Further to the earlier thread on this. A most interesting read on TWO
in the Model Output section of the forum, especially for a psychologist
rather than a meteorologist! Basically because of the uncertainty in the
various models at the moment there is the usual ongoing feud between the
irrational cold lovers and the odd person who sees a mild breakdown.
What is interesting is that a cold fan can make a totally unfounded
claim and be declared a hero whereas a person suggesting a mild
breakdown is imminent will be hounded and insulted. The current victim
is one "Shropshire" who is accused of winding them up when he sees that
in the GFS and ECM models. He is quite blunt but never responds rudely
to any of the attacks. It is the anthropomorphism put on the models that
makes me smile. Things like "The UKMO model can be trusted because it is
consistent" as if being consistent means it must be right and therefore
trustworthy. Or " UKMO has stuck to its guns and been consistent in the
story its told, ECM and GFS hadn't a clue and swapped sides every other
run".
It's like a taunting football crowd. Makes a great read though and
funnily enough if you take it as a whole you do get a pretty good idea
of what is actually going on with the various models.
Dave

On Thursday, 14 January 2016 23:26:33 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Further to the earlier thread on this. A most interesting read on TWO
in the Model Output section of the forum, especially for a psychologist
rather than a meteorologist! Basically because of the uncertainty in the
various models at the moment there is the usual ongoing feud between the
irrational cold lovers and the odd person who sees a mild breakdown.
What is interesting is that a cold fan can make a totally unfounded
claim and be declared a hero whereas a person suggesting a mild
breakdown is imminent will be hounded and insulted. The current victim
is one "Shropshire" who is accused of winding them up when he sees that
in the GFS and ECM models. He is quite blunt but never responds rudely
to any of the attacks. It is the anthropomorphism put on the models that
makes me smile. Things like "The UKMO model can be trusted because it is
consistent" as if being consistent means it must be right and therefore
trustworthy. Or " UKMO has stuck to its guns and been consistent in the
story its told, ECM and GFS hadn't a clue and swapped sides every other
run".
It's like a taunting football crowd. Makes a great read though and
funnily enough if you take it as a whole you do get a pretty good idea
of what is actually going on with the various models.
Dave

Interesting and amusing post, Dave, and I'm glad it doesn't happen to any serious extent on this group. The TWO lot seem to think a model should have stout moral fibre and not give in to the Axis of Evil, i.e. westerlies. It also seems to be a case of being told what you want to hear, such as "England are going to win the World Cup". We tend to anthropomorphise everything, even steam engines (Thomas the Tank Engine, but surely he has a driver?)), but doing it to computer models seems particularly barmy. I don't think I'd like TWO.

Tudor Hughes

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:29:24 -0800 (PST), Tudor Hughes
wrote:

On Thursday, 14 January 2016 23:26:33 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Further to the earlier thread on this. A most interesting read on TWO
in the Model Output section of the forum, especially for a psychologist
rather than a meteorologist! Basically because of the uncertainty in the
various models at the moment...

Interesting and amusing post, Dave, and I'm glad it doesn't happen to any serious extent on this group. The TWO lot seem to think a model should have stout moral fibre and not give in to the Axis of Evil, i.e. westerlies. It also seems to be a case of being told what you want to hear, such as "England are going to win the World Cup". We tend to anthropomorphise everything, even steam engines (Thomas the Tank Engine, but surely he has a driver?)), but doing it to computer models seems particularly barmy. I don't think I'd like TWO.

That made me chuckle, crazy people!

I don't suppose Hurricane Alex, heading north through the Azores any
day now, is making things easier for the models. They probably don't
know what to do with a Hurricanes heading north through the Azores in
mid January!

