Given the zonal misery forecast for the rest of the month, I wonder
what Piers' excuse is ? Anyone who happens to email him, please let me
know what his response is.

I do hope for the sake of the public that this month's forecast is
thoroughly rinsed in glorious technicolour in various newspapers to
remind people that attempting to do accurate long-range forecasting
down to daily detail is a perilous process.

And I know I bang on about Piers but what has happened this month just
highlights just how hit and miss his lauded method (well, lauded by
Dennis Wheeler of Sunderland University) is and why it annoys me that
so many people in the tabloid-reading public (and beyond) are taken in
by such nonsense.

I think that'll be my last word on the subject.

Richard

On 22 Jan, 09:50, Richard Dixon wrote:
Given the zonal misery forecast for the rest of the month, I wonder
what Piers' excuse is ? Anyone who happens to email him, please let me
know what his response is.

With a mean temperature of +6.6c 1-21st, a quick calculation has shown
I need a mean of -21c for the remainder of the month to take my mean
down
to Piers' "forecast" of "0.8c at the best". Rather unlikely I think!!

Ian (Raunds, Northants.)

He had feeble excuses published in The Times on Monday.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle3221158.ece

Jack

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:50:12 -0800 (PST), Richard Dixon wrote in


Given the zonal misery forecast for the rest of the month, I wonder
what Piers' excuse is ? Anyone who happens to email him, please let me
know what his response is.

I do hope for the sake of the public that this month's forecast is
thoroughly rinsed in glorious technicolour in various newspapers to
remind people that attempting to do accurate long-range forecasting
down to daily detail is a perilous process.

And I know I bang on about Piers but what has happened this month just
highlights just how hit and miss his lauded method (well, lauded by
Dennis Wheeler of Sunderland University) is and why it annoys me that
so many people in the tabloid-reading public (and beyond) are taken in
by such nonsense.

I totally agree, Rich. What annoys me most about his publicity is that it
tars all reputable forecasters with the same brush. Since we started
taking an interest in this newsgroup, his results have been next to
useless. Using climatological norms would have had a far more successful
outcome.

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 22/01/2008 11:18:24 GMT

On 22 Jan, 11:11, "Jack )"
wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle3221158.ece

Ahh yes - those disastrous November storms with the gales the strength
of 1703. They caused so much damage didn't they.

Richard

Stamping through the snow, Jack ) at
proclaimed loudly and it became the following
telegram...

He had feeble excuses published in The Times on Monday.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle3221158.ece

Jack


His own forecast stated:

"15th =3F 21st January
Weather
Heavy snow. Strong, at times gale force winds, easterly turning northeasterly
and becoming breezy. Exceptionally cold, at times not above -5oC, later in the
period even -20oC.
Confidence level A=85%."

What a charlatan.... then he claims he never said it.
--
Rob C. Overfield
Hull

On 22 Jan, 11:33, RCO wrote:

"15th =3F 21st January
Weather
Heavy snow. Strong, at times gale force winds, easterly turning northeasterly
and becoming breezy. Exceptionally cold, at times not above -5oC, later in the
period even -20oC.
Confidence level A=85%."

Although he will defend that he's moved the window forward a few days
in his forecast update. He claims to have all this long lead-time
success and then feels free to shift the windows at short range to
suit his forecast willy-nilly. How can you claim accuracy at long
range when you're making short-period changes? Delusional.

Richard

His own forecast stated:

"15th =3F 21st January
Weather
Heavy snow. Strong, at times gale force winds, easterly turning
northeasterly
and becoming breezy. Exceptionally cold, at times not above -5oC, later in
the
period even -20oC.
Confidence level A=85%."

What a charlatan.... then he claims he never said it.

What he has done with that forecast is said that Jan 2008 is an 'unusual'
month and that a 'solar change' and a procedural error of not including
certain solar factors has meant that he has had to 'shift' his original
forecast a few days later. This on its own does not save this most
ridiculous of forecasts so if you read carefully what he has written on his
website he gives himself certain opt-out phrases by liberally using the
words 'some, likely, tending, generally, at times, probably' and so on.

There is always sufficient amount of vagueness in Piers' forecasts to allow
him to claim things when they happen, and to deny he forecast them when they
didn't happen.

He will probably say that the cold weather he forecast did happen; it was
the snowfall in Scotland and northern England of yesterday. And then go on
to claim the Met Office's forecast was wrong and his was entirely right.

A charlatan? Yes, he is indeed, but a clever, devious one.
________________
Nick G
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amsl
http://www.ottervalley.co.uk

With a mean temperature of +6.6c 1-21st, a quick calculation has shown
I need a mean of -21c for the remainder of the month to take my mean
down to Piers' "forecast" of "0.8c at the best". Rather unlikely I think!!

please excuse me correcting myself....should read "need a mean of
-11.7c"

Ian, (Raunds, Northants.)

Jack ) wrote:

He had feeble excuses published in The Times on Monday.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle3221158.ece


He could/should be prosecuted for obtaining money by deception.


--
Brian Wakem