October CET

[Dawlish]

Not really, if the pattern runs the same, the pattern runs the same. There can be no analogue at all otherwise.

Either analogues have value or they do not, they can't have some value for part of the year and not for others.

Analogues have little value, if the baseline, global, temperature changes. It has changed, therefore they can have little value. Added to that, is the fact that there hasn't been a scientific, peer-reviewed study, yet, that has given the use of past conditions as a good pointer to future conditions, any credence whatsoever. It is just not possible to predict, using past analogues, unless you apply statistics and say; "to what extent is this possible, or, what are the odds on this particular situation occurring again, given the analogues from a past year". The odds are well against a particular analogue producing the same event again. Similarly, the odds on a colder winter, than average, in 2006-7 are much higher that the odds against a warmer winter.

Paul

Edited September 30, 2006 by Dawlish

[Snowly does it]

Analogues have little value, if the baseline, global, temperature changes. It has changed, therefore they can have little value. Added to that, is the fact that there hasn't been a scientific, peer-reviewed study, yet, that has given the use of past conditions as a good pointer to future conditions, any credence whatsoever. It is just not possible to predict, using past analogues, unless you apply statistics and say; "to what extent is this possible, or, what are the odds on this particular situation occurring again, given the analogues from a past year". The odds are well against a particular analogue producing the same event again. Similarly, the odds on a colder winter, than average, in 2006-7 are much higher that the odds against a warmer winter.

Paul

Point taken, you are dismissing analogues altogether.

However in terms of odds, whilst the historic data supports them, probabilities are of no use in forecasting are they? They can only provide indicative figures based on the preceeding (fill in the blank) years.

If the warming trend were to reverse (I am not saying it will at all), then the probabilities are seriously flawed until corrected, the time it takes for them to be corrected by recent historical analysis makes them unwieldy at best.

Similarly an acceleration skews them.

Statistics are very useful at showing that the world is warming, at proving beyond doubt that we are in a warming trend. They are utterly useless at telling us what the winter will be like, or the summer, the spring or the autumn.

Statistics - is/was

Analogues, synoptic patterns, teleconnections - why

Forecasting has to be based on more than probabilities, the two are indeed incongruous, one is by definition forward looking, the other utterly reliant on the historic.

[Dawlish]

Point taken, you are dismissing analogues altogether.

However in terms of odds, whilst the historic data supports them, probabilities are of no use in forecasting are they? They can only provide indicative figures based on the preceeding (fill in the blank) years.

If the warming trend were to reverse (I am not saying it will at all), then the probabilities are seriously flawed until corrected, the time it takes for them to be corrected by recent historical analysis makes them unwieldy at best.

Similarly an acceleration skews them.

Statistics are very useful at showing that the world is warming, at proving beyond doubt that we are in a warming trend. They are utterly useless at telling us what the winter will be like, or the summer, the spring or the autumn.

Statistics - is/was

Analogues, synoptic patterns, teleconnections - why

Forecasting has to be based on more than probabilities, the two are indeed incongruous, one is by definition forward looking, the other utterly reliant on the historic.

Yes, I dismiss analogues.

After the first; paragraphs, there's a lot to answer there - exactly as I'd expect(!):

1.Yes

2. Yes, "if" the warming trend were to reverse. 2a maybe.

3. Yes and then no way, they are really good at giving you an idea of what a winter will be like, or the summer, or the spring, or the Autumn. What they cannot do, is what anyone else cannot do and be certain. I'd rather accept the probabilities.

4. "Why"? Exactly. What use will they be, in the end. Are they really the holy grain of LRF ?

5. Yes, but unfortunately, outcomes are no better that using probabilities, based on past trends, so LRF probabilities are very congruent.

Paul

Edited September 30, 2006 by Dawlish

[Snowly does it]

Yes, I dismiss analogues.

After the first; paragraphs, there's a lot to answer there - exactly as I'd expect(!):

1.Yes

2. Yes, "if" the warming trend were to reverse. 2a maybe.

3. Yes and then no way, they are really good at giving you an idea of what a winter will be like, or the summer, or the spring, or the Autumn. What they cannot do, is what anyone else cannot do and be certain. I'd rather accept the probabilities.

4. "Why"? Exactly. What use will they be, in the end. Are they really the holy grain of LRF ?

5. Yes, but unfortunately, outcomes are no better that using probabilities, based on past trends, so LRF probabilities are very congruent.

Paul

The holy grail of LRF. Oh for a Lancelot in a fluffy jumper in this age of sweltering summers.

[Dawlish]

The holy grail of LRF. Oh for a Lancelot in a fluffy jumper in this age of sweltering summers.

No, I said the holy grain. Didn't mean to, but I did! Anyway, your description is perfect. I accept the challenge.

Paul

Edited September 30, 2006 by Dawlish

[Snowly does it]

No, I said the holy grain. Didn't mean to, but I did! Anyway, your description is perfect. I accept the challenge.

Paul

Challenges are tricksy. Like LRF.

Anyway, that quite enough of me hijacking a perfectly good thread for the purposes of hissy fits about probabilities. I said 10.75 didn't I? Round that down to 10.7 for me when you next amend please, I am 20% confident in losing the half tenth.

[Dawlish]

Challenges are tricksy. Like LRF.

Anyway, that quite enough of me hijacking a perfectly good thread for the purposes of hissy fits about probabilities. I said 10.75 didn't I? Round that down to 10.7 for me when you next amend please, I am 20% confident in losing the half tenth.

Is that another bet, or have you removed your self-imposed ban??

Paul

Edited September 30, 2006 by Dawlish

[Snowly does it]

Is that another bet, or have you removed your self-imposed ban??