First Atlantic January Hurricane since 1955, it seems.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...?entrynum=3223

--
Dave
Fareham (W)

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 11:26:33 PM UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Further to the earlier thread on this. A most interesting read on TWO
in the Model Output section of the forum, especially for a psychologist
rather than a meteorologist! Basically because of the uncertainty in the
various models at the moment there is the usual ongoing feud between the
irrational cold lovers and the odd person who sees a mild breakdown.
What is interesting is that a cold fan can make a totally unfounded
claim and be declared a hero whereas a person suggesting a mild
breakdown is imminent will be hounded and insulted. The current victim
is one "Shropshire" who is accused of winding them up when he sees that
in the GFS and ECM models. He is quite blunt but never responds rudely
to any of the attacks. It is the anthropomorphism put on the models that
makes me smile. Things like "The UKMO model can be trusted because it is
consistent" as if being consistent means it must be right and therefore
trustworthy. Or " UKMO has stuck to its guns and been consistent in the
story its told, ECM and GFS hadn't a clue and swapped sides every other
run".
It's like a taunting football crowd. Makes a great read though and
funnily enough if you take it as a whole you do get a pretty good idea
of what is actually going on with the various models.
Dave

I've tried TWO a couple of times and found myself getting carried away with the unreasonableness of it all. As well with the hopecasters on ****ter, as Will calls it, though, of course, there are a few honourable exceptions.
To which end I always find myself back here to listen to the many wise old sages that, thankfully, haven't all fled after times when it all gets a bit heated. USW would make an excellent pub soap opera. Long may it continue.

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 11:26:33 PM UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Further to the earlier thread on this. A most interesting read on TWO
in the Model Output section of the forum, especially for a psychologist
rather than a meteorologist! Basically because of the uncertainty in the
various models at the moment there is the usual ongoing feud between the
irrational cold lovers and the odd person who sees a mild breakdown.
What is interesting is that a cold fan can make a totally unfounded
claim and be declared a hero whereas a person suggesting a mild
breakdown is imminent will be hounded and insulted. The current victim
is one "Shropshire" who is accused of winding them up when he sees that
in the GFS and ECM models. He is quite blunt but never responds rudely
to any of the attacks. It is the anthropomorphism put on the models that
makes me smile. Things like "The UKMO model can be trusted because it is
consistent" as if being consistent means it must be right and therefore
trustworthy. Or " UKMO has stuck to its guns and been consistent in the
story its told, ECM and GFS hadn't a clue and swapped sides every other
run".
It's like a taunting football crowd. Makes a great read though and
funnily enough if you take it as a whole you do get a pretty good idea
of what is actually going on with the various models.
Dave

Sounds exactly what I encountered on TWO. Your use of the word 'irrational' is perfect for the coldies. Oddly, they didn't like being told that. 😂😂😂

On 15/01/2016 08:25, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 11:26:33 PM UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Further to the earlier thread on this. A most interesting read on TWO
in the Model Output section of the forum, especially for a psychologist
rather than a meteorologist! Basically because of the uncertainty in the
various models at the moment there is the usual ongoing feud between the
irrational cold lovers and the odd person who sees a mild breakdown.
What is interesting is that a cold fan can make a totally unfounded
claim and be declared a hero whereas a person suggesting a mild
breakdown is imminent will be hounded and insulted. The current victim
is one "Shropshire" who is accused of winding them up when he sees that
in the GFS and ECM models. He is quite blunt but never responds rudely
to any of the attacks. It is the anthropomorphism put on the models that
makes me smile. Things like "The UKMO model can be trusted because it is
consistent" as if being consistent means it must be right and therefore
trustworthy. Or " UKMO has stuck to its guns and been consistent in the
story its told, ECM and GFS hadn't a clue and swapped sides every other
run".
It's like a taunting football crowd. Makes a great read though and
funnily enough if you take it as a whole you do get a pretty good idea
of what is actually going on with the various models.
Dave

Sounds exactly what I encountered on TWO. Your use of the word 'irrational' is perfect for the coldies. Oddly, they didn't like being told that. 😂😂😂

----------------------------------------------------
Well I can say it because I am a coldie - but not as irrational as used
to be.
P.S Please God let it snow ;-)

On 15/01/2016 00:46, Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:29:24 -0800 (PST), Tudor Hughes
wrote:

On Thursday, 14 January 2016 23:26:33 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Further to the earlier thread on this. A most interesting read on TWO
in the Model Output section of the forum, especially for a psychologist
rather than a meteorologist! Basically because of the uncertainty in the
various models at the moment...

