Met Office Autumn Outlook

[Thundery wintry showers]

It's quite simple really. For maximisation of accuracy, a seasonal forecast has to factor in the current state of the global climate. It is no good pretending that global climate patterns are the same as they were 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago- it has to be the most up-to-date possible. As well as the current level of global temperatures, this includes shorter-term factors such as ENSO.

Global temperatures are higher than the average for 1971-2000, and Britain has warmed faster than the global average. Therefore, it stands to reason that a given season is more likely than not to be above the average for 1971-2000, simply because in the most recent past, temperatures have tended to be above the 1971-2000 average.

We aren't talking anything on the scale of Ian Brown's "modern winter theory" and all that- it's purely an assessment based on the current climate. And it has to be done, regardless of whether AGW is driving recent climate change or a mere drop in the ocean. This is also the reason why my CET projections, and those of Philip Eden at Climate-uk, tend to be above average more often than they are below average- it is the same principle.

[Methuselah]

Tamara, it doesn't matter a jot what's caused the warming. Both you and Solar Cycles have admitted that the globe has indeed warmed of late? All that does matter (IMO) is what the input data are - today's?

What would you say if (after imputting August 1814's data into the Autumn/Winter forecast model) the winter turned-out to be mild???

I don't know what next winter will be like. How could I? But, I'd rather it took GW (whether natural or not?) into account???

[johnholmes]

Which should both be different. A seasonal forecast should just be a long term forecast.

So, once again, I would ask the question - why do they allude to climate warming (which is suppoded to be apart from long term forecasting) on their website in respect of seasonal forecasting??

In answer to the first T read my previous response it IS different.

In answer to the second-you have your e mail which asked the question I don't so I have no idea how you raised the topic-perhaps you asked two questions and have a muddled answer or perhaps, heaven forbid, you have muddled the answer.

I'm not being rude T I simply do not have your e mail

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I'll ignore your turning the A+B=C etc on its head.

turning to two of your paragraphs

In reply they did underline their belief in AGW and I was given a repeated passage from their climate area estolling the virtues of the IPCC report etc. I am perplexed that there is any argument that their beliefs are derived from AGW hypothesis. Surely that is obvious?

No-one has said it is a hidden agenda. I haven't It is just apparent that the climate change element that constitutes their seasonal forecast, which is clearly stated by them, is derived from the forcing that they believe drives climate change...which, they beleive, is AGW.

First Tamara you are confusing what their statement said with what they actually do, they do not clearly state that climate change etc.

The first paragraph has NOTHING whatever to do with their daily to seasonal forecasts, nothing at all. It is simply a statement that explains the position of the Hadley, note, Hadley Centre in the IPCC report.

The forecasts prepared by the operational branch of the Met O for daily, weekly, and I am fairly certain, their seasonal forecasts is not even in the same building as the Hadley centre. I doubt if the Op forecasters even know most of the Hadley team unless they happen to live close to one another and perhaps use the same pub.

The two branches, however odd it may seem to some on this forum, are quite separate, one deals with climatology the other deals with meteorology, Ops forecasting is based solely on what the atmosphere is showing when the button is pressed to start the computer run-that is meteorology.

Climatology is quite different it is attempting to understand what long term changes in meteorology are and why and what may happen in the future.

Please believe me, having spent 40 years in the Met O that there is no GW/AGW bias in their Ops forecasting, be it for 24 hours ahead or 3 months ahead.

Does this have nothing to do with their seasonal forecasting?

Taken from the website:

How are seasonal forecasts possible?

Slowly varying aspects of the Earth's climate, in particular fluctuations in the surface temperature of the global oceans, can influence patterns in the weather. These influences are not easily noticed in day-to-day weather events but become evident in long-term weather averages.

The slow fluctuations of sea-surface temperature (SST) can be predicted, to some extent, at least up to six months ahead. The links between SST and weather can be represented in computer models of the atmosphere and ocean. Computer models developed at the Met Office, like those used in making both daily forecasts and long-term climate change predictions, form the basis of our seasonal prediction systems.

That clearly suggests, irrespective of whether it is Hadley or whoever, or in whatever building, there is a liaison between sections of the METO 'machine' in terms of making up the seasonal forecast. They illustrate there the sort of models that they use - short term and long term for climate prediction

either that, or it is some very clumsy wording....

No, Pete, at the end of the day it doesn't matter that much. No one has to agree, but as long as questions are asked then all I am doing is replying .

