View Article & Comments

Last nights BBC weather report at 22:30 after the TV news said max temps in London will be 27C to 28C, but their map just showed 28C. This morning on BBC1 the weather map was now showing 29C. So how does the forecasted temp change like this just between two tv weather reports over night?

Clearly the BBC/Met Office warming bias is always over estimating.

What the hell is Piers on about. One can not see where the jet stream is from surface charts. One can hazard a guess but in this case his guess is totally wrong.

Now we can't see the jet stream charts from the MO model but we can from the GFS model and since the surface chart is roughly in agreement with the MO chart

http://expert-images.weatheronline.co.uk/daten/proficharts/en/2012/05/24/basis12/euro/pslv/12052712_2412.gif

we can assume that they agree where the jet stream is and from

http://expert-images.weatheronline.co.uk/daten/proficharts/en/2012/05/24/basis12/euro/jet3/12052712_2412.gif

we can see that it has been pushed well to the north of the UK.

Good job Piers doesn't do aviation forecasts.

Here's the latest 300mb polar jet stream, well west and north of us.

http://virga.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_atl_init_00.gif

Not sure what Piers is thinking with the lows?

Bit hot, but at least it hasn't been the 'two day beep' that Piers forecast on Monday.

HadCET up to May 23rd showing 10.3. This doesn't appear to be panning out very well for WeatherActions "Coldest May for 100 Years forcast" as stressed by Piers in his post on 14/5.

If it's not too big a question (and I suspect it is, what changed?

I don't think anything 'changed' Chris, other forecasts correctly picked up on a cold start followed by a warm end. This includes the Met Office contingency planners outlook which said that despite a continuation of the cooler weather from April into May the overall mean temperature would most likely be on the warm side of the 71-00 average, which looks quite possible.

Current CET anomaly is about -0.4 and this will reduce (less negative) a bit more as the warm weather looks as if it will last to the end of the month.
This means that this May will turn out to be about average and certainly no where near to being the coldest for 100 years and we have not had the run the 'record run of bitter northerly winds'.

Now of course, Piers' forecast was a probability forecast which means that one cannot say absolutely whether it was right or wrong. (Although of course that doesn't stop Piers calling Met Office probability forecasts right or wrong such as the infamous BBQ summer.)

But with a 80% probability and a 90% of being within the 5 coldest Mays it is certainly way off the mark and the MO forecast was a far more accurate guide. And the MO forecast was free.

I like the site, you write about very important problems.I am sure reading about science and environment is important and this knowledge is just necessary.
installment loans

Ware SPAM above!

So THE NEWS IS our detailed forecast for May in Britain & Ireland went wrong from 22nd of May. This contrasts with Met Office* and others where it would be NEWS if they had a long range forecast right in general; let alone even had detail to talk about. (*NB Contrary to claims MO services are not free but costs you in tax and BBC licence fee)

Recall WeatherAction has an independently proven record of long range forecasting significant skill ahead of all others whereas the MetOffice has a record of failure which does not seem to interest cowards who hide behind pseudonyms and neither declare their interests nor subscribe to WeatherAction forecasts which might enable then to read what they selectively complain about, nor do they ever take part in open public discussion on their 'problems'.

One can tell we must have got something wrong now and right in the period before judging by the sudden chorus from the churls club who have been pretty quiet for three weeks and at last have something to complain about while ignoring all the astounding successes of our May forecast experienced and expressed by users in the first 3 weeks of May.

The first thing to say is that one has to assess what we said not words of those who systematically misrepresent what we say and do and cannot forecast anything more than a few days ahead and do not seem to know - or ignore - the details.

We did not predict the term "THE coldest May for 100 years" and did not refer to CET as the main measure - although it is of course one thing to consider along with daily records in relevant parts. The summary headline issued 16th April was:

May 2012 Headline summary & essential weather type development.
The coldest or near coldest May for 100 years in Central and East parts with a record run of bitter Northerly winds. Snow at times especially on high ground in NE / East. Spring put in reverse.
*Confidence of E / SE England mean temps: Coldest in 100yrs 80%; In 5 coldest in 100yrs 90%
The full forecast in 8 weather periods included loads more detail with the standard statement "Likely success rate is 6 basically successful out of the 8". Commentary and warnings were primarily about setbacks to the growing season and the economy.