Interesting and amusing post, Dave, and I'm glad it doesn't happen to any serious extent on this group. The TWO lot seem to think a model should have stout moral fibre and not give in to the Axis of Evil, i.e. westerlies. It also seems to be a case of being told what you want to hear, such as "England are going to win the World Cup". We tend to anthropomorphise everything, even steam engines (Thomas the Tank Engine, but surely he has a driver?)), but doing it to computer models seems particularly barmy. I don't think I'd like TWO.

That made me chuckle, crazy people!

I don't suppose Hurricane Alex, heading north through the Azores any
day now, is making things easier for the models. They probably don't
know what to do with a Hurricanes heading north through the Azores in
mid January!

First Atlantic January Hurricane since 1955, it seems.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...?entrynum=3223

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The models of course don't care if they know. They just do the maths and
it is the best solution available given the input. It is interesting
that the "rock solid" UKMO model which was the coldest and therefore the
only one "worthy" of praise has already stopped forecasting the
elongated blocking HP in the Atlantic for Sunday and Monday. Of course
they will all have been erroneous to a degree but none of them failed to
predict a cold snap from Thursday to at least Sunday from a week back
which is more than I could have done by looking at my AWS and the sky!
Dave

"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message
...
On 15/01/2016 08:25, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 11:26:33 PM UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Further to the earlier thread on this. A most interesting read on TWO
in the Model Output section of the forum, especially for a psychologist
rather than a meteorologist! Basically because of the uncertainty in the
various models at the moment there is the usual ongoing feud between the
irrational cold lovers and the odd person who sees a mild breakdown.
What is interesting is that a cold fan can make a totally unfounded
claim and be declared a hero whereas a person suggesting a mild
breakdown is imminent will be hounded and insulted. The current victim
is one "Shropshire" who is accused of winding them up when he sees that
in the GFS and ECM models. He is quite blunt but never responds rudely
to any of the attacks. It is the anthropomorphism put on the models that
makes me smile. Things like "The UKMO model can be trusted because it is
consistent" as if being consistent means it must be right and therefore
trustworthy. Or " UKMO has stuck to its guns and been consistent in the
story its told, ECM and GFS hadn't a clue and swapped sides every other
run".
It's like a taunting football crowd. Makes a great read though and
funnily enough if you take it as a whole you do get a pretty good idea
of what is actually going on with the various models.
Dave

----------------------------------------------------
Well I can say it because I am a coldie - but not as irrational as used to
be.
P.S Please God let it snow ;-)

All bulletin boards have their culture.TWO is geared towards cold and snow.
OTOH on UKWW it is convection and tornadoes that really excites them. Your
best hope for snow is for a front to stall early next week.

Will
--
" Some sects believe that the world was created 5000 years ago. Another sect
believes that it was created in 1910 "
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On Thursday, 14 January 2016 23:26:33 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:

It's like a taunting football crowd. Makes a great read though and
funnily enough if you take it as a whole you do get a pretty good idea
of what is actually going on with the various models.

I don't look on that forum but it is very fun the sides people take and their associated religious zeal. You can separate out weather and climate fairly easily but on both timescales, both have their cold/warm obsessives.

And as for anthropomorphisation (?!) - we're giving windstorms names over here now...!

Richard

In message ,
Richard Dixon writes
On Thursday, 14 January 2016 23:26:33 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:

It's like a taunting football crowd. Makes a great read though and
funnily enough if you take it as a whole you do get a pretty good idea
of what is actually going on with the various models.

I don't look on that forum but it is very fun the sides people take and
their associated religious zeal. You can separate out weather and
climate fairly easily but on both timescales, both have their cold/warm
obsessives.
snip

I've been looking at TWO for the last few days. It's amusing that a few
days ago, when all the models were suggesting a more prolonged cold
spell, there were some congratulatory posts saying how well everyone was
behaving. Now that's all gone by the board. Mind you, the bad
behaviour there has been pretty mild by usw standards.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones