In article , nguk.
writes


Summary: Rather Mild or Mild. Rainfall just above average. Average
snowfall in north due to a few temporary cold snaps. Below average in
the south due to a scarcity of cold easterlies.
--
"Wisest are they that know they do not know." Socrates
Site 25 miles on a bearing 240deg from the Wash.
Height 390FT amsl. 52.80'N 00.75'W. Central England forecasts
www.rutnet.co.uk, right hand side weather at the bottom includes 9 day
forecasts. Paul Bartlett (01572 812243)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

No offense... but wasnt all this wrong last winter, and why below average in
south
due to scarcity of cold easterlies, ever heard of northerlies or north
easterlies
and low pressures hitting cold air?

The snow in jan was due to a northerly and slight northeasterly!

Dont rely just on easterlies to give good snow fall
Thanks for that - I really don't think I should reply to it.
Keep going you will learn.
Cheers
Paul
--
"Wisest are they that know they do not know." Socrates
Site 25 miles on a bearing 240deg from the Wash.
Height 390FT amsl. 52.80'N 00.75'W. Central England forecasts
www.rutnet.co.uk, right hand side weather at the bottom includes 9 day
forecasts. Paul Bartlett (01572 812243)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article , Alastair McDonald
k writes

"Mike Tullett" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:13:01 +0000, Paul Bartlett wrote in


Expected Differences from average, percentage chance:

Very Mild (More than 3C above average) 10
Mild (More than 2C above average) 20
Rather Mild (More than 1C above average) 30
Average (+0.7 to -0.7C of average) 20
Rather Cold (More than -0.7C below average) 15
Cold (More than 2C below average) 5
Very Cold (More than 3C below average) 0
Severe (More than 4C below average) 0
snip

As ever - many thanks Paul for sharing your thoughts with us - and in the
only sensible way - probabilistic. This seems to tie in with the other
"respected" sources of LRFs.

Well Mike and Paul,

I can't say I like the probalistic approach. How can it be verified?
Science that can't be verified is philosophy, or so the C4 program
on String Theory claimed.

I 'll settle for 1C above average, but what is the average? I couldn't see
where that was specified in the original post.

Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair, I know my forecast is not popular. To verify my past
forecasts is very difficult and one has to set criteria (even more
difficult).
I will post my last year's forecast so you can assess it - but when you
do please tell all my errors, and base them on set criteria. CETs are
easily and freely available from the Met Office as are EWps.
Cheers
Paul


--
"Wisest are they that know they do not know." Socrates
Site 25 miles on a bearing 240deg from the Wash.
Height 390FT amsl. 52.80'N 00.75'W. Central England forecasts
www.rutnet.co.uk, right hand side weather at the bottom includes 9 day
forecasts. Paul Bartlett (01572 812243)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cold (More than 2C below average) 5

You mean there's a chance? Woohoo!

Thanks for the forecast, Paul. I posted a while ago that I thought you'd go
for a mild winter due to the autumnal blocking.
I hope you don't mind me saying that I would be very pleased if you're badly
wrong! ;-)

Victor

I still wonder just what type of autumn would lead to a cold winter?
This year we've had a blocked autumn = mild winter, the last few years
we've had extremely zonal westerly autumns = mild winter! I guess it's
a case of about 1 in 20 years we may get a cold winter, but no real
indication as to when/why or how :-)

Keith (Southend)

********************************
'Weather Home & Abroad'
http://www.southendweather.net
********************************
COL Station for Southend-on-Sea
********************************
Reply to: kreh'at'southendweather'dot'net
All mail scanned for virus's using Norton 2003

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:57:24 -0000, "Victor West"
wrote:

Thanks for the forecast, Paul. I posted a while ago that I thought you'd go
for a mild winter due to the autumnal blocking.
I hope you don't mind me saying that I would be very pleased if you're badly
wrong! ;-)

Victor

"Paul Bartlett" wrote in message
...
Summary: Rather Mild or Mild. Rainfall just above average. Average
snowfall in north due to a few temporary cold snaps. Below average in
the south due to a scarcity of cold easterlies.
Many thanks as ever for your forecast - usw wouldn't be the same without the
annual anticipation!

