Superb forecast for half-term
Dawlish
even thunderstorms in some areas, but the charts for the rest of the
time, from today to the end of next week for many areas and especially
for Southern areas of England, is just superb. Have the sun-cream at
the ready, as summer is i cumen in. No need to take the kids to Europe
this half-term. Stay in the UK, go somewhere you haven't been before,
but always fancied visiting and spend your money here instead of
giving it to the Spanish on the Costas!
I'd extend that forecast out to 10 days, after the last 5 gfs runs.
The 1st of June will see warm and settled weather for most areas of
England and Wales.
Enjoy.
Tom Allen
"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:667e6691-9f19-4d94...@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
It may be a forecast of superb weather by some folk's tastes but maybe
we should wait ten days before describing it as a superb forecast :-)
Tom
smallbabe
Yes, Tom, badly phrased by me! It is indeed a forecast of superb
weather. You can only judge how good a forecast has been at
outcome......something I must have said hundreds of times!
Paul Hyett
uk.sci.weather :
>OK, Bank Holiday Monday is a little iffy and there may be cloud and
>even thunderstorms in some areas, but the charts for the rest of the
>time, from today to the end of next week for many areas and especially
>for Southern areas of England, is just superb.
Speak for yourself - I never look forward to hot weather.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)
Lawrence Jenkins
"smallbabe" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b53f73c-9d31-4aac...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Smallbabe are you dawlish? If no or yes why do you and others post under
fake names? It really does get my goat besides many other things.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course I am, but you knew that as you called smallbabe "dullish".
Dawlish is as fake a name as smallbabe, though you appear to have
overlooked that one! Your goat is got. Excellent. It needs to be. And
by a sensitive part of it's anatomy too, by the response.
Lawrence Jenkins
Yes I know I'd already childishly called you "dullish" but my poor old brain
is so pickled nowadays for a moment there thought I'd got the wrong
person. But really , why dp people use false id's.
A very confused
Napoleon Bonaparte
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whatever. Judge my forecast at outcome Lawrence. it is clear and
unambiguous......unlike your use of the possesive apostrophe - which
is not.
Alastair
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lawrence is not using a possesive apostrophe. He is using it to form a
plural. That is perfecly acceptable. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe#Use_in_forming_certain_plurals
Cheers, Alastair.
Lawrence Jenkins
"Alastair" <a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a65a3f5e-dfdc-4074...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Cheers, Alastair.
He is invariably wrong and can be very cruel sometimes Alastiar, unlike
you as you are never cruel.......
Dawlish
>
> Cheers, Alastair.
>
> He is invariably wrong and can be very cruel sometimes Alastiar, unlike
>
> - Show quoted text -
.......and you really think Lawrence was using the apostrophe in that
way! Most writers would eschew its use in plurals at all time (have a
look at the first sentence in the Wiki entry, where it refers to
"some" writers) and it is certainly not perfectly acceptable to most,
though it is used by some and it appears acceptable to some. Good for
them! You'll be telling me that Lawrence understands the use of the
Oxford comma and a non-linear trend next!
Lawrence Jenkins
Look big mouth. Just because with the Arctic ice level prediction I showed
you up as all mouth and no trousers, there's no need to get personal.
By the way why does a nutter like you need two names to post under? Does
your demented ego feel one isn't enough? Finally why do you like to hide
behind pseudonyms I'm always suspicious of the motives when I see that. It
means your either a coward who wants to hide behind animosity or just a pure
burke, maybe a bit of both I feel.
Lawrence Jenkins
Everyone knows that an "Oxford Comma" was a van from 1956 -1960, smart arse.
As for a non-linear trend, isn't that your fashion sense.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
I knew the abuse wouldn't be far away. It's always the sign of a lost
argument.
Dawlish
Half-term's over and done with and the kiddies are back at school in
most areas. The original MetO forecast turned out to be an interesting
one. Some rain for some areas on Monday, but a totally unjustified
weather advisory spoiled that bit a little. Very welcome rain on
Wednesday was not being forecast 10 days ago, but there was 8 days of
fantastic sunshine - and for many areas of the UK too!
Overall, the MetO got it just about spot on.......and here's one for
W.
1st June is seeing warm and settled weather across England and Wales.