[Thundery wintry showers]

Does this have nothing to do with their seasonal forecasting?

Taken from the website:

How are seasonal forecasts possible?

Slowly varying aspects of the Earth's climate, in particular fluctuations in the surface temperature of the global oceans, can influence patterns in the weather. These influences are not easily noticed in day-to-day weather events but become evident in long-term weather averages.

The slow fluctuations of sea-surface temperature (SST) can be predicted, to some extent, at least up to six months ahead. The links between SST and weather can be represented in computer models of the atmosphere and ocean. Computer models developed at the Met Office, like those used in making both daily forecasts and long-term climate change predictions, form the basis of our seasonal prediction systems.

That clearly suggests, irrespective of whether it is Hadley or whoever, or in whatever building, there is a liaison between sections of the METO 'machine' in terms of making up the seasonal forecast. They illustrate there the sort of models that they use - short term and long term for climate prediction

either that, or it is some very clumsy wording....

More like heavily twisted wording, twisted in such a way as to conveniently lead to the sought-after conclusion.

The short-term climate fluctuations that they mention are the ones we all see and acknowledge- they say "fluctuations in the surface temperature of the global oceans" which ties in with the example of ENSO that I quoted.

When they say "computer models developed at the Met Office, like those used in making both daily forecasts and long-term climate change predictions" they are merely quoting examples of other computer models that they use for other kinds of forecast. As far as I'm aware, they use a different set of models for their seasonal forecasts.

[johnholmes]

That clearly suggests, irrespective of whether it is Hadley or whoever, or in whatever building, there is a liaison between sections of the METO 'machine' in terms of making up the seasonal forecast. They illustrate there the sort of models that they use - short term and long term for climate prediction

worded such that, if anyone wishes to do so, then it can so be done!

I am running out of attempts to try and convince you Tamara I'm afraid-not running out of patience but out of what to say before you throw up another 'quote' from UK Met that fits your game plan.

I will repeat, to my knowledge, admittedly now out of date perhaps, its 15 years since I was operationally involved, but still with contacts who maintain there is NO usage of GW or AGW in their models BUT obviously the climate is somewhat different today from 20 let alone 50 years ago so the base line is different.

This does NOT mean AGW/GW is part of the data fed in it is NOT.

Is that clear enough?

do you believe me?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

It's quite simple really. For maximisation of accuracy, a seasonal forecast has to factor in the current state of the global climate. It is no good pretending that global climate patterns are the same as they were 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago- it has to be the most up-to-date possible. As well as the current level of global temperatures, this includes shorter-term factors such as ENSO.

Global temperatures are higher than the average for 1971-2000, and Britain has warmed faster than the global average. Therefore, it stands to reason that a given season is more likely than not to be above the average for 1971-2000, simply because in the most recent past, temperatures have tended to be above the 1971-2000 average.

We aren't talking anything on the scale of Ian Brown's "even larger teapot theory" and all that- it's purely an assessment based on the current climate. And it has to be done, regardless of whether AGW is driving recent climate change or a mere drop in the ocean. This is also the reason why my CET projections, and those of Philip Eden at Climate-uk, tend to be above average more often than they are below average- it is the same principle.

It does matter which is the driver though. The implications for AGW driving the climate are vastly different to natural factors and cycles. Well actually not only are they both different, they could both have considerable impacts in very different ways.

So if a seasonal forecast has to factor in climate forecasting (which basically gives a nod to what I have been trying to suggest all along is happening anyway!), then if we are to follow that, is it not also implicit that the mechanism for any forecasted change has to be pronounced if it is being used in a seasonal forecast? Especially as the METO are signed up to AGW?

It is easy to say it doesn't matter for the short term. Despite the fact that for purposes of these endless exchanges I said to Pete it doesn't matter - if these climate trends that are apparently so with us for the long term, and are to have such potentially significant consequencies, then when do you draw the line and start to say that they do matter?

You can't accept that climate trends have to be put into seasonal forecasting on the one hand, but then on the other hand suggest that whether they are attributable to AGW or not makes any difference in terms of the implications for the seasonal forecast. If the driver turns out not to be AGW driven and there are underlying natural fcators which have given the warming trend on which the seasonal forecast makes an assumption, then the assumption that bases the framwork of the forecast, is wrongly directed and will over time give results that don't follow the expected pattern of the assumed man made forcings that are, again, assumed to be driving the trend. Much as the IPCC prediction has not followed climate predictions over the last decade. If the seasonal forecast is following such a climate directive then it too could be suggested to be going askew in the same way.