WHAT TOOK PLACE IN FIRST 3 WEEKS OF MAY

1. Spring was 'put in reverse' and the growing season seriously set back as warned.
Note monthly averages would not be expected to necessarily reveal this. WeatherAction forecasts are more detailed than all other long range views, and THAT is their point. They are APPLICABLE and useful to farmers and businesses in Britain, Ireland, Europe and USA whereas less resolved monthly averages conceal DECISIVE detail which is vital to all for whom weather is a SERIOUS matter.

2. The forecast was well confirmed for the first 6 of the 8 weather periods, and as one user commented they were 'very happy with 100% right for three weeks' compared with no useful long range information from anyone else.

3. The first three weeks did see temperatures in East and Central (especially East as warned) parts confirmed:
(i) At loads of locations as being around or in the coldest 5% or lower of day or night temperatures in the last 100 years.
NOTE WeatherAction forecasts are much more about detail and developments, which no others attempt, than averages.
(ii) As running at means of around as cold or colder than the coldest 5% in the last 100 years in East and central parts compared to normals over that period. (data required for these two points, based on feedback)

4. The East/West split in Temp and precip was confirmed

5. A notable (record) run of northerly winds was confirmed in the first three weeks (the nature of the 'record' was not specified but no-one can dispute there were a lot more northerly (ie NE-NW sector) winds than normal for three weeks. Of course churls will only want to refer to the month as a whole but this run with associated cold was the important thing for the economy and growing/farming. The damage was done by 22nd May. Will the Churls club admit that?
Frost damage is not reversed by a subsequent spell of warm days; any more than a drowned person recovers when taken out of the water.
The degree-day concepts (essentially a pseudo-scientific fancy way of reporting averages or thereabouts) of standard meteorology for forecasting plant growth have recognized shortcomings when confronted with the contrasty nature of what is now taking place. Those concepts are designed as the best available for standard meteorology to attempt to achieve something - NOT as the best available forecast data for agriculture which is what WeatherAction provides.

6. SNOW more than normal as shown in forecast detail especially in Scot + NE was confirmed "and how" as some Scotland monitors noted!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/12/article-2142859-130999D1000005DC-279_964x585.jpg
- of 11th May. See also

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142859/UK-weather-Sun-England-Snow-Scotland-Eels-Wales-Mays-weather-gets-madder.html
- for MetO failures around 11th May when snow hit instead of MO forecasted brighter weather (eg Cumbria pic caption). This was just one of many MetO forecast errors in May quietly forgotten (in fact not even countenanced) by the delusional churls who have been starved of attacks on WeatherAction for 3 weeks and are now desperate to make up for lost ground.

7. It is no small point to highlight developments through the month because to describe May afterwards as "clos(er) to normal temperatures" will completely conceal the true nature of what happened. It was basically like winter for 3 weeks and flipped to a spell of high summer in two days - something the MetO only saw coming a few days ahead. Weather Action captured the very cold three weeks from weeks ahead when all others said it wouldn't happen.

8. The forecast went wrong from 22nd May for Britain & Ireland and West Europe (but NOT for USA and other world events) with a sudden growth of the Scandinavian High. The reasons for this are PARTLY understood and were discussed at WeatherAction meeting on 25th May (and note those who spout rage against our work never turn up and the MetOffice and other forecasters do not afford anyone the right to regular monthly public consultation on their 'long range' forecasts/prognoses.)
The churls will complain we are looking at 3 weeks rather than a month. This is not so but we and our users decide what we look at and what is important for the advance of forecasting. Others have another agenda.

One point from the meeting was that around 21st May a number of factors simultaneously hit or changed in major ways and some simplification of this 'spaghetti junction of activity' may have led to the error.
Note what I meant about the tracks of lows / the Jet stream - which admittedly was not well explained in my note on WSI above - was also discussed at the meeting. The imperious comments (the links and dates for which confuse readers and mis the points made) take us nowhere.

9. The R5 period 23-25th May was confirmed in specific detail and in general developments around the world including USA but NOT in Brit + Ire + (west) Europe. This 'part world' error has been noted before and confirms the prime role of USA / Canada in world response to solar-Lunar forcing described under The Solar Lunar Action Technique (SLAT7A)

We are doing further work to see if the error could have been avoided but think it IS possible with some more 'wise-ing-up' to this period of approach to the new Little Ice Age (which we have pointed out is about LARGE CONTRASTS as well as general decline in temperate zone temperatures)
Users note that with successive advances WeatherAction forecasts have improved in coverage, detail, accuracy and skill and we have every intention to continue advance on the lines that F1 teams and car manufacturers improve performance after every race / season however much it annoys those who moan 'oh not another change' and prefer nothing to advance.

