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