In article , "Stuart Brooks" writes:
Keith Dancey wrote:
In article , "Victor West"
writes:

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes:

If I understand correctly, the Met Office are suggesting that
there is a 2 in 3 chance that the coming winter will have
temperatures lower than the mean for the past ten years. There is
also a 2 in 3 chance that the rainfall will be less than the mean
for the past ten years.

To be pedantic, I suspect the Met Office is actually comparing the
expected figures with the median figures for the past ten years,
but that isn't clear in the press release.


(Indeed... it could have been more explicitly worded.)


In support of Jon's posting, I think the Met Office were referring
to the the *long-term" average (ie. a rolling 30-year average) when
they talked about "averages" (because those were the figures they
produced in the forecast).


So, a ~66% chance of being colder than the current 30-year average,
but not
as cold as 1995/96. For Southern England that would indicate a mean
winter
temperature of between 3.5 and 4.5 C.

For other Regions:

Scotland - between 1.8 and 2.7
Northern England - between 2.4 and 3.5
Wales - between 2.8 and 4.2
Northern Ireland - between 3.7 and 4.3



The forecast in
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research.../headline.html
says "The balance of probability is for a winter colder than those
experienced since 1995/6.". As far as I can see, it doesn't mention
"colder than the mean" or "colder than the 30 year average".


You should look again...

From your URL (updated October 24th):

"Our predictions continue to indicate a colder than average winter..."


From
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20050926.html
dated 26th September:

"the Met Office has given advanced warning to many of its customers
and
partners to plan for a 'colder-than-average winter'."


From a posting dated September 28th:

Subject: Winter Forecast


"I have to take it that the wording "colder than average winter"
(Winter
forecast 2005/6) and "colder-than-average-winter" (News release)
refers to
the "long-term average" figures (30 years) quoted in the former only."


Funny how this has become converted by the press to it is definitely
expected that it will be the coldest winter since the big freeze of
1962-1963, (Daily Express) and "may be at least 2 degrees below average"
.....is that an oxymoron? Taking the biscuit was the preamble to the radio
interview I did last week when the announcer stated he had seen reports that
it was to be the coldest winter since the 1800s.......


Many journalists have behaved quite appallingly in misrepresenting what the
Met Office said, which was:

"The balance of probability is for a winter colder than those experienced
*since* 1995/6"

The implication for the lower bound is, therefore, quite clear, but journalists
are more interested in squeezing sensation out of reality than getting at the
truth, and then using rediculous pedantic arguments to fend off accusations of
hyperventilated "spin". (Sounds just like New Labour:-(

Ann Diamond (Radio Oxford) quoted "coldest winter ever"!

Maybe the Met Office needs to be more aware that journalists will always look
to take the most extreme meaning from any statement, and place strict bounds
on such forecasts, along with their probabilities - something I have argued
for from the outset.


Cheers,


keith




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

Keith Dancey wrote:




Many journalists have behaved quite appallingly in misrepresenting what
the Met Office said, which was:

"The balance of probability is for a winter colder than those experienced
*since* 1995/6"

The implication for the lower bound is, therefore, quite clear, but
journalists are more interested in squeezing sensation out of reality than
getting at the truth, and then using rediculous pedantic arguments to fend
off accusations of
hyperventilated "spin". (Sounds just like New Labour:-(

Ann Diamond (Radio Oxford) quoted "coldest winter ever"!

Maybe the Met Office needs to be more aware that journalists will always
look to take the most extreme meaning from any statement, and place strict
bounds on such forecasts, along with their probabilities - something I
have argued for from the outset.


It doesn't matter how carefully the Met Office were to word the forecast,
the media would still turn it on its head. They are either too stupid to
understand plain English or a bunch of liars - probably both.

If they can publish that a celebrity was involved in a sex and drugs party
in Spain whereas, at the time of the alleged party, he was seen having a
quiet drink in a pub in England, what chance does the Met Office have?

Estate agents, second-hand-car salesman, and politicians are shining
examples of honesty in comparison to journalists.

--
Graham Davis
Bracknell

Felly sgrifennodd Keith Dancey :
Maybe the Met Office needs to be more aware that journalists will always look
to take the most extreme meaning from any statement, and place strict bounds
on such forecasts, along with their probabilities - something I have argued
for from the outset.

