Winter/Spring 2013 (Model Output Discussion)

jeltz

Su Campu wrote: »

Are you for real?

Read it again.

If you can't comprehend the criticisms and why they are made then you have no idea of how people in the real world understand the weather.

If you are going to put forward scientific data and then pretend to not be aware of the longstanding criticisms of the data and modeling approaches that are totally intrisnic to the dicipline and have been for decades then Wolfe_IRE is right, it is a total waste of time talking to you.

Thanks Wolfe_IRE.

catch.23

jeltz wrote: »

Read it again.

If you can't comprehend the criticisms and why they are made then you have no idea of how people in the real world understand the weather.

If you are going to put forward scientific data and then pretend to not be aware of the longstanding criticisms of the data and modeling approaches that are totally intrisnic to the dicipline and have been for decades then Wolfe_IRE is right, it is a total waste of time talking to you.

Thanks Wolfe_IRE.

Thats not what he said, and he wasn't complimenting you . . . :pac:

Nabber

I see all the threads are being derailed with a few low blows, good job guys


GFS throwing a nice low into the mix too, bit lower than you guys. But keep up the good work :pac:

pistolpetes11

I know im going to start sounding like a :

but this could be a decent and informative discussion between two posters , but lets not attack each other, and the rest of you lot , dont be stirring it ;)

Su Campu

jeltz wrote: »

Read it again.

If you can't comprehend the criticisms and why they are made then you have no idea of how people in the real world understand the weather.

If you are going to put forward scientific data and then pretend to not be aware of the longstanding criticisms of the data and modeling approaches that are totally intrisnic to the dicipline and have been for decades then Wolfe_IRE is right, it is a total waste of time talking to you.

Thanks Wolfe_IRE.

Oh so you are serious? I thought maybe you were just having a laugh.;)

You obviously have an issue with the UKMO, and when challenged on it you disregard the evidence with some corny dodge tactics of claiming the evidence is not what I said it is. This is made even more strange by your claim that you studied climatology. Well you can check whether or not I was posting my pin number or not by checking out Mace Head here tomorrow.

As for the rest of your post - again something to do with the UKMO not issuing ice forecasts for England. What has that got to do with me?

jeltz

Its ok, I got the MSc, after a fair bit of hard work, which has done a lot for me in the real world. I couldn't care less about differences of opinion. The world would be boring without them.

Su Campu

jeltz wrote: »

Its ok, I got the MSc, after a fair bit of hard work, which has done a lot for me in the real world. I couldn't care less about differences of opinion. The world would be boring without them.

Well done you!

jeltz

For those people who are not familiar with the science, you first learn mathematical and statistical methods. Then you are introduced to relevant experimental design. Then you learn about the data gathering techniques and their many shortcomings. There are many shortcomings in trying to measure and record dynamic processes in the real world. To complicate things a bit more a number of shortcomings derive from deliberate compromises to make the process easier but they cause a range of additional problems in itself (and they love to examine you on that). Understanding the shortcomings is vital because they lead to the data being riddled with errors which you will have to account for somehow in the next bit. And that is the bit everyone dreads, being examined on putting it all together so your mathematical analyses account for all the problems in the data without going way off beam. You have to explain the ins and outs of what you are doing. So understanding that the data in the first place is anything but 'pure' is intrinsic to the discipline. As a result many of the hypotheses may sound great but they are actually on weak foundations. Too many are hedged around. Theories that sounded great and cutting edge five or ten years ago have often fallen by the wayside. That is true in all fields of science and it is certainly true here. They are all in the same boat in that regard. That is why there is no point in being precious about any particular data source, theorist or organization.

popflop

jo06555

popflop wrote: »

Nice!!!!!

pistolpetes11

Weather forecasts for insurers or bookmakers !, lets put it this way dont get you hopes up folks there is more chance of MT leaving the winning lotto numbers in tomorrow mornings forecast .

Papers pick out little points out of a whole story to sensationalise a story and wont report that any long range weather forecast come with a low degree of certainty.

davidsr20

popflop wrote: »

Very nice what was that in?

