On 10 Sep, 16:53, Dawlish wrote:

Unlike dear Piers, I've always been completely open about my
methodology and it is simple.

Well fair play.

If I see 5 consecutive runs of the gfs showing a very similar set up
(consistency) and if the ECM agrees with what the gfs is showing,
there is a 75% likelihood of an event occurring. Without either of
those two criteria being reached, I would not forecast. In doing what
I have done, I know that the knack is knowing when NOT to forecast.

Is this specific weather types - i.e. a cold easterly or a high
pressure or does this include very short-wave features? Have you had
any luck prediction, for example, a day with a severe gale 10 days
ahead? It would be interesting to see what sort of weather type the
75% of the successes are, and what weather types the 25% of failures
are and whether the two populations are specifically different. Now
I'm assuming that Hurricane Bill in the mid-Atlantic was classed as a
failure? The GFS and the EC had a tight-cored low for several runs and
that didn't come off in the end.

Try it; simple methodology, pretty accurate outcomes. Then it just
takes a nerdy kind of nature to watch almost every single gfs and ECM
run for nearly 4 years to test it over time and a very thick skin to
deal with the criticism when a forecast goes very wrong from the same
people that wouldn't dream of giving praise when a forecast turns out
correct.

That should only really happen if you crow too much when it is right
(see P. Corbyn, 1990-2009) and people want to put you in your place!
If I had the chance to change your method I'd be looking for ECMWF
first and then GFS second (third...fourth?) !

I can assure you that Internet vultures are a far more
discerning panel of judges than any peer-reviewed journal!! Their
silence is approbation enough.

Judges should be fair unless you've upset them !!

Richard