Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have been an advocate of probability forecasting on here for a few years
now. I have however been giving it some more thought and do have some misgivings. What I have noticed in a forecast such as, say, "90% confidence dry and mild, 10% cold and heavy snow" is that the interpretation by some of the outcome is:- 1. If it is dry and mild then it was a good forecast. 2. If it is cold and there is heavy snow then there is the comment along the lines "brilliant forecast, only a 10% chance and he/she was the only one to spot it." (Not 90% inaccurate!) This is happening to some extent, I feel, with the UKMO winter forecast. In the overall expectation of 66% chance of being colder than average, people that think it hasn't been that cold are saying it was good because it never really said it would be and people that think it has been cold are saying it was good because there was a 66% chance. Perhaps the best option is to give a confidence in a particular forecast with no other scenarios or their associated confidence. (Which of course, the Met Office has in effect) This is just some thoughts I've been having and am quite open to other viewpoints as there is clearly more to it (or at least it's intrepretation) than meets the eye. Dave |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Frankly, I didn't have a clue what the Met Office winter forecast
really meant. They were trying to baffle the public with pseudo-science, made money out (that day's presentation to industry at several hundred £££), meanwhile leaving the tabloid press with the impression that it was going be a really bitter season. You might just as well issue a forecast that says: There is a 3 in 10 chance that March 2006 will be warmer than March 2005, a 3 in 10 chance that it will be colder, and a 4 in 10 chance that it will be about the same. Jack |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Tudor Hughes" wrote in message Thus the*public* were given the impression of a severe winter. It wasn't just the tabloids either; the Independent was as guilty as any. ..... and still is as recent as this Saturday, had pictures of parts of Europe and said of the "Siberian freeze" , "... and it's heading our way". Of course it could still, but there was no current evidence or Met office report to that effect. Dave |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Tudor Hughes" wrote in message oups.com... The tabloid press did not get the impression that it was going to be a "really bitter season" unless they can't read. What they did was to say to themselves "How can we sensationalise this?" Thus the *public* were given the impression of a severe winter. It wasn't just the tabloids either; the Independent was as guilty as any. Whatever the Met Office had said would have been either misunderstood or distorted. That's the press for you. I don't know what the answer is. Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey. Tudor the answer is to stop buying newspapers. It's so liberating I tell you! Will. -- |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Tudor the answer is to stop buying newspapers. It's so liberating I tell you! Will. -- The paper I read, the Guardian, has some very good bits amongst the froth, and I'm interested in politics and current affairs. If you don't read the papers you may well benefit from a lower blood pressure but you won't know what people are talking about neither will you know what influences exist on the population at large. No good being a hermit; there is a world out there. I may disdain much of it but I want to know about it. And furthermore, how else are you to stop your windscreen frosting up at night without a sheet of newspapers? The new Berliner format of the Grauniad is useless for this - it needs two sheets now. This is serious. Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Tudor. How comes you seem to know the nature of the National press and UKMO didn't? It must have really been a shock to them when the press exagerated so. Ah so naive, bless them. After many years of experience of the media, the Met Office aren't being naive, just accepting the fact that the press will get a story completely wrong whatever you do. You just have to grin and bear it. The media either publish un-truths because they're incompetent or they've got an axe to grind and are lying. Sometimes it may a combination of the two. Years ago the Times published lies about a Labour Party MP/candidate but passed the audio tape to the BBC who broadcast it on the evening news. It was obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the tape had been edited to alter the meaning but the BBC never did spot it. The Times lied but I suspect the BBC were just being plain stupid. -- Graham Davis Bracknell |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Graham P Davis" wrote in message After many years of experience of the media, the Met Office aren't being naive, just accepting the fact that the press will get a story completely wrong whatever you do. You just have to grin and bear it. Oh, yes? So this is why they began their first press release about the winter by saying: QUOTE A prolonged, severe winter is one of the biggest threats to the efficient day-to-day running of the country. With this in mind, the Met Office has given advanced warning to many of its customers ...etc UNQUOTE What on earth did they expect? You catch the jaded news editor's eye in the first sentence of your press release. He doesn't read the rest. If you accept that the chief press officer knows what he's doing then you have to accept that this was deliberate. Philip Eden |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Dave.C
writes I have been an advocate of probability forecasting on here for a few years now. I have however been giving it some more thought and do have some misgivings. What I have noticed in a forecast such as, say, "90% confidence dry and mild, 10% cold and heavy snow" is that the interpretation by some of the outcome is:- 1. If it is dry and mild then it was a good forecast. 2. If it is cold and there is heavy snow then there is the comment along the lines "brilliant forecast, only a 10% chance and he/she was the only one to spot it." (Not 90% inaccurate!) This is happening to some extent, I feel, with the UKMO winter forecast. In the overall expectation of 66% chance of being colder than average, people that think it hasn't been that cold are saying it was good because it never really said it would be and people that think it has been cold are saying it was good because there was a 66% chance. Perhaps the best option is to give a confidence in a particular forecast with no other scenarios or their associated confidence. (Which of course, the Met Office has in effect) This is just some thoughts I've been having and am quite open to other viewpoints as there is clearly more to it (or at least it's intrepretation) than meets the eye. Dave As I have said a couple of times recently a single probability forecast cannot be judged to be either accurate or inaccurate. Accuracy, or perhaps better described as reliability, can only be judged by evaluating a representative sample of probability forecasts. I would think that a minimum of something like 20 forecasts would be needed. If an event occurred, on average, on 3 occasions out of every 4 in which it was forecast to have a 75 percent probability of occurrence then that probability forecasting would have been spot on. The Met Office forecast of a 2-1 probability of a colder than average winter cannot, on its own, be evaluated as being either accurate or inaccurate. Norman. (delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail) -- Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l. England |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Precipitation probability forecasts | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
#5 Probability definition of Reals and AP-adics-- can Earth have rain everywhere simultaneously; Monograph-book: "Foundation of Physics as Atomic theory and Math as Set theory" | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Probability forecasts | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Hurrican Charley Shows Progress, Pitfalls in Forecasting | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) |