[Methuselah]

Does this have nothing to do with their seasonal forecasting?

Taken from the website:

How are seasonal forecasts possible?

Slowly varying aspects of the Earth's climate, in particular fluctuations in the surface temperature of the global oceans, can influence patterns in the weather. These influences are not easily noticed in day-to-day weather events but become evident in long-term weather averages.

The slow fluctuations of sea-surface temperature (SST) can be predicted, to some extent, at least up to six months ahead. The links between SST and weather can be represented in computer models of the atmosphere and ocean. Computer models developed at the Met Office, like those used in making both daily forecasts and long-term climate change predictions, form the basis of our seasonal prediction systems.

That clearly suggests, irrespective of whether it is Hadley or whoever, or in whatever building, there is a liaison between sections of the METO 'machine' in terms of making up the seasonal forecast. They illustrate there the sort of models that they use - short term and long term for climate prediction

either that, or it is some very clumsy wording....

No, Pete, at the end of the day it doesn't matter that much. No one has to agree, but as long as questions are asked then all I am doing is replying .

I know, T. And, you are quite right to do so...

Whether AGW is real or not (and, I strongly suspect that it is?) is largely irrelevant to any computer models, I think.

Computer models rely on up-to-date data?? The bugger-all temperature increase in one year really is infinitesimal IMO??

[johnholmes]

Tamara, a request?

Will you please post the full e mail you sent to the Met Office and their full reply please.

Then I and anyone else can see just what was asked and just what was the reply.

many thanks

John

[MR EXTREMES]

Both, and over a course of two occasions.

Interesting that you have slightly moved the emphasis there to just whether it makes any difference or not. The original 'beef' I was receiving in replies was also that there was no connection at all between AGW and the Met Office in terms of underlying their forecast. There is a subtle but distinct difference.

Although i think personally it has made a difference to their forecasting increasingly of late the last couple of years, I am prepared to consider this pov much more than over their background stance to the forecasting, which imo is definitely underpinned by AGW. IMO they have blurred the edges between seasonal forecasting and climate change. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that climate change has got too blurred with long term forecasting.

Which should both be different. A seasonal forecast should just be a long term forecast.

So, once again, I would ask the question - why do they allude to climate warming (which is suppoded to be apart from long term forecasting) on their website in respect of seasonal forecasting??

above average id say that the most used term in the met o lrf.

maybe there be right this autumn,

after all el nino is slowly brewing the only thing i can say maybe wait and see what happens.

but if they continue through autumn and winter to make mistakes,

i think maybe it will be time to get rid of the way they produce there lrf.

and i to feel that somesort of extra temp range is used in there lrf or maybe its partly guess work which would be the most likely,

but even so this autumn forecast seems very limited but then im not suprised perhapes a hit and hope situation if it above average or average then they can say they where right,

which i for one wont be congratulating them on because i think there lrf is useless.

[Mondy]

Considering how wrong they were for their BBQ summer forecast and how woeful they were for last winter, I'll skip even clicking the link and form my own daily opinion on the weather for Autumn in due course. I mean, any weather enthusiast can read a map, right?

As for the AGW slant,

To quote the comment on that clip: 21st July: 14c and wet, you are a waste of somebodys money........ Couldn't agree more.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

More like heavily twisted wording, twisted in such a way as to conveniently lead to the sought-after conclusion.

The short-term climate fluctuations that they mention are the ones we all see and acknowledge- they say "fluctuations in the surface temperature of the global oceans" which ties in with the example of ENSO that I quoted.

When they say "computer models developed at the Met Office, like those used in making both daily forecasts and long-term climate change predictions" they are merely quoting examples of other computer models that they use for other kinds of forecast. As far as I'm aware, they use a different set of models for their seasonal forecasts.

I don't think there was any need to for you to aggressively suggest that I have 'heavily twisted' anything. You might not agree with my stance but there is no need for rudeness if you please?

I, clearly, don't agree with everything you say, but I don't put pressure on you to change your opinion. I am not trying to rubbish what you are saying either. Nor want to. I am merely trying hard against the tide to explain my own position. Please try and have some manners and return the courtesy.

