UV-RAY
-
Posts
3,600 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by UV-RAY
-
-
If they weren't right before when they were suggesting a more blocked pattern, why would they be more right now? Personally I think that beyond 2 weeks we are pretty clueless about what may happen, and even then we only get the most basic hints of the pattern.
Indeed as they could easily flip back to cold towards the end of this month, they are a waste of bandwidth IMO.
-
3
-
-
Ian how about giving credit to the Met Office for giving a balanced view based on a huge amount of data not just that we see and choose to use on here. If they changed every time, for example the GFS changed, then it really would be totally confusing. Just my view of course.
Better still Ian show the models and what they are predicting, are they all the same, of course not. So which model do you think is nearer the mark. Is it vastly different from what the outlook is on BBC TV, I never ever look at their web site for a forecast by the way?
Good grief can you imagine the MetO changing their summaries each time the GFS changed it's, it would make them as ridiculous as some of the posts you see in here. Thank goodness they are professional and unbiased in their assessments and wait until they have all the relevant information at hand before making a call.
-
8
-
-
From Summer Sun:
The latest update from NASA is in it continues to go for an average or slightly above average winter
I dont buy that image. It has most of the northern hemisphere in the above average category and that looks plain wrong. No science to my statement here other than a gut disbelief at the distribution of all that yellow.
Indeed and more so looks highly unlikely to evolve as it would require a complete change in the way we understand winters in the NH overall.
-
1
-
-
I don't see what the all the fuss is with the model output, we all know they struggle with these sort of complicated set ups but yet some seem so confident that the downgrades are set in stone. I'm sorry until the boys at Exeter sing the same tune then it's still game on for now.
-
1
-
-
Another day and another melodramatic moment in the model thread, some people never ever learn and hang onto one model run as if that will suddenly defy all other model runs and the MetO's extended outlooks, and what makes it worse is it's the GFS.
-
1
-
-
Well that should put an end to all these 2010 references I keep seeing in the MOD thread, a snap is the best way to describe it
He's as much idea as the rest of us as it's nearly two weeks of cold which by my reckoning makes it a cold spell, not snap.
-
1
-
-
Last time an update for this was posted it was showing unsettled weather for all of November with nothing cold, this model flips and flops as much as any other one
I have to agree SS as much as I'm hoping for it to be correct this time.
Chris Fawkes on twitter
@_chrisfawkes: not the same as 2010 so I think quite a short lived cold snap next week with Atlantic re exerting it's influence late Nov"Cold snap next week. Peak of cold Tue & Wed. Although temperatures rise a bit after, they will prob stay on low side for following week
He tweeted the exact same yesterday and by my reckoning nearly two weeks of cold isn't a snap.
-
Wise words indeed Ian, many of of us have been here many times with easterlies that have imploded in the reliable timeframe, lots of uncertainty from day 7 onwards still for me to get too excited with regards to the longer term prospects. Other than that it's been fascinating model watching as we've seen big upgrades in the short term over the last 24 hours.Yes it was difficult to see this coming, particularly as the Strat thread indicated a return to zonality. Of course a long way to go yet and to newer members I would say that if zonality is shown at T168 it is a virtual given, if easterlies are shown then it is well beyond the reliable timeframe.
-
2
-
-
Breasts out or breasts up Steve ? If the easterly comes off the formation is rather than different than 2010, and rather than a flood of cold uppers from the E/NE, it's a set-up that just sends the air from the East our way, which isn't that cold and would soon be running on empty after an initial burst. That could change a little bit nearer the time, but the reality of it, cold and raw but perhaps not cold enough should be realised rather than the eye candy of the Meteociel charts.
I disagree Ian we are talking +240 and beyond so there's plenty of time for the European landmass to cool down significantly.
Edit; SM beat me to it.
-
4
-
-
Guys your all mad. Why not watch the model come out and then comment ?? Instead of panicking thinking one thing only to back track on the next frame?Enjoy the charts by all means but just relax a bit before you give yourselves a heart attack !!#madhouse#rollercoaster!!!
It's fun watching all the emotive outburst though.
-
5
-
-
The silly season is now well and truly upon us, already some posters are positioning their toys in preparation for the usual throwing of them. Why oh why do people follow each individual model run as though it was set in stone then either rejoice or despair at the outcome.
-
2
-
-
Lol Frosty, that must have hurt Mr Bett having to deliver such bad news. Some fantastic charts for cold lovers and they just keep on upgrading, give it another few days and we maybe seeing a Greenland high in FI.
-
6
-
-
I've never discussed 'catastrophic warming' in my life!
You haven't but I know a poster on here who has Pete.
-
1
-
-
But, how can we discuss the 'impacts' of something that might not (evens?) even happen
We discuss catastrophic warming and the likes so whats the difference?
Oh sorry there's a warmest agenda which has to debunk anything which questions the almighty theory regardless of facts or other. Sorry for the rant but it appears anything that's posted which goes against a warming world gets the usual responses from the usual suspects.
-
1
-
-
This entire thread has been a mishmash of believer ,non-believer unsubstantiated dog biscuits. There is evidence that solar cycles have an influence on climate. To what extent and via what mechanism has not yet been established. Can we cut the point scoring and focus on the evidence whichever way it points?
Excellent point, this thread wasn't for the purpose of arguing the for's and against. Can we all just discuss the impacts.
-
It is what it is nothing more nothing less. The future has much more scary things ahead for us all than this nothing to see here minuscule amount of warming, which IMO is more down to natural forcings than manmade ones.This seems to be a common 'mistake' Pete? Because warming rates were so above the mark through the 70's and 80's a drop to rates less than expected does appear marked but it is still warming. It can be quite annoying to hear of 'standstill' or 'stall' when you know the figures show continued warming, albeit at a lower rate than we had prior to the impacts of known natural 'cool drivers' ( which never seem to be talked of by the folk talking of 'stall'?). When you look at periods where natural 'cool drivers' were at play, unimpacted by AGW, you do see global temps dip. The fact that we see no such 'dip' during this incarnation of the drivers and in fact see continued temp rises is telling surely? Not only is this cycle of drivers not permanent but we must also expect future periods where nature gives us drivers that enhance warming. All this is set against a global energy imbalance that appears to be growing, a planet with it's polar region shedding it's high albedo ( which helped in keeping us cool) and with global GHG levels still rising. This 'slowdown' could have been our last chance to try and offset our future issues and instead certain parties have focussed on it in such a way as to bring about confusion over what is occurring and help stall attempts to make a difference for our future.
-
1
-
-
Really? The Met Office are using a 17 year period when talking about global temps? News to me .....
Still, just as well they arent using a 16 or 18 year period or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Right? And next year ......
Well, here's the MetO's take:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF
Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but there has been little further warming over the most recent 10 to 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted. Others maintain that this is a temporary pause and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously.
Of course, we can now descend into semantics, but, really, that's rather a bore.
The MetO go on to explain the reasons why they think such a marked slow down has occured - that every 1 in 8 decades the climate flattens out by natural variation alone - but, I think, the jury is out, and the certainty attributed surely can't be much higher than 'we think this is the reason' rather than 'we know this is the reason'
That's my point, no one can really say with any confidence how global temps will respond and for how long. Some of the stuff posted with regards to the pause and the impacts of a grand minimum isn't really scientific, when comments such as "the effects would not be of the same magnitude due global temps as they stand now compared to back then". With all due respect nobody can see what effets such an event would have now, the starting point is irrelevant as December 2010 showed.
-
As a nice a thought as it is the effects of the Typhoon would be short term if any for this part of the world, another crazy weather related fable from the tabloids.
-
As the data used above is available through a 'public' computer I can only assume the fudging took place prior to this and then the satellite destroyed, as per the ESA, to ensure this fiendish skullduggery was not exposed at a later date.
Do I spy Anthony Watts?
All completely irrelevant as global surface temps have not risen for 17 years,when they do come back.
-
Soundbites and fudged data don't alter the fact that global surface temps haven't risen foe 17 years, the met office obviously think that the facts speak volumes, even though they expect catastrophic warming to resume when someone finds the hidden heat content and releases it.Oh there good at moving the goal posts, if it's not decades then it's the heats hidden or the trend is still upwards. The reality is that there has been and continues to be no warming at the surface and until that changes expect lot's of frowning and toys out of prams and more corrupted data and smoothed datasets to show a warming trend. I assume you have good scietific reasons for disputing this then apart from the usual sound bites. Global Temperature Report: August 2012 Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2012/august/august2012_GTR.pdf
-
2
-
-
Really? The Met Office are using a 17 year period when talking about global temps? News to me .....Still, just as well they arent using a 16 or 18 year period or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Right? And next year ......
16 years and 8 months to be precise for no warming in the global surface temps datasets. Another 12 years and four months and we have another climatic dataset which by my reckoning means global warming is no more.
-
1
-
-
'Hate blogs'? Do you read that foul mouthed idiot Stevegoddard?
Blinkers on Dev, I see what I only what to see!
-
where does 17 years come from?..i hope you are not hanging your hat on 97-98 which was a very strong El nino year thus was a very high baseline to other years around it.
The Met Office.
-
If we saw a chunk of the vortex, we would most likely see colder conditions and where deep cold uppers persist greater threat of convection- Wintry precipitation, I,E - Snow.
We actually had a piece of the PV over the top of us in the winter of 2009/10 and December 2010.
-
2
-
Model Banter, Moans and Ramps
in Forecast Model Discussion
Posted
Is your computer broke because for the life in me I see the complete opposite, maybe it's mine then.