Pressure is >1020mb in all areas.
A 10-day forecast with the date, location and weather clear at
forecast and still clear at outcome. This one happens to be spot on.
That's now 70 forecasts at 10 days with an accuracy outcome of 77.5%.
Every single one clearly and publically forecast on Internet sites and
newsgroups and every single one returned to and analysed, correct, or
not.
Now there's a thing, W. Learn and weep.
Jon O'Rourke
>Half-term's over and done with and the kiddies are back at school in
>most areas. The original MetO forecast turned out to be an interesting
>one. Some rain for some areas on Monday, but a totally unjustified
>weather advisory spoiled that bit a little. Very welcome rain on
>Wednesday was not being forecast 10 days ago
Given the discussions that have taken place on here in the past
and just recently then surely you can now understand the difficulties
involved and that the system has to be adhered to in its current form by
those responsible for issuing warnings. I.e if the risk level with respect
to the criteria set down by the PWS Customer Group is considered to be
between 40 and 60% then, as in this case, a Yellow 'be aware' advisory will
be issued. The guidance unit forecasters made this difficult call based on
the considerable information available to them and subsequently revised the
area at risk within 24 hours as new data came to light. You do not have this
information, nor, evidently, the many years of forecasting and research
experience that they have and hence it is simply wrong to state
that they act in an unjustified way. Also, unless you have access to all the
rain gauges that the MetO and the EA operate I don't see how any objective
verification on whether the criteria was met can be done with any degree of
certainty - and no I haven't seem the figures either but I did see the high
resolution radar data for the far SE on Monday and that was pretty
impressive to say the least.
It might be worth having another look at the guide on the warnings and
criteria to at least understand where we stand currently
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/guide/colour_warnings.html
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/guide/key_warnings.html
It is not within the current remit for there to be any detailed explanation
of why an advisory has changed but if you would like this than please
suggest it to the PWS Customer Group via the contact email address.
As for the rain last Wednesday; I wasn't watching the GFS too closely but it
was well signaled on several models, particularly EC and the MetO GM (within
T+144) and was evident in most forecasts I saw in the lead up to the event.
Jon.
Dawlish
>
> It is not within the current remit for there to be any detailed explanation
> of why an advisory has changed but if you would like this than please
> suggest it to the PWS Customer Group via the contact email address.
>
> As for the rain last Wednesday; I wasn't watching the GFS too closely but it
> was well signaled on several models, particularly EC and the MetO GM (within
> T+144) and was evident in most forecasts I saw in the lead up to the event.
>
> Jon.
I have suggested it before Jon. I don't see a great deal of point in
emailing again. I know the difficulties involved, I sympathise with
the MetO for having to try to forecast incredibly difficult event with
current technology that doesn't allow it and I'm grateful for your
input. The overall forecast for half term, at the time of me starting
this thread, was a good one; however, the forecast charts changed a
lot during last week. In hindsight, the blanket weather advisory,
issued on Sunday 24th May, for the following day, Monday 25th May was
awful and representatives from several seaside resorts have gone
public in claiming that it cost the resorts money. There is no reason
to disbelieve them. It was also evidenced by the outcome weather on
Monday - there was't a single severe weather event recorded in the UK
on the whole of Bank holiday Monday, though there was rain in the SE
and many areas, including my own had a beautiful, sunny, warm day
without a cloud in the sky. The bad weather missed us, going to our
SE. Belgium had a torrid time. The forecast for that day, for the UK,
was quite simply wrong.
When I issued this particular 10-day forecast, on May 22nd, a week
last Friday, the 3-5 day forecast had no mention of rain on Wednesday,
only rain on Monday. That's why I wrote what I did about the general
UK MetO forecast for the week. It was for superb weather, except for
bank holiday Monday. To show that, this was a post on TWO by Bren, a
professional forecaster with Meteogroup and one of the best people on
the whole of the Internet to discuss forecasting that I have ever
found. The link in his post will only take you to the current and
doesn't show the gfs charts which were showing for Wed 27th/Thurs 28th
May, but Bren was talking about high pressure sitting over the UK on
Thursday (last Thursday now).
http://theweatheroutlook.com/twocommunity/forums/t/26437.aspx?PageIndex=9
Here's another one, earlier on that Friday, 22nd May talking about the
prospects for high pressure at T120 (on the Wednesday, now last
Wednesday) having never been better at any time over the last few
weeks.
http://theweatheroutlook.com/twocommunity/forums/t/26437.aspx?PageIndex=8
10 days ago, the gfs was not showing rain on Wednesday. That changed
within 24 hours and for a couple of days the whole run out to 10 days,
including this last weekend and my outcome day was plagued by low
pressure. From Sunday onwards the picture began to improve and that
improvement in the charts continued, to give us the fine weekend we
have just expereinced and has given me a spot on forecast for today.