Regarding the last sentence it is clearly down to interpretation. There could be a 1000 and one people who agree with you, but, for what it is worth, I have read out that sentence to someone who is with me (in case I am going mad!) and they clearly understand my own interpretation. As I have said all along, at the very least it should be worded much better assuming I am wrong.

Not all of us are privy to the buildings, the canteen, jo bloggs in the next office, nor the pub across the road. Mere mortals like us just go off what we can look up, read and hear I'm afraid.

[Thundery wintry showers]

It does matter which is the driver though. The implications for AGW driving the climate are vastly different to natural factors and cycles. Well actually not only are they both different, they could both have considerable impacts in very different ways.

So if a seasonal forecast has to factor in climate forecasting (which basically gives a nod to what I have been trying to suggest all along is happening anyway!), then if we are to follow that, is it not also implicit that the mechanism for any forecasted change has to be pronounced if it is being used in a seasonal forecast? Especially as the METO are signed up to AGW?

It is easy to say it doesn't matter for the short term. Despite the fact that for purposes of these endless exchanges I said to Pete it doesn't matter - if these climate trends that are apparently so with us for the long term, and are to have such potentially significant consequencies, then when do you draw the line and start to say that they do matter?

The forecasted change is expected to happen on decadal timescales, in the range of 0.1/0.2 degC/decade initially, and then the IPCC predicts a probable rise of up to 0.3-0.5 degC/decade. Seasonal forecasting happens on seasonal timescales during which we are talking average projected warming of about a hundreth of a degree Celsius. Only the most pessimistic of AGW predictions have AGW making even a minute difference to the weather over the course of a few months.

You can't accept that climate trends have to be put into seasonal forecasting on the one hand, but then on the other hand suggest that whether they are attributable to AGW or not makes any difference in terms of the implications for the seasonal forecast. If the driver turns out not to be AGW driven and there are underlying natural fcators which have given the warming trend on which the seasonal forecast makes an assumption, then the assumption that bases the framwork of the forecast, is wrongly directed and will over time give results that don't follow the expected pattern of the assumed man made forcings that are, again, assumed to be driving the trend. Much as the IPCC prediction has not followed climate predictions over the last decade. If the seasonal forecast is following such a climate directive then it too could be suggested to be going askew in the same way.

As per usual- when all else fails, deliberately mis-represent my position! I have said many times that any long-range forecast worth its salt has to take into account the current state of the climate, and when assessing that against long-term averages, compare the current climate with the "average" climate of the long-term reference period to check whether above or below average is more likely. What part of "climate trends" does that not come under?

The seasonal forecast makes the assumption that the climate is as it is now. Nothing to do with future climate, nothing to do with what is behind the cause of the current climate. As I say, AGW is expected to contribute, on average, about one-hundreth of a degree Celsius at most over the course of a season, which at that range will be massively drowned out by natural variability, and the Met Office are certainly well aware of that.

Regarding courtesy and opinions, it is one thing to argue against someone else's opinion, it is another to mis-represent someone else as having an opinion that he or she doesn't hold, and argue against that. It wouldn't be acceptable for me to do that to others, so why should I consider it acceptable when it is done to the Met Office or myself?

Edited August 28, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[Mondy]

Oh, the irony! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8224956.stm

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Tamara, a request?

Will you please post the full e mail you sent to the Met Office and their full reply please.

Then I and anyone else can see just what was asked and just what was the reply.

many thanks

John

I can well imagine the reception that this reply will get but I don't have those e-mails any more. They were deleted a while back, as they appeared to be conclusive enough at the time as I far as I was concerned and in any case I am using a different computer on a new windows vista package to the old windows 98 programme I had then.

Not a convenient cop out - just the real truth I'm afraid. I also e-mailed them over the effects of the stratosphere on weather patterns and enquired whether/how that was incorporated into forecasting. Bearing in mind the interesting coverage and debate that has taken place on here it seemed worth while and I was curious to know what their expert opinion was. I was disappointed that they appeared to ignore that e-mail, despite chasing up a reply a couple of times. No reply was ever received despite promises that someone 'was looking into it'

I'm not sure what good a post mortem on all this would do anyway - this might be a debate where one is trying to explain oneself but it is hardly that important to make a court case out of either. Yes it might have helped if you could see the mails - but there is nothing, genuinely, I can do about that now.

Seems to me it is best left down to interpretation. Best to beg to differ and move on. Or take up another umpteen pages in going round in circles....

