Apologies if posted already. This is very interesting - potentially.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9669983.stm

Cheers
Richard

Richard Dixon wrote:
Apologies if posted already. This is very interesting - potentially.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9669983.stm

Cheers
Richard
-------------------------------
Excellent - if done properly it will show up who the charlatans are.
Mind you at least one of them will pursuade the Express to say they had
a hundred percent success rate even if they come last!
Dave

"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message
...

Richard Dixon wrote:
Apologies if posted already. This is very interesting - potentially.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9669983.stm

Cheers
Richard
-------------------------------
Excellent - if done properly it will show up who the charlatans are.
Mind you at least one of them will pursuade the Express to say they had
a hundred percent success rate even if they come last!
Dave
=============================

I'll second that, Dave, and thanks for the heads up, Richard. It will be
good to see some official and consistent metric used for all concerned. A
positive already to see agreement from those taking part!

I wonder who among the smaller "forecasters" will volunteer or request
inclusion and stand the risk of independent assessment...TWO? NetWeather?
James Madden? Mark Vogan?

It might be one heck of a long list but as the article says..."Other
forecasters will be considered for the test if they can persuade the
organisers that they bring something significantly new to the existing
shortlist."

Joe
Dublin
28m AMSL

On Jan 3, 12:03*am, "Joe Whyte" wrote:
"Dave Cornwell" *wrote in message

...

Richard Dixon wrote:
Apologies if posted already. This is very interesting - potentially.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9669983.stm

Cheers
Richard

-------------------------------
Excellent - if done properly it will show up who the charlatans are.
Mind you at least one of them will pursuade the Express to say they had
a hundred percent success rate even if they come last!
Dave
=============================

I'll second that, Dave, and thanks for the heads up, Richard. It will be
good to see some official and consistent metric used for all concerned. A
positive already to see agreement from those taking part!

I wonder who among the smaller "forecasters" will volunteer or request
inclusion and stand the risk of independent assessment...TWO? NetWeather?
James Madden? Mark Vogan?

It might be one heck of a long list but as the article says..."Other
forecasters will be considered for the test if they can persuade the
organisers that they bring something significantly new to the existing
shortlist."

Another waste of time.
3 years later:

The Met Office was embarrassed by criticism over its seasonal
forecasting and maintains that this experimental science is not ready
to share with the public.

Again.

They should be embarrassed by their 0000 UTC surface analysis:

Low pressure situated between the Faeroe Islands and Iceland brings a
strong unstable polar maritime airstream to the UK. The low pressure
to southwest of the UK is expected to deepen rapidly, and bring a
spell of very windy weather to the country on Tuesday.

Updated: 0730 UTC on Mon 2 Jan 2012

No mention of the behaviour of the tropical storms is oh so clearly
shows.

Nor in the longer term the likelihood of Chilean earthquakes.

(Out on a limb there but not inspired by anything posted so far on
sci.geo.earthquakes. So no change thee too neither.)

Suck on this one:
http://my.opera.com/Are-You-a-Lunari...anagua-station

On Jan 3, 6:06*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jan 3, 12:03*am, "Joe Whyte" wrote:



"Dave Cornwell" *wrote in message

...

Richard Dixon wrote:
Apologies if posted already. This is very interesting - potentially.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9669983.stm

Cheers
Richard

-------------------------------
Excellent - if done properly it will show up who the charlatans are.
Mind you at least one of them will pursuade the Express to say they had
a hundred percent success rate even if they come last!
Dave
=============================

I'll second that, Dave, and thanks for the heads up, Richard. It will be
good to see some official and consistent metric used for all concerned. A
positive already to see agreement from those taking part!

I wonder who among the smaller "forecasters" will volunteer or request
inclusion and stand the risk of independent assessment...TWO? NetWeather?
James Madden? Mark Vogan?

It might be one heck of a long list but as the article says..."Other
forecasters will be considered for the test if they can persuade the
organisers that they bring something significantly new to the existing
shortlist."

Another waste of time.
3 years later:

The Met Office was embarrassed by criticism over its seasonal
forecasting and maintains that this experimental science is not ready
to share with the public.

Again.