Paul

No bet, just getting myself into line with everyone to a tenth of a degree, and naturally rounded down not up

Edited September 30, 2006 by snowmaiden

[Mr Sleet]

11.2 C for me.

Reflecting on the year so far, it is quite obvious that the relatively blocked nature of our weather is playing havoc with monthly CET's.I wouldn't be surprised if the year as a whole ( which is the really important measure) continued the recent downward trend in CET.

The two records to fall in July,and the below average winter months are the result of the positioning of the anticyclones to our east, with LP to the west.This has increased the continental influence on our weather this year.

[West is Best]

11.2 C for me.

Reflecting on the year so far, it is quite obvious that the relatively blocked nature of our weather is playing havoc with monthly CET's.I

I'm not so sure about this. September was characterised in the latter stages by warm Atlantic south-westerlies and southerlies, and October doesn't look very blocked to me at the moment in the model runs. High Pressure hasn't really featured much over us since July.

[Scorcher]

I'm not so sure about this. September was characterised in the latter stages by warm Atlantic south-westerlies and southerlies, and October doesn't look very blocked to me at the moment in the model runs. High Pressure hasn't really featured much over us since July.

I agree, the blocked regime appears to have disappeared at least for the time being. It seems that things changed around the beginning of August when the Atlantic seemed to kick into action. Still, if the cold rampers want a blocked regime, they will try to make us believe that it's there. If the current pattern persists, we will be looking at a winter that is considerably milder than last year. Obviously there is still plenty of time for this to change, but there is nothing particularly encouraging in the outlook for the cold lovers at the moment.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Scorcher

[PhilipEden]

Not The Long Range Forecast indicates 10.9°C

Philip

[SP1986]

12.0 for me, warming up later in the month

[summer blizzard]

Tinybill: 6.4C

Joneseye: 7.5C

Optimus Prime: 9.3C

Tinybill: 9.4C

Snow-Man2006: 9.5C

Hiya: 9.8C

Beng: 9.9C

Shuggee: 10C

Convection currents: 10.1C

Red Raven: 10.1C

Steve Murr: 10.2C

Stormchaser1: 10.3C

Summer Blizzard: 10.4C

Senior Ridge: 10.5C

Medway Frezee: 10.5C

WindWatcher: 10.6C

Intrepid: 10.7C

Snowmaiden: 10.7C

Reef: 10.8C

Wellington Boot: 10.8C

AtlanticFlamethrower: 10.8C

Roger J Smith: 10.9C

PhilipEden: 10.9C

Skiwi: 10.9C

Viking141: 11C

Lesta_snow: 11C

The Abominable Snowman: 11C

Tesaro: 11.1C

Anti-Mild: 11.2C

Mr Sleet: 11.2C

ChrisL: 11.4C

Kold weather: 11.5C

Snowyowl9: 11.7C

Stricklands: 11.7C

Dawlish: 11.7C

Parmenides3: 11.8C

Rollo: 11.9C

Somerset Squall: 12C

Stephen Prudence: 12C

Bham Chris: 12.1C

Robbie: 12.1C

Bottesford: 12.2C

Megamoonflake: 12.3C

Windswept: 12.4C

Timmy H: 12.4C

Suruike: 12.5C

Tugmistress: 12.6C

Snowprincess: 12.7C

Scorcher: 12.7C

Glacier Point: 12.9C

West is Best: 13.4C

Mike W: 13.6C

I am reasonably happy with my 10.4C prediction, not just because my teleconnections forecast backs it, but because the two favored August anologues were 2004 and 1986 which produced CET values of 10.5C and 11C although 1969 does share four out of nine anologues, and is a strong candidate as a result.

Edited October 2, 2006 by summer blizzard

[Skiwi]

10.9 for me thanks.

[The PIT]

Well I'll go for 12C and another warm month.

[Mr Sleet]

I agree, the blocked regime appears to have disappeared at least for the time being. It seems that things changed around the beginning of August when the Atlantic seemed to kick into action. Still, if the cold rampers want a blocked regime, they will try to make us believe that it's there. If the current pattern persists, we will be looking at a winter that is considerably milder than last year. Obviously there is still plenty of time for this to change, but there is nothing particularly encouraging in the outlook for the cold lovers at the moment.

It has now, but what I am saying is that for most of the year ,apart from May and August our weather has been rather blocked, and the block has not been directly over us, but to our east , with LP to our west. This naturally sets up south or south easterlies, the latter very warm in summer but decidely nippy in winter. Philip Eden's SLP anomaly charts for September show it clearly.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Weather-history]

It would only need an October CET of 11.5 to equal the warmest September/October combination on record which was set last year.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Mr_Data

[Mr Maunder]

11.6 for me

MM

[Summer of 95]

12.3C

Warmer than average again but not record-breaking

[Stargazer]

I think summer's well and truly over now - my guess is that the W-NWly showery pattern will be a feature of October this year, so I'll go for a near-average month. 10.7.

[SNOW-MAN2006]

I think the general trend of view's is for a mild October. As we begin to see how the month will pan out on the models i think that the C.E.T will now turn out at above average but who knows the models are constantly changing.

SM06

[kippure]

I think the general trend of view's is for a mild October. As we begin to see how the month will pan out on the models i think that the C.E.T will now turn out at above average but who knows the models are constantly changing.

SM06

Is a mild october a good thing?

[Bottesford]

Is a mild october a good thing?

It is if you don't like the cold

[VillagePlank]

Pattern for October AWCWC, so I'm having to go for distinctly average with an ever so slight warming bias (say +0.2C). The 'scope' of average is CET to 2005 = 9.7, and 'modern' CET (1970-2005) = 10.5C The average of those values = 10.1

So my CET prediction is 10.1C + 0.2C = 10.3C