On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 03:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Graham Easterling wrote:

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 9:47:49 PM UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 11 August 2012 20:36:48 UTC+1, David Brown wrote:

"There is no clear signal for any particular weather type to
dominate through this period"........... for the last four weeks
this has been the mantra. What will it take to alter this phrase?
Are we really to believe that one of the world's foremost
meteorological organisations lacks the knowledge, or the
confidence, to make an informed prediction more than two weeks
into the future? This is fence-sitting on an industrial scale;
what do those of us who live in the UK pay our taxes for?

You pay your taxes so as not to be reliant on the likes of
Piers Corbyn and his bold, confident rubbish.


Fair enough, the trouble is it's drifting towards the Dawlish school
of forecasting (just wait until everything points in the same
direction). Perhaps best to drop forecasts so far out & concentrate
on the next few days.


Graham, I'm sorry but I don't see what the problem is. If the signs are
for no particular weather type to dominate, how is that any less of a
forecast than one that says there are signs that one particular type
will dominate? During a fortnight, it happens that particular types of
weather don't always dominate.


--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change 'boy' to 'man'
"A neighbour put his budgerigar in the mincing machine and invented
shredded tweet." - Chic Murray
openSUSE Linux: http://www.opensuse.org/en/

"Col" wrote in message
...
Lawrence13 wrote:
On Saturday, 11 August 2012 21:47:49 UTC+1, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 11 August 2012 20:36:48 UTC+1, David Brown wrote:

"There is no clear signal for any particular weather type to
dominate through this period"........... for the last four weeks
this has been the mantra. What will it take to alter this phrase?
Are we really to believe that one of the world's foremost
meteorological organisations lacks the knowledge, or the
confidence, to make an informed prediction more than two weeks into
the future? This is fence-sitting on an industrial scale; what do
those of us who live in the UK pay our taxes for?



You pay your taxes so as not to be reliant on the likes of
Piers Corbyn and his bold, confident rubbish.



Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Strange one though Tudor, as Peirs is going fo the jet stream to take
a Med Club holiday after the 19th August putting the UK in a slack
northerly to NE. As for UKMO not knowing: well at least I respect and
appreciate that honesty. It's far better than trying to give answers
that aren't known.

Agreed.
If you don't know, then say so. If the odds of it being wet in two weeks'
time are 50:50 then don't commit to anything, it's just guesswork.
This may lead to claims of 'They don't know what they're bloody doing'
but better in the long run to take this cautious approach than nailing
your
colours to the mast and end up being spectacularly wrong.


If it really was 50-50 then the MetO would say something more definite as
50-50 does not mean "I don't know" but there is a 50% chance of a situation
happening which is useful information. I suspect that the ECMWF ensemble
products are giving lots of possible Lamb types as possibilities therefore
there is no useful signal. I.e. 10 lots of 10% is worth nothing.

Will
--

In article ,
Col writes:
If you don't know, then say so. If the odds of it being wet in two weeks'
time are 50:50 then don't commit to anything, it's just guesswork.
This may lead to claims of 'They don't know what they're bloody doing'
but better in the long run to take this cautious approach than nailing your
colours to the mast and end up being spectacularly wrong.

Absolutely. Anyway today's updated 16-30 day forecast is much more
definite.
--
John Hall

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2

Dartmoor Will wrote:
"Col" wrote in message

Agreed.
If you don't know, then say so. If the odds of it being wet in two
weeks' time are 50:50 then don't commit to anything, it's just
guesswork. This may lead to claims of 'They don't know what they're
bloody
doing' but better in the long run to take this cautious approach
than nailing your
colours to the mast and end up being spectacularly wrong.


If it really was 50-50 then the MetO would say something more
definite as 50-50 does not mean "I don't know" but there is a 50%
chance of a situation happening which is useful information. I
suspect that the ECMWF ensemble products are giving lots of possible
Lamb types as possibilities therefore there is no useful signal. I.e.
10 lots of 10% is worth nothing.

A 50% risk of a shower for the day ahead is a useful forecast
because it allows people to make judgements at a very basic level
like whether to take a brolly to work.
But a 50% chance of a week as a whole being seen as 'wet' or 'dry'
doesn't to me provide much in the way of useful information beyond
'we don't really know what is going to happen'.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

"Col" wrote in message
...
Dartmoor Will wrote:
"Col" wrote in message

Agreed.
If you don't know, then say so. If the odds of it being wet in two
weeks' time are 50:50 then don't commit to anything, it's just
guesswork. This may lead to claims of 'They don't know what they're
bloody
doing' but better in the long run to take this cautious approach
than nailing your
colours to the mast and end up being spectacularly wrong.


If it really was 50-50 then the MetO would say something more
definite as 50-50 does not mean "I don't know" but there is a 50%
chance of a situation happening which is useful information. I
suspect that the ECMWF ensemble products are giving lots of possible
Lamb types as possibilities therefore there is no useful signal. I.e.
10 lots of 10% is worth nothing.

A 50% risk of a shower for the day ahead is a useful forecast
because it allows people to make judgements at a very basic level
like whether to take a brolly to work.
But a 50% chance of a week as a whole being seen as 'wet' or 'dry'
doesn't to me provide much in the way of useful information beyond
'we don't really know what is going to happen'.

A week ahead it would be useful Col as it would mean you would have to
prepare for rainy weather, a 95% forecast of dry would mean you could relax
and, depending on your cost/loss ratio plan accordingly e.g. just pack a
brolly or take nothing if you are prepared to get wet. My point is that the
MetO use the whole range of probabilities from 0 to 100% and saying 50%
chance of rain does not mean they don't know it is saying that there is a
50% chance of rain and, depending on your circumstances, you can make use of
that. If I was planning a walk in a benign area a forecast of 50% chance of
rain means that I pack waterproofs (the cost) a forecast of 10% chance of
rain means that I wouldn't as it would not be serious (the loss). A walk in
a more challenging area would mean me packing waterproofs whatever.

Will
--