Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Better Than The Models ?


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres

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.

If MB has a database of patterns from 1 billion years ago, or from Jupiter, it wouldn't predict anything.

The method doesn't have to suggest the cause of the weather is also the cause of geological activity. The historical patterns in MB's database obviously depend on the current configuration of the continents.

The method hasn't been tested after major volcanic activity so we don't know whether the prediction is unaffected. The factors biasing one particular outcome are obviously unaffected.

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:

We all are skeptical. Nobody accepts unconditionally without evidence. That's what testing is for. MB should be encouraged, even by skeptics. It would be cool if he has discovered something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Liverpool
  • Location: Liverpool

If MB has a database of patterns from 1 billion years ago, or from Jupiter, it wouldn't predict anything.

The method doesn't have to suggest the cause of the weather is also the cause of geological activity. The historical patterns in MB's database obviously depend on the current configuration of the continents.

The method hasn't been tested after major volcanic activity so we don't know whether the prediction is unaffected. The factors biasing one particular outcome are obviously unaffected.

We all are skeptical. Nobody accepts unconditionally without evidence. That's what testing is for. MB should be encouraged, even by skeptics. It would be cool if he has discovered something.

On the thread on Piston Heads he mentions the same method can be used to predict earthquakes, and in reply to one of my questions he suggested anything can be predicted on the earth, and so for that reason the variables he's using are not on this planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada

Interesting thread, I remember seeing the first three or four posts but as I am not on NW all that often, I missed all these more recent discussions.

First thing I should mention, a fairly detailed explanation of my theories and methodology can be found here on NW in the advanced learning forum.I will link to them here, but to save you a lot of reading, I am going to mention briefly the foundation of the theory in this post, so you might want to hold off going on that side trip to these links until possibly you find yourself with an hour to spare.

and if that arouses any interest, there is a second thread that builds on that introduction, that was active for a while two or three years ago.

--------------------------

The theory being developed has two basic components. Lunar-atmospheric interactions are responsible for most of the short-term pressure variations in the model, applied to a background circulation model. That circulation model, which handles the larger-scale features, is derived from index values linking our atmosphere with the solar system magnetic field.

There's room in this theory to add input of any kind such as conventional teleconnections, shifting of the base grid being used (since the earth's magnetic field shifts, it would be plausible that some weather analogue from say 1703 if you know what I'm saying here might now be closer to Iceland than England.)

Fred (BFTP) collaborates with me on a forecast and I value his input as he's developed what amounts to an independent index value system for lunar perigee and also keeps au courant with the more conventional teleconnections research. We both factor in solar activity, there's no big mystery about that really, in periods of low solar activity the pot is off the boil so to speak and the jet stream tends to fall back south (equatorward to make more sense to any s.h. readers). The whole point of the quiet sun impact on climate forecasting is NOT what the sun is doing, but what the sun is not doing -- it's not heating up the earth quite as much as in most of the recent data base period, which means that the data bases have to be seen as more likely to verify a bit further south(east).

For example, our current LRF as published here builds a basic circulation forecast from all this input (only small amounts of this part of the forecast are linked to lunar cycles) then I use the precise timing available from an astronomical agenda to model specific events into that base circulation and we draw conclusions about how all this would impact the U.K. and Ireland both in fairly specific time-oriented terms and also with a sort of broader brush stroke designed to address the acknowledged uncertainty of what is after all a developing theoretical approach (but we believe a leading one in the field at this point in time given verification levels).

Although this is obviously enormously complex and time-consuming and cannot easily be reduced to a few paragraphs, at the same time, I would think most people already active in this thread or likely to join in, would "get" the basic idea of how we do our forecasts and there is little real mystery about it, if I gave you a base map of the circulation and mentioned there was a strong energy peak on 2-3 February due to cross a timing line running NW-SE through Ireland, then presumably you would be able to imagine a weather sequence likely to enter our forecast scenario at that time.

Given that I found the current MB forecast for a major North Sea storm interesting, I had a specific look at what my research model would suggest for that period. I don't see any peak of energy strong enough to develop a storm of this magnitude and I rather suspect the pattern may verify at about 20-30 per cent strength. The overall shaping of events could verify although I do see some chance of more blocking near Finland and northwest Russia than the maps would suggest. On 3 Feb (03z) the next new moon is the only event with even a moderate energy peak, following a peak around 30-31 Jan from southern max. At present time the 4 Jan (09z) new moon event is the low dropping southeast from near Iceland. The previous new moon event around 5-6 Dec was essentially a weak trough that gave moderate to heavy snow in Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland during the first of the two major cold spells.

