On Jun 23, 9:18*pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Col wrote:
"John Hall" wrote in message
.. .
In article
,
Lawrence13 writes:
snip
The probability that UK precipitation for April May June
will fall into the driest of our five categories is 2025%
whilst the probability that it will fall into
the wettest of our five categories is 1015%
(the 19712000
climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).
So the 10-15% chance was the one that came up. Anyone who follows the
gee-gees knows that 7-1 shots sometimes win. Since the MetO were careful
to mention that wet weather was a possibility, and that the forecast
only "slightly favours drier than average conditions", I don't see why
you are giving them so much stick. Everyone knows - or should know -
that three-monthly forecasts have a high degree of uncertainty.

He gives them stick simply because the Met Office 'believes' in
AGW and he doesn't, it's as simple as that.
Any excuse to put the boot in.

-------------------------------------
I do think and have said for some time that the effort various
organisations put into seasonal and long term forecasting is mis-placed.
Well maybe not the research that is going on in the background but in
the publication of them. The original forecast although probably based
on better science had no more validity in reality than similar efforts
by people like Joe *******i and Piers Corbyn. OK, carry on the research
in the background but don't bother publishing them and concentrate on
accurate 7 day forecasts which are clearly tricky enough.
Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Difference is Dave Joe B doesn't get paid for failure unlike UKMO.

Lawrence13 wrote:
On Jun 23, 7:02 pm, "Col" wrote:

He gives them stick simply because the Met Office 'believes' in
AGW and he doesn't, it's as simple as that.
Any excuse to put the boot in.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Put the agw to one side Col: Do you really think an organisation that
boasts how important it is to our very lives itself is an arrogant
nanny state meddling pile of doggy do. I had to laugh reading the
other day that someone at UKMO's Peter Trevylan had won and award for
IT application for visualising weather forecasts . I then immediatley
thought of their ****e new website and yet they release a three month
precipitation forecast only seven days before the heavens opened.

You mean how you put AGW to one side in your reply to Liam Steele?
AGW is intrinsically woven in to every comment you make about
the Met Office.

Style over substance is the new mantra and they are at least good at
that.

Well name another organisation that has a better track record in
forecasting, either short range or long range.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On Jun 24, 7:02*am, "Col" wrote:


Well name another organisation that has a better track record in
forecasting, either short range or long range.
--

Bank of England?

Lawrence13 wrote:
On Jun 23, 9:18 pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Col wrote:
"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Lawrence13 writes:
snip
The probability that UK precipitation for April May June
will fall into the driest of our five categories is 2025%
whilst the probability that it will fall into
the wettest of our five categories is 1015%
(the 19712000
climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).
So the 10-15% chance was the one that came up. Anyone who follows the
gee-gees knows that 7-1 shots sometimes win. Since the MetO were careful
to mention that wet weather was a possibility, and that the forecast
only "slightly favours drier than average conditions", I don't see why
you are giving them so much stick. Everyone knows - or should know -
that three-monthly forecasts have a high degree of uncertainty.
He gives them stick simply because the Met Office 'believes' in
AGW and he doesn't, it's as simple as that.
Any excuse to put the boot in.
-------------------------------------
I do think and have said for some time that the effort various
organisations put into seasonal and long term forecasting is mis-placed.
Well maybe not the research that is going on in the background but in
the publication of them. The original forecast although probably based
on better science had no more validity in reality than similar efforts
by people like Joe *******i and Piers Corbyn. OK, carry on the research
in the background but don't bother publishing them and concentrate on
accurate 7 day forecasts which are clearly tricky enough.
Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Difference is Dave Joe B doesn't get paid for failure unlike UKMO.
---------------------
He'd be very rich if he did ;-)

On 24/06/12 16:49, wrote:
On Jun 24, 7:02 am, wrote:


Well name another organisation that has a better track record in
forecasting, either short range or long range.
--

Bank of England?

The Bank of England do weather forecasts? I'd never have guessed.