That was what was showing at the time Jon. Please link to any charts
you have from Friday 22nd may which showed the low pressure and
forecast correctly the general rain which actually happened last
Wednesday.
Jon O'Rourke
> In hindsight, the blanket weather advisory,
>issued on Sunday 24th May, for the following day, Monday 25th May was
>awful and representatives from several seaside resorts have gone
>public in claiming that it cost the resorts money.
My mind's a little blurry now, probably because of the tablets, but IIRC the
advisory for England and Wales was issued on Saturday and revised to the SE
when it was updated on Sunday.
> There is no reason
>to disbelieve them. It was also evidenced by the outcome weather on0
>Monday - there wasn't a single severe weather event recorded in the UK
>on the whole of Bank holiday Monday, though there was rain in the SE
>and many areas, including my own had a beautiful, sunny, warm day
>without a cloud in the sky. The bad weather missed us, going to our
>was quite simply wrong.
Again, the criteria which the advisory and subsequent Flash warning was
issued against must be verified against the observational data available,
i.e. the full network of MetO and EA rain gauges. In saying that I don't
doubt that few gauges will have recorded significant totals due to the
predominantly high based nature of the storms on the Monday that affected
the SE. Incidentally, if I issue a forecast with a PROB40 of a thunderstorm,
for example, I would expect that event to only occur on 4 out of 10
occasions.
>When I issued this particular 10-day forecast, on May 22nd, a week
>last Friday, the 3-5 day forecast had no mention of rain on Wednesday,
>only rain on Monday. That's why I wrote what I did about the general
>UK MetO forecast for the week.
I read it as your forecast/interpretation based on the GFS, rather than
anyone else's as I didn't recall you making reference to any other source.
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sci.weather/msg/73941e2ea8ca9ea4
<Snip>
> That was what was showing at the time Jon. Please link to any charts
>you have from Friday 22nd may which showed the low pressure and
>forecast correctly the general rain which actually happened last
>Wednesday.
I've only got one from the 23rd..
http://www.metbrief.com/Images/EC108.gif
Give my regards to Bren at Meteogroup.
Jon.
Dawlish
>
> <Snip>
>
> > That was what was showing at the time Jon. Please link to any charts
> >you have from Friday 22nd may which showed the low pressure and
> >forecast correctly the general rain which actually happened last
> >Wednesday.
>
>
> Give my regards to Bren at Meteogroup.
>
> Jon.
Bren's a good lad, as is his girlfried Laura, who is also a forecaster
- I believe at the MetO in Exeter, though I could be mistaken on that
one and it could be with Meteogroup as well.
You memory is hazy John, I'm afraid. The blanket warning was issued on
Sunday and updated to a flash warning for the SE on Sunday night, or
early Monday morning. Thank you for the ECM image; as I'd said, the
forecast changed, as the models had changed, within 24 hours of my
first post in this thread. Bren talked of "model agreement" on the
Friday before half-term for high pressure on the following wednesday.
He wouldn't make a mistake like that and neither did I.
The only forecast of mine, contained in my post was in my last
paragraph, as I only forecast at 10 days. I'll leave anything closer
than 10 days to the professional experts. They are far better than I
am at forecasting out to about 8-9 days and they tend not to issue 10-
day public forecasts, as the outcome percentage success rates are so
low. (Yes, I do know about the general 6-15 day forecast on the MetO
site. Accuracy stats are not compiled for this 6-15 day period and it
is often not even possible to obtain a clear forecast for 10 days out
from this.)