What I'm getting to here is a conclusion that the MB methodology in terms of deriving a pattern may be off to a good start in conceptual terms, but more attention may be required for energy level considerations, and part of this depends on an understanding of storm dynamics in conventional meteorology.

For a storm to develop into a superstorm over the North Sea and bring winds of 100 mph or more, high storm surges etc, the track in the worst storms of historical record is usually from more of a WSW origin, with the lows tending to come out of the central Atlantic towards northern parts of Ireland and across Scotland or northern England towards Denmark. In those storms, winds could reach 100 mph in gusts but when you talk about winds of 160 mph in Scotland and some of the other details, especially in a NW'ly steering flow and with polar lows as your main energy source, this requires an intensification of about 10x normal synoptic pattern and even 3-4 times the worst case known in recent times which was mentioned by a poster earlier, Feb 1969, when winds did locally get up above 100 mph near the Orkneys but there was no widespread major wind event.

For comparison, I'll say that the most likely outcomes in the period would be among the following, with no clear favourite as I have to admit this winter circulation is trying to resolve two rather different sets of steering at the moment, one being a continuation of the northeast to southwest blocking, and the other being a resumption of normal service in the Atlantic as a rather feeble belated response to La Nina. Consequently what we have across the Atlantic at present is a sort of low-energy jumble of dying circulation regimes waiting for either the blocking signal to resume (which I think it may after 15-17 Jan) or for a stronger zonal flow signal to develop.

The plausible outcomes then, given that we would be running a low energy peak through what's likely to be a vast trough of disorganized features, would be one of these:

** something similar in shape and organization to the MB maps but read as 2-mb contours and 30-50 mph wind flows instead of the catastrophic values in the forecast presented;

** something similar to today's and tomorrow's evolution, a weak to moderate intensity low dropping southeast towards Ireland

** low pressure on a more southward track from north of the Azores moving towards Iberia or southern Biscay with the North Sea and the U.K. in a generally east to southeast wind flow.

Then I had a look at some other research index values that involve placing of ridges and troughs, and decided that my best guess from this far out would be to look for strong blocking high pressure over the Baltic region, with a low somewhere near Lisbon moving across southern Iberia during the early part of the period and being absorbed by a quasi-stationary low in the western Med. There might be at the same time some weak cyclonic activity near Iceland moving east towards North Cape, with the European high ridging to centres near Iceland and Greenland. Late in the period there could be troughing from around Svalbard breaking through the surface ridge slightly and allowing meso-scale low pressure to develop over the North Sea.

I'll mention one other thing, there is perhaps from my research perspective a better chance for strong lows with storm force winds in March and April at the various new and full moons because then, these events combine with a second set of energy peaks, the blocking would be breaking down, and in the case of the full moon in March, lunar perigee is associated. So while I won't ask for the evacuation of Holland, I will mention it could get very windy around 19-20 March.

By the way, while we're on this subject of strong winds, if the milder Atlantic breaks through around 12-13 Jan as expected (and this was in our LRF too) then watch out for the northern max event period around 16-17 Jan for strong winds, but the signal for resumed blocking could dampen that low, if strong zonal flow persists to 15-16 Jan then it could end with a strong west to northwest wind before much higher pressure returns. There would be a lesser chance of a second wind peak with the full moon at 20 Jan but this may come after blocking resumes and the energy would be split around the block, leading to a strong storm in the west-central Med at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Kemnay, Aberdeenshire AB51 - 135m/440ft asl
  • Location: Kemnay, Aberdeenshire AB51 - 135m/440ft asl

If MB has a database of patterns from 1 billion years ago, or from Jupiter, it wouldn't predict anything.

The method doesn't have to suggest the cause of the weather is also the cause of geological activity. The historical patterns in MB's database obviously depend on the current configuration of the continents.

The method hasn't been tested after major volcanic activity so we don't know whether the prediction is unaffected. The factors biasing one particular outcome are obviously unaffected.

We all are skeptical. Nobody accepts unconditionally without evidence. That's what testing is for. MB should be encouraged, even by skeptics. It would be cool if he has discovered something.

Agreed, I too am sceptic.. but I do so want to believe :ph34r: I do think that often conventional reasoning can get in the way of a "Doh" moment, and have found the best way to learn is to listen to everyone without dismissal until proved otherwise. Everyone indeed deserves respect for at least even trying, e.g. even asking questions on public forums is quite hard at times.. but the old adage about the only stupid question being the one never asked is so right, and you'll never find out if you don't ask (or in this case tell/test)

In this case (and ones like it) sceptic or not may I throw something out there?... MB has said that he can test the system backwards to infinity (or at least to how far the detailed weather record he can get his hands on go) so might I suggest that his DNA factors are not weather (or climate) related at all.. thus trying to predict forwards is actually much more difficult as he has to "manually" search his database to see if any of his days "match" in frequency, in order to give a strong signal.. kind of like this one (feb'11) he spotted, but nearly missed reporting, back in the summer.. though I'm sure if the method does indeed prove to have some legs behind it a better database than excel could be used

anyhow that may be way off .. but in essence I think what I'm trying to say is that the best way is to keep an open mind, rather than try to make it fit with convention, wait to see what happens then if it makes you interested enough to want to know more I'm sure MB will try his best. - the alternative is that if you want to get your naysay 'vote' here just so you can come back later just to say I told you so.. I'm pretty sure you'll earn a place on ignore lists quicker than MB will ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that I found the current MB forecast for a major North Sea storm interesting, I had a specific look at what my research model would suggest for that period. I don't see any peak of energy strong enough to develop a storm of this magnitude and I rather suspect the pattern may verify at about 20-30 per cent strength.

.........

What I'm getting to here is a conclusion that the MB methodology in terms of deriving a pattern may be off to a good start in conceptual terms, but more attention may be required for energy level considerations, and part of this depends on an understanding of storm dynamics in conventional meteorology.

Roger, as you are in a different time zone I shall respond to your post tonight. Firstly, many thanks for taking the time and trouble to go thorugh my Storm forecast and providing your response. In order to do justice to the information behind the links you kindly provided, it will take me some time to go through, so perhaps I can ask some more detailed questions in due course.

In the meantime, I wonder if you can clarify one quick point. I have placed in bold above your reference to "energy" levels. Do these relate to the number of sunspots?

Please correct me if I am wrong. Am I understanding this correctly: because we have a low sunspot count (currently 38), this is providing a low enegy level? I see from a historical chart that the number of sunspots can peak at above 250 (as in the late 1950's). Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sale (Cheshire)
  • Weather Preferences: Dry and cold...
  • Location: Sale (Cheshire)

MB - a few points, some of your comments do need commenting (certainly from my end) - I do understand it's not related to a met issue but the very essence of you method encompasses mattters going way beyond that...

- We pretty well know how the Pyramids were built, with lots of money and specialised labourers (not slaves actually), the scale is awesome even by modern standards but the method is not particularly complex. It's a staple of crypto-historian but like ETH ufos, pretty much dead in the water...

- If everything is predictable, by all means, provide me with winning numbers for the lottery or some football scores and whilst you are at it, how come you do not have used that knowledge yourself to free yourself even more for your studies from base material concerns...? I would love give up working now and then and dedicate myself to walk the hills, climb mountains and camp in the wilderness...

- Observe nature from a higher sphere? Faster and better means of comminucations? I'm all for Shamanism but the methods back then were first and foremost symbolic and attained through hallucinogenics, amongst people whose understanding of the world was unsphosticated to say the least so verification of their wonders is bound to be slightly haphazard... They might have had some insight into those wondruous Laws of Nature but that did not prevent most of them living short, brutish, illness ridden lives that would have a hard drinker/smoker in Glasgow look a healthy old man...

Jon Mitchell fan btw MB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: West Malvern, West Midlands, 280m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Snow! Severe storms.
  • Location: West Malvern, West Midlands, 280m ASL

Interesting thread, I remember seeing the first three or four posts but as I am not on NW all that often, I missed all these more recent discussions.

