Feb was supposed to be warm and wet. As I said earlier, a CET temperature in the range of 4.5-5.5C would fit the bill - and this time it seems like he got it right! This page actually gives a value of 5.51C but it seems to be biased a little high, so I'm happy to count that as a win for him. The rain forecast didn't turn out quote so well though:
|Corbyn||Rain: 160%||Sun 60%|
|Reality||Rain: 60%||Sun: 160%|
(% of normal values)
But I'll only count that as a single failure since rain and sun are obviously negatively correlated (rain and temp is not so clear: Jan was warm and wet, Feb was warm and dry).
Looking just at these monthly means for Jan and Feb (temp and rain), Piers scores 1 out of 4 - Feb temp is the only one he got right. His claimed probabilities for these forecasts were between 75% and 85%. Using a typical value of 80% for simplicity, the probability of different outcomes can be calculated as:
(yes, I've learnt how to put tables in to Blogger without messing up the spacing).
So either he's been extremely unlucky...or his claimed probabilities are wrong. The lesson here is that at a predicted 80% probability, even with only a modest sample you have to get a fair number majority right, not just the occasional lucky hit. With more months, it will get increasingly implausible that his failures can be put down to bad luck. I haven't even bothered with the string of storm forecasts that have failed so far.
March's forecast hasn't appeared yet.