Accuracy of seasonal forecasting
Forum rules
These topics are a read-only archive and may be subject to out-of-date information.
For today's weather discussion head to: New Zealand Weather & Climate
These topics are a read-only archive and may be subject to out-of-date information.
For today's weather discussion head to: New Zealand Weather & Climate
-
- Posts: 12305
- Joined: Mon 10/03/2003 16:30
- Location: West Coast Road, Manukau Peninsula, North Island
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 3745
- Joined: Sat 24/01/2004 16:56
- Location: Wellington
- Has thanked: 188 times
- Been thanked: 123 times
You may - or may not - be aware that NIWA can't really give up that long-range forecasting even if it wants to, with current expectations. If you don't want the money to be spent, then lobby for a change.
TonyT might be able to establish that he has a better track record - over to him to elaborate if he wishes.
TonyT might be able to establish that he has a better track record - over to him to elaborate if he wishes.
-
- Posts: 3745
- Joined: Sat 24/01/2004 16:56
- Location: Wellington
- Has thanked: 188 times
- Been thanked: 123 times
If you want more comment on the limitations of seasonal forecasting for NZ, refer to the paper "Are NCEP Seasonal Forecasts Useful in New Zealand?" (Francis & Renwick), Weather and Climate, 23 (2004).
Among other conclusions is one (not surprisingly) that forecast skill looks better when ENSO values are near the extremes.
Among other conclusions is one (not surprisingly) that forecast skill looks better when ENSO values are near the extremes.
-
- Posts: 18540
- Joined: Wed 12/03/2003 22:08
- Location: Raukapuka Geraldine
- Has thanked: 1784 times
- Been thanked: 1429 times
-
- Posts: 12305
- Joined: Mon 10/03/2003 16:30
- Location: West Coast Road, Manukau Peninsula, North Island
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
- TonyT
- Moderator
- Posts: 2886
- Joined: Thu 08/05/2003 11:09
- Location: Amberley, North Canterbury
- Has thanked: 354 times
- Been thanked: 1161 times
Our own evaluations suggest we are around 65% accurate, and also find NIWA to be around 50%. But I stress that these are informal assessments and wouldnt stand up to peer review without some more solid methodology being applied. At the end of the day, the Blue Skies predictions are out there for all to see (thanks to Fencepost) so judge for yourselves. The feedback we get from Fonterra farmers is positive and encouraging, so we must be doing something rightRWood wrote:TonyT might be able to establish that he has a better track record - over to him to elaborate if he wishes.
- Michael
- Posts: 7210
- Joined: Thu 27/03/2003 12:04
- Location: Rainy Manurewa, Auckland - "City of Gales"
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Imagine if surgeons were 35% wrong
TonyT wrote: Our own evaluations suggest we are around 65% accurate, and also find NIWA to be around 50%. But I stress that these are informal assessments and wouldnt stand up to peer review without some more solid methodology being applied. At the end of the day, the Blue Skies predictions are out there for all to see (thanks to Fencepost) so judge for yourselves. The feedback we get from Fonterra farmers is positive and encouraging, so we must be doing something right
- TonyT
- Moderator
- Posts: 2886
- Joined: Thu 08/05/2003 11:09
- Location: Amberley, North Canterbury
- Has thanked: 354 times
- Been thanked: 1161 times
Silly argument. Surgeons work in an environment where repeatable results are found 99.999% of the time - the element of randomness in the human body is many many magnigtudes less than the element of randomnes in the atmosphere ("oh crikey, I opened up his leg and found a lung in there! Oh well, never mind, its just part of the random nature of my job").Michael wrote:Imagine if surgeons were 35% wrong