On Mar 7, 2:47*pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:45*am, Dawlish wrote:





On Mar 7, 4:25*am, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:41*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:02*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Col" wrote in message

...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
.. .

"Col" wrote in message

And?
He can only report what he thinks is likely to happen,
and if what he thinks is likely to happen is similar to
long term trends, then so be it.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

No Col I was being charitable the way he (dawlish ) sticks his neck out
and to hell with it, even if the odds are in his favour, he nails his
colours to the mast. Been a trait of his all winter. I paticular like his
long range prediction that there could be some rain in the UK during the
winter months.

Well, yes indeed.
And he is quite open and honest about it with the 75% confidence
level to forecast at 10 days.
Presumably he considers anything lower than that wold merely be
'guesswork' and he'd get as many forescasts right as wrong, so
what would be the point?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

The point is Col he tries to masquerade as some sort of amateur
meteorologist. He talks reams of cut and paste bull**** hoping it will
baffle brains. Yet all he does is hunt *around the latest overall feel of
the model output which we can all do but would frankly feel too embarrassed
to attempt. Of course a seasoned meteorologist will stick to their guns
despite the model flip flopping.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe you're not going to have that good a day again..............*))

If you ever think what I do is easy - try it 10 times and see how you
do.
If you think there is anyone.or any agency that can forecast with
accuracy at 10 days on a daily, or other basis - show us who they are.

That's why I've been doing this for over 4 years and over 80 forecasts
at 10 days - just to see what the possibilities are when I feel that a
reasonably accurate 10-day forecast is possible. Most of the time,
IMO, it isn't and that has frustrated me for ages and caused me to try
something different myself. It's an experiment that's still ongoing,
but the results to today, 63 correct forecasts out of 81 (77.7%
accuracy) suggests there is more to this than what you think. I have a
forecast at outcome today. See what you think of it when I getl get
round to analysing it later.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* * *There are more than 80 days in 4 years. *There are more than 80
10-day periods in 4 years. 146 of them in fact. *So you're being very
picky indeed about which periods you forecast so it is quite pointless
to measure your success rate. * In any case if the models
(particularly GFS) get it wrong then you get it wrong. *You only make
a forecast *if the models are in agreement. *It's no more than
comparing the odds from a load of bookies and when they're all giving
short odds on a particular gee-gee you say that one is going to win.
Well, anyone can do that. *Why don't you pack it up - you don't fool
anybody, whatever it does for your self-esteem, not that that would
appear to need boosting. *Or maybe it does.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll pack it up when I can't lift the results above 70% and certainly
not as a result of your advice. Your track record on advice doesn't
become you.

If you are so sure of yourself - that this is so easy.........try it
and see if you can spot when something is actually *likely* to achieve
outcome at 10 days. Just do it and see how you do for 10 forecasts.
There's always a few like you who criticise without ever having the
guts to actually try anything like this yourself. Where else on the
Internet - or from individuals and agencies does anyone make forecasts
at 10 days so public and expose themself to analysis (and people like
you) after every single forecast? Could you have actually forecast
high pressure in charge yesterday from 10 days ago with any reasonable
confidence that you could get it right? Could you then do that
another, say, 7 times out of the next 9? You'd have to watch
4,000/5,000 gfs and ECM model runs over that period of time to build
up your skills mind - but that's easy isn't it?

Very well done figuring that there are more than 40 days in 4 years.
As I've said many times and is presently borne out by the MetO 6-15
days forecast changes over the last 48 hours , an accurate, daily, 10
day forecast is beyond present capabilities so don't ask me to do the
impossible; I can't. If it isn't impossible, show me someone, or an
agency, that can do it and I'll happily bow to that. Also - show me
anyone that comes out in front over a period of time with bookies,
always backing short odds and I'll show you a very lucky man. (of
course "anyone could do that" couldn't they? What a daft thing to
say).