First thing I should mention, a fairly detailed explanation of my theories and methodology can be found here on NW in the advanced learning forum.I will link to them here, but to save you a lot of reading, I am going to mention briefly the foundation of the theory in this post, so you might want to hold off going on that side trip to these links until possibly you find yourself with an hour to spare.

http://forum.netweat...r-theory-intro/

and if that arouses any interest, there is a second thread that builds on that introduction, that was active for a while two or three years ago.

http://forum.netweat...atology-report/

Am newish to this forum so this is the first time I've come across your theories. I have just read the first link you posted and found it all fascinating, and will read through the second thread when I have more time to digest it. Most interesting indeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: The Wash - Norfolk side
  • Weather Preferences: Storms storms and more storms
  • Location: The Wash - Norfolk side

Hi MB - I notice you"ve used the term "the fourth dimension" quite a lot in your posts. Would you mind telling us what you personally consider to be the fourth dimension? Are you referring to the view of space-time, adding a dimension of time to the universe (Euclidian Space) or are you referring to a hypothetical fourth spatial dimension, added on to our normal three dimensions. This fourth spatial dimension being the higher plane very few human beings manage to attain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Liverpool
  • Location: Liverpool

Hi MB - I notice you"ve used the term "the fourth dimension" quite a lot in your posts. Would you mind telling us what you personally consider to be the fourth dimension? Are you referring to the view of space-time, adding a dimension of time to the universe (Euclidian Space) or are you referring to a hypothetical fourth spatial dimension, added on to our normal three dimensions. This fourth spatial dimension being the higher plane very few human beings manage to attain?

Yes good point. I also wonder if he uses the idea of string theory i.e. the 'variables' are on the other string

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada
  • Location: Rossland BC Canada

MB, just to answer that question about energy level, it's a term that I might tend to use in two different ways.

In the research model, "energy level" would be used to describe how much potential energy there is for storm development from the astronomical agenda. What the resarch indicates is that storm development is favoured when a numerical index of astronomical events is near peak values. However, the theory also holds that storm development must be "permissible" from the input of other variables in the model.

In other words, lunar-atmospheric interactions are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for major storm development. They provide windows of opportunity. They do not guarantee a storm will develop, in some cases the upper level circulation will be in a blocking phase, and blocking basically means something is preventing the lunar-atmospheric energy interaction from reaching the lower atmosphere. Usually I find that storms will develop on an average of 5 or 6 out of 9 timing lines identified in the model and blocking will cover zones of potential storm development in 2 or 3 others. Following this blocking on a regular basis is a big priority in my research, and it has led to the discovery of a retrograde index that helps to position blocking of retrograde form. Blocking that is prograde or quasi-stationary is predicted from elements of field structure in the model.

But the Moon's energy in this system seems to be at the direction of the larger energy systems implied by part two of my theory, namely, the shaping of upper atmosphere features from interactions between the earth's atmosphere and solar system magnetic fields. And to add complexity, there is a small class of additional storm situations that can be linked to disturbances within field sectors and not to the Moon at all. These include hurricanes and tropical storms and a few intense storms in the mid-latitudes.

So what this all creates is a complex agenda for storm development on timing lines that are relatively fixed -- the storms then move downstream to satisfy time and motion equations at the next timing line. What helps the system stay somewhat orderly is that lunar events have a background rhythm of about 3.5 to 4 days with some variables moving against that system to create non-regular harmonics also. So picture it this way, without blocking in the mix, there would just be a regular progression of lunar-atmospheric interference pattern waves, and a climate that was basically fast westerly in style all the time, but with blocking introduced, you get all sorts of flow adjustments from that default pattern and the interference patterns are either expanded, shattered or diverted around blocking.

Energy level in this context is just a numerical index value adding together various components of a larger system.

When used outside the context of the theory, energy level does mean what you were assuming, an overall degree of atmospheric energy that would relate storm track latitude to external inputs like solar forcing, and system feedback input like albedo, sea surface temperature, and teleconnections. Right now on that sort of "energy level" analysis, the current energy level is low across most of Europe and the Atlantic but will be rising to moderate next week. Your February forecast implies a high energy level applied to some sort of blocking pattern mid-Atlantic, so would require a strong jet stream probably rising north around Baffin Island and Greenland then looping around Greenland and Iceland to dive southeast towards Holland and Germany. For the kind of storms you're describing in your forecast, there is going to have to be 150-200 knot winds at 250 mbs and 100-130 knot winds at 500 mbs. These past few weeks, we've been seeing generally values half that strong, rising to 2/3 that strong near the southeast U.S. where things are getting a little more active now.

