Better Than The Models ?

[k19]

The actual crux of the forecasting of this event took about half an hour, as I wanted to undertake certain checks. Writing up the narrative, compiling the charts and the video took about 18 hours!

Part of me wants this forecast to be totally wrong.

I could be proved wrong, but I cannot see how this forecast will not come to pass. If this forecast is not closely fulfilled, I shall spend an awful long time probably trying to work out where it all went wrong!

If my level of expectation of the 12 Nov ’10 prediction was say 75% positive; my expectation for this forecast is considerably higher.

So here it is folks, the Great North Sea Storm of 2011 that should (if it happens) go down in history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iGKjdOo_A0

After having read through as much of your piston heads discussion ( 78 pages, I believe im on page 30) I have to say i am more interested than ever. I understand you believe cycles in nature repeat themselves i.e. Earthquakes do, but you also believe human driven things such as the DOW are cyclic. And for every cycle you speak of you say you can count the 'driving' factors on one hand. This makes me wonder if some, possibly even All the factors are the same in each circumstance. After reading through the discussion on piston heads you often give 'clues' but unfortunately they come in the form of links which are broken or require subscriptions .

Also I'm interested to see if you believe things such as the lottery are random. Is there a cycle in which numbers come out? Surely there are no external, or for that matter accessible, driving factors to this.

[Candice]

Well I've just read through all of MB's posts on UKWW and am now a bit closer to understanding what his system is (for the past that is!), it would appear that he is matching all variables at all times across the whole globe (universe?) Where they match exactly I think he's saying that the same weather will occur. Can accept that you could match in the past. But, and it's a very big BUT - how can anyone predict the exact same variables occurring on a day in the future? MB states that he is using cycles in nature, but nature encompasses a hell of a lot of different variables. I'm making a lot of assumptions and reading perhaps between the lines of his reasoning on UKWW. I'd really like some clarification of how past analogues can be extrapolated into future weather at any point in time at any point on earth - MB could you give a clearer explanation of which variables you look at? I'd be very interested to know what these are - you'd probably need a vast spreadsheet of past data to be able to do this as there must be several thousand variables to input for each day/cycle

Would the chart attached give very similar conditions to those in MB's forecast for end Jan/early Feb?

Edited January 2, 2011 by Candice

[La Bise]

Stars/Planets alignements Candice, there is a vast body of work at disposal, it's cyciical, minimize significantly the number of difficult variables, it has been going for 5 millenia and with modern tools, producing charts for any given day is not particularly complicated. The only downer is availability of met data if the alignement does not recur often (which provides a handy reason to explain a failure...).

That's my own take on this new method, with also his liking for BFTP and RJS who also use a similar method (despite being very coy about it, I think it's what's implied in BFTP clues when I asked for an explanation) as a further indicator.

Anyhow, I'm most curious to see how all this pans out.

[Candice]

Stars/Planets alignements Candice, there is a vast body of work at disposal, it's cyciical, minimize significantly the number of difficult variables, it has been going for 5 millenia and with modern tools, producing charts for any given day is not particularly complicated. The only downer is availability of met data if the alignement does not recur often (which provides a handy reason to explain a failure...).

That's my own take on this new method, with also his liking for BFTP and RJS who also use a similar method (despite being very coy about it, I think it's what's implied in BFTP clues when I asked for an explanation) as a further indicator.

Anyhow, I'm most curious to see how all this pans out.

Take what you say re planetary influences but over on UKWW he implicitly stated that he didn't use those variables - I would have thought that they had a greater bearing than anything. Will just have to wait for him to give us his answer. Like you I 'm curious as to how it pans out but hope that he's wrong, bearing in mind where I live

[Harsh Climate]

The actual crux of the forecasting of this event took about half an hour, as I wanted to undertake certain checks. Writing up the narrative, compiling the charts and the video took about 18 hours!

Part of me wants this forecast to be totally wrong.

I could be proved wrong, but I cannot see how this forecast will not come to pass. If this forecast is not closely fulfilled, I shall spend an awful long time probably trying to work out where it all went wrong!

If my level of expectation of the 12 Nov ’10 prediction was say 75% positive; my expectation for this forecast is considerably higher.

So here it is folks, the Great North Sea Storm of 2011 that should (if it happens) go down in history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iGKjdOo_A0

This did make me lol. I bet my life savings that this forecast doesnt come off and your last forecast was just pot luck.