That last line struck a chord with me, as the models seem to be showing
easterlies down here for the end of next week - but pretty much as mild as
they can be this at this time of year.

Oh well, I guess it's back to dreaming of writing an analysis with the
words, "a strong to gale force NE'ly flow covers the UK, with 850hPa
temperatures ranging from -13C over Kent to -7C over NW Scotland"....

"Paul Bartlett" wrote in message
...
In article , Alastair McDonald
k writes

"Mike Tullett" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:13:01 +0000, Paul Bartlett wrote in


Expected Differences from average, percentage chance:

Very Mild (More than 3C above average) 10
Mild (More than 2C above average) 20
Rather Mild (More than 1C above average) 30
Average (+0.7 to -0.7C of average) 20
Rather Cold (More than -0.7C below average) 15
Cold (More than 2C below average) 5
Very Cold (More than 3C below average) 0
Severe (More than 4C below average) 0
snip

As ever - many thanks Paul for sharing your thoughts with us - and in the
only sensible way - probabilistic. This seems to tie in with the other
"respected" sources of LRFs.

Well Mike and Paul,

I can't say I like the probalistic approach. How can it be verified?
Science that can't be verified is philosophy, or so the C4 program
on String Theory claimed.

I 'll settle for 1C above average, but what is the average? I couldn't see
where that was specified in the original post.

Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair, I know my forecast is not popular. To verify my past
forecasts is very difficult and one has to set criteria (even more
difficult).
I will post my last year's forecast so you can assess it - but when you
do please tell all my errors, and base them on set criteria. CETs are
easily and freely available from the Met Office as are EWps.
Cheers
Paul

Hi Paul,

Sorry if I sounded critical. I am not doubting the quality and
amount of work that has gone in to your forecast, it is just their
presentation that I am criticising,.

I was trying to point out that by using a probalistic forecast you have
thrown away the information you obtained, not enhanced it. As it stands
if next winter the temperatures are equal to or greater than -2C
compared with the average, then you can claim you were correct. It is
only if temperatures are more than 3C below average that you will be
wrong. That conclusion does not really seem to me to be worth the
effort you have made.

You have not stated which averages you are basing your estimate on.
Presumably they are over 30 years, but which 30 years? 1960 - 89,
1970 - 1999, 1973 - 2002.

Let's face it, global warming is now taking effect. Averages are changing,
a mild winter 1C above 1960 - 1989 average would surprise no one.

Cheers, Alastair.

In article , Alastair McDonald
k writes

"Paul Bartlett" wrote in message
...
In article , Alastair McDonald
k writes

"Mike Tullett" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:13:01 +0000, Paul Bartlett wrote in


Expected Differences from average, percentage chance:

Very Mild (More than 3C above average) 10
Mild (More than 2C above average) 20
Rather Mild (More than 1C above average) 30
Average (+0.7 to -0.7C of average) 20
Rather Cold (More than -0.7C below average) 15
Cold (More than 2C below average) 5
Very Cold (More than 3C below average) 0
Severe (More than 4C below average) 0
snip

As ever - many thanks Paul for sharing your thoughts with us - and in the
only sensible way - probabilistic. This seems to tie in with the other
"respected" sources of LRFs.

Well Mike and Paul,

I can't say I like the probalistic approach. How can it be verified?
Science that can't be verified is philosophy, or so the C4 program
on String Theory claimed.

I 'll settle for 1C above average, but what is the average? I couldn't see
where that was specified in the original post.

Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair, I know my forecast is not popular. To verify my past
forecasts is very difficult and one has to set criteria (even more
difficult).
I will post my last year's forecast so you can assess it - but when you
do please tell all my errors, and base them on set criteria. CETs are
easily and freely available from the Met Office as are EWps.
Cheers
Paul

Hi Paul,

Sorry if I sounded critical. I am not doubting the quality and
amount of work that has gone in to your forecast, it is just their
presentation that I am criticising,.

