On Feb 16, 8:30*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:

I should
perhaps have had more sense than to enter in the first place.

As have many.

Richard

On Feb 16, 8:30*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:07*pm, Dawlish wrote:



Show me any organisation that forecasts with any decent degree of
accuracy at 10 days, including yours and I'll believe you. I really
would like to think an organisation that can do this. Why you feel you
have to withdraw, after your reaction to a request for accuracy
statistics from you being "Don't be daft". I really don't know.
Nothing is discourteous about questioning your accuracy, when you
don't provide *any* evidence for your implied assertion that you are
accurate. I don't think you (which organisation are you defending
anyway?) can forecast with accuracy at 10 days - say 60+% accuracy, in
answer to your question. If you can; demonstrate it. You were very
quick to jump in and criticise my forecasts, which have demonstrable
accuracy in what I do.

I did not jump on the accuracy of your forecasts - in fact my very
word was "kudos" to anyone who tries it. My question is regarding the
practical usefulness of forecasts issued on such a sporadic basis.

How about taking my word for the fact that I/we have a reasonable
accuracy at ten days? I haven't for one second questioned the 70-80%
accuracy you state for the forecasts you produce. What is "daft" is to
expect me to produce privileged data on an open discussion board. I
have nothing I feel that I need to prove so whether you believe it or
not does not matter but I will defend myself and forecasters in
general.

By baldly stating that you simply "do not think" that I/we can
possible forecast with any semblance of accuracy you are impugning my
integrity and professionalism, and that is more than discourteous, and
underlines why I am withdrawing from a discussion which I should
perhaps have had more sense than to enter in the first place.

Stephen.

Sorry Stephen. If you'd published your forecasts and shown us your
accuracy, then I'd accept your accuracy claims. ATM, I don't even know
who you work for, never mind who you are. You've implied 10-day
accuracy in your forecasts. All I'm asking you to do is to show us.
Tell me first who I'm talking to and which company you are defending.
If your data is "privileged, that's fine by me; just dont expect me to
accept that without seeing any forecast, or being able to judge any
outcomes! Now that would be daft! Piers Corbyn's data is priviledged
too. There is no discourtesy from me and I don't mean any, but if you
claim all these things in terms of accuracy, the least you could do is
tell us who you are and show us something about the accuracy of your
forecasts.

On Feb 16, 8:36*pm, Adam Lea wrote:
On 16/02/11 15:09, Stephen Davenport wrote:





On Feb 16, 2:46 pm, *wrote:
On Feb 16, 2:25 pm, Stephen *wrote:

On Feb 15, 6:20 pm, *wrote:

There aren't any like for like stats at 10 days. Which "forecasting
houses" (whatever they are) produce those stats? You've just made that
up, haven't you? If there are stats; link to them. I'd be really
interested to see them, but there aren't any at 10 days, which is why
I know you've just made that up.

Are you suggesting that forecasting companies do not perform regular
verification of 10-day (indeed all) forecasts? I'd be very surprised
if that were the case.

Stephen.

It's not made public and therefore it's impossible to verify.

Why would verifications be made public? Except the Met Office's,
perhaps.

Stephen.

1. To demonstrate the skill of their forecasts to the public.

2. To demonstrate that they have nothing to hide by being open with
their forecast skill.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Absolutely correct. One thing I have always been is open and honest. I
always expose every single forecast I iussue to scrutiny - in fact, I
welcome it (though the scrutiny tends to surround the incorrect ones!).

On Feb 16, 9:37*pm, Richard Dixon wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:30*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:

I should
perhaps have had more sense than to enter in the first place.

As have many.

Richard

I could echo that - but that wouldn't be me, or you, or anyone else
that posts here. You never fail to step in Richard......but always on
the coat tails of others, I notice! *))

Move on. The past would be best forgotten, don't you think?

On Feb 14, 8:12*pm, Dawlish wrote:
After a colder interlude this week, I don't think the cold will now
continue into the last week of Feb. Here's my one hundredth Internet
forecast. You are welcome to judge it at outcome, as people have been
welcome to judge the 99 previous forecasts:

**At T+240, on Thurs 24th Feb, following a cooler week, the UK will be
in an Atlantic feed of air. Temperatures will be average to above
average and the threat of an extended cold spell to finish the winter
will have gone. The Atlantic flow will contain troughs, bringing rain
and perhaps hill snow and transient ridges of high pressure, will
bring drier interludes and perhaps night frosts to the north. Any
transient ridges will bring springlike weather to the south in the
daytime.**

Is that it for the winter in terms of cold and snow? Highly unlikely.
The odds would be very much against it - but that may well be it for
the meteorological winter. *))

If anything I underdid the mildness, but there's not much wrong with
this. The UK is bathed in mild Atlantic air this afternoon in a
transient ridge.

80/100 = 80%.