Since I have a much different forecast in place, obviously I can't sincerely wish that you were right about 1-5 Feb and if anything I have visions of a 1947 type circulation as one of the range of possibles, something that will certainly be noteworthy but not similar to your scenario. However, for you to be even close to correct on this forecast, there will need to be much stronger jet stream winds than we've been seeing most of this winter season anywhere around the hemisphere. One of the characteristics of this winter so far has been widespread blocking patterns, retrograde flow in the subarctic, massive arctic highs in some places, and sluggish circulation patterns.

Is there any chance you could share some of your forecast reasoning in plain language rather than terms the rest of us cannot fathom? Because that might help both us and yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: The Wash - Norfolk side
  • Weather Preferences: Storms storms and more storms
  • Location: The Wash - Norfolk side

Yes good point. I also wonder if he uses the idea of string theory i.e. the 'variables' are on the other string

Somehow I doubt that, I think his fourth dimension is very likely to be that which I referred to as hypothetical but I guess until he answers with an explanation we're clutching at straws. I'd really like to see him giving us a clearer steer on where he's coming from with this "fourth dimension". How about it MURCIEBOY - RJS is happy to share his methodology, can you share yours?

MB, just to answer that question about energy level, it's a term that I might tend to use in two different ways.

Is there any chance you could share some of your forecast reasoning in plain language rather than terms the rest of us cannot fathom? Because that might help both us and yourself.

Superb post Roger, really helpful. Perhaps I could second your quote outlined above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to BFTP and Roger for their posts, it is genuinely appreciated. Roger, from what you say there is no chance of my 1-5 February 2011 forecast coming good; I am most happy to bow to your far superior knowledge. It is clear your command of the subject spanning some 30 years is far beyond the miserly scraps of knowledge I may have gleaned in less than a year’s part-time self-study of the weather.

Maybe my three forecasts that have been “successful†have been “lucky strikes†as some folks have suggested; it is possible, I suppose.

As I have said at the outset, there is no point in talking in detail about my method until its worth has been proved. I really don’t want to waste people’s time talking about a method that I am still testing, which may prove to be useless. Even if the method is proved worthy, as I have always said, the only place I would discuss it in detail would be in a book, so as to give the reader and the subject my greatest respect.

All I can say is that any method for weather prediction should solely be judged on its results and not how good the method sounds or who advocates it. That is why I say nothing in detail about the method at this stage but focus totally on making sure my forecasts are very specific, as detailed as I can make them, very clear and not open to misunderstanding.

As AF alludes to in #91, let’s see what 1-5 February 2011 brings! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Hurstpierpoint, West Sussex, UK
  • Location: Hurstpierpoint, West Sussex, UK
I'd really like to see him giving us a clearer steer on where he's coming from with this "fourth dimension". How about it MURCIEBOY - RJS is happy to share his methodology, can you share yours?

If I were MB and my forecasting method accurately predicted the weather and I had plans to write a book and perhaps earn some money to boot – now would I share my methodology?………Hmmmm let me see…... NO.

I think we all just need to wait and see how this latest experimental forecast turns out, patience is a virtue I’m told.:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

On the thread on Piston Heads he mentions the same method can be used to predict earthquakes, and in reply to one of my questions he suggested anything can be predicted on the earth, and so for that reason the variables he's using are not on this planet.

Iben Browning had similar theories. They didn't pan out in the end; despite massive scientific and media buy in.

If I were MB and my forecasting method accurately predicted the weather and I had plans to write a book and perhaps earn some money to boot – now would I share my methodology?………Hmmmm let me see…... NO.

This reminds me of the furore set against the internet revolution regarding security protocols. The result was and still is that one always uses the one that is public - for the simple reason that if it is public the scrutiny (and pressure) involved is phenomenal.

You want to make some money out of it? Give it away for free - and those that do not understand will pay a fortune for consultancy.

Easy innit - but beware private methods. Always. Privacy for scientific (particularly mathematical science) is the first stop for charlatans.

All I can say is that any method for weather prediction should solely be judged on its results and not how good the method sounds or who advocates it. That is why I say nothing in detail about the method at this stage but focus totally on making

Well one forecast (or three) a method does not make. I will be most disappointed if it turns out elves at the bottom of your garden helped you. I mean it. Roger and BFTP have a huge advantage in credibility since their methods are (mainly) public and they consistently forecast well, despite a huge amount of resistance.

You have a lot of work to do to even match them.

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Liverpool
  • Location: Liverpool

Well one forecast (or three) a method does not make. I will be most disappointed if it turns out elves at the bottom of your garden helped you. I mean it. Roger and BFTP have a huge advantage in credibility since their methods are (mainly) public and they consistently forecast well, despite a huge amount of resistance.

You have a lot of work to do to even match them.

Yes I agree.MB, You can say you want to try and test it all you want, but how do you expect people to help you along without disclosing your ideas? If you are not serious enough to use the wealth of knowledge on this forum to help iron out any issues in your theory then i struggle to understand why you post predictions at all. If you tell us what these 3 'variables' are- just the names- then others may pay attention to this system, after all, surely disclosing these variables can cause no problems. I really cannot fathom why you can't tell us these- you don't even need to explain them if you don't want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Broxbourne, Herts
  • Weather Preferences: Snow snow and snow
  • Location: Broxbourne, Herts

Iben Browning had similar theories. They didn't pan out in the end; despite massive scientific and media buy in.

Well one forecast (or three) a method does not make. I will be most disappointed if it turns out elves at the bottom of your garden helped you. I mean it. Roger and BFTP have a huge advantage in credibility since their methods are (mainly) public and they consistently forecast well, despite a huge amount of resistance.

You have a lot of work to do to even match them.

I find that harsh. To have started with one volunteered forecast put out a month which was clearly impressive in its accuracy to me commands attention while not automatic respect.

It's true the Christmas forecast wasn't so impressive, but that said it was one he was urged to put out rather than volunteered and indeed it ended up a lot closer to what actually happened then many of the scenarios the models were putting up in a shorter time frame.

So that's two forecasts that have grabbed my attention. And to be honest I'm not really concerned with what his methods are at this stage. I'll be more curious about them if I see there's continues to be a level of consistency in the accuracy of his forecasts. And remember.... he's not predicting long range generalised stuff....his predictions are very specific.

And so to this forecast. To me, he's put it out there with very little wriggle room. If he's way out then I guess the attention will die away. If he's not far off then the attention will grow and will develop into a healthy respect.

I certainly see no sense in being dismissive at this stage....though tbh that's what I sense in the tone of your post.

If someone can be as accurate, if not more so, about what the weather will be like in a month's time then anything else that's on offer, and at the same time be more specific about the detail, then it comes across as very petty not to accept that he is possibly onto something just because his methods are not disclosed or understood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
<snip>

There are ways to determine whether or not getting a forecast hit is good or bad. Google degrees of freedom, chi-squared test, standard error etc etc.

What amazes me is that someone wins the lottery at some 14,000,000:1. I mean, did they put that much in it to win £3m?

The chances are that there will be low pressure north of the UK. The area is not renowened for it's Icelandic Low for some reason some meteorologist decided to do after ten pints in the pub - it is because it is a semi-permanent area of low pressure. Therefore the only important part of this forecast is the depth and the pressure gradient - not hard to forecast deep lows going through the GIN corridor to be honest - ask anyone who lives in Shetland/Orkney.

I don't need elves, nor gnomes at the end of my garden to figure that one out; I wonder if William Hill would take a bet that 300 of the 356 days a year that Iceland will be near or under low pressure?

As I've said before - this is not cynicism; this is scepticism. Scepticism is even more warranted if the fellow wants to take hard earned money out of people's pockets exploiting the curiosity of people around here. The rags-to-riches element is something I didn't realise before.

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

And so to this forecast. To me, he's put it out there with very little wriggle room. If he's way out then I guess the attention will die away. If he's not far off then the attention will grow and will develop into a healthy respect.