How would you interpret when the 10 day output is likely to be correct
and, more importantly, when it is likely to be wrong? You won't like
this, but you are talking about an area of forecasting that you simply
don't understand. You don't comment on model output and you don't
watch model changes with enough assiduousness to be able tell
*anything* that is likely to happen at 10 days. *If you try
forecasting at 10 days, you'll soon understand it. Promise you. That's
all you, Lawrence or any stalker has to do. Easy.

Go on; try it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

* * * Is it worth arguing? *No it isn't. *You pompous arrogant
patronising ****. *No more from me on this group, another one for you
to add to your score though to be honest there are a number of other
reasons as well.

T C Hughes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That really is foul. Good riddance after that contribution. I wish you
well in your pursuit of a world better than the one you inhabit. The
people that replace you will be of a far better quality.

After waving a not so fond goodbye to that particular foul mouthed and
very grumpy old man. Back to the models.

12z gfs continues with the theme. A sinking high, leading to a short
lived northerly, then the possibility of an Atlantic flow, but that
particular operational run shows cold again at T240+. I think that
will be a big outlier after the runs of the last 24 hours. See if the
ECM agrees.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 2:47 pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:45 am, Dawlish wrote:





On Mar 7, 4:25 am, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:41 pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:02 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Col" wrote in message

...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
.. .

"Col" wrote in message

And?
He can only report what he thinks is likely to happen,
and if what he thinks is likely to happen is similar to
long term trends, then so be it.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

No Col I was being charitable the way he (dawlish ) sticks his
neck out
and to hell with it, even if the odds are in his favour, he
nails his
colours to the mast. Been a trait of his all winter. I
paticular like his
long range prediction that there could be some rain in the UK
during the
winter months.

Well, yes indeed.
And he is quite open and honest about it with the 75% confidence
level to forecast at 10 days.
Presumably he considers anything lower than that wold merely be
'guesswork' and he'd get as many forescasts right as wrong, so
what would be the point?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

The point is Col he tries to masquerade as some sort of amateur
meteorologist. He talks reams of cut and paste bull**** hoping it
will
baffle brains. Yet all he does is hunt around the latest overall
feel of
the model output which we can all do but would frankly feel too
embarrassed
to attempt. Of course a seasoned meteorologist will stick to their
guns
despite the model flip flopping.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe you're not going to have that good a day
again..............*))

If you ever think what I do is easy - try it 10 times and see how
you
do.
If you think there is anyone.or any agency that can forecast with
accuracy at 10 days on a daily, or other basis - show us who they
are.

That's why I've been doing this for over 4 years and over 80
forecasts
at 10 days - just to see what the possibilities are when I feel that
a
reasonably accurate 10-day forecast is possible. Most of the time,
IMO, it isn't and that has frustrated me for ages and caused me to
try
something different myself. It's an experiment that's still ongoing,
but the results to today, 63 correct forecasts out of 81 (77.7%
accuracy) suggests there is more to this than what you think. I have
a
forecast at outcome today. See what you think of it when I getl get
round to analysing it later.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are more than 80 days in 4 years. There are more than 80
10-day periods in 4 years. 146 of them in fact. So you're being very
picky indeed about which periods you forecast so it is quite pointless
to measure your success rate. In any case if the models
(particularly GFS) get it wrong then you get it wrong. You only make
a forecast if the models are in agreement. It's no more than
comparing the odds from a load of bookies and when they're all giving
short odds on a particular gee-gee you say that one is going to win.
Well, anyone can do that. Why don't you pack it up - you don't fool
anybody, whatever it does for your self-esteem, not that that would
appear to need boosting. Or maybe it does.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll pack it up when I can't lift the results above 70% and certainly
not as a result of your advice. Your track record on advice doesn't
become you.

If you are so sure of yourself - that this is so easy.........try it
and see if you can spot when something is actually *likely* to achieve
outcome at 10 days. Just do it and see how you do for 10 forecasts.
There's always a few like you who criticise without ever having the
guts to actually try anything like this yourself. Where else on the
Internet - or from individuals and agencies does anyone make forecasts
at 10 days so public and expose themself to analysis (and people like
you) after every single forecast? Could you have actually forecast
high pressure in charge yesterday from 10 days ago with any reasonable
confidence that you could get it right? Could you then do that
another, say, 7 times out of the next 9? You'd have to watch
4,000/5,000 gfs and ECM model runs over that period of time to build
up your skills mind - but that's easy isn't it?

Very well done figuring that there are more than 40 days in 4 years.
As I've said many times and is presently borne out by the MetO 6-15
days forecast changes over the last 48 hours , an accurate, daily, 10
day forecast is beyond present capabilities so don't ask me to do the
impossible; I can't. If it isn't impossible, show me someone, or an
agency, that can do it and I'll happily bow to that. Also - show me
anyone that comes out in front over a period of time with bookies,
always backing short odds and I'll show you a very lucky man. (of
course "anyone could do that" couldn't they? What a daft thing to
say).

How would you interpret when the 10 day output is likely to be correct
and, more importantly, when it is likely to be wrong? You won't like
this, but you are talking about an area of forecasting that you simply
don't understand. You don't comment on model output and you don't
watch model changes with enough assiduousness to be able tell
*anything* that is likely to happen at 10 days. If you try
forecasting at 10 days, you'll soon understand it. Promise you. That's
all you, Lawrence or any stalker has to do. Easy.

Go on; try it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is it worth arguing? No it isn't. You pompous arrogant
patronising ****. No more from me on this group, another one for you
to add to your score though to be honest there are a number of other
reasons as well.

T C Hughes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That really is foul. Good riddance after that contribution. I wish you
well in your pursuit of a world better than the one you inhabit. The
people that replace you will be of a far better quality.

After waving a not so fond goodbye to that particular foul mouthed and
very grumpy old man. Back to the models.

12z gfs continues with the theme. A sinking high, leading to a short
lived northerly, then the possibility of an Atlantic flow, but that
particular operational run shows cold again at T240+. I think that
will be a big outlier after the runs of the last 24 hours. See if the
ECM agrees.



I have to say that in all the years I've known Tudor on here I've never seen
him driven to language like that; not even with me.

You really do have this ability to get right up peoples noses-well done you
must be proud.

i feel vindicated now.

ive been to drive this old fag of a woman dawlish off this forum for a
while.

im going to continue until he ****s off back TWO or net weather or may
to his (her?) non existant web****e run with his boy freind.


Dawlish wrote:

- Show quoted text -
Is it worth arguing? No it isn't. You pompous arrogant
patronising ****. No more from me on this group, another one for you
to add to your score though to be honest there are a number of other
reasons as well.

T C Hughes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That really is foul. Good riddance after that contribution. I wish you
well in your pursuit of a world better than the one you inhabit. The
people that replace you will be of a far better quality.

After waving a not so fond goodbye to that particular foul mouthed and
very grumpy old man. Back to the models.

12z gfs continues with the theme. A sinking high, leading to a short
lived northerly, then the possibility of an Atlantic flow, but that
particular operational run shows cold again at T240+. I think that
will be a big outlier after the runs of the last 24 hours. See if the
ECM agrees.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"Will Hand" wrote in message
...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 2:47 pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:45 am, Dawlish wrote:





On Mar 7, 4:25 am, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:41 pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:02 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Col" wrote in message

...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
.. .

"Col" wrote in message

And?
He can only report what he thinks is likely to happen,
and if what he thinks is likely to happen is similar to
long term trends, then so be it.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

No Col I was being charitable the way he (dawlish ) sticks
his neck out
and to hell with it, even if the odds are in his favour, he
nails his
colours to the mast. Been a trait of his all winter. I
paticular like his
long range prediction that there could be some rain in the UK
during the
winter months.

