Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

pl1

Will There Be Snow In October?

Recommended Posts

So I'm sure we've all been nervously reading the far-out weather reports about snow in October etc. so for once I thought I'd try and plan ahead a bit (i.e. stick a post on hpcot). So; snow in October or not? What the hell's going on Chris25? Anyone?

edit: seems pretty hot out there to me, but what do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm sure we've all been nervously reading the far-out weather reports about snow in October etc. so for once I thought I'd try and plan ahead a bit (i.e. stick a post on hpcot). So; snow in October or not? What the hell's going on Chris25? Anyone?

edit: seems pretty hot out there to me, but what do I know?

Snow predicted in the October to January time frame by a winter tyre specialist....hmmmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Express headline a week or two ago was 'arctic chill coming in October!!!' or something similarly shit.

So it's no surprise that we now have the hottest October for 20 years!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long term weather forecast is 10-14 days. Anything more is simply made up. And I am prepared to put up serious cash for anyone who wishes to argue this point.

I shall not hold my breath. Because I am correct. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metcheck says the good weather will be over by Thursday and we will see sub-zero temperatures at night. It also predicts >300mph winds, which doesn't seem likely; however the general consensus is that the heat-wave will be over by the end of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know how sh!t the weather is here when one of the top stories on the news is that we've had an 'Indian' heat of 30degC in London today (not up here in Scotland, let me tell you)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long term weather forecast is 10-14 days. Anything more is simply made up. And I am prepared to put up serious cash for anyone who wishes to argue this point.

I shall not hold my breath. Because I am correct. ;)

Anyone......

You know how sh!t the weather is here when one of the top stories on the news is that we've had an 'Indian' heat of 30degC in London today (not up here in Scotland, let me tell you)!

To be fair it was roasting the last few days. Loads of pasty skinned chavs all over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone......

To be fair it was roasting the last few days. Loads of pasty skinned chavs all over.

weather forecasts are called forecasts because they are predictions, not certainty.

The weather is chaotic, so any forecast into the future involves some degree of uncertainty. Of course the public don't want to know this. They want to know things like "there WILL be a barbeque summer or there WILL be a freezing winter" not "there is a 60% chance of a barbeque summer or there is an 80% chance of a freezing winter".

The better and more powerful modelling and sensing we have the more we can forecast into the future. We can also look at historical data and glean information from this. So for example people study macroscopic patterns such as El Nino and the NAO and use them to make general predictions about weather to come. Again there is no certainty in this, only trends.

Debating or betting with you on these issues would be pointless because your argument isn't properly scientifically qualified. Scientists have different models for prediciting weather, different data collection and interpretation systems. What scientists can say about the weather in advance and how accurate it is depends on the models and the processing capability, how you define weather etc.

To illustrate the futility of debating this point with you I will forecast the weather now 16 days in advance. The mean daily temperature will be between -10 and 40 degrees C in the UK. The windspeed will be between 0 and 100 kph. There may be precipitation, or there may not. There may be clouds, and there may be not. There you go. I have predicted the weather 16 days in advance and I'm pretty sure I will be accurate.

FTR, my "guess" is that if you analysed weather predicitions from scientists for 20 days ahead you would find that they are more accurate than those arrived at by random chance. How much better they would be of course would depend on a lot of things, including where you are in the world, how you define weather etc. In this respect you could say that your argument is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

weather forecasts are called forecasts because they are predictions, not certainty.

The weather is chaotic, so any forecast into the future involves some degree of uncertainty. Of course the public don't want to know this. They want to know things like "there WILL be a barbeque summer or there WILL be a freezing winter" not "there is a 60% chance of a barbeque summer or there is an 80% chance of a freezing winter".

The better and more powerful modelling and sensing we have the more we can forecast into the future. We can also look at historical data and glean information from this. So for example people study macroscopic patterns such as El Nino and the NAO and use them to make general predictions about weather to come. Again there is no certainty in this, only trends.

Debating or betting with you on these issues would be pointless because your argument isn't properly scientifically qualified. Scientists have different models for prediciting weather, different data collection and interpretation systems. What scientists can say about the weather in advance and how accurate it is depends on the models and the processing capability, how you define weather etc.

To illustrate the futility of debating this point with you I will forecast the weather now 16 days in advance. The mean daily temperature will be between -10 and 40 degrees C in the UK. The windspeed will be between 0 and 100 kph. There may be precipitation, or there may not. There may be clouds, and there may be not. There you go. I have predicted the weather 16 days in advance and I'm pretty sure I will be accurate.

FTR, my "guess" is that if you analysed weather predicitions from scientists for 20 days ahead you would find that they are more accurate than those arrived at by random chance. How much better they would be of course would depend on a lot of things, including where you are in the world, how you define weather etc. In this respect you could say that your argument is wrong.

