On Jan 16, 2:19*pm, "Colin Youngs" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8462890.stm

Colin Youngs
Brussels

Just read it Colin; you beat me to posting it. *))

This is a very balanced piece. I agree with most of it, though at
times, it mixes seasonal and annual forecasting, which are two
actually two very different things. In terms of seasonal forecasting,
I believe they should either abandon it, or explain the experimental
nature of the forecasts and the likelihood that they may not prove
correct, far better than they presently do.

Even with the MetO's difficulties in forecasting seasonal weather
correctly, they are as good as, or better than eveyone else, except
using hindcasting odds. If anyone feels they are not, then present us
with the longer-term forecast accuracy of the person, or organisation,
you think is better. That's all you have to do. At least the MetO are
prepared to discuss their track record and don't hide it, whilst
basing their "expertise" on a few remembered successful forecasts and
forgetting the rest. They all count. They really do.

The real difficulty is that, IMO, *no-one* can forecast seasonal
weather with confidence which is backed by outcome forecast accuracy
stats. If there is; show us, don't just bleat about the MetO not being
able to do it when no-one else can. It's an area at the edge of
possibility. It's not something from which MetO accuracy should be
expected.