[La Bise]

Take what you say re planetary influences but over on UKWW he implicitly stated that he didn't use those variables - I would have thought that they had a greater bearing than anything. Will just have to wait for him to give us his answer. Like you I 'm curious as to how it pans out but hope that he's wrong, bearing in mind where I live

Ah, I could have sworn there was an astrological subtext to this...Numerology maybe then? Maybe our man will give us a few more clues (I was going to check on that piston heads forum but judging by K1000 comment, the clues seem to lead to cul-de-sac.

[LomondSnowstorm]

Well I've just read through all of MB's posts on UKWW and am now a bit closer to understanding what his system is (for the past that is!), it would appear that he is matching all variables at all times across the whole globe (universe?) Where they match exactly I think he's saying that the same weather will occur. Can accept that you could match in the past. But, and it's a very big BUT - how can anyone predict the exact same variables occurring on a day in the future? MB states that he is using cycles in nature, but nature encompasses a hell of a lot of different variables. I'm making a lot of assumptions and reading perhaps between the lines of his reasoning on UKWW. I'd really like some clarification of how past analogues can be extrapolated into future weather at any point in time at any point on earth - MB could you give a clearer explanation of which variables you look at? I'd be very interested to know what these are - you'd probably need a vast spreadsheet of past data to be able to do this as there must be several thousand variables to input for each day/cycle

Would the chart attached give very similar conditions to those in MB's forecast for end Jan/early Feb?

Probably not, the low would need to be positioned to the east of the UK instead of the west, giving northerly winds into continental Europe and producing a storm surge. It would just be very wet and stormy across western Britain on that chart. However, the CFS usually flattens the pattern out and creates huge lows after about 2 weeks out, so that chart really tells you very little. Still, it will make a useful comparison to MB's prediction and the actual charts for the 1st-5th.

I wonder if one of the 'DNA matches' is perhaps this spell? http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1962/Rrea00119620213.gif Very similar synoptically speaking, a less prolonged and extreme version of what MB predicts and the worst hit place that time round was also Hamburg. With the exception of the secondary low to the west and the lows being deeper, this looks a fairly good match to what is being predicted.

[MurcieBoy]

Some interesting posts today. I shall try to answer as best I can. Naturally, the ultimate way is by writing the book, but that will not be written, as I have said, until the method consistently proves itself.

OldMetMan (#67): yes, I agree, we human beings don’t like change, but in time, we do adapt. So if the method proves itself, it will be absorbed if one writes the book well and it is released at the right time. I believe the key is to lead with the prediction track record of the method and then follow up with how it is done; to do it otherwise will meet greater resistance – it’s like putting the cart before the horse.

mesocycle (#68): the beauty about being self-taught is that you can spend as much time as you like fermenting your ideas, especially if you have a separate income away from the subject you are studying; then, there is no pressure to come up with an answer quickly or to suit an employer or grant provider.

Well the ancients for example built the Great Pyramid of Giza and we still don’t know how they did it.

K.1000 (#69 and #77): well, I am impressed that you have looked into my other threads. In answer to your questions, everything that happens within the Earth’s atmosphere (ie: weather, lottery numbers, the financial markets, wars, the twists and turns of one’s life) is wholly predictable; nothing is chaotic.

Without going too much off in a tangent, the validity of this assertion can never be accepted/understood if one observes Nature from the point of view of the third dimension; one needs to raise one’s level of consciousness to see the unravelling of Nature from a higher dimension, such as the fourth. It’s a bit like a garden 10ft high hedge maze, it’s easier to find your way out if you could see it from a live real time camera giving you a bird’s eye view from above.

La Bise (#70): you have made some astute posts in this thread. Like I said in #65, we can debate this until the cows come home. Its like guessing what’s in a sealed box that has not been opened in 5,000 years; until it is opened, all opinions are pure conjecture and its difficult to convince folk one way or another (so I will not try). The answer will be revealed when we (hopefully) have the box wide open; then we can see who is right or wrong; and more importantly, we can all benefit from what is inside.

In my view, the enlightened ancients may not have had Sky HD 3D TV’s, mobile i phones or the internet; but they didn’t need any of that, they used much faster and better means of communicating (and most importantly, gathering understanding of Natures Laws). What we have now is a “crystal set†version of what they had at their disposal. I believe, we have it too, but we have lost the art of using it.

