On Nov 4, 12:05*pm, Richard Dixon wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:09*am, Stephen Davenport wrote:

Which brings me to my final point - there are a lot more seasonal
forecasts in the market than are made freely available, and it is
wrong to say that there has been no progress in the last 20 years.
Nobody is suggesting a *high* degree of accuracy or usefulness in
these forecasts but there is *some* usefulness or the eminently
sensible and thrifty clients who buy them would not do so. I am
fortunate enough to be privy to one that proved startlingly good last
winter and during the past summer when there was a strong enough
signal. We have no right to assume, however, that accurate seasonal
forecasting will ever be tenable, ot at least not soon.

The most sense I've heard on here on the topic.

You're a fool to pin your hopes on a seasonal forecast as much as you
are to totally rubbish them all.

Richard

Show me the forecast accuracy over time and I'll show you someone's
forecasts that should be taken seriously. Until then, it's not
"rubbishing" anything. It's being completely sensible and realistic
against a tide of forecasters.some of which would obviously convince
you. Why they'd convince you might be a little difficult to say, apart
from the fact that they employ good meteorological language in the
forecast - though you are welcome to have a go, of course. In
forecasting, outcome success is *everything*. No track record of
success over a decent period of time; no need to take the forecast
seriously at all.