i dont know what im getting at but just sharing my thoughts

[Timmead]

cant say as i have ever realy linked the moon cycles to weather

thinking logicaly about it it makes perfect sense I think all would agree that the sea's pay a large part in our global weather

all would agree that the earth is 70% + water

the moons gravity gives us tides all that mass of water moving has got to influence the weather

i dont know what im getting at but just sharing my thoughts

I think you mean intuitive rather than logical, in which case I agree. Though obviously things in science are often counter-intuitive, which is why we must use data rather than intuition.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Timmead

[topher41]

I think you mean intuitive rather than logical, in which case I agree. Though obviously things in science are often counter-intuitive, which is why we must use data rather than intuition.

no i iam sure i mean logical

fact moon affects tides

fact earth 70%+ water

fact oceans affect global weather

using my head not my heart