Re #79 – perhaps we should get Russell Grant and Mystic Meg involved in this thread?

weatherguy (#71): re issue of dilemma - I suppose if the forecast does come true, the “regular†Met Offices around the world will give folk advance warning within 5 days? However, that does not eliminate the risk to life.

I was talking to a friend yesterday about what if the forecast does not come good; in such a scenario, it would open the door to hopefully seeing the even longer cycles within Nature. However, as I have said in the video, I cannot see how the forecast cannot come to pass near to what has been forecasted. One of the “checks†I referred to in #59 was the storm we had on 10 March 2008; that happened via the same “methodâ€, that was one “validation†of the 1-5 Feb 2011 forecast.

Great Plum (#72): gosh, that’s towards our east coast; its bound to be windy!

LomondSnowstorm (#73): well, organic life has been on this planet for thousands of years. The Met Office has only been around for around 150 years, there is no way it would have reached its ultimate level of understanding in that time. All sciences are in the “early learning†stage. Think about it, it was only 40 years ago dentists were filling our teeth with mercury, now they use protective “space suits†to take the stuff out.

VillagePlank (#74): very interesting post there. I could be wrong, but from what I know, the value of Fourier analysis is in “breaking up†the overall waveform into its constituents. That is to realise the unravelling of Nature is made up of constituent cycles. Once you realise that, you then abandon Fourier and concentrated on understanding what drives those underlying cycles. That will give one the answer to the future overall waveforms.

As to alternative methods, here’s my take on it. For me, the “alternative methods†are the methods that are transient. That is, those that are advocated by scientists in the “early learning†stage of humanity; they keep changing over time. They have to change because they are wrong. The true method or the “true establishment method†is the one based upon a sound understanding of how Nature works and gives accurate and consistent results all the time, century after century.

lorenzo (#75): that is a long list of lows!

jennyjane (#76): wholly agree – well said!

Candice (#80): you read it correctly.

Harsh Climate (#81): part of me hopes you are right. Please don’t take offence, but which one of the three accurate forecasts (re pressure) that I made was “pot luck�

Edited January 2, 2011 by MurcieBoy

[Harsh Climate]

For these methods to be taken seriously, they would have to be proven accurate over SEVERAL forecasts not just one 'punt'.. 'Ian Browns big freeze winter forecast' a couple of years ago comes to mind, was just a sensationalist punt but god help us if he'd have done it a year or two later, he could have claimed to have been right!

Im sorry murcieboy but weather patterns are just random and you cannot pin point like one severe weather event 100 years earlier and claim it will happen again on a specific period just because it happened back then...

[weatherguy]

weatherguy (#71): re issue of dilemma - I suppose if the forecast does come true, the “regular†Met Offices around the world will give folk advance warning within 5 days? However, that does not eliminate the risk to life.

Indeed, not to mention the potential cost of damage, structural damage, damage to infrastructure etc.

@ Harsh Climate - Why the instant dismissal when this hasn't been proven or disproven yet? I'm on the fence at the moment, but if this comes true then I will believe it as the chances of such a bizarre event happening would be quite low

[Harsh Climate]

Indeed, not to mention the potential cost of damage, structural damage, damage to infrastructure etc.

@ Harsh Climate - Why the instant dismissal when this hasn't been proven or disproven yet? I'm on the fence at the moment, but if this comes true then I will believe it as the chances of such a bizarre event happening would be quite low

Fair point, we will know come 5th februrary though

[LomondSnowstorm]

Indeed, not to mention the potential cost of damage, structural damage, damage to infrastructure etc.

@ Harsh Climate - Why the instant dismissal when this hasn't been proven or disproven yet? I'm on the fence at the moment, but if this comes true then I will believe it as the chances of such a bizarre event happening would be quite low

As a stab in the dark goes this would be about the riskiest thing he could've predicted, probably riskier even than predicting a beasterly. Given how unlikely this is to happen on any random day, if it comes close to verifying then his method must have a great degree of truth about it.

[k19]

K.1000 (#69 and #77): well, I am impressed that you have looked into my other threads. In answer to your questions, everything that happens within the Earth’s atmosphere (ie: weather, lottery numbers, the financial markets, wars, the twists and turns of one’s life) is wholly predictable; nothing is chaotic.

Without going too much off in a tangent, the validity of this assertion can never be accepted/understood if one observes Nature from the point of view of the third dimension; one needs to raise one’s level of consciousness to see the unravelling of Nature from a higher dimension, such as the fourth. It’s a bit like a garden 10ft high hedge maze, it’s easier to find your way out if you could see it from a live real time camera giving you a bird’s eye view from above.