Absolutely not. That's not their job. Their job is to forecast to the best of
their ability, given the data available to them. If the media misinterpret it,
that's their (the media's) problem, not the Met Office's. Otherwise we'll all
have to start reading between the lines.

I wonder: if someone were to act upon the winter forecast as portrayed by
one of the tabloid newspapers, and thus lose a lot of money, maybe they could
sue that paper for damages. It might make them think again next time. Of
course, such action would be boud to fail, as all the media seem to be doing
it, and proving the source would be difficult. Hmm, maybe a law is needed,
or an OfMedia or whatever.

Adrian


--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk

In article , Graham P Davis writes:
Keith Dancey wrote:

Maybe the Met Office needs to be more aware that journalists will always
look to take the most extreme meaning from any statement, and place strict
bounds on such forecasts, along with their probabilities - something I
have argued for from the outset.


It doesn't matter how carefully the Met Office were to word the forecast,
the media would still turn it on its head.


In article , (Adrian D. Shaw) writes:

(also concerning my suggestion)


Absolutely not. That's not their job. Their job is to forecast to the best of
their ability, given the data available to them. If the media misinterpret it,
that's their (the media's) problem, not the Met Office's. Otherwise we'll all
have to start reading between the lines.


I disagree on this point. The Met Office issued a Press Statement about a
winter forecast.

Everyone (more-or-less) is interested in winter forecasts, especially if they
are specifically warning about adverse conditions. Therefore, the constituency
to which the Press Statement was addressed was not restricted to science
correspondents (who *might* be considered to be more educated about such matters).

In which case, I think it would have been prudent to place explicit bounds on the
expected event.

The lower bound of which would have been "not expected to be as bad as the winter
of 1996/5".

Wouldn't *that* have stopped dead all talk of "as bad as 63" and worse?

Remember, it was a *Press Statement*. Not a statement addressed to
meteorologists...



Cheers,

keith




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

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , Graham P Davis
writes:
Keith Dancey wrote:

Maybe the Met Office needs to be more aware that journalists will always
look to take the most extreme meaning from any statement, and place strict
bounds on such forecasts, along with their probabilities - something I
have argued for from the outset.


It doesn't matter how carefully the Met Office were to word the forecast,
the media would still turn it on its head.


In article , (Adrian D. Shaw) writes:

(also concerning my suggestion)


Absolutely not. That's not their job. Their job is to forecast to the best of
their ability, given the data available to them. If the media misinterpret
it,
that's their (the media's) problem, not the Met Office's. Otherwise we'll all
have to start reading between the lines.


I disagree on this point. The Met Office issued a Press Statement about a
winter forecast.

Everyone (more-or-less) is interested in winter forecasts, especially if they
are specifically warning about adverse conditions. Therefore, the
constituency
to which the Press Statement was addressed was not restricted to science
correspondents (who *might* be considered to be more educated about such
matters).

In which case, I think it would have been prudent to place explicit bounds on
the
expected event.

The lower bound of which would have been "not expected to be as bad as the
winter
of 1996/5".

Wouldn't *that* have stopped dead all talk of "as bad as 63" and worse?

Remember, it was a *Press Statement*. Not a statement addressed to
meteorologists...


One thing you have to remember Keith is the *motivation* for issuing a Press
Release.
Was it purely to put across a scientific perspective, or was it also to get
"ahead of the game" so to speak.

I'll stop there and let you ponder.

My e-mail is in my sig.

Will.
--

" Ah yet another day to enjoy "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www: http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm

DISCLAIMER - All views and opinions expressed by myself are personal
and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article , "Will Hand" writes:

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...

....


Remember, it was a *Press Statement*. Not a statement addressed to
meteorologists...


One thing you have to remember Keith is the *motivation* for issuing a Press
Release.


Motivation...? I thought it was to put the utility services on "amber alert",
and to tell the Public that they have done so.

I took it seriously enough to establish that my vulnerable 82-year-old Mother-
in-Law, who lives alone in a small isolated village prone to power outages, and
with narrow country lanes not readily cleared of snow, has sufficient emergency
supplies of tinned food (14 meals), camping-gas stoves (two), two bottled-gas
heaters and a fancy 30-LED battery lamp with a battery life of 60 hours (ordered
from the States) to outlast potential poor weather conditions at least until
we could get through to her...



