Re: Changes at Met Office



In article <mcs7p5lvfrcp8ih2oi7un3iqotg7k4b9ok@xxxxxxx>,
®óñ© © ²°¹° <ron@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The long-term ones are based on pattern matching, and are merely
a more technological form of augury. A month ahead, there is some
chance of getting things right, but it's still a bit iffy.

Like throwing a die or reading the chicken bones then?

That's a little unfair :-) More like buying the Oldest Inhabitant
a drink and listening to him rabbit on. "Ah, I remember a spring
like this in 1897. A right sodden summer there was that year,
too. We used a rowboat to carry the taters back when we dug them."

But done scientifically, you know. With lots of numbers, tables,
charts and graphs.

The point is that it isn't obviously invalid - i.e. it MIGHT work
better than pure guesswork. But, equally well, it might not. Now,
it the Met. Office had sponsored a quarterly television program
"Let's guess what the weather will do", explained the problem and
the various approaches, and (post hoc) compared their estimate with
the two most plausible crude ones ("the same as last year" and "the
average for the UK"), it would both have been interesting and not
attracted the condemnation.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
.