TWS - I am not going to reply to you. There are times when it is best to draw a line and I am not going to be drawn into arguing with you and ruin things for anyone else.

Edited August 28, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[MR EXTREMES]

Oh, the irony! http://news.bbc.co.u...von/8224956.stm

haha its funny really funny i think they must factor this in there lrf

[johnholmes]

I don't think there was any need to for you to aggressively suggest that I have 'heavily twisted' anything. You might not agree with my stance but there is no need for rudeness if you please?

Not all of us are privy to the buildings, the canteen, jo bloggs in the next office, nor the pub across the road. Mere mortals like us just go off what we can look up, read and hear I'm afraid.

In the first para you have a go at Ian, not really justified in my opinion but that is just my opinion.

then your final para has to be at me. Why?

I worked as a senior forecaster with UK Met, most on here know that. The only reason I mentioned a pub was that was my attempt to try to get you to understand that Ops day to day into season forecast staff and Hadley work in different buildings, see one another not often if at all.

Don't attempt to complain at one person taking you to task and in the same post have a dig at someone else who does not hold the same view as you.

I am prepared to continue to try and persuade you there is no GW let alone AGW input at the 24 hour to 3 month period but if you wish to draw a line under it then fine.

[Optimus Prime]

This does NOT mean AGW/GW is part of the data fed in it is NOT.

Well if the data shows a warming trend, then surely Global Warming would be in the data feed if they use Short-tern and Long-tern trends? They're not really doing anything wrong unless they put a personal contribution to the forecast.

Going by recent years, Autumn will most likely be either near normal or above normal. Not below normal.

[The PIT]

So I take it that Tamara is saying that the present climate data shouldn't be used to create a seasonal forecast as this has been influenced by AGW. So how can you create a seasonal forecast not based on any present data??

Also since you've deleted the emails can you accurately remember what they said. I would have certainly kept them.

Also there site clearly doesn't mention AGW being factored in just the present state as such.

Sometimes you have to admit you're wrong some people find this hard to do and will argue white is black. Hopefully you're not one of these people.

Going back to barbi forecast that was never in the original forecast. Just a rather silly unprofessional comment by someone who now has probably learnt better.

[Richie V]

Aye that would be due to the AGW bias they factor in! Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but the MetO's LRF, have become a poor mans Piers Corbyn forecasts! Maybe it's time to put this baby ( LRF ) to bed, or come up with some new buzz words to sex it up. Any one got some suggestions?

Be careful, you will upset Thundery Wintry Showers. He took a pretty dim veiw of me when I opened a topic not too long ago "Meto are at it again". The thread was eventually colsed. I'm a coldie at heart but the way the meto produces LRF's and the total lack of description and the reasonings behind the forecast helps no one, especially those that don't have a great understanding of the weather. With time it's this bunch of people who's backs will be rubbed the wrong way hardest, the very people the met office target, joe public.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Chassisbot

[shuggee]

We should perhaps be looking forward to Glacier Points' LRFs exclusively for us on netweather

[shuggee]

Thanks to Solar Cycles who has very appropriately opened a thread to specifically discuss LRFs, AGW and the Meto approach here:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/56568-lrf-and-agw-bias/

So please continue discussing the actual Meto Seasonal Forecast in this thread

[Terminal Moraine]

The Met' Office can only tell it as they see it so if the early signals for the forthcoming season are vague there's little point in criticising them for a vague forecast; if the signals become stronger as time goes on I'm sure their forecast will become more detailed.

These forecasts are only experimental and should be treated as such rather than in the same way as a forecast for the next couple of weeks.

With regard to their summer forecast, while I believe it was a mistake to issue statements referring to a 'barbecue summer' as that evokes a ceratin type of weather in the public mind, the forecast itself was a near miss.

South eastern areas of England have had a relatively dry and warm summer and a slight shift north westward in the overall weather pattern would have resulted in large areas of the country experiencing similar conditions.

At the range at which it was forecast it was not a bad call but it was unfortunate ( as often happens with weather forecasts ) that a small error has a disproportionally large effect on the actual weather experienced.

[Don]

No comments on the updated METO Autumn forecast today? Pretty much the same as the one issued in August with temperatures expected to be near or above average across most of Europe including the UK, and no clear signal for rainfall. It says that this is the last update for Autumn. Not sure why they're not going to issue one at the end of October for November?