Corbyn - Winter Warning Of Exceptional Uk Cold And Snow

[Coast]

I simply can't understand why everyone feeld the need to jump on to this particular bandwagon.

Because this is a weather forum, a place to discuss meteorological events, forecasts, phenomena, folk lore, whatever? Is he so delicate that we can't challenge his methods and views exactly as he does others and then put them to some sort of test or critique? Do you feel it's inappropriate to question his forecasts and try to compare them to other methods or the actual weather?

Sounds like you want to stiffle all debate and conversation about other peoples forecasts?

If you still concerned or whatever, then go and complain to trading standards.

I haven't purchased anything from him that would warrant such a complaint

If Piers does slate other organisations, then it's up to them to deal with any slander,

I don't believe there has been anything said in here that is, or could be misconstrued as slander? Likewise I am not suggesting for moment that he has slandered anyone, merely that he indulges in the same vigorous debate and questioning of other organisations forecasts and should expect his own to receive as much attention and questioning

I'm sorry if you find my point of view 'odd' but I cannot stand any form of bullying and this does seem to be rather a vindictive netweather campaign aimed at his demise in the weather industry.

Again, I have seen no bullying in this thread, merely discussion and debate (heated at times true!) NW doesn't tolerate bullying and I can assure you it would be stamped on immediately.

have any of you comfronted him in person, or in writing and if so what is his response?

Yes, with less than satisfactory results. You will also have read in this thread about members contacting him through message boards etc trying to find out more information. Perhaps Piers could provide his point of view by joining everyone here in the discussion?

it's that which upsets me somewhat, there should always be two side to everything otherwise things can get out of control.

Then ask him to join us in the debate!

[IanM]

I still think you're going on too much about him, it doesn't hurt you in the least to leave him alone and let him get on with things.

If you still concerned or whatever, then go and complain to trading standards.

I simply can't understand why everyone feeld the need to jump on to this particular bandwagon.

If Piers does slate other organisations, then it's up to them to deal with any slander, have any of you comfronted him in person, or in writing and if so what is his respose?

I'm sorry if you find my point of view 'odd' but I cannot stand any form of bullying and this does seem to be rather a vindictive netweather campaign aimed at his demise in the weather industy.

Just let the customers decide what they want to do and the relative authorities deal with any issues.

You may want to rethink the term 'netweather campaign', it's a forum discussion, not a campaign, certainly not a Netweather mandated campaign.

We remove any over the top criticisms and personal attacks if they are made, as soon as we are made aware of them. Discussion or criticism of his forecasts and claims of success is perfectly allowable, as it is for any other forecast or organisation, and that would include allowing praise for other forecasting organisations as well.

anyone can come onto the forum and sing the praises of any forecaster, and if they have some evidence to back it up, fair play. It's when people only see the press releases claiming 'we got it bang on, and warned of this storm 9 months ago' and take it as fact that is starts to attract calls for evidence, and analysis. Like most extraordinary claims, they fall at pretty much every hurdle when reviewed against observed data.

But as I said a little further up the thread, it's probably time to accept that it isn't going to change and just leave him alone to plough his lonely furrow.

[Coast]

I was going to do a quick resume of this weeks forecast versus actual tomorrow after the three day period forecast, but if I don't give anything other than glowing praise, does that mean I'm vindictive, have some vendetta or am just dissing the WA forecast? I'll consider it overnight......

[IanM]

I was going to do a quick resume of this weeks forecast versus actual tomorrow after the three day period forecast, but if I don't give anything other than glowing praise, does that mean I'm vindictive, have some vendetta or am just dissing the WA forecast? I'll consider it overnight......

I'd say that it's one of those situations where most people will have already made up their minds about the accuracy already Coast? I'm more and more convinced that it doesn't matter what the evidence suggests, the brave maverick long range forecaster will still keep fighting against the evil imperial overlords, and his followers will happily stand behind him, shouting 'yeah, what he said, down with generally accepted and peer reviewed scientific research. It's the sun what done it'.

[Coast]

I'd say that it's one of those situations where most people will have already made up their minds about the accuracy already Coast?

I think I've come to the same conclusion Ian. In any event, spin, smoke + mirrors or just total disregard of facts will always sell more than what really happened and any analysis will be interpreted or misinterpreted as people would want to see it. They say you can't get a square peg in a round hole, but you can if you bash it hard enough!!!

I was actually thinking it had reached no real conclusion anyway and was going to give it:

I also think you're right about winding up this thread as there will be supporters and objectors who will never agree, so if I can be bothered I'll just carry on quietly checking forecast against actual and making my own my mind up.

[johnholmes]

well, well, an answer in my e mail box(not given to him by the way!) see below

hello I am somewhat amused to see you using sea areas to supposedly verify your forecasts of severe storms and snow for land areas of the country?

Mr Holmes,

Re above

What's funny?

We have a rule that assesments of forecasts have to be based only on the forecasts concerned.

Is this a fair rule?

1. Have you actually read our forecast?

2. Our forecast of 27days ahead (which was unchanged) refers to storm force winds on coast(s)

The 'severe storms (for) land areas' was made up by you.

If you bother to read what we said about snow it was also much more on the lines of wintry showers. NOT what you made up which implies blizzards. We referred to wintry later which doesn’t fit with the forecast you made up to 'assess'.

