Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
i could make up any old email too.
still no proof. links please. On 15/02/2011 9:34 PM, Dawlish wrote: Out of those 31 forecasts - all of which I'm happy to email to you - 26 have been correct and 5 incorrect. You can easily access them all in the archive on here and see that. You can happily question my methods and I'll happily defend them, though it appears you would rather discuss in the 3rd person, which makes discussion rather difficult, but *don't* question my honesty. It's not in question. |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 15, 6:20*pm, Dawlish 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. |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 16, 2:25*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:20*pm, Dawlish 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. |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 16, 2:46*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 16, 2:25*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote: On Feb 15, 6:20*pm, Dawlish 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. |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 16, 4:05*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:
That's about 1,000 possible daily forecasts, and around one in ten. So if 70-something per cent of that one in ten is correct and the 90 per cent not attempted are "wrong", then that's a "correct" rate of just under 8 per cent. We do a lot better than that. I've tried the same maths with Paul, but it unfortunately falls on deaf ears, Stephen. You could take an even more evasive forecasting method of say, forecasting when 7 consecutive GFS/EC runs that point to the same forecast rather than 3, publish once every 3 months, and claim a 95% accuracy rate. Huzzah. Richard |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 16, 4:05*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:
3. As I understand it, nobody would expect a daily forecast from a non- professional (and a degree of kudos to anyone that tries) but I think you have made 100 forecasts in, what, three years? That's about 1,000 possible daily forecasts, and around one in ten. So if 70-something per cent of that one in ten is correct and the 90 per cent not attempted are "wrong", then that's a "correct" rate of just under 8 per cent. We do a lot better than that. p.s. I'm quite glad that a professional who is doing actual day-to-day medium range forecasting is able to throw his two penneth in to this discussion. Richard |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 16, 5:01*pm, Richard Dixon wrote:
On Feb 16, 4:05*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote: 3. As I understand it, nobody would expect a daily forecast from a non- professional (and a degree of kudos to anyone that tries) but I think you have made 100 forecasts in, what, three years? That's about 1,000 possible daily forecasts, and around one in ten. So if 70-something per cent of that one in ten is correct and the 90 per cent not attempted are "wrong", then that's a "correct" rate of just under 8 per cent. We do a lot better than that. p.s. I'm quite glad that a professional who is doing actual day-to-day medium range forecasting is able to throw his two penneth in to this discussion. Richard So am I. |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Stephen Davenport" wrote in message
... ... but I think you have made 100 forecasts in, what, three years? That's about 1,000 possible daily forecasts, and around one in ten. So if 70-something per cent of that one in ten is correct and the 90 per cent not attempted are "wrong", then that's a "correct" rate of just under 8 per cent. But there's a flaw in that calculation. You cannot assume that the 90% 'not attempted' would have been wrong - a certain proportion would have been correct simply by chance. (just like the 'professional forecasts ![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
**Forecast: Atlantic Zonal weather on 11th Feb. | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Colder. Blocking in the Atlantic leading to a NW/N flow over the UK.For 7th Feb (at 10 days from today). | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Forecast: Atlantic weather at 10 days on Tuesday 5th April | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Forecast: Atlantic, zonal weather at T240 on Sunday 6th Feb. | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Big model changes in 3 days: forecast of cooler and wetter conditionsin 10 days time. | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |