How very true.  One trick pony springs to mind.

I'm not taking much notice of what the MetO has too say this early on - although that forecast does surprise me somewhat I have to say..  

Play nicely please..

It's also very, very, very important to remember that this refers to the overall average temperature across Dec-Jan-Feb.

It's possible that those charts could signifiy the warmest ever December followed by the coldest ever January and a fairly mundane February - or any combination thereof.   It does not in any way signifiy that there will or will not be spells of either very cold or very warm weather over the 3 month period.

The only think we might say from the lastest run is that assuming we don't also get a prolonged spell of record warmth, we probably will not see a cold spell longer or more prononced than we had last winter and most likely any cold will be less severve.

It's NOT a forecast    It's a tool that may be used in conjunction with much other data when compiling a forecast.

However, looking at the output in a bit more detail, there is a clear signal for the latter part of winter to be warmest with spring arriving early (again!) - not unusual with La Nina.  

So it could be another case of winter over by Christmas

Tools containing forecast data (it can't be anything else).  Lets not get picky though eh. 

I agree though, a cold front end followed by a grey a dreary post Christmas seems a favoursed scenario by many if you disseminate across the LRFs offered up so far. 

I'm not a fan of the early Spring scenario, not only because it takes away half of our traditional winter period, but more so because it completely cocks up the following year in so many ways. 

That MetOffice winter temp chart doesn't seem to say anything at all to me.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/images/prob_ensemble/20111001/3up_20111001_temp2m_months35_europe_prob_public.png

It offers a 40-60% chance that temperatures averaged over three months will be above normal, and a 40-60% chance they will be normal or below.

As a "normal" winter includes one or more periods of colder than normal temperatures, I don't see how you can draw any kind of conclusion at all regarding what to expect.

Put it this way: if you're a cold-weather lover, you'd be happy enough with a "normal" winter, and these charts are saying that is what you might get; on the other hand, though, you might not.

I apologise for shouting    Only, in Oct last year a numpty in the media saw those charts and decided to run a story - picked up by everyone else - claiming that the MetO were forecasting a mild winter   And there are lot of folk who still think that was the case.

I prefer a traditional cold Feb too - warmth in April is fine though.

Last winter was quite bizarre with it all being over for much of the country mid Jan.  I'm still waiting to see my first snow of 2011.

Agree with that. Speaking of enso, there is now a rather large area of -4c anomaly waters in the sub-surface area in the Enso region.  The more I'm watching this thing develop, the more I think it will be a moderate, rather than weak event.

For anyone interested in viewing the sub surface data, you can do this here (click on the depth section)

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/disdel/disdel.html

Whilst I agree to some extent with peoples view of the LRFs being banded about as being "tripe" I do find it a bit unfair especially from people that claim to have the qualifications and knowledge but won't actually stick theit own neck out and post any more than a wooly "gut feel".  At least some people will have a go and be brave and give us all something to talk about.  Lets face it, LRFs are becoming more and more accurate as the technology and our understanding of the weather and the planet grows, we're far more able than we were 20 years ago to predict what the weather will be like in 3-6 months time - that is not me claiming it is accurate, just MORE accurate. 

"We can only thank those who push the boundries of discovery, who make the mistakes, who receive critisism or the glory, for it is his mistakes and his glory that forges the tool of our knowledge and power"

The thing is, even organisations like the Met Office, with an immense amount of expertise/experince amongst their staff and massive computing power, can only issue trend type LRF's, and even then without a high degree of accuracy.

I read some LRF's that give detailed weather predictions for specific weeks, about 3 months in advance. And these are from enthusiastic amateurs with relatively next to no computing power available. Whilst I'm never going to rubbish these people (unless they're forecasting some near-impossible snowmageddon scenario, in which case they're just after attention), and do enjoy reading most, their 'forecasts' are nothing but figments of their imagination, perhaps loosely backed up by some understanding of likely trends.

There are other amateur LRF'ers who do follow the trend-type forecast format, and I'd give more credence to these people.

