Village

Yes, some good home brewed thunderstorms over Chelmsford at 11pm last night, huge rain drops and torrential downpours in south woodham just to the south of the main activity. These thunderstorms moved off west northwestwartds into Hertfordshire at midnight last night. Great lightning display within the thunderheads. I didnt hear much thunder though. Mainly cloud to cloud lightning display.

Late yesterday evening between 21:00hrs and midnight 30th April 2012 a batch of home brewed sharp thunderstorms developed in the warm south easterly continental air mass as it pushed northwestwards from the low countries. Temperatures in the afternoon in western Germany and Belgium had been in the low to mid twenties after some good sunshine totals in the final days of April. This airmass which initially had its roots in North Africa had remained warm at the surface in Germany over the weekend due to the high insolation levels at this time of year. The Low pressure over the south of the UK moved westwards yesterday and this allowed an ever warmer continental east, southeasterly to develop at the surface. With a strong southerly jet over France the stage was set for the first batch of thundery activity to develop and run up into the southeast of England in the evening. As this did so Thunderstorms broke out on the Essex coastline at nine pm and then quickly transferred west, northwestwards into Essex and Hertfordshire towards midnight. The rain just south of Chelmsford started with huge raindrops largely spaced at 10:30pm which was indicative of very strong convection. There was some very sudden tremendous short sharp aggresive downpoors. Air temps were quite low due to the sea surface temperatures being only 8 to 9 degrees centigrade at present. However there was an inversion above a thousand feet where the warm continental airmass drove convection and mixing to the tropopause. The half Moon lit up the ever growing Cumulonimbus batch from the southwest and looking from south Essex northwards into the heart of Essex one could see the huge rising Cb thunderheads. Electrification within these Cb's began early and flashed away at the rate of once every ten seconds within the thunderheads which lit them up like lanterns in the sky. Strangely though, there was little thunder, mainly an electrical display. The storms moved off to be in Hertfordshire at around midnight and early this morning where cloud top flashes could still be clearly seen.

Yes, quite. I was one of the few who wrote to the Met Office 18 months ago suggesting that they stop trying to make long range seasonal predictions because they were bringing themselves into disrepute. IMO their record on lRF's is close to dissasterous. They seemed to agree with me because they then made an announcement about a year ago that they were discontinuing their long range forecasts. No explanation was given other than they were goming to concentrate on short term weather and getting that right. However, On the 23rd March this year they again tried to predict a whole quarter ahead and one week before one of the wettest Aprils on record they predicted that the following three months would be most likely to be drier than average with the driest month most likely to be this month. I really think that they are just making fools of themselves by simply relying of numerical computer simulations which are not a true representation of the real world. Too much is being based on this without using common sense and real tried and tested forecasting techniques from the past IMO. The same can be said for the terrible climate predictions of ten and twenty years ago.

In Essex we have had much more rain than in other regions over the past six months, including a lot of snowfall in February. We in Essex have not had below rainfall. Therefore the drought in the south is too general a description. My point is that much is being made about this ground water situation and the water tables due to lower than average rainfall over a longer period. However, we are just not getting the details from the media and what we are getting is deliberately confusing...the BBC graph today showing average monthly rainfall totals did not specify exactly which areas were included ...Also they have again used averages for the whole of the UK. They then confused that data with England only, then focussed on Sheffield while dealing with the so called drought which is only in specific regions the south. By amalgamating all southern regions this further confuses and disguises regional variation. Also, the broader picture about rainfall variation is lost because they have only focussed on the last 29 months! Why pick 29 months? why not three years.....five years, a decade, or even a century? Is this because yet again somebody is trying to use specific data to paint a specific story? Is it simply about sensationalisation again within the media and turning a relatively low key item into a national news item to sell media? This is the feeling I am getting and the point that I am making. The data is deliberately confusing and coupled with media competition this masks the real reasons and any real message if there is one at all.

I suppose it was a frustrated rant from me of a kind. You see I do live in the southeast. I live in the driest region. But we have perfectly normal water levels and our rainfall over the past year is running above average. I didnt get to go sailing once last summer because of the atroscious weather. In the last month I havent been able to get out at all on my motorbike because it has rained almost every day. We have no hosepipe ban here because it is a fact we are not in a drought here. Therefore, I feel that there is too much being made about the south being in a drought. It isnt the south, it isnt the southwest, it isnt the southeast....its a small region in the central southern region where the water companies have not been investing to meet demand and taking too much river water to make up for their failings. There are three million more users in this country which have arrived in the last five years. They all need to shower, wash, clean etc. Infastructure should have been put in place. It hasnt been. Another point to add is that the London authorities are trying to reduce the water table because its baan rising and threatening to flood parts of the underground. Therefore, I have built up a picture that 'the drought' isnt what it seems. The reporting of it is too general and poor. As a result he impression is different to the facts. In support of this, one can see that many parts of the media are also now asking questions and making fun of what seems to be a nonsense situation.

Another thing is the way in which the authorities simply spin out the statistics. We are told the country is in drought. Its bubbish IMO because the whole country is not in a drought. We are told that its months of below average rainfall that has reduced ground water tables. OK...what averages? what period? avregae what? average for where? Its absolutely idiotic nonsense to simply spin out meaningless statistics without explaining what statistics, for what period and for where. I bet if I dredged through the records I could come with a statistic to state that this month of April has seen the highest above average rainfall for almost one hundred years. But it would be meaningless without being given the exact details behind the statement. In the meantime, I remain highly sceptical about this country being under drought conditions as some outy there are trying to make us all believe....I dont buy it.

I live in the south east in Essex, just a few miles from what is officially the driest place in the UK with only 19 inches of rain per year. We dont have a hosepipe ban in force and there are no plans for one. Our rainfall has been normal right up until this spring. Our rainfall is now running way above average. All our reservoirs are at very healthy levels and the rivers are overflowing. I think that the region where there has been lower rainfall is not representative of the whole of the rest of the country. There was talk of this year being as bad as 1976. I did predict that we would be looking at floods by May. I think that the water companies are mis-managing the water supplies and not investing enough to keep up with increasing demand. IMO this country is not in a drought situation. Its nothing like one.

LOL at the white bits, that picture is ridiculous, I wonder what he was paid for that!

I managed to pick up an early sun tan this weekend, such is the power of the sun now.

This is also not new to me. It was something which I theorised about on other forums back in 2003/2003. My thoughts at that time were that exposing more arctic seas to the atmosphere during the winter in the northern hemisphere would give rise to greater latent heat loss to the atmosphere from the ocean medium. This in tern would lead to a greater incidence of lower atmospheric pressure and increased precipitation. I theorisewd that there could also be a tendancy for the circumpolar vortex to be misplaced and coresponding H/P cells to interfere with the general synoptic set at our latitudes. When we discussed my ideas at the time, wed had no knowledge that this had been theorised back in the 1920's. But it seemed to make some logical sense. The last time that the Arctic ice was greatly reduced was back in the early to mid 1900's as I understand it and this was replaced again with a large increase in the 1960's through to the 1980's. It is possible that this period of reduced Arctic ice could also revert again in the coming decades. I also personally doubt that Mankind is having much of an influence in this process. I do however think that Polar precipitation is the key to the changes in Artctic ice variability and I have theorised for some time that the precipitation variiability at such a high latitude can be put down to a change in the average source surface input type into the region. The slow changes in synoptic set would serve to deliver the change and what we have currently experienced with the displacement of H/P is probably an indication of this taking place.

17 cm and its started snowing again for the last half an hour, although cant see anything on the radars.

Weathermaster, I have to say that the conceptual arrangements in your photography are an inspiration. First class.

Thanks GW, thanks for what I concider a pretty ballanced post. However the climate models are not even opting for a ball park figure anymore.....the spread has now widened out to a range of 6.00 degrees C of change in global temps. The IPCC has widened their assesment of the spread out to a range of between +1.1C to an upper of as high as +7.1C . Thats almost a 2 degree Centigrade worsening (downgrade) of what they predicted two decades ago. Now I dont know about you, but I dont agree that anybody can claim that this is an example of models becoming more accurate. It simply demonstrates that they are even less sure now than they were in 1990 when they first used synthetic models as support to their theory of AGW. Further, I would add that the IPCC has missed its target again because the actual global temps are outside of their extreme lower temperature rise that they predicted using synthetic models in 1990. They were absolutely wrong in their assesment. So again, the models were wrong. Here is the link to the graph that shows how far out they are compared to the official statistics from last year. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/ thanks John, I guess now that you have tracked me down we can say that I have been Dev'd again right!