Wolfe_IRE

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

Papers pick out little points out of a whole story to sensationalise a story and wont report that any long range weather forecast come with a low degree of certainty.

nobody will hear you I am afraid Pete. BWS, while comprising qualified professionals, are this year's James Maddens. By that I mean, they are the media's choice of quoted spokesperson. I value the forecasts provided by these people but do not like how the media proceed to misinform the masses so intentionally. -20C and 2 months of snow. Really?

After all, papers won't sell with the headline 'NORMAL WINTER ON THE WAY'.

Su Campu

I make that 5 times that same drivel's been posted here in the past two weeks. A joke. :rolleyes:

Deep Easterly

jeltz wrote: »

For those people who are not familiar with the science, you first learn mathematical and statistical methods. Then you are introduced to relevant experimental design. Then you learn about the data gathering techniques and their many shortcomings. There are many shortcomings in trying to measure and record dynamic processes in the real world. To complicate things a bit more a number of shortcomings derive from deliberate compromises to make the process easier but they cause a range of additional problems in itself (and they love to examine you on that). Understanding the shortcomings is vital because they lead to the data being riddled with errors which you will have to account for somehow in the next bit. And that is the bit everyone dreads, being examined on putting it all together so your mathematical analyses account for all the problems in the data without going way off beam. You have to explain the ins and outs of what you are doing. So understanding that the data in the first place is anything but 'pure' is intrinsic to the discipline. As a result many of the hypotheses may sound great but they are actually on weak foundations. Too many are hedged around. Theories that sounded great and cutting edge five or ten years ago have often fallen by the wayside. That is true in all fields of science and it is certainly true here. They are all in the same boat in that regard. That is why there is no point in being precious about any particular data source, theorist or organization.

I don't follow Jertz. Are you saying that understanding the significance of a piece of data - that is, what that data represents and tells us, is in itself not enough? or that the significance of a piece of data is can only be based on its relative, rather than absolute value?

jeltz

Madden by name, madden by nature.

If a paper can increase circulation or click throughs by 20-30% with scare stories they aren't going to stop.

jeltz

Deep Easterly wrote: »

I don't follow Jertz.

So whats the point in answering?

Deep Easterly

jeltz wrote: »

So whats the point in answering?

I am not asking you to 'answer' - more to explain the content of your post, as it difficult to understand because it seems to be deliberately vague and ostentatious. So, would you dumb down what you are trying were trying to say so that ordinary folk like me can understand and put your post into some sort of context in relation to previous posts?

alfa beta

jeltz wrote: »

So whats the point in answering?

jaysus jeltz, relax the slacks, the guy's only looking for a bit of clarification as far as I can see

jeltz

It is necessary to understand the concepts in order to pose the question asked.

Deep Easterly

jeltz wrote: »

It is necessary to understand the concepts in order to pose the question asked.

There was no question posed though? I just am asking you to explain your 'concept' in a way I, and I am sure many others, can understand.

jeltz

If anyone wants to do a similar course it can be a good idea to find out what math is required well in advance. I did so I could cover it before the course started. The fine points of data and experimental design take up so much time that if you are not familiar with the math or a natural at math you may find it uphill all the way. Climatology was only part of my course but a significant part. I'm not so interested in the daily weather, I'm still more interested in recent and historical climate so I don't know if it applies to weather based courses. Still, I'd imagine there would be a fair amount of maths and physics there.

Su Campu

Deep Easterly wrote: »

There was no question posed though? I just am asking you to explain your 'concept' in a way I, and I am sure many others, can understand.

Deep, you don't have the MSc, you couldn't possibly understand. :rolleyes:

jeltz

Nice try.

jeltz

Deep Easterly wrote: »

There was no question posed though?

It ended with a question mark?

jeltz

Why in the first place?

jeltz

How long has there been a war here?

jeltz

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

I now im going to start sounding like a :

but this could be a decent and informative discussion between two posters , but lets not attack each other, and the rest of you lot , dont be stirring it ;)

There was no need to worry.

They didn't understand how to in the first place.

Nabber

Hey Pete, looks like that debate has turned into pointless trolling. Nice try tho :rolleyes:

Deep Easterly

jeltz wrote: »

How long has there been a war here?

This long