I'm no critic of the MetO John, I'm a supporter, as you've seen from
my general writings, but I recognise the forecasters' limitations in
convective circumstances and they were reached on Sunday 24th May with
that awful blanket advisory. It was a cover-my-back advisory, as, like
you say, storms were possible, but the outcome in this instance was
that severe weather simply didn't happen and to have issued an
advisory for almost the whole of England and the whole of Wales was
poor in anyone's book. The very hesitant, low confidence, forecast was
then pasted into the warnings site as it tripped an arbitrary
threshold, stopped people from travelling to seaside resorts and
further reduced confidence in that warnings site. Protocols, or not,
an explanation for such a poor forecast would not go amiss and would
help a lot of people to understand the difficulties of forecasting. I
hope that others in the MetO have been reading this and that the
review of the warnings site is executed sooner, rather than later.
Richard Dixon
> I'm no critic of the MetO John, I'm a supporter, as you've seen from
> my general writings, but I recognise the forecasters' limitations in
> convective circumstances and they were reached on Sunday 24th May with
> that awful blanket advisory. It was a cover-my-back advisory, as, like
> you say, storms were possible, but the outcome in this instance was
> that severe weather simply didn't happen and to have issued an
> advisory for almost the whole of England and the whole of Wales was
> poor in anyone's book. The very hesitant, low confidence, forecast was
> then pasted into the warnings site as it tripped an arbitrary
> threshold, stopped people from travelling to seaside resorts and
> further reduced confidence in that warnings site.
Deja vu springs to mind, Jon. Good luck...
Richard
Jon O'Rourke
>Bren's a good lad, as is his girlfried Laura, who is also a forecaster
>- I believe at the MetO in Exeter, though I could be mistaken on that
>one and it could be with Meteogroup as well.
Indeed, AFAIK they both now work for Meteogroup after working as forecasters
in the Met Office for about a year. IIRC I spent one day training Laura
while she was learning the aviation work.
>You memory is hazy John, I'm afraid. The blanket warning was issued on
>Sunday and updated to a flash warning for the SE on Sunday night, or
>early Monday morning.
Well, yes, I can't remember the full detail of events now but I'm 99%
certain *two* advisories were issued, the first for England and Wales which
was then refined to the SE prior to a Flash warning being issued on the
Monday as events unfolded.
> Thank you for the ECM image; as I'd said, the
>forecast changed, as the models had changed, within 24 hours of my
>first post in this thread. Bren talked of "model agreement" on the
>Friday before half-term for high pressure on the following wednesday.
>He wouldn't make a mistake like that and neither did I.
If you say so. but I'm not going to start reading TWO now after successfully
avoiding it for all these years. However, I would suggest it's worth
detailing your sources at the time to prevent confusion.
>I'm no critic of the MetO John, I'm a supporter, as you've seen from
>my general writings, but I recognise the forecasters' limitations in
>convective circumstances and they were reached on Sunday 24th May with
>that awful blanket advisory. It was a cover-my-back advisory, as, like
>you say, storms were possible, but the outcome in this instance was
>that severe weather simply didn't happen
I take it you've now seen the detailed observations/imagery that are used in
the verification process to allow you to come to that conclusion.
> I hope that others in the MetO have been reading this and that the
>review of the warnings site is executed sooner, rather than later.
There's a few, for sure, but I fear that you've now probably alienated most
of them and continually making comments like "cover-my-back advisory"
despite all that's been explained to you recently by myself, Dr Dixon, Will
etc and during your appearance on the ng last year, for that matter, will
continue to do so.
Time to move on I think..
Jon.
PS It's Jon, unless you're referring to my dad
Dawlish
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> There's a few, for sure, but I fear that you've now probably alienated most
> of them and continually making comments like "cover-my-back advisory"
> despite all that's been explained to you recently by myself, Dr Dixon, Will
> etc and during your appearance on the ng last year, for that matter, will
> continue to do so.
I often shake trees Jon and I never let anyone, no matter what their
qualifications, or standing may be, to get in the way of the facts. If
we always allowed reputations to guide our thinking, our dear MPs
would still be raking in their ill-judged expenses with impunity.