Sorry, but I think you missed something I wrote. I asked if the 3 'variables' that determine the weather and the DOW were in fact the same thing?

[Candice]

MB - which bits did you consider I "read right". I made a couple of statements, which ones are correct

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

We shouldn't really pester MB with questions until this forecast has been tested. There's not much to say, other than: is it going to happen?

The idea the weather system is chaotic and exact patterns impossible to predict weeks ahead of time is current orthodoxy. A lot of highly-paid people and expensive machines proceed on the basis this is so. This way of forecasting is being challenged. I'm so glad we have posters here on Netweather who give space, time and respect to people trying out alternative forecasts that this "revolution" in forecasting could be said to begin here.

In the end, who is right won't be down to who has the better discussion technique but how well the predictions verify. The truth might be somewhere in between: the weather may be more chaotic than pattern/observation forecasters realise but less chaotic and more predictable than traditional number-crunch forecasters have supposed.

[VillagePlank]

We shouldn't really pester MB with questions until this forecast has been tested. There's not much to say, other than: is it going to happen?

The idea the weather system is chaotic and exact patterns impossible to predict weeks ahead of time is current orthodoxy. A lot of highly-paid people and expensive machines proceed on the basis this is so. This way of forecasting is being challenged. I'm so glad we have posters here on Netweather who give space, time and respect to people trying out alternative forecasts that this "revolution" in forecasting could be said to begin here.

In the end, who is right won't be down to who has the better discussion technique but how well the predictions verify. The truth might be somewhere in between: the weather may be more chaotic than pattern/observation forecasters realise but less chaotic and more predictable than traditional number-crunch forecasters have supposed.

The weather is demonstrably 'chaotic'.

This does not mean it is random; it means it exhibits three properties; it is non-linear, it is sensitive to initial conditions, and most of all it is deterministic. Being chaotic, doesn't not make it less predictable. Indeed, a huge amount of chaotic systems decompose to attractors which make their behaviour highly predictable - which is why the pendulum system is used to tell the time! - and even if they don't they usually yield to some analytical technique or another - Poincare maps come instantly to mind.

I realise that the term 'chaotic' implies the exact opposite of these things; indeed, that is why most modern researchers prefer the term 'complexity' It is unfortunate that films like Jurassic Park have welded an incorrect sense of the traditional term into the public consciousness - even though the book was accurate.

The problem is much worse when people presume, wrongly, that properties of such systems necessarily and summarily cannot be predicted. This is wholly incorrect - a low pressure system, for example, and in this case, may well be a strange attractor over a time series, and it is entirely feasible that analysis of cycles, and lags of cycles could yield such an attractor (although difficult)

It is also wrong to presume that one prediction, or even three, shows any degree of certainty, or reliability; for that we'd, at least, need to know the degrees of freedom, and perform standard statistical tests and in the time honoured tradition the best way of doing that is getting it out in the open. Unfortunately, this implies structure; and discoveries made by amateurs (no offence intended) or by serendipity often have none of it: a classic excuse for dismissal by the established as a few people around here have found out to their dismay.

EDIT: for the record - I am watching with deep interest, and I realise that the way I post may imply cynicism but it's just not the case! One must never confuse critical curiosity with cynical derailment.

Edited January 2, 2011 by VillagePlank

[Barbmac]

That's one hell of a forecast, MB, and you're brave to put it 'out there' for everyone to see. I would hope that if the charts do begin to shape up as you've outlined then the Met Office would issue warnings in time for people to evacuate if they're in danger areas. And hopefully the Thames flood barrier would do its job, even so, that's a nasty storm. I hope those living on the Continent would have similar precautions. When you spoke of a rare event I was hoping for something a little gentler! :blink:

I'm following this discussion with interest but really I don't see why someone couldn't come up with a new method of interpreting or forecasting weather charts.

Totally agree with this sentiment! I've an open mind to new ways of forecasting until they're proved to be on the wrong track, so I'm watching this thread with interest.

The weather is demonstrably 'chaotic'.

This does not mean it is random; it means it exhibits three properties; it is non-linear, it is sensitive to initial conditions, and most of all it is deterministic. Being chaotic, doesn't not make it less predictable. Indeed, a huge amount of chaotic systems decompose to attractors which make their behaviour highly predictable - which is why the pendulum system is used to tell the time! - and even if they don't they usually yield to some analytical technique or another - Poincare maps come instantly to mind.