Well, yes indeed.
And he is quite open and honest about it with the 75%
confidence
level to forecast at 10 days.
Presumably he considers anything lower than that wold merely
be
'guesswork' and he'd get as many forescasts right as wrong, so
what would be the point?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

The point is Col he tries to masquerade as some sort of amateur
meteorologist. He talks reams of cut and paste bull**** hoping
it will
baffle brains. Yet all he does is hunt around the latest overall
feel of
the model output which we can all do but would frankly feel too
embarrassed
to attempt. Of course a seasoned meteorologist will stick to
their guns
despite the model flip flopping.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe you're not going to have that good a day
again..............*))

If you ever think what I do is easy - try it 10 times and see how
you
do.
If you think there is anyone.or any agency that can forecast with
accuracy at 10 days on a daily, or other basis - show us who they
are.

That's why I've been doing this for over 4 years and over 80
forecasts
at 10 days - just to see what the possibilities are when I feel
that a
reasonably accurate 10-day forecast is possible. Most of the time,
IMO, it isn't and that has frustrated me for ages and caused me to
try
something different myself. It's an experiment that's still
ongoing,
but the results to today, 63 correct forecasts out of 81 (77.7%
accuracy) suggests there is more to this than what you think. I
have a
forecast at outcome today. See what you think of it when I getl
get
round to analysing it later.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are more than 80 days in 4 years. There are more than 80
10-day periods in 4 years. 146 of them in fact. So you're being very
picky indeed about which periods you forecast so it is quite
pointless
to measure your success rate. In any case if the models
(particularly GFS) get it wrong then you get it wrong. You only make
a forecast if the models are in agreement. It's no more than
comparing the odds from a load of bookies and when they're all
giving
short odds on a particular gee-gee you say that one is going to win.
Well, anyone can do that. Why don't you pack it up - you don't fool
anybody, whatever it does for your self-esteem, not that that would
appear to need boosting. Or maybe it does.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll pack it up when I can't lift the results above 70% and certainly
not as a result of your advice. Your track record on advice doesn't
become you.

If you are so sure of yourself - that this is so easy.........try it
and see if you can spot when something is actually *likely* to achieve
outcome at 10 days. Just do it and see how you do for 10 forecasts.
There's always a few like you who criticise without ever having the
guts to actually try anything like this yourself. Where else on the
Internet - or from individuals and agencies does anyone make forecasts
at 10 days so public and expose themself to analysis (and people like
you) after every single forecast? Could you have actually forecast
high pressure in charge yesterday from 10 days ago with any reasonable
confidence that you could get it right? Could you then do that
another, say, 7 times out of the next 9? You'd have to watch
4,000/5,000 gfs and ECM model runs over that period of time to build
up your skills mind - but that's easy isn't it?

Very well done figuring that there are more than 40 days in 4 years.
As I've said many times and is presently borne out by the MetO 6-15
days forecast changes over the last 48 hours , an accurate, daily, 10
day forecast is beyond present capabilities so don't ask me to do the
impossible; I can't. If it isn't impossible, show me someone, or an
agency, that can do it and I'll happily bow to that. Also - show me
anyone that comes out in front over a period of time with bookies,
always backing short odds and I'll show you a very lucky man. (of
course "anyone could do that" couldn't they? What a daft thing to
say).

How would you interpret when the 10 day output is likely to be correct
and, more importantly, when it is likely to be wrong? You won't like
this, but you are talking about an area of forecasting that you simply
don't understand. You don't comment on model output and you don't
watch model changes with enough assiduousness to be able tell
*anything* that is likely to happen at 10 days. If you try
forecasting at 10 days, you'll soon understand it. Promise you. That's
all you, Lawrence or any stalker has to do. Easy.

Go on; try it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is it worth arguing? No it isn't. You pompous arrogant
patronising ****. No more from me on this group, another one for you
to add to your score though to be honest there are a number of other
reasons as well.

T C Hughes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That really is foul. Good riddance after that contribution. I wish you
well in your pursuit of a world better than the one you inhabit. The
people that replace you will be of a far better quality.

After waving a not so fond goodbye to that particular foul mouthed and
very grumpy old man. Back to the models.

12z gfs continues with the theme. A sinking high, leading to a short
lived northerly, then the possibility of an Atlantic flow, but that
particular operational run shows cold again at T240+. I think that
will be a big outlier after the runs of the last 24 hours. See if the
ECM agrees.



I have to say that in all the years I've known Tudor on here I've never
seen him driven to language like that; not even with me.

You really do have this ability to get right up peoples noses-well done
you must be proud.

I'm afraid, there's *no* excuse for using the C word in public Lawrence.
I'm sure Tudor might regret that on reflection.

Will
--


The point being Will : Tudor is a polite , intelligent sort of chap who does
not resort to bad behaviour or language very readily I just feel he got fed
up with the likes of me and then Dawlish finished him off.

Come back Tudor you are part of the foundations of this group, don't be
driven away by prats like me.

And Philip whilst I'm at it.

On Mar 8, 12:33*am, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Will Hand" wrote in message

...







"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
.. .

"Dawlish" wrote in message
....
On Mar 7, 2:47 pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:45 am, Dawlish wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:25 am, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:41 pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:02 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Col" wrote in message

...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
.. .

"Col" wrote in message

And?
He can only report what he thinks is likely to happen,
and if what he thinks is likely to happen is similar to
long term trends, then so be it.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

No Col I was being charitable the way he (dawlish ) sticks
his neck out
and to hell with it, even if the odds are in his favour, he
nails his
colours to the mast. Been a trait of his all winter. I
paticular like his
long range prediction that there could be some rain in the UK
during the
winter months.

Well, yes indeed.
And he is quite open and honest about it with the 75%
confidence
level to forecast at 10 days.
Presumably he considers anything lower than that wold merely
be
'guesswork' and he'd get as many forescasts right as wrong, so
what would be the point?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

The point is Col he tries to masquerade as some sort of amateur
meteorologist. He talks reams of cut and paste bull**** hoping
it will
baffle brains. Yet all he does is hunt around the latest overall
feel of
the model output which we can all do but would frankly feel too
embarrassed
to attempt. Of course a seasoned meteorologist will stick to
their guns
despite the model flip flopping.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe you're not going to have that good a day
again..............*))

If you ever think what I do is easy - try it 10 times and see how
you
do.
If you think there is anyone.or any agency that can forecast with
accuracy at 10 days on a daily, or other basis - show us who they
are.

That's why I've been doing this for over 4 years and over 80
forecasts
at 10 days - just to see what the possibilities are when I feel
that a
reasonably accurate 10-day forecast is possible. Most of the time,
IMO, it isn't and that has frustrated me for ages and caused me to
try
something different myself. It's an experiment that's still
ongoing,
but the results to today, 63 correct forecasts out of 81 (77.7%
accuracy) suggests there is more to this than what you think. I
have a
forecast at outcome today. See what you think of it when I getl
get
round to analysing it later.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are more than 80 days in 4 years. There are more than 80
10-day periods in 4 years. 146 of them in fact. So you're being very
picky indeed about which periods you forecast so it is quite
pointless
to measure your success rate. In any case if the models
(particularly GFS) get it wrong then you get it wrong. You only make
a forecast if the models are in agreement. It's no more than
comparing the odds from a load of bookies and when they're all
giving
short odds on a particular gee-gee you say that one is going to win.
Well, anyone can do that. Why don't you pack it up - you don't fool
anybody, whatever it does for your self-esteem, not that that would
appear to need boosting. Or maybe it does.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll pack it up when I can't lift the results above 70% and certainly
not as a result of your advice. Your track record on advice doesn't
become you.

If you are so sure of yourself - that this is so easy.........try it
and see if you can spot when something is actually *likely* to achieve
outcome at 10 days. Just do it and see how you do for 10 forecasts.
There's always a few like you who criticise without ever having the
guts to actually try anything like this yourself. Where else on the
Internet - or from individuals and agencies does anyone make forecasts
at 10 days so public and expose themself to analysis (and people like
you) after every single forecast? Could you have actually forecast
high pressure in charge yesterday from 10 days ago with any reasonable
confidence that you could get it right? Could you then do that
another, say, 7 times out of the next 9? You'd have to watch
4,000/5,000 gfs and ECM model runs over that period of time to build
up your skills mind - but that's easy isn't it?

