Richard Dixon wrote:

On Dec 22, 10:09*am, John Hall wrote:

I wonder if this derived from an analysis of how well the various global
models performed putting the Met Office's model in second place behind
the ECMWF, and then the Met Office's press office misunderstanding
and/or getting a bit carried away?

I would have thought that the EC is the "best" if you're looking at
pure model performance - and they also don't seemingly employ any
disconnected PR team to cock things up for them...

Richard

Even if only model "performance" is considered you have to define what you mean
by that before you can make any proper comparison.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

On Dec 22, 10:44*am, "Norman" wrote:

Even if only model "performance" is considered you have to define what you mean
by that before you can make any proper comparison.

Of course ! I will dig out the link - even then it's generic 500mb
height anomalies averaged across large areas/latitude bands.

I'm yet to find an "on the ground" comparison between all the models.

Richard

On Dec 22, 10:44*am, "Norman" wrote:

Even if only model "performance" is considered you have to define what you mean
by that before you can make any proper comparison.

Here's one - 500mb anomaly correlation

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/STATS/html/acz5.html

Even then, it would be good to see how this statistics vary by weather
"type" - westerly, blocked etc.

Richard

Richard Dixon wrote:

On Dec 22, 10:44*am, "Norman" wrote:

Even if only model "performance" is considered you have to define what you
mean by that before you can make any proper comparison.

Here's one - 500mb anomaly correlation

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/STATS/html/acz5.html

Even then, it would be good to see how this statistics vary by weather
"type" - westerly, blocked etc.

Richard

These statistics, of course, are averages covering whole hemispheres. Regional
errors may well cancel each other out. The period shown covers Fri 16th Dec. At
T-5 all the models were predicting a very intense low passing across northern
Scotland on that day, as I'm sure most people in here remember. In the event,
of course, we know that it didn't happen. It was a hugely significant error for
our particular bit of the planet but there isn't a hint of a blip on the
hemispheric 500 mb anomaly statistics.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:24:08 +0000, Phil Layton
wrote:

There's an article on the Met O website comparing this December to last.
Towards the end it says:
"However, the challenge of forecasting our variable weather is something
the Met Office rises to every day and explains why we are regularly
ranked in the top two national weather services in the world"

Who is the other one?

That would be EC then!

Having worked with (not at or for) the top two Met Offices (by the
assertion) for more than 12 years on the use of forecasts for
applications and impacts they are quite different places.

Andy

On Dec 22, 1:43*pm, "Norman" wrote:

These statistics, of course, are averages covering whole hemispheres. Regional
errors may well cancel each other out. The period shown covers Fri 16th Dec. At
T-5 all the models were predicting a very intense low passing across northern
Scotland on that day, as I'm sure most people in here remember. In the event,
of course, we know that it didn't happen. It was a hugely significant error for
our particular bit of the planet but there isn't a hint of a blip on the
hemispheric 500 mb anomaly statistics.

I'm aware of that Norman - other parts of that website on closer
inspection detail Europe, but in not as much detail as the hemispheric
data. Hemispheric data is of little relevance on the local scale for
statistics ! I have contacted the author to get some of the historical
data as I am interested to see predictability as a function of NAO
index for NW Europe/N Atlantic to get something more meaningful for us
users/digesters of model output.

Richard

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...

On Dec 22, 7:20 am, " cupra" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

On Dec 21, 10:24 pm, Phil Layton wrote:

There's an article on the Met O website comparing this December to last.
Towards the end it says:
"However, the challenge of forecasting our variable weather is something
the Met Office rises to every day and explains why we are regularly
ranked in the top two national weather services in the world"

Who is the other one?
--
Phil
Guildford

NOAA? It's also a statement that smacks of the hubris that permeates
the MetO and it's just the kind of PR that further alienates a public
that see the forecast, experience the weather mistakes as they affect
them, personally and don't see the explanations of why it went wrong.

Excellent forecasters, working right at the edge of what is possible;
bloody awful PR.

=====================

Have you signed up for the open day in Jan? Could be a good opportunity to
feed back what you feel is good and bad!

I'm looking forward to the tour, got lots of questions to ask them
myself....

I have fed back views, in a very constructive way. One time was
concerning the severe weather warnings area of the website. I waited a
long time Over a month IIRC, for a "forecaster" to get back in touch
with me and when one eventually did (after being reminded) he said
thank you for the comments and directed me to the comments area of the
MetO site. *))

Have you details of the open day please; it does sound interesting, as
you say.

===========================

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/forms/openday.html

I've got my name down for 28th Jan 15:00 if anyone else from here is
attending!

On Dec 22, 3:27*pm, " cupra" wrote:
"Dawlish" *wrote in message

...

On Dec 22, 7:20 am, " * cupra" wrote:





"Dawlish" *wrote in message

....

On Dec 21, 10:24 pm, Phil Layton wrote:

There's an article on the Met O website comparing this December to last.
Towards the end it says:
"However, the challenge of forecasting our variable weather is something
the Met Office rises to every day and explains why we are regularly
ranked in the top two national weather services in the world"

Who is the other one?
--
Phil
Guildford

NOAA? It's also a statement that smacks of the hubris that permeates
the MetO and it's just the kind of PR that further alienates a public
that see the forecast, experience the weather mistakes as they affect
them, personally and don't see the explanations of why it went wrong.

Excellent forecasters, working right at the edge of what is possible;
bloody awful PR.

=====================

Have you signed up for the open day in Jan? Could be a good opportunity to
feed back what you feel is good and bad!

I'm looking forward to the tour, got lots of questions to ask them
myself....

I have fed back views, in a very constructive way. One time was
concerning the severe weather warnings area of the website. I waited a
long time Over a month IIRC, for a "forecaster" to get back in touch
with me and when one eventually did (after being reminded) he said
thank you for the comments and directed me to the comments area of the
MetO site. *))

Have you details of the open day please; it does sound interesting, as
you say.

===========================

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/forms/openday.html

I've got my name down for 28th Jan 15:00 if anyone else from here is
attending!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank you. I'll check the diary!

may be youll see your much admired mate there, the tea boy


On 22/12/2011 4:49 PM, Dawlish wrote:


Thank you. I'll check the diary!

Blimey, back from work and I was expecting one of:
Meteo France
DWD
Japan Met
NWS
--
Phil
Guildford