In other words, they can't do it and they should stop taking public money and pretending they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, they can't do it and they should stop taking public money and pretending they can.

That rather simplistic response is typical of the uninformed public.

First of all "they can't do it", a response that may work in a pub environment with your mates, but not to any serious scientist. It's not that they "can't do it", it's that they cannot do it with 100% certainty. They forecast (that's why it's called a forecast rather than a certainty) that things will happen with a probability of success that diminishes with an increasing time frame.

If you talk to someone from the met office (I by the way do not work for them) I am sure that they will not claim or pretend that they can forecast the weather with 100% certainty. They will probably try to put across the same points as I do, but of course this is difficult with a largely innumerate and scientifically illiterate public.

On the issue of whether they should take public money, I don't know what conclusions you based you ideas that the government should stop funding the Met Office for long term forecasting, but I'd be interested in hearing them.

For me, I guess it depends on the economic value of having this sort of information and the benefits we get from learning how to model things like this. For example if a reliable 3 month forecast could be developed, maybe it could allow farmers to plant extra crops per year, better logistical planning in terms of things like gritting, filling up gas tanks and road works etc. I have no idea what the current spend is on the Met Office long term forecasting and what the estimated return in terms of economic benefits this provides, so I'll refrain from calling for their funding to be cancelled.

Some people might argue that the weather is a bigger threat to us than terrorists. For example, what kills more people, winter cold or terrorists ? Is it the governments job to prepare and protect us from threats ? Is the relative spend on say the army/long range weather forecasting appropriate ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long term weather forecast is 10-14 days. Anything more is simply made up. And I am prepared to put up serious cash for anyone who wishes to argue this point.

I shall not hold my breath. Because I am correct. ;)

I'll forecast s**t weather for Scotland, for the next 10,000 years. You on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, they can't do it and they should stop taking public money and pretending they can.

It was always a serious military operation..

The UK is one of the worst places in the world for weather forecasting.3 days is usually good, 4-6 ok, past that varies. Want more accurate forecasts, emigrate, atacama desert has a good 400 year forecast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

For me, I guess it depends on the economic value of having this sort of information and the benefits we get from learning how to model things like this. For example if a reliable 3 month forecast could be developed, maybe it could allow farmers to plant extra crops per year, better logistical planning in terms of things like gritting, filling up gas tanks and road works etc. I have no idea what the current spend is on the Met Office long term forecasting and what the estimated return in terms of economic benefits this provides, so I'll refrain from calling for their funding to be cancelled.

Some people might argue that the weather is a bigger threat to us than terrorists. For example, what kills more people, winter cold or terrorists ? Is it the governments job to prepare and protect us from threats ? Is the relative spend on say the army/long range weather forecasting appropriate ?

If farmers could benefit financially from said information then why not let them pay for it? Presumably if the Met Office is so important then a private alternative would emerge if their funding was cut. But my betting is no private company would dare charge for the seemingly uninformed drivel that passes for forecasting in this country. And that isn't a man in the pub opinion by the way - by comparing what they say with will happen with what actually happens you can soon build up a picture of their success rate, and it isn't good I can tell you. But then it doesn't really matter as our weather is changeable yet mostly benign.

And comparing funding the Met Office with our totally disproportionate fears about the "Terror Threat" is not a great comparison either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

It was always a serious military operation..

The UK is one of the worst places in the world for weather forecasting.3 days is usually good, 4-6 ok, past that varies. Want more accurate forecasts, emigrate, atacama desert has a good 400 year forecast.

As it happens I neither want nor need better forecasts, but I'd like to stop being charged for shit ones. And the 3 day forecast is "usually good"? Do me a favour. Generally their forecasts have gone awry by the next day, although sometimes it only takes 6-12 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weather forecasts are called forecasts because they are predictions, not certainty.

The weather is chaotic, so any forecast into the future involves some degree of uncertainty. Of course the public don't want to know this. They want to know things like "there WILL be a barbeque summer or there WILL be a freezing winter" not "there is a 60% chance of a barbeque summer or there is an 80% chance of a freezing winter".

The better and more powerful modelling and sensing we have the more we can forecast into the future. We can also look at historical data and glean information from this. So for example people study macroscopic patterns such as El Nino and the NAO and use them to make general predictions about weather to come. Again there is no certainty in this, only trends.

Debating or betting with you on these issues would be pointless because your argument isn't properly scientifically qualified. Scientists have different models for prediciting weather, different data collection and interpretation systems. What scientists can say about the weather in advance and how accurate it is depends on the models and the processing capability, how you define weather etc.

To illustrate the futility of debating this point with you I will forecast the weather now 16 days in advance. The mean daily temperature will be between -10 and 40 degrees C in the UK. The windspeed will be between 0 and 100 kph. There may be precipitation, or there may not. There may be clouds, and there may be not. There you go. I have predicted the weather 16 days in advance and I'm pretty sure I will be accurate.