10. No amount of selective churlish attacks on the successful, original and unique scientific work of WeatherAction will improve MetO and other systematically failed forecasts one jot nor justify the thieving claims of the MetO and associates to $millions more in handouts for more computing power to get wrong or useless answers quicker nor will it make the perpetrators of these attacks into better people by one moral micro-cred.

FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MAY FORECAST AND THE ERROR FROM 22nd SEE NOTES (which will be expanded and also reported in Vid)
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=459&c=5

The problem is Piers you gave a long range forecast that described what the overall temperature conditions of May would be. You unfortunately did not just say that it would be a cold start to May - that would have been accurate and useful. If I was a salad grower, an ice cream manufacturer or a BBQ distributor I might have been caught short on boom conditions in the final 10 days of May if I'd relied on your forecast.
Now, I'm not saying that any other forecaster or organisation fully predicted the warmth in the latter part of May - that is the nature of weather, long term predictions of fine detail are as elusive to you as anyone else. It is better to give shorter term, accurate forecasts than long term, inaccurate ones.

I feel that your agenda to continually deride others in an attempt to boost your own profile does you a great disservice.

Try Reading Elim (who has an email that 'doesnt exist') and please stop your lies. They ill behove anyone promoting the Met Office. And again by the way; Who do you work for? and why did you post a phoney e-mail address on WeatherAction web site?

Our long range forecasts have pretty detailed descriptions in 8 weather periods including maps (and graphs for 30day).

But then you won't know because you contribute nothing so havn't read a forecast I suspect - and just make things up. True or false?
I wouldn't comment on a forecast by anyone if I hadn't read it and am actually totally astounded that you do. This is Orwellian doublethink! This revelation calls into question everything else you say. Before you decide to delete your posting I have copied it below for information.

I suggest it is you who are the king of detractors.

Neither you nor MetO have any demonstrated long range skill. True or false?

In terms of the temperatures bar on our MAY forecast graph for early month details (both in the version issued 16 April and end of April ('30day') which is normally essentially the same) said:

1-4 MAY "Getting colder" (and the map and graph showed regional differences)
That is what happened. True or false?

5-7th MAY "Like winter" and had Britain+Ire (apart from Ire and SW) at coldest possible on graph with Ire and SW a bit less cold relative to local normals.
That is what happened. True or false?

Users widely praised our details for early MAY and indeed through May to ~21st.

From your remarks you clearly know little about either the revolutionary detailed power of our long range forecasts or about the wide range of applications of long range forecasts. Ours help decision making on all time scales from a week to months ahead and despite your deranged attacks we get a very high proportion of repeat business in Britain, Ireland, Europe and USA.

http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=459&c=5 carries further discussion and information.


COPY OF ELIM's POSTING FOR INFORMATION (reasons above).

Posted by Elim (Twitter) on May 28th 2012, 7:31 AM EDT
The problem is Piers you gave a long range forecast that described what the overall temperature conditions of May would be. You unfortunately did not just say that it would be a cold start to May - that would have been accurate and useful. If I was a salad grower, an ice cream manufacturer or a BBQ distributor I might have been caught short on boom conditions in the final 10 days of May if I'd relied on your forecast.
Now, I'm not saying that any other forecaster or organisation fully predicted the warmth in the latter part of May - that is the nature of weather, long term predictions of fine detail are as elusive to you as anyone else. It is better to give shorter term, accurate forecasts than long term, inaccurate ones.

I feel that your agenda to continually deride others in an attempt to boost your own profile does you a great disservice.

Look; I am the lead forecaster and a Partner along with my son at First Hand Weather. And believe me, I have stayed right on top of Mr. Corbyn's weather forecast for a long time. The man is looked upon by his peers as being the; "BEST OF THE BEST". And I am talking about people like Joe Bastardi and his son Garrett Bastardi who is a forecaster for firsthandweather.com Joe Bastardi is not going to look up to a man like Piers Corbyn if he did not know what he was doing. I really think a big problem you guys have with Mr. Corbyn is that you read his forecast and maybe you just do not have the brains to understand what the man is saying. Maybe some of you guys that do not like Piers, need to go back and take a class called, Meteorology 101! When you look at Piers Corbyn's forecast and then the Met Office there is no comparison. Piers Corbyn has done forgot more about the weather than the Met Office will ever know. Enough Said! Len Holliday

Thanks for copying and pasting what I said Piers, I'm not sure why I would choose to delete it? But it's always good to get twice the exposure!