But overall, I personally haven't seen any evidence of amateur LRF's becoming more accurate in recent years.

However, I think it's out of order to have a sly dig at a qualified meteorologist, simply because they don't try to produce an LRF

That wasn't a sly dig, it was a dig.  Qualified Meteoroligist or not, you should not belittle somebody elses views or work just because they are not a "professional", that kind of behaviour in itself is quite un-professional in my opinion.

To start out by slandering others for not knowing and then to offer "my gut feel" or "my feelings" with no actual commitment to anything, is a bit hypocritical, that was my point.  I intended no personal offence, it just raised my eyebrows a little. 

Many of us believe that some of the "tripe" that has been in the papers of late does hold weight, and I wouldn't mind betting that meteorological offices (if they don't already) will be using such data in their forecasts in the future once it has been proven with more weight that they do affect the weather on our planet more than we once thought.

The problem as I see it is that you have journalists under pressure coupled with appalling press offices at places like the Met Office. The Met Office PROs should know that anything that organisation puts out about 'extreme' weather events is likely to be seized upon by reporters and the sub editors (those who write the headlines). This is what PROs are paid for - to ensure that the organisation's message is conveyed accurately.

I don't know (because I haven't seen the MetO's original press release on this) but I strongly suspect that there were no caveats about this only being a possible explanation for wintry conditions in the past and was not a prediction/forecast for the future.

Is that really what he was doing, though? I've re-read the preceding posts, and not once do I see this.

Instead, I see the more sensationalist forecasts for winter, which have been picked up and in some cases further exaggerated by various papers, labelled as 'tripe'. My enduring suspicion is that the motivation for issuing such eye-popping LRF's is more to do with gaining publicity for their commercial forecasting organisations than anything else.

And, through experience, if the winter turns out to be nothing like Madden & others of his ilk have proclaimed, most people will heap the blame on the Met Office for getting it so wrong.

CFS continues to paint a very blocked picture to the north for November;

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images3/glbz700Mon.gif

If this comes off (and I reakon the medium range models are already beginning to move in that direction for the end of October) we could be looking at a notably and unusually cold November.

Beyond that CFS still keen to collapse the heights over us into winter.

Like last year, but a month earlier? Hopefully not - I've started to get used to having snow lying deep'n'crisp'n'even on Xmas Day!

When you look at this;

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images3/glbz200Mon.gif

It looks as though we still more or less keep a negative NAO into December as well, though not as obviously as November.

No scientific post here whatsoever, but with the tendancy towards showing a blocked and cold November, it brings to mind the old wives' tale "Ice in November to bear a duck, nothing in winter but slush and muck."

The chances of a blocked and cold November are increasing in my opinion, but the same can't be said for winter.

Very often, these old proverbs actually ring true, so it will be interesting to see how November unfolds.

This is all very similar to last year. December was constantly being modelled as blocked. This time November is being modelled to be very blocked, and I would not be surprised to see a cold month, colder than last year. I reckon the cold will last throughout, unlike last November, when it only turn cold around the end. This is probably what all the models seem to be hinting at. The jigsaw falling into place, just like last year with the models too and lrf?

Also, to my eye, December is improving slightly on the cfs from you're link Gavin, it would not take much to send some of that pressure to Greenland. It looks anticyclonic and cold. If la nina downgrades as you think, the winter on the whole may look better if the cfs charts pick up on it.

The 3 monthly CFS Charts are showing November to January have below normal precipation. Yet December to Febuary is normal for just about all.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images3/euPrecProbSea.gif

As for temperatures,

November to January have below normal temperatures for just about all, Yet December to Febuary is above normal for Yorkshire south and north it's normal. (Looking like a warm spring again too)

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images3/euT2mProbSea.gif

The monthly charts show things better,

November Cold

December Normal, maybe slighly warmer down South

January as ^above^

February - Normal for the South below for parts of the North

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images3/euT2mProbMon.gif

Gavin, I know this has been explained to you a lot, so you must know this by now, but these charts are probability maps.

As long as the rest of us are savvy thats ok.