On the basis of three forecasts? One which is wrong, and one which is yet to happen? You sure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Eastbourne, East Sussex (work in Mid Sussex)
  • Location: Eastbourne, East Sussex (work in Mid Sussex)

With such specific detail on the 'Great North Sea Storm of 2011', we will know for certain between the 1st and 5th February if this methodology is worth perusing. To my mind (still sceptical, but willing to be proved otherwise) if you put that much definitive information into a major natural event that has yet to occur, this far away, then good luck to you fella! You have either changed the way modern meteorology (and perhaps science in general) has been studying, interpreting and explaining natural phenomena, or you have blagged it very well. :lol:

It's going to be no use coming up with the lottery numbers for weeks ahead and then explaining afterwards why you were only a few numbers away from it though. I'll need to see this one hit on the head, just as you predict - but no loss of life or property please. I'd feel more comfortable if you weren't touting a book release, roll on the beginning of February for this old cynic and good luck!!! :good:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

With such specific detail on the 'Great North Sea Storm of 2011', we will know for certain between the 1st and 5th February if this methodology is worth perusing. To my mind (still sceptical, but willing to be proved otherwise) if you put that much definitive information into a major natural event that has yet to occur, this far away, then good luck to you fella! You have either changed the way modern meteorology (and perhaps science in general) has been studying, interpreting and explaining natural phenomena, or you have blagged it very well. :lol:

It's going to be no use coming up with the lottery numbers for weeks ahead and then explaining afterwards why you were only a few numbers away from it though. I'll need to see this one hit on the head, just as you predict - but no loss of life or property please. I'd feel more comfortable if you weren't touting a book release, roll on the beginning of February for this old cynic and good luck!!! :good:

Very well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Eastbourne, East Sussex (work in Mid Sussex)
  • Location: Eastbourne, East Sussex (work in Mid Sussex)

Well I'm not (and shouldn't yet) going to get into this any deeper as i) I'll wait until the beginning of February to be amazed and ii) I want to be a 'sit on the fence' kinda guy!

I just can't get my head around some perfectly reoccurring cycles, that could use simple information from 10, 50, 100 or 400 years ago, giving us specific predictions of things to come. If we could use information from all that time ago, why haven't we, until right now? I mean, look at the money we could have saved on Supercomputers for the MetO!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ye Gods, I go away for 5 minutes....

Where do I start? A book is a long way off from being written, let alone published! The “method†(for the nth time) has not proved anything or itself. I am just testing, that’s all; and in the very early stages at that.

If (and that is a very big if) the method got to being anything close to half decent and people were seriously interested in the method, I would prefer to write a book rather than write articles in magazines or write on internet forums. Why? The only reason: because it would be a lot easier to explain things in a book and do justice to the subject.

.... right, I'm off for a curry and to watch the football. Up the Spurs! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: consett co durham
  • Location: consett co durham

Ye Gods, I go away for 5 minutes....

Where do I start? A book is a long way off from being written, let alone published! The “method†(for the nth time) has not proved anything or itself. I am just testing, that’s all; and in the very early stages at that.

If (and that is a very big if) the method got to being anything close to half decent and people were seriously interested in the method, I would prefer to write a book rather than write articles in magazines or write on internet forums. Why? The only reason: because it would be a lot easier to explain things in a book and do justice to the subject.

.... right, I'm off for a curry and to watch the football. Up the Spurs! :)

i agree with all of that apart from from up the Spurs.HAWAY THE TOON LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: The Wash - Norfolk side
  • Weather Preferences: Storms storms and more storms
  • Location: The Wash - Norfolk side

Yes I agree.MB, You can say you want to try and test it all you want, but how do you expect people to help you along without disclosing your ideas? If you are not serious enough to use the wealth of knowledge on this forum to help iron out any issues in your theory then i struggle to understand why you post predictions at all. If you tell us what these 3 'variables' are- just the names- then others may pay attention to this system, after all, surely disclosing these variables can cause no problems. I really cannot fathom why you can't tell us these- you don't even need to explain them if you don't want.

Very well said, I see that MB wants to write a book (makes a lot of money!), if there is anything in his fourth dimensional theories but like you I can't understand why he can't at least enter into reasoned debate with us. After all both Roger and Fred have shared their methodology with us and have therefore gained certainly my respect and that of many others on this forum with their reasoned and well thought out methods.

Just one thought I had though. If weather was able to be forecasted every day on every spot on the planet for the next 100 years just think of the impact that would have on everyday life. We'd all want the same 2 weeks off work, same wedding days etc etc and it would certainly (for me anyway) rather take the edge of things if I knew that on the 24th July 2021 it would be hot and sunny! There'd be nothing left to look forward to and certainly no model watching or weather forums. :(

Edited by Candice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...