The points you raised:

"I wouldn't comment on a forecast by anyone if I hadn't read it and am actually totally astounded that you do."
Piers you repeated your forecast several times in the national press, you were 90% confident that May would be in the coldest 5 in 100 years. I am commenting on that and I have clearly read it! My advice to you was that it did not work as a long range forecast for the month, you would have been better served issuing a shorter term forecast in which you would have been very accurate. I went on to point out that long term forecasts are rarely successful no matter who issues them.

"Neither you nor MetO have any demonstrated long range skill. True or false?"
Perfectly true - I don't forecast and MetO have sensibly stopped their long range forecasts except in a more probability based format.

The T/F questions about early May - yes that's an accurate description of what happened.

Piers, you're obviously confident in your forecasting skills and feel that this Coldest May issue misrepresents you. How about you email me your last 3 or 4 months forecasts as they no longer have any commercial value? I apologise for putting the wrong address on my comment on your website, I'd typed my short name instead of the longer one that makes the address, I've reposted my comment with the correct address so you should have it now.

A view from someone who often lurks here but rarely comments;

Archived Jet Streams (12Z):

23rd May

http://virga.sfsu.edu/pub/jetstream/jetstream_atl/small/1205/12052312_jetstream_atl_small.gif

Result: Jetstream SW of the UK

24th May (when this post was started)

http://virga.sfsu.edu/pub/jetstream/jetstream_atl/small/1205/12052412_jetstream_atl_small.gif

Result: Jetstream as above, but further west

25th May

http://virga.sfsu.edu/pub/jetstream/jetstream_atl/small/1205/12052512_jetstream_atl_small.gif

Result: Jetstream split but still southwest of UK but weakening and Northern arm strengthening

Now these can vary depending which run you use and I'm not saying anyone was deliberately misleading here but...well make your own mind up http://virga.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html

Conclusion: There are some on here who are deliberately trying to misdirect people on Piers, just like certain people who are 'Myles off from the target' and like misdirecting people on hockey schticks. You could believe this is done in good faith but when someone keeps doing it, patience ends.

Please do not pay attention to them as they will waste valuable braincells that would be better used dashing your head off a brick wall.

As this place is moderated and not a free for all and sundry to take petty ill informed (deliberate or otherwise) pot shots at Piers, Co2Sceptic or anyone else that doesn't fit the Global Warning Shark agenda, I vote for deletion/barring. It's not like adequate warnings have not been given and when the olive branch of friendship is shoved in unmentionable places, enough is enough and the trolls need to be cleared out. I could have at least tolerated them if they'd been funny or entertaining!

Len and Gingerzilla, Thanks very much.

Gingerzlla yes thanks for those jet stream refs - usefully put. I frankly don't have the time to answer all diversions and misrepresentations of what we do. They are malevolent. We had a useful discussion at WeatherAction about what tracks of Lows and the Jet Stream were doing without having to waste time on deliberate confusion from wreckers. See:
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=459&c=5

Now they (E/T) suggest we make public more details of our forecasts because they would be more useful or something! Indeed and it would be more useful for him to publish his credit card details and pin number. If the devil offers advice do you take it? We may or may not publish more (as we did for Dec 2010 which was coldest for 100 years and in the 5% coldest we said we were most confident of) or less as the occasion arises but not by acting from their 'advice'!

The key problem with E and T (who deny they are the same person) is that everything they write is ideologically loaded and aims to deceive, confuse and undermine. E now says he read the published headline May summary many times (which Nb was not a true representation in some places eg the Telegraph). So what? This information is to conceal the fact he thought or was pretending that THE SUMMARY was THE whole long range forecast.

He refers to our first week of May forecast as 'short range'. This is to deceive. THAT was created 16th April so not short range.
A long range forecast for tomorrow issued weeks ago does not become short range because tomorrow is soon. Then he says short range is more accurate which is why we were right and 22-25th May wrong. NOT SO! This is more deceit to try and put all long range forecasts into the 'impossible' stable.

Our 22-25 May error could equally have been the first week and then he could conclude long range is better than short range (but we wouldn't hear that). Everything E and TR say and do is intended to undermine our work and provide cover for MO failure, and is a total waste of space.

Interestingly to show that our long range accuracy is generally range independent [updates of extra detail if any apart, but NB we do NOT do short range forecasting, we may make comments at times but that is now-ish observational comment] it is noteworthy that by chance really the end month forecasts for USA in the last many months have all been very good and shortcomings have mostly by chance been during the months. Probably the most impressive Tropical storm forecast we issued last year was for IRENE - correct in basically every detail from 12 weeks ahead.

Cheers Piers