The 'severe storms and snow' (which implies simultaneity) which you made up is NOT Severe gales followed by wintry showers (in, by direct inference, less wind).

3. Met O 12 hrs ahead did say severe gales on land anyway which is what we had said for land for some time in that period 27days ahead.

4. They also said travel disruption.

5. They also said snow in northern parts.

There was nothing immediately at hand (and the Tv voice words cannot be made into a picture/pdf/twitpic) reporting on what was happening on land since it was at night however the shipping forceast released at 00.15 on 12th was best available and since it covered both sides of UK the land between would be pretty similar.

It did turn much colder - wintry - later as we said.

Interestingly there was more wind in the south reported by observers than MO had said12 hours ahead.

We did say anyway that while the general point of a notable low and winds and turning cold in the tail was verfied (or being verified when we wrote) the track detail had not been as far south as we had expected.

So what's funny?

Piers Corbyn

he does love to slightly distort what is said in my view. Quite why such a long reply was needed is a mystery.

I have just had a look at the site where I posted the e mail he quotes and the one this morning asking why it had not been posted-is it there?

no but I have the personal response from the man himself-wonder why its not in the list of e mails our Mr Craig gets several each day?

Edited January 13, 2012 by johnholmes

[IanM]

well, well, an answer in my e mail box(not given to him by the way!) see below

hello I am somewhat amused to see you using sea areas to supposedly verify your forecasts of severe storms and snow for land areas of the country?

Mr Holmes,

Re above

What's funny?

We have a rule that assesments of forecasts have to be based only on the forecasts concerned.

Is this a fair rule? Yes

1. Have you actually read our forecast? Yes

2. Our forecast of 27days ahead (which was unchanged) refers to storm force winds on coast(s) - South Eire and Southern coasts. Dry, mostly mild and bright is the forecast for the area affected by the winds and rain in this forecast period.

The 'severe storms (for) land areas' was made up by you. Using the news reports 'great reportage' that cpommented worse than last weeks storms

If you bother to read what we said about snow it was also much more on the lines of wintry showers. NOT what you made up which implies blizzards. We referred to wintry later which doesn’t fit with the forecast you made up to 'assess'. " colder later with wintry showers, thunder & thunder-snow" thats for north midlands up to south west scotland and north east england

The 'severe storms and snow' (which implies simultaneity) which you made up is NOT Severe gales followed by wintry showers (in, by direct inference, less wind). Moot point really

3. Met O 12 hrs ahead did say severe gales on land anyway which is what we had said for land for some time in that period 27days ahead. I Thought it was your forecast we were assessing?

4. They also said travel disruption. Moot point, you said disruption for south eire and southern coastal areas

5. They also said snow in northern parts. Yes, but they aren't the forecast being assessed?

There was nothing immediately at hand (and the Tv voice words cannot be made into a picture/pdf/twitpic) reporting on what was happening on land since it was at night however the shipping forceast released at 00.15 on 12th was best available and since it covered both sides of UK the land between would be pretty similar.

It did turn much colder - wintry - later as we said. Colder and wintry are generally accepted as different things....

Interestingly there was more wind in the south reported by observers than MO had said12 hours ahead. Try a weather station archive, and by the way ancedotal evidence, even lots of anecdotal evidence is still not data, or facts, or proof. I have a pet tornado called Winifred, it lives in a tree in my fridge - it's a comment on the internet so it must be true?

We did say anyway that while the general point of a notable low and winds and turning cold in the tail was verfied (or being verified when we wrote) the track detail had not been as far south as we had expected. Um, again, how does this verify the forecast from 27 days ago? Admitting it was wrong is not a verification.

So what's funny? I'll leave this one as rhetorical.

Piers Corbyn

he does love to slightly distort what is said in my view. Quite why such a long reply was needed is a mystery.

I have just had a look at the site where I posted the e mail he quotes and the one this morning asking why it had not been posted-is it there?

no but I have the personal response from the man himself-wonder why its not in the list of e mails our Mr Craig gets several each day?

Well that's a surprise John, if I might quickly answer the comments for you by typing on the above quote?

[Essan]

In other words, he correctly predicted that at some point in a 4 day period in January there would be gales affecting somewhere in England, and in all other respects - especially with regards synoptics - his forecast was wrong. Unless we get thundersnow tomorrow

btw I think forecasts should be verified by observations, not other forecasts ...

Edited January 13, 2012 by Essan

[Coast]

btw I think forecasts should be verified by observations, not other forecasts ...

I'm fairly confident that we have done that on this occasion and people can now asses the 11th, 12th and 13th WA forecast using actual data from observations and reports around the country. How they interpret the data is another matter.

he does love to slightly distort what is said in my view. Quite why such a long reply was needed is a mystery.

For those that feel this thread is bullying or vindictive, I urge you to read Piers's reply through twice as to me it comes across as unnecessarily aggressive and overly defence when John had asked a simple question that could have been answered with a simple (and polite) reply.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Its possible a few forecasts could go tits up over mext 2 weeks

BFTP

[IanM]

Its possible a few forecasts could go tits up over mext 2 weeks

BFTP

True, and I'm sure the majority of the forecasters involved will admit it, learn from it and not change the facts to advertise their subscription forecasts in the future.

And on that note, I'm locking the thread, it's circular and not going anywhere new really, thanks for taking part.