Very well done figuring that there are more than 40 days in 4 years..
As I've said many times and is presently borne out by the MetO 6-15
days forecast changes over the last 48 hours , an accurate, daily, 10
day forecast is beyond present capabilities so don't ask me to do the
impossible; I can't. If it isn't impossible, show me someone, or an
agency, that can do it and I'll happily bow to that. Also - show me
anyone that comes out in front over a period of time with bookies,
always backing short odds and I'll show you a very lucky man. (of
course "anyone could do that" couldn't they? What a daft thing to
say).

How would you interpret when the 10 day output is likely to be correct
and, more importantly, when it is likely to be wrong? You won't like
this, but you are talking about an area of forecasting that you simply
don't understand. You don't comment on model output and you don't
watch model changes with enough assiduousness to be able tell
*anything* that is likely to happen at 10 days. If you try
forecasting at 10 days, you'll soon understand it. Promise you. That's
all you, Lawrence or any stalker has to do. Easy.

Go on; try it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is it worth arguing? No it isn't. You pompous arrogant
patronising ****. No more from me on this group, another one for you
to add to your score though to be honest there are a number of other
reasons as well.

T C Hughes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That really is foul. Good riddance after that contribution. I wish you
well in your pursuit of a world better than the one you inhabit. The
people that replace you will be of a far better quality.

After waving a not so fond goodbye to that particular foul mouthed and
very grumpy old man. Back to the models.

12z gfs continues with the theme. A sinking high, leading to a short
lived northerly, then the possibility of an Atlantic flow, but that
particular operational run shows cold again at T240+. I think that
will be a big outlier after the runs of the last 24 hours. See if the
ECM agrees.

I have to say that in all the years I've known Tudor on here I've never
seen him driven to language like that; not even with me.

You really do have this ability to get right up peoples noses-well done
you must be proud.

I'm afraid, there's *no* excuse for using the C word in public Lawrence..
I'm sure Tudor might regret that on reflection.

Will
--

The point being Will : Tudor is a polite , intelligent sort of chap who does
not resort to bad behaviour or language very readily I just feel he got fed
up with the likes of me and then Dawlish finished him off.

Come back Tudor you are part of the foundations of this group, don't be
driven away by prats like me.

And Philip whilst I'm at it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, Hughes will be back Lawrence. Like yourself; everyone who
announces they are leaving, looking for some kind of sympathy vote,
always comes back. If you really feel that you don't wish to be a
member of a group any more, you just stop posting. That happens for
all sorts of reasons, in every single group; then new people join and
the group carries on.

On 8 Mar, 07:43, Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:33*am, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:





"Will Hand" wrote in message

...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
.. .

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 2:47 pm, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:45 am, Dawlish wrote:

On Mar 7, 4:25 am, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:41 pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:02 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

"Col" wrote in message

...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
.. .

"Col" wrote in message

And?
He can only report what he thinks is likely to happen,
and if what he thinks is likely to happen is similar to
long term trends, then so be it.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

No Col I was being charitable the way he (dawlish ) sticks
his neck out
and to hell with it, even if the odds are in his favour, he
nails his
colours to the mast. Been a trait of his all winter. I
paticular like his
long range prediction that there could be some rain in the UK
during the
winter months.

Well, yes indeed.
And he is quite open and honest about it with the 75%
confidence
level to forecast at 10 days.
Presumably he considers anything lower than that wold merely
be
'guesswork' and he'd get as many forescasts right as wrong, so
what would be the point?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

The point is Col he tries to masquerade as some sort of amateur
meteorologist. He talks reams of cut and paste bull**** hoping
it will
baffle brains. Yet all he does is hunt around the latest overall
feel of
the model output which we can all do but would frankly feel too
embarrassed
to attempt. Of course a seasoned meteorologist will stick to
their guns
despite the model flip flopping.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe you're not going to have that good a day
again..............*))

If you ever think what I do is easy - try it 10 times and see how
you
do.
If you think there is anyone.or any agency that can forecast with
accuracy at 10 days on a daily, or other basis - show us who they
are.