I was trying to point out that by using a probalistic forecast you have
thrown away the information you obtained, not enhanced it. As it stands
if next winter the temperatures are equal to or greater than -2C
compared with the average, then you can claim you were correct. It is
only if temperatures are more than 3C below average that you will be
wrong. That conclusion does not really seem to me to be worth the
effort you have made.

You have not stated which averages you are basing your estimate on.
Presumably they are over 30 years, but which 30 years? 1960 - 89,
1970 - 1999, 1973 - 2002.

Let's face it, global warming is now taking effect. Averages are changing,
a mild winter 1C above 1960 - 1989 average would surprise no one.
Alistair: I take your points, especially the last one. The forecast
format is one I have used since the 1970's
Maybe it is time I rethought.
Cheers
Paul
--
"Wisest are they that know they do not know." Socrates
Site 25 miles on a bearing 240deg from the Wash.
Height 390FT amsl. 52.80'N 00.75'W. Central England forecasts
www.rutnet.co.uk, right hand side weather at the bottom includes 9 day
forecasts. Paul Bartlett (01572 812243)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just want to say a big thanks to Paul for issuing his annual
forecast, it is much appreciated by myself and many others. If it is
as mild as you suggest, then I at least hope it's dry :-)

Although your forecast dosn't suggest much cold and snow, I still(and
it's hard to say this!) wish you good luck with your forecast, as that
would then be 5 good winter forecasts on the bounce - a fantastic
record that noone could argue with.

Regards

Tom

Alastair, you can only verify probility forecasts over a sample of them. ie if
over the last 10 years when Paul had forecast 30% mild say then it should have
been mild on 3/10 of those years. That would give a high reliability. You cannot
verify a SINGLE forecast.

HTH,

Will.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www: http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk

DISCLAIMER - All views and opinions expressed by myself are personal
and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alastair McDonald wrote in message ...

"Paul Bartlett" wrote in message
...
In article , Alastair McDonald
k writes

"Mike Tullett" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:13:01 +0000, Paul Bartlett wrote in


Expected Differences from average, percentage chance:

Very Mild (More than 3C above average) 10
Mild (More than 2C above average) 20
Rather Mild (More than 1C above average) 30
Average (+0.7 to -0.7C of average) 20
Rather Cold (More than -0.7C below average) 15
Cold (More than 2C below average) 5
Very Cold (More than 3C below average) 0
Severe (More than 4C below average) 0
snip

As ever - many thanks Paul for sharing your thoughts with us - and in the
only sensible way - probabilistic. This seems to tie in with the other
"respected" sources of LRFs.

Well Mike and Paul,

I can't say I like the probalistic approach. How can it be verified?
Science that can't be verified is philosophy, or so the C4 program
on String Theory claimed.

I 'll settle for 1C above average, but what is the average? I couldn't see
where that was specified in the original post.

Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair, I know my forecast is not popular. To verify my past
forecasts is very difficult and one has to set criteria (even more
difficult).
I will post my last year's forecast so you can assess it - but when you
do please tell all my errors, and base them on set criteria. CETs are
easily and freely available from the Met Office as are EWps.
Cheers
Paul

Hi Paul,

Sorry if I sounded critical. I am not doubting the quality and
amount of work that has gone in to your forecast, it is just their
presentation that I am criticising,.

I was trying to point out that by using a probalistic forecast you have
thrown away the information you obtained, not enhanced it. As it stands
if next winter the temperatures are equal to or greater than -2C
compared with the average, then you can claim you were correct. It is
only if temperatures are more than 3C below average that you will be
wrong. That conclusion does not really seem to me to be worth the
effort you have made.

You have not stated which averages you are basing your estimate on.
Presumably they are over 30 years, but which 30 years? 1960 - 89,
1970 - 1999, 1973 - 2002.

Let's face it, global warming is now taking effect. Averages are changing,
a mild winter 1C above 1960 - 1989 average would surprise no one.

Cheers, Alastair.