Thats not strictly true Jethro. You are maintaining this, however the data that is input is weather data. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Climate models are modelled using past weather data. Then as a test they are fiddled with to reproduce the present using past weather data. The new model is then rolled out and projected forward and we are told that this is a meaningful representation of the future based on the past. My stance is that the future world can never be projected simply by using data from the past. But its all we have unfirtunately. But this doesnt make it any good or useful.

OK I will willingly respond to that if I know who it is I am conversing with. So can I call you Dev here without you changing your name and complaining as you did on another website?

I am not looking to bend your ear on this, you have your views, but so far you are being ambiguous in what you say. You have been saying that the synthetic models are a useful representation of our climate 100 years forth. But you havent explained what went so very wrong when the IPCC downgraded their prediction by a staggering 2 Centigrade. You say volcanism is factored in....so what was the huge shift based on? Can you trust the models to be even close when you have already stated that you expect them to change over and over again as they get updated?My view is a clear one....I would like you to clarify yours please Jethro because I am confused with your stance.

Jethro, I have explained. You do understand what these shocks are and you understand that these cannot be mathematically modelled because we cannot predict them. Can you predict when the next large scale volcanic erruption will take place and it's magnitude? Do you think that the IPCC has modelled this into there theoretics? But you had faith in the models before they made the change didnt you? And yet you are maintaining that you know that the predictions will change as they get updated? You cant have it both ways...either the model predictions are a useful representation of the future or they are not because they will be changed. Whats it to be?

Did you miss the IPCC change in prediction or something?

You keep saying that I am maintaining this Jethro, but I havent said that.I do understand how climate models work and if you read back you will find where I have outlined where the problem is with these models. We know that the climate models are most likely to be wrong because as each decade passes, the predictions change. The changes are not small changes either, they are wild changes. As you know, a change of 2centigrade in global climate is huge. But thats how much the IPCC has downgraded their assesment based on models. I have explained where it is that they are going wrong and unfortunately there is no solution to this problem If you think I am so wrong, then perhaps you would like to predict when and where the next systemic shock to global climate will come from? And where you find it in the current models for 100 years forth?

Yes PM, you make a very important observation.To the same degree this is what has been happening in climate science for many years. Everybody is looking for the link to CO2 and Man. Its even funded by the taxpayer and if one isnt looking for it one finds it much harder to get funding. Go looking for the link between CO2, Mankind and climate, even if its washing powder and you will get your funding and you are more likely to find a link. But this isnt science. Its finance speaking.

One must remember that every so often in science somebody comes along with new thinking which is siesmic enough to completely alter previously established concepts. The long term models dont work, every climate scientist knows that one can flip a coin and be no less accurate. There will have to be a change in thinking. I have outlined where I see the problem. One cant alter climate models to make them reproduce the past and then superimpose the same reconstructed model on a future date. It will never work and proof of this is that it doesnt work. Praying that by continually making the same mistake makes this process more accurate is rubbish. It doesnt. The few billion spent to date on this issue is peanuts compared to what the financial service industry has spent on predicting the future and we too cannot predict even a decade forward. The mathematic models are the same, the problems are the same. But it cant be done. The reason that they dont work is because financial markets move in the same way as the natural world. We simply go from one systemic real shock to the next. However, the systemic shock cant be predicted. If it was predictable then it wouldnt be a shock. In the same way that a major volcanic event can completely screw up all the models, we have events like war and politics to deal with. These events are what drive the whole process and to produce a meaningful representation of the future which is even slightly close one must know about them beforehand and factor them in. thats what cannot be done. Nobody has a crystal ball.

BW, You need a chill pill, theres no need to be so mad about everything. I am sure we have much that we can agree on. But as for £500 ....how you think you have won that amount, I really cant imagine.

Hi Jethro, I am glad about your comments above in relation to the fact that synthetic modelling is not accurate and can not be. Thats a good start. We are on common ground. People who have come to know me well over the decades will know that I have mentioned 'systemic shock' before. By this I need to state how I have understood the workings of the natural environment. Through my own observations I have learned to no longer view the world with the same 'text book' eyes that I did four decades ago when I first became deeply interested in the subject as a boy at school. During my studies in those years I was taught in the way in which mankind has quantified his surroundings using a format in which he can make sense of. Man has primarily learned to do this for reasons of security. The format is based around a few deep rooted ideas which can be summed up in these words which we have all come to understand and accept. These are; average, norm, mean and balance. Nothing has changed to this day. The only thing that has changed to this day, as you quite eloquently point out above is that we have become more efficient at the process of colating and asymilating data along these terms. I now understand that nature has no understanding