Idiot. Foul mouthed one at that.

Tree, back.

You'll be all bad mood again. As I said in the OP, 'Tha heat is on' (probably and still). Just a pity the potential developed at 8/9 days and not at 10/11 for fore dating purposes.

Why do you persist with this 'forecasting' pretense?

You are looking at NWP output and you stumble on a potential hot, cold, wet or stormy spell and you flag it up - great leave it at that.

I've done it - we've all done it at some time trying to be the first one to post about it in the group, but drop the 'forecasting' malarkey, as far as I can see you are making a selection of what you see as the most realistic of the available models which is not forecasting.

But your forecasting would be very limited indeed if it wasn't for model output - remember William Foggitt he never would be doing with all the new fangled ideas!

On Saturday, 27 June 2015 08:38:45 UTC+1, Bruce Messer wrote:
Why do you persist with this 'forecasting' pretense?

You are looking at NWP output and you stumble on a potential hot, cold, wet or stormy spell and you flag it up - great leave it at that.

I've done it - we've all done it at some time trying to be the first one to post about it in the group, but drop the 'forecasting' malarkey, as far as I can see you are making a selection of what you see as the most realistic of the available models which is not forecasting.

But your forecasting would be very limited indeed if it wasn't for model output - remember William Foggitt he never would be doing with all the new fangled ideas!

Wasn't there an Ernie Macklin as well?

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:38:45 AM UTC+1, Bruce Messer wrote:
Why do you persist with this 'forecasting' pretense?

You are looking at NWP output and you stumble on a potential hot, cold, wet or stormy spell and you flag it up - great leave it at that.

I've done it - we've all done it at some time trying to be the first one to post about it in the group, but drop the 'forecasting' malarkey, as far as I can see you are making a selection of what you see as the most realistic of the available models which is not forecasting.

But your forecasting would be very limited indeed if it wasn't for model output - remember William Foggitt he never would be doing with all the new fangled ideas!

"as far as I can see" is exactly right. It's an opinion. It's the interpretation of the output which makes a forecast, Bruce. Anyone could look at the output at 10 days and say what it shows, but judging the likelihood of whether it will achieve outcome is a *very* different matter. If you can't see that, try forecasting at 10 days from NWP output a few times and see how accurate you are. It will teach you lots about what I do.

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 4:20:04 PM UTC+1, Freddie wrote:
Dawlish Wrote in message:
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:38:45 AM UTC+1, Bruce Messer wrote:
Why do you persist with this 'forecasting' pretense?

You are looking at NWP output and you stumble on a potential hot, cold, wet or stormy spell and you flag it up - great leave it at that.

I've done it - we've all done it at some time trying to be the first one to post about it in the group, but drop the 'forecasting' malarkey, as far as I can see you are making a selection of what you see as the most realistic of the available models which is not forecasting.

But your forecasting would be very limited indeed if it wasn't for model output - remember William Foggitt he never would be doing with all the new fangled ideas!

"as far as I can see" is exactly right. It's an opinion. It's the interpretation of the output which makes a forecast, Bruce. Anyone could look at the output at 10 days and say what it shows, but judging the likelihood of whether it will achieve outcome is a *very* different matter. If you can't see that, try forecasting at 10 days from NWP output a few times and see how accurate you are. It will teach you lots about what I do.



But your interpretation is often couched in such woolly terms that
it is very difficult to assess it objectively at outcome.
Whenever somebody suggests this, you become somewhat defensive. I
haven't been aware of you accepting criticism of this aspect of
your forecasts.

--
Freddie
Pontesbury
Shropshire
102m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
http://twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly reports


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Often? This is at 10 days, remember. The overall pattern is usually (and I really do mean usually, or someone would be doing this accurately on a regular basis) very difficult, if not impossible to determine with accuracy and yet you are asking me for a detailed forecast, Freddie? I could simply give a pressure pattern, about which I've been right many more times than 80% of the time, but I add in weather, which makes life much more difficult and I return to assess every single forecast in public.

It really is not difficult to assess at outcome and the harshest critic has always been myself - of well over 150 forecasts. I really do welcome assessments of these forecasts, positive and negative, but the vast majority, that are clearly correct, attract no examination. My critics *only* focus on the 20% which are not correct. *))

On Saturday, 27 June 2015 13:27:16 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
If you can't see that, try forecasting at 10 days from NWP output a few times and see how accurate you are.

Groundhog Day, anyone?

On 27/06/2015 16:20, Freddie wrote:
Dawlish Wrote in message:
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:38:45 AM UTC+1, Bruce Messer wrote:
Why do you persist with this 'forecasting' pretense?

You are looking at NWP output and you stumble on a potential hot, cold, wet or stormy spell and you flag it up - great leave it at that.

I've done it - we've all done it at some time trying to be the first one to post about it in the group, but drop the 'forecasting' malarkey, as far as I can see you are making a selection of what you see as the most realistic of the available models which is not forecasting.

But your forecasting would be very limited indeed if it wasn't for model output - remember William Foggitt he never would be doing with all the new fangled ideas!

"as far as I can see" is exactly right. It's an opinion. It's the interpretation of the output which makes a forecast, Bruce. Anyone could look at the output at 10 days and say what it shows, but judging the likelihood of whether it will achieve outcome is a *very* different matter. If you can't see that, try forecasting at 10 days from NWP output a few times and see how accurate you are. It will teach you lots about what I do.



But your interpretation is often couched in such woolly terms that
it is very difficult to assess it objectively at outcome.
Whenever somebody suggests this, you become somewhat defensive. I
haven't been aware of you accepting criticism of this aspect of
your forecasts.


Woolly terms, hard to assess objectively - dullish is a liberal what do
you expect?

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 5:40:32 PM UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
You can see it on the forecast charts leaving North Africa at T+96 and at present, it's forecast to affect the UK at the start of July.

It's under my 10-day forecasting radar and these forecast plumes do have a tendency to be shifted eastwards when they get as far north as the UK, nearer the outcome time (i.e. to 'topple'), but if the charts stay the same, we could see temperatures of 30C+ in the south at the start of next month.

See how this pans out now. 33/34 max somewhere in the SE on Wed? Then some heavy and potentially thundery showers Thurs?

Expect the phrase '3 fine days and a thunderstorm' to be trotted out.......