That's probably because like everyone else, they don't have a clue what it's
actually going to do.

Shaun Pudwell.

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , John Hall
writes:
In article ,
Shaun Pudwell writes:

...

The last eight winters have been relatively mild and perhaps have given
the
impression that these are 'normal'. The balance of probability is for a
winter colder than those experienced since 1995/6.

snip
All in all then, it looks like being a fairly average 90's style winter
with
one month with a CET of 2.5. What's all the fuss about????

Saying that the winter is expected to be colder than those experienced
since 1995-6 (or indeed 1996-7) doesn't preclude the possibility that it
will prove to be colder than 1995-6 as well.


That must have been the viewpoint of the Sunday Newspaper my vulnerable
Mother-in-Law read (delivered in the south Midlands) which stated that the
Met Office has predicted a winter with temperatures averaging as low as
-10 C.



But no doubt if recent
winters had been as cold as those that we had become accustomed to
between say 1978 and 1987, the Met Office wouldn't have thought a
warning necessary. It's because people (and the utilities in particular)
may have been lulled into a false sense of security that a "heads up" is
prudent.


Why do the Met Office not issue bounds on their forecast? It would have
encapsulated the degrees of danger (pun intended) that they perceived the
country to be in. By saying "colder than those experienced since 1995-6"
I do think they mean they think it will *not* be as cold (on average) as
1995-6. But choosing the language that they did, they leave the issue
open to abuse.



Cheers,

keith



---
Iraq: 6.5 thousand million pounds, 90 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...
London?...