Was it purely to put across a scientific perspective, or was it also to get
"ahead of the game" so to speak.

Blimey. Politics?


I'll stop there and let you ponder.

Well, I have pondered, but I did it a bit further up in my posting:-) Do you
mean the Met Office has shares in Duracell and Calor Gas?

Those LED lamps are damn hard to come by, because almost everyone in Florida
has at least one since Wilma, and most places are now SOLD OUT.

I thought you were sawing wood? I cut the plum tree down last weekend:-}

I don't mind if the Met Office is wrong in the prediction because everything
I have purchased will either get used, or is useful to have around anyway.
But I think they could and should have simply been a little bit clearer in
wording how bad they expected conditions might get.

But its kept us entertained, I suppose, either way:-)



Cheers,

keith



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

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , "Will Hand"
writes:

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...

...


Remember, it was a *Press Statement*. Not a statement addressed to
meteorologists...


One thing you have to remember Keith is the *motivation* for issuing a Press
Release.


Motivation...? I thought it was to put the utility services on "amber alert",
and to tell the Public that they have done so.

I took it seriously enough to establish that my vulnerable 82-year-old Mother-
in-Law, who lives alone in a small isolated village prone to power outages,
and
with narrow country lanes not readily cleared of snow, has sufficient
emergency
supplies of tinned food (14 meals), camping-gas stoves (two), two bottled-gas
heaters and a fancy 30-LED battery lamp with a battery life of 60 hours
(ordered
from the States) to outlast potential poor weather conditions at least until
we could get through to her...



Was it purely to put across a scientific perspective, or was it also to get
"ahead of the game" so to speak.

Blimey. Politics?


I'll stop there and let you ponder.

Well, I have pondered, but I did it a bit further up in my posting:-) Do you
mean the Met Office has shares in Duracell and Calor Gas?

Those LED lamps are damn hard to come by, because almost everyone in Florida
has at least one since Wilma, and most places are now SOLD OUT.

I thought you were sawing wood? I cut the plum tree down last weekend:-}

I don't mind if the Met Office is wrong in the prediction because everything
I have purchased will either get used, or is useful to have around anyway.
But I think they could and should have simply been a little bit clearer in
wording how bad they expected conditions might get.

But its kept us entertained, I suppose, either way:-)


Keith FWIW *personally* I'm not expecting a hard winter (who would?) but on the
basis of the evidence I have seen so far, I'm expecting a colder winter than we
have seen for some time, probably near 1961-1990 average. That is why I have
been sawing loads of logs because 1000 feet up here in Haytor an average winter
is bloomin cold. The nice thing about expecting an average winter is one can
look at the climatological averages for their area and make up their own minds
as to severity.

HTH

Temp. at 1700 6.8 deg C (CH may come on this weekend).

Will.
--

" Ah yet another day to enjoy "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www: http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm

DISCLAIMER - All views and opinions expressed by myself are personal
and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Dancey wrote:



I don't mind if the Met Office is wrong in the prediction because
everything I have purchased will either get used, or is useful to have
around anyway. But I think they could and should have simply been a little
bit clearer in wording how bad they expected conditions might get.


I fail to see what more they could have done to make it clearer. Are you
suggesting they refrain from using words that are not readily understood by
the under-fives? Perhaps all weather forecasts should begin - "Are you
sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin."

--
Graham Davis
Bracknell

In message , Graham P Davis
writes
Keith Dancey wrote:
snip
I fail to see what more they could have done to make it clearer. Are you
suggesting they refrain from using words that are not readily understood by
the under-fives? Perhaps all weather forecasts should begin - "Are you
sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin."

It was a dark and stormy night....
--
Peter Thomas

In article , Graham P Davis writes:
Keith Dancey wrote:



I don't mind if the Met Office is wrong in the prediction because
everything I have purchased will either get used, or is useful to have
around anyway. But I think they could and should have simply been a little
bit clearer in wording how bad they expected conditions might get.


I fail to see what more they could have done to make it clearer.


Then you *haven't* read the postings...


..Are you
suggesting they refrain from using words that are not readily understood by
the under-fives? Perhaps all weather forecasts should begin - "Are you
sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin."


Then you *haven't* read my suggestions either...

What *is* the point of your posting a response when you have not bothered
to read and comprehend what was being said?


Cheers,

keith



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