That's why I've been doing this for over 4 years and over 80
forecasts
at 10 days - just to see what the possibilities are when I feel
that a
reasonably accurate 10-day forecast is possible. Most of the time,
IMO, it isn't and that has frustrated me for ages and caused me to
try
something different myself. It's an experiment that's still
ongoing,
but the results to today, 63 correct forecasts out of 81 (77.7%
accuracy) suggests there is more to this than what you think. I
have a
forecast at outcome today. See what you think of it when I getl
get
round to analysing it later.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are more than 80 days in 4 years. There are more than 80
10-day periods in 4 years. 146 of them in fact. So you're being very
picky indeed about which periods you forecast so it is quite
pointless
to measure your success rate. In any case if the models
(particularly GFS) get it wrong then you get it wrong. You only make
a forecast if the models are in agreement. It's no more than
comparing the odds from a load of bookies and when they're all
giving
short odds on a particular gee-gee you say that one is going to win.
Well, anyone can do that. Why don't you pack it up - you don't fool
anybody, whatever it does for your self-esteem, not that that would
appear to need boosting. Or maybe it does.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll pack it up when I can't lift the results above 70% and certainly
not as a result of your advice. Your track record on advice doesn't
become you.

If you are so sure of yourself - that this is so easy.........try it
and see if you can spot when something is actually *likely* to achieve
outcome at 10 days. Just do it and see how you do for 10 forecasts.
There's always a few like you who criticise without ever having the
guts to actually try anything like this yourself. Where else on the
Internet - or from individuals and agencies does anyone make forecasts
at 10 days so public and expose themself to analysis (and people like
you) after every single forecast? Could you have actually forecast
high pressure in charge yesterday from 10 days ago with any reasonable
confidence that you could get it right? Could you then do that
another, say, 7 times out of the next 9? You'd have to watch
4,000/5,000 gfs and ECM model runs over that period of time to build
up your skills mind - but that's easy isn't it?

Very well done figuring that there are more than 40 days in 4 years.
As I've said many times and is presently borne out by the MetO 6-15
days forecast changes over the last 48 hours , an accurate, daily, 10
day forecast is beyond present capabilities so don't ask me to do the
impossible; I can't. If it isn't impossible, show me someone, or an
agency, that can do it and I'll happily bow to that. Also - show me
anyone that comes out in front over a period of time with bookies,
always backing short odds and I'll show you a very lucky man. (of
course "anyone could do that" couldn't they? What a daft thing to
say).

How would you interpret when the 10 day output is likely to be correct
and, more importantly, when it is likely to be wrong? You won't like
this, but you are talking about an area of forecasting that you simply
don't understand. You don't comment on model output and you don't
watch model changes with enough assiduousness to be able tell
*anything* that is likely to happen at 10 days. If you try
forecasting at 10 days, you'll soon understand it. Promise you. That's
all you, Lawrence or any stalker has to do. Easy.

Go on; try it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is it worth arguing? No it isn't. You pompous arrogant
patronising ****. No more from me on this group, another one for you
to add to your score though to be honest there are a number of other
reasons as well.

T C Hughes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That really is foul. Good riddance after that contribution. I wish you
well in your pursuit of a world better than the one you inhabit. The
people that replace you will be of a far better quality.

After waving a not so fond goodbye to that particular foul mouthed and
very grumpy old man. Back to the models.

12z gfs continues with the theme. A sinking high, leading to a short
lived northerly, then the possibility of an Atlantic flow, but that
particular operational run shows cold again at T240+. I think that
will be a big outlier after the runs of the last 24 hours. See if the
ECM agrees.

