The difficulty is that the job they have is to report what the models are showing and to not make this up. They look at the models and tell us what they are showing, so when it changes they change the forecast - simple really. I don’t know how we can criticise for this, frustrating I know, but it is what it is.
Martin

Originally Posted by: marting 

The difficulty is that the job they have is to report what the models are showing and to not make this up. They look at the models and tell us what they are showing, so when it changes they change the forecast - simple really. I don’t know how we can criticise for this, frustrating I know, but it is what it is.
Martin

Originally Posted by: marting 

I think it would be helpful if they were clearer about now confident they are when making forecasts... For instance, when they forecasted cold/very cold weather in February, were they 60/70/80/90% confident...  That would temper expectations I think. For instance, 70% confidence would imply nearly a 1 in 3 chance of it not coming off - anyone who still remained unduly confident clearly would be very foolish.

Originally Posted by: Chiltern Blizzard 

As I recall the figure they gave to the government was 70% confident of very cold weather. That does mean virtually a one in three chance of it not happening.

At what point do you regard something as 'very likely' (and then get disappointed when if it doesn't happen)?  I would have said towards 90% - and longer range forecasts don't ever come with that level of confidence, AFAIK.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

You are right if the report in the ST was correct. However, if you look at the skill level of the 10 day European it is way below that and so is the GEFS. Therefore the 46 day European must be significantly less accurate so how do they reach 70% confidence? One assumes they put a heavy weighting on the SSW and it is there that things may need further investigation IMO. 

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

You are right if the report in the ST was correct. However, if you look at the skill level of the 10 day European it is way below that and so is the GEFS. Therefore the 46 day European must be significantly less accurate so how do they reach 70% confidence? One assumes they put a heavy weighting on the SSW and it is there that things may need further investigation IMO. 

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

I find it odd that they'll put that much faith in a SSW knowing that all it does is increases our chances of cold, but 70% I highly doubt that.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

But, as Brian said, it was perhaps at best a weighting. There must have been other background signals as well because the forecasters are very aware that there are multiple factors that determine our weather patterns.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

We had a QBO descending into its westerly phase and a weakish Nino alongside unfavourable Atlantic SST’s. Add to that an MJO forecast which chopped and changed as much as the model output then I’m can’t see why ( other than what GLOSEA was showing ) they had such a high level of confidence going into this winter.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

bang on post 

and I see they are still peddling a watered down version of the same guff we have been listening to since December. 

Originally Posted by: JACKO4EVER 

bang on post 

and I see they are still peddling a watered down version of the same guff we have been listening to since December. 

Originally Posted by: JACKO4EVER 

Sometimes I wonder why we bother explaining how the forecasts are produced.

Your choice of words is extraordinary.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

With this past week seeing widespread snow, well below average temperatures and the coldest temperature for seven years they were nit that far off in spotting the cold at the end of January/early February. What we didn’t get was the much signposted easterly, although looking at the forecasts it seems like the signals are still there for one at some stage on the coming weeks.

They forecast what the empirical evidence shows, if anything it shows e limitation of the models and chaotic, unpredictable nature of our weather. I would love to see and am yet to see anyone do better.

Originally Posted by: doctormog 

Please elaborate?

the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This wintery outlook should have been dropped IMO at least a week before it has been. 

You think GLOSEA has been bang on the money? we all have an opinion- I think I’m quite justified in mine 🤗

Originally Posted by: JACKO4EVER 

Yes, that was the source.

The key point, especially given the lower skill levels to which you allude, is that the long range forecasts are probably more likely not to verify - if the figure is below 50%.  

If everyone viewed the forecasts against the backdrop that they're at best 50-50 predictions there might be less angst.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

I was talking about the fact that despite several people explaining the underlying processes, the issues and the limitations there's still a tendency for people to use emotive language and be unduly critical.

All you've done is reinforce my point.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

With this past week seeing widespread snow, well below average temperatures and the coldest temperature for seven years they were nit that far off in spotting the cold at the end of January/early February. What we didn’t get was the much signposted easterly, although looking at the forecasts it seems like the signals are still there for one at some stage on the coming weeks.

They forecast what the empirical evidence shows, if anything it shows e limitation of the models and chaotic, unpredictable nature of our weather. I would love to see and am yet to see anyone do better.

Originally Posted by: doctormog 

And it will be wrong David. This is just following the watered down Met Office forecast. All cold references will be dropped in the next update if the models are to be believed.

Originally Posted by: moomin75 

Well if you are so confident about that, then maybe you should be working for either MetO or Meteogroup, who are now the BBC's forecast provider. If you were, you would be better placed to comment on what forecast information they have at their disposal before you claim they are right or wrong before the event.

Perhaps you should take up a career as a fortune teller, given that you seem to be so confident about what happens in the future?

Originally Posted by: David M Porter 

Just going to leave Terry Scholey's February forecast here;

https://www.gavsweathervids.com/terryscholey.html

I think Terry's done well overall this Winter... If he's right there's more cold weather to come around and after mid-Feb.

Originally Posted by: Gavin P