They should be embarrassed by their 0000 UTC surface analysis:

Low pressure situated between the Faeroe Islands and Iceland brings a
strong unstable polar maritime airstream to the UK. The low pressure
to southwest of the UK is expected to deepen rapidly, and bring a
spell of very windy weather to the country on Tuesday.

Updated: 0730 UTC on Mon 2 Jan 2012

No mention of the behaviour of the tropical storms is oh so clearly
shows.

Nor in the longer term the likelihood of Chilean earthquakes.

(Out on a limb there but not inspired by anything posted so far on
sci.geo.earthquakes. So no change thee too neither.)

Suck on this one:

http://my.opera.com/Are-You-a-Lunari.../2011/12/27/ve...
Not sure that is the correct thread. Try this one:

http://my.opera.com/Are-You-a-Lunari...omment79036422

Watch this loop out to the end of the spell. Midnight 9th:

http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/char...rea=SH&model=G

In article
,
Weatherlawyer writes:
The Met Office was embarrassed by criticism over its seasonal
forecasting and maintains that this experimental science is not ready
to share with the public.

Again.

They should be embarrassed by their 0000 UTC surface analysis:

Low pressure situated between the Faeroe Islands and Iceland brings a
strong unstable polar maritime airstream to the UK. The low pressure
to southwest of the UK is expected to deepen rapidly, and bring a
spell of very windy weather to the country on Tuesday.

Updated: 0730 UTC on Mon 2 Jan 2012

No mention of the behaviour of the tropical storms is oh so clearly
shows.

Nor in the longer term the likelihood of Chilean earthquakes.

You expect the UK Met Office to be forecasting Chilean earthquakes?! I
think that falls a long way outside their remit.
--
John Hall
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw

On Jan 2, 10:18*pm, Richard Dixon wrote:
Apologies if posted already. This is very interesting - potentially.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9669983.stm

Cheers
Richard

Surely Dawlish must put his name forward, he's the best forecaster in
the world (when the models agree at 240h)!

In message
Richard Dixon wrote:

Apologies if posted already. This is very interesting - potentially.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/9669983.stm

Cheers
Richard

Mr *******i tweeted that this was the first he'd heard of it!! It
seems the BBC have included him without bothering to tell him.

Martin


--
Visit my weather station at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/Cumulus/index.htm

Believing is the start of everything to come. - Hayley Westenra

On Jan 3, 10:35*am, John Hall wrote:
In article
,
*Weatherlawyer writes:
The Met Office was embarrassed by criticism over its seasonal
forecasting and maintains that this experimental science is not ready
to share with the public.

Again.

They should be embarrassed by their 0000 UTC surface analysis:

Low pressure situated between the Faeroe Islands and Iceland brings a
strong unstable polar maritime airstream to the UK. The low pressure
to southwest of the UK is expected to deepen rapidly, and bring a
spell of very windy weather to the country on Tuesday.

Updated: 0730 UTC on Mon 2 Jan 2012

No mention of the behaviour of the tropical storms is oh so clearly
shows.

Nor, in the longer term, the likelihood of Chilean earthquakes.

You expect the UK Met Office to be forecasting Chilean earthquakes?
! I think that falls a long way outside their remit.

The fact that the wave trains involved in the occurrence of tropical
depressions is available to the computers of the North Atlantic
forecast and the category of said cyclones is shown quite plainly in
the charts produced, isn't.

Since the ability for these models to self destruct with the advent of
the next lunar phase is well known to all but the programmers of said
model runs, I think you aught to reconsider your stance, old fruit.

To be pedantic:
"Nor, in the longer term, the likelihood of Chilean earthquakes."
I don't think my wording indicates high expectations of the possible.

But since they are attempting to improve their statistics, why would
they wish to NOT look at the bloody obvious?

On the one hand they are begging for another super computer (at a time
when sensible governments are closing down nuclear reactors.) And on
the other they are hamstringing their experiment before it even gets
started.

Does that sound sensible?

Whilst the fundamental problem with supercomputers is the inability of
coders to get the streams of data to run efficiently through silicon
road-blocks that consume more than 98% of the energy used in them (1
Nuclear generator's worth per super-computer)
sorting out which bits of which chips do what;

....the idea that none of the supercomputers do what is possible with
the remaining 1 or 2 percent is typically upper class twit British
management at its best.