Yes 'chaotic' can be taken incorrectly to mean 'random'. Where is Charlie Eppes (Numbers) when you need him? B)

[MurcieBoy]

Hello folks, thanks for your feedback; here are some quick comments to yesterday’s posts:

Harsh Climate (#85): wholly agree; as I say in the videos (and elsewhere) one needs a significant number of accurate forecasts over a long period of time to start to begin to give credence to the method.

My forecasts so far are only “testsâ€. Think of it like a F1 team bringing out a new car, they have to go through hundreds of laps of testing, so they know the “character†of the car and understand its strengths and weaknesses. The fact that so far my forecasts have outperformed the models is encouraging, but as you imply it’s far too early to say anything more than that - and I am certainly not requesting folk to say anything more than that.

LomondSnowstorm (#86): thanks for pointing that out. The Feb 2011 forecast is very unique in many ways, not least because of the length of the storm forecasted (over a period of 5 days).

K.1000 (#89): I have not done any testing on the Dow. However, my hunch would be to say yes to your question.

Candice (#80): you read it correctly – BTW I am referring to your message #80.

Re your #78: yes, wholly agree, Nature does encompass a “ hell of lot of different variablesâ€, but only when viewed from the third dimension; when viewed from say the fourth dimension, the variables can be counted on one hand and it becomes much easier to understand Nature. I really wish I could say more about these smaller number of variables on here; but with respect to the reader and the subject matter, lets agree that we can discuss in greater detail (in a book) once the method has proved itself. It really would be pointless discussing any further, especially if the method falls flat on its face by early February 2011

Barbmac (#93): I really don’t feel brave at all. It is what I suppose I “signed up to†when I embarked on this journey. I have to call it as I see it (as I said in the video).

If I am wrong, so be it – it was a precise and detailed forecast based upon clear principles and knowledge that I have sweated to get over the last 22 years; it is no “stab in the dark†just for the sake of predicting something shocking for the goal of attention seeking.

If I am right, it wouldn’t surprise me; its business as usual, loads more work to do to build up the track record.

VillagePlank (#92): wholly agree, objective “critical curiosity†should be encouraged and is welcomed. Thanks for making that point clear via the edit.

What I did take exception to in the other place was for a Moderator committing a cynical and remorseless “professional foul†(to use a football term) with an undercurrent of “sheer nastiness†against the method, before it had failed badly (in calling the weather for Xmas Day 2010).

AtlanticFlamethrower (#91): you made a really key point there. The right answer is not provided by the person who has the “better discussion technique but how well the predictions verifyâ€.

Edited January 3, 2011 by MurcieBoy

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi MB

Using solar and lunar cycles they bring a predictable overall pattern and peak energy periods allow me to predict a more defined synoptic pattern. RJS has amuch more researched and defined method and is out of my league.

It is IMO about how one reads and interprets these signals and not that they don't exist and hence why currently a spot on track record is not within grasp yet...not by a long shot. I believe that I have misread January slightly here as it isn't as cold as anticpated and is giving me a little headache...but plenty of time for developments...although real cold shot is lost until later IMO. The block has developed to the NW and further N than a mid Atlantic ridge as anticipated but its SE influence is limited to further north than expected.

Looking at your Xmas day prediction there appears to have been a 'simple' misreading of the signal on your part on this occasion and not that the principle is wrong as a general setup it was not that far off. Do you see it that way? Also looking at your 'storm' prediction, I think the pattern is going on the money but am looking at the ferocity, too much? but hey its your call and very fascinating...good luck with this and folk can't say you didn't warn if it happens, even if it comes out as a strong event and not close to record breaking then I think your are onto something worth continuing with.

BFTP

Edited January 3, 2011 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[anvilhead]

Hi MB.

Good luck!!

Well its a credit to this forum that this thread isn't a disrespectful onslaught - I have not seen MB posturing without having a forecast written down that we could eventualy verify, so I believe the response he got was harsh and unjustified, with respect to those that responded that way. Sure - we all have our views - for me I believe that chaos does create unfathomable complexity from a deterministic system as far as the weather goes, and the cycles that are there are unreliable large brush-strokes and can never show fine detail at a distance. I will never believe 100% in any view I have though - all my axioms, even reality itself, is open to being proved wrong or different, and believe this is the scientific way to stay on the road to truth.. so I'm open minded.