FTR, my "guess" is that if you analysed weather predicitions from scientists for 20 days ahead you would find that they are more accurate than those arrived at by random chance. How much better they would be of course would depend on a lot of things, including where you are in the world, how you define weather etc. In this respect you could say that your argument is wrong.

Thats a hell of a longwinderdway to say you basically agree with what I said.;)

I'll forecast s**t weather for Scotland, for the next 10,000 years. You on?

Really ? Well considering it was 27C on Thursday and more like the Med - and in April we had over 3 weeks on non stop sunshine and light winds - I would quite happily make a bet on these grounds. Or I could just give you my bank details and you can just pay me right now to save the hassle. :D

It was always a serious military operation..

The UK is one of the worst places in the world for weather forecasting.3 days is usually good, 4-6 ok, past that varies. Want more accurate forecasts, emigrate, atacama desert has a good 400 year forecast.

:lol:

Funny you should say that. I was travelling through there in 2001 and our bus had to divert via some incredibly dodgy back road due to severe flooding that had washed away all the bridges on the main road.

So perhaps you could change the above from 400 to 10. ;)

As it happens I neither want nor need better forecasts, but I'd like to stop being charged for shit ones. And the 3 day forecast is "usually good"? Do me a favour. Generally their forecasts have gone awry by the next day, although sometimes it only takes 6-12 hours.

Yep - most forecasts are pish. The only decent ones I use are from Wetterzentralle. They have a long term forecast that is fairly accurate - however it just gives a general view of airmasses etc.. and does not go into great detail. Makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a hell of a longwinderdway to say you basically agree with what I said.;)

Really ? Well considering it was 27C on Thursday and more like the Med - and in April we had over 3 weeks on non stop sunshine and light winds - I would quite happily make a bet on these grounds. Or I could just give you my bank details and you can just pay me right now to save the hassle. :D

:lol:

Funny you should say that. I was travelling through there in 2001 and our bus had to divert via some incredibly dodgy back road due to severe flooding that had washed away all the bridges on the main road.

So perhaps you could change the above from 400 to 10. ;)

Yep - most forecasts are pish. The only decent ones I use are from Wetterzentralle. They have a long term forecast that is fairly accurate - however it just gives a general view of airmasses etc.. and does not go into great detail. Makes sense.

Was the 27 degrees in Scotland?!? I thought it was raining up there the last few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the 27 degrees in Scotland?!? I thought it was raining up there the last few days.

Has been since Saturday. Wed - Fri was immense though. Well apart from the chavs that all seem to take their tops off and show their scrawny wee white bodies to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If farmers could benefit financially from said information then why not let them pay for it? Presumably if the Met Office is so important then a private alternative would emerge if their funding was cut.

The Met Office sell all kinds of services which people pay for: 30 seconds on their website finds a big list of stuff here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/services . Presumably their accounts are in the public domain, so it shouldn't be too hard to find out how much income they make from industry buying their services.

But my betting is no private company would dare charge for the seemingly uninformed drivel that passes for forecasting in this country.

There are any number of private companies selling forecasts to people. That's how the sceptics' hero Piers Corbyn, for one, makes money: http://www.weatheraction.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Met Office annual accounts for 2010/11 can be found at www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/b/q/ara11amend.pdf (PDF). They say

Turnover increased in-year by 2.2%, from £192 million in 2009/10 to £196.1 million. The majority of the growth has been in Commercial revenue streams, increasing by £2.9 million to £32.2 million. Government revenue streams held steady with a small increase compared to 2009/10.
Operating profit increased from £6.7 million in 2009/10 to £9.4 million in 2010/11.

...

Total dividends payable to our Owner, the Ministry of Defence were £8.2 million in respect of 2010/11 (2009/10 £4.5 million).

Presumably a lot of the accounting stuff is just recycling money between government departments, but they're definitely selling stuff to commercial concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To illustrate the futility of debating this point with you I will forecast the weather now 16 days in advance. The mean daily temperature will be between -10 and 40 degrees C in the UK. The windspeed will be between 0 and 100 kph. There may be precipitation, or there may not. There may be clouds, and there may be not. There you go. I have predicted the weather 16 days in advance and I'm pretty sure I will be accurate.

PS - You do realise the Shetland Isles, Tiree and Thurso are part of the UK :rolleyes:

Betting against winds being above 100 KPH in thse places in October ? You have clearly never been to them. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a hell of a longwinderdway to say you basically agree with what I said.;)

No, it's really a long wind of saying that it's pointless debating with you because your initial point is not well qualified enough for a serious discussion on the subject.

If your interested in a debate along the lines of :

"The weather forecastings shit isn't it ?"

"Yeah, I've been watching it for years and it seems crap to me"

"Aye. How about another pint of 20 shilling ?"

Then your initial point is probably acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.