Meteorology and climate studies are no different in that respect, but
I only challenge in areas where I feel comfortable with my arguments,
unlike some. Lots has been "explained" from yourself to defend that
Sunday advisory, but the outcomes provide the evidence that there is
little to support your position, as I have explained in return. Like I
said, the advisory was issued on the Sunday and I think you are right
that it was refined to the SE, before the update to a flash warning
for the far SE was issued later on Sunday, or early on Monday. None of
these judged the eventual weather correctly, or there would have been
reports of severe weather, especially in the SE - I haven't found one,
have you? - so the forecast has to go down as a poor one. It happens.
Your defence has been spirited, but it's been a defence in vain.
It's very hard to escape from the feeling that Oct 1987 still forms a
backdrop to many of these warnings. It's a shame and I feel great
sympathy with the MetO because of the lingering public mistrust that
is still there since that famous Michael Fish forecast, but it doesn't
change the fact that the MetO is widely perceived to employ an element
of "covering their backs" when severe weather may be imminent. I'd be
happy to reduce that to "covering all bases" and ameliorate the
comment for you. I don't blame them, however. The organisation simply
can't afford another "hurricane" (and I know very well that it wasn't,
hence the inverted commas). That's exactly what happened with the
weather advisory issued on Sunday 24th May.
Finally, it's always time to move on when the dispute is finished, not
simply when one party leaves a parting barb and then suggests a move
on! Should you wish to now leave it, I'd be happy to do so as
well........until the next time the severe warnings pages are seen to
be the dog's breakfast that they so often are!
Dawlish
You couldn't resist, Richard, could you? Unfortunately for you, my
analysis of the events, using the fact available passes muster. Your
descent from your tree doesn't.
Jon O'Rourke
> Your defence has been spirited, but it's been a defence in vain.
Lol, if you say so. Sadly you don't seem to have grasped the fundamentals
with regard to probability based advisories, forecasts etc. Ultimately they
must be assessed over a period of time as opposed to singling out a single
event and flatly saying it was wrong to issue an advisory, which, in this
case, represented a risk level of between 20 and 40% of the agreed criteria
being met. Particularly without assessing all the information that led to
such an advisory being issued in the first place and subsequently all the
data available from the event itself.
As I said I don't doubt that the largely high based nature of these storms
prevented much in the way of significant totals at the surface on this
occasion, but we now have the benefit of hindsight. There was a similar
situation last year you might recall
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sci.weather/browse_frm/thread/8ab402b49c5c76ef/d78850370e50c397#d78850370e50c397
actually, having looked through it again there's more than a touch of irony
in there.
Ho-hum.
Jon.
Dawlish
> "Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9b0cd9d0-3ad8-4d79...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Your defence has been spirited, but it's been a defence in vain.
>
> Lol, if you say so. Sadly you don't seem to have grasped the fundamentals
> with regard to probability based advisories, forecasts etc. Ultimately they
> must be assessed over a period of time as opposed to singling out a single
> event and flatly saying it was wrong to issue an advisory, which, in this
> case, represented a risk level of between 20 and 40% of the agreed criteria
> being met. Particularly without assessing all the information that led to
> such an advisory being issued in the first place and subsequently all the
> data available from the event itself.
>
> As I said I don't doubt that the largely high based nature of these storms
> prevented much in the way of significant totals at the surface on this
> occasion, but we now have the benefit of hindsight. There was a similar
> actually, having looked through it again there's more than a touch of irony
> in there.
>
> Ho-hum.
>
> Jon.
Last word eh? Move on? Never when there's a discussion unfinished.
Glad you feel the same as me. Off to Cornwall.
Richard Dixon
> You couldn't resist, Richard, could you? Unfortunately for you, my
> analysis of the events, using the fact available passes muster. Your
> descent from your tree doesn't.
Yes, I'm drawn to you like a moth to a light-bulb giving you that
attention you oh-so crave. My last chat with you ended with your
saying that you were right, end of story. How are you supposed to have
a reasoned discussion with someone who thinks they're right all the
time, full-stop. I took an entirely different view on the event, but
no, you were right.
You are sadly reminiscent of one or two who have come in here before:
all bombast and precociousness only to throw around the toys and leave
without a trace (of humility). Those of us that have posted here since
its inception have seen many come and go. Overly matey one minute,
abusive the next when confronted. Have you ever sat down and wondered
why you end up in conflict so much? I thought not.
Richard