Sam

[Barbmac]

Barbmac (#93): I really don’t feel brave at all. It is what I suppose I “signed up to†when I embarked on this journey. I have to call it as I see it (as I said in the video).

If I am wrong, so be it – it was a precise and detailed forecast based upon clear principles and knowledge that I have sweated to get over the last 22 years; it is no “stab in the dark†just for the sake of predicting something shocking for the goal of attention seeking.

If I am right, it wouldn’t surprise me; its business as usual, loads more work to do to build up the track record.

If you did do it purely as an attention-seeking device then most likely any forecast would fall flat on its face and you'd be discredited pretty quickly, and have had your 15 minutes of fame! However, it was your prediction of the November low pressure that caught my attention, and I think you called that one pretty well, even if sceptically thinking it might be possible to be 'lucky' with an educated guess as some said on your other forum. As you say, you need to build up a track record, and that is going to take some time. But good luck to you!

You've probably mentioned the answer to this somewhere else but are you just forecasting around the Europe/GB area or do you look world-wide? Or would that be just way too much work? :wacko:

[jimbo36]

Hi MurcieBoy,

Interested in your forecast for the storms in Feb 2011.

I've got family in Sweden and Finland so would appreciate yours or anyone's views of how they would be affected in this scenario.

Cheers

Jimbo

[Buzzit]

Hello MB,

Thanks for taking the time to post at NW and provide your February 2011 storm forecast.

To my uncultured mind I cannot fathom how the weather could not be cyclical in nature, though likely having multiple miny cycles coexisting within a supercycle, the interaction of which at any given point in time provides a template for a method of determining weather synoptics. hence weather been chaotic, but also deterministic... However I do believe that volcanoes and tsunamis do have an ability to modify an existing mini cycle based on strength, so that a forecast made could be horribly off if such an event were to occur after a forecast was made.

I think human nature makes us think we can eventually 'control' the weather, but it would be much better if we tried to understand it first

I will continue to watch your posts and thought processes with interest

regards

Buzzit

[k19]

Just to point something out which I believe about this whole theory. I touched on the issue earlier.

If as MB says in many posts that everything on earth is cyclic in nature, and as he mentions on other forums the sharp spikes ( Such as on a graph for pressure or even stock exchange prices) which would 'appear' to have an obvious, but unpredictable cause, are in fact predictable by looking at the underlying cause, then the three "variables" he mentions must be the same in ALL scenarios. If the weather can be altered by say, a volcanic eruption, and the prediction made before said eruption comes good anyway, then the determining factors must have taken into account this event. Since the event ( a volcanic eruption) cannot be CAUSED by the weather, but can have an effect on the weather, there is no way any weather models could take this into account before hand. But if this new method hypothetically could, it suggests that it uses the same method to predict the Volcanic eruption as well as the weather.

In summary I have to say I'm still skeptical about the idea, but come February 5th, I think I will have made up my mind to a high degree. The only way I can put what I have written differently is this (Sorry but I'm going to do this in terms of markets with reference to weather instead of the other way round:

- All conventional methods are predicting a steady increase in share prices for a year.

-New system predicts a sharp drop in prices after 6 months.

- 6 months later there is a huge hurricane which causes much destruction

-Shares drop dramatically because of this

- The new system was correct in this instance, but there is no way anything we normally relate to stocks could have predicted this. The fact is that the new system predicted the weather, not the stock prices, so it wasn't that the weather was the cause, there was a series of things which changed the weather which then caused a drop in shares.

.... therefore the same 3 factors must be used when determining the result of anything on earth...

again, im still a skeptic.

[LomondSnowstorm]

LomondSnowstorm (#86): thanks for pointing that out. The Feb 2011 forecast is very unique in many ways, not least because of the length of the storm forecasted (over a period of 5 days).

Indeed, whereas in other comparable storms I've looked at the low moves from west of the meridian to eastern Europe in under 72 hours this one would be exceptional in that a secondary low develops and keeps the gales going for days. The windchill values here if it verified would be insane, as would the snowfall to Aberdeenshire, though of course the main event would be the flooding and storm surge further southeast.

In about 12 days we should have an idea of the synoptic evolution towards the date of your predicted storm. The last two runs had fairly strong mid latitude blocking for the 19th January, which looks like it could sink around the date of the storm, but as you yourself know +384 charts so rarely resemble the final chart.