I have to say that in all the years I've known Tudor on here I've never
seen him driven to language like that; not even with me.

You really do have this ability to get right up peoples noses-well done
you must be proud.

I'm afraid, there's *no* excuse for using the C word in public Lawrence.
I'm sure Tudor might regret that on reflection.

Will
--

The point being Will : Tudor is a polite , intelligent sort of chap who does
not resort to bad behaviour or language very readily I just feel he got fed
up with the likes of me and then Dawlish finished him off.

Come back Tudor you are part of the foundations of this group, don't be
driven away by prats like me.

And Philip whilst I'm at it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, Hughes will be back Lawrence. Like yourself; everyone who
announces they are leaving, looking for some kind of sympathy vote,
always comes back. If you really feel that you don't wish to be a
member of a group any more, you just stop posting. That happens for
all sorts of reasons, in every single group; then new people join and
the group carries on.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm afraid they often don't. There are many that have just faded away,
bored with all the bickering. How many posts have you seen from say
Steve Loft lately? Just look back at the people who used to post
regularly 2 years ago. I'm primarily an observer, interested in what
the weather is doing. I'm as capable as the next man of looking at
model forecasts, and don't need to read massive arguments over whether
it will be cold in 12 days time. (Darren does do a great job of
summarising them)

The group may well carry on, bit it's lost many of the members who
made it what it was, and I find the reaction to them leaving vaguely
depressing.

Bye

Graham
Penzance

In article
,
Graham Easterling writes:
I'm afraid they often don't. There are many that have just faded away,
bored with all the bickering. How many posts have you seen from say
Steve Loft lately? Just look back at the people who used to post
regularly 2 years ago. I'm primarily an observer, interested in what
the weather is doing. I'm as capable as the next man of looking at
model forecasts, and don't need to read massive arguments over whether
it will be cold in 12 days time. (Darren does do a great job of
summarising them)

The group may well carry on, bit it's lost many of the members who
made it what it was, and I find the reaction to them leaving vaguely
depressing.

It's natural, though to be regretted, that a proportion of posters
should leave over time for one reason or another. The real problem is
that few new posters have been arriving to replace them. Newsgroups have
become increasingly marginalised, with few people who joined the Net
within the last ten years or so even being aware that there is anything
other than the Web and email.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On 8 Mar, 10:58, John Hall wrote:

It's natural, though to be regretted, that a proportion of posters
should leave over time for one reason or another. The real problem is
that few new posters have been arriving to replace them. Newsgroups have
become increasingly marginalised, with few people who joined the Net
within the last ten years or so even being aware that there is anything
other than the Web and email.

Sadly I feel the science bit is sorely lacking and it's 75% the inane
handle-turn of model-watching, so it's no surprise some have left.
Maybe uk.weather.forecasts is more apt?

Richard

hang on you ****ed off for months when you ran off to do that ****ty
website with your boyfreind.

that failed, what a surprise.

then you come running back to usw.

hypocritical lying *******.



Dawlish wrote:


Oh, Hughes will be back Lawrence. Like yourself; everyone who
announces they are leaving, looking for some kind of sympathy vote,
always comes back. If you really feel that you don't wish to be a
member of a group any more, you just stop posting. That happens for
all sorts of reasons, in every single group; then new people join and
the group carries on.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"Richard Dixon" wrote in message
...
On 8 Mar, 10:58, John Hall wrote:

It's natural, though to be regretted, that a proportion of posters
should leave over time for one reason or another. The real problem is
that few new posters have been arriving to replace them. Newsgroups have
become increasingly marginalised, with few people who joined the Net
within the last ten years or so even being aware that there is anything
other than the Web and email.

Sadly I feel the science bit is sorely lacking and it's 75% the inane
handle-turn of model-watching, so it's no surprise some have left.
Maybe uk.weather.forecasts is more apt?

Richard

But Richard, didn't you make model watching more easy recently!

Perhaps if you yourself posted more science articles, things may improve
instead of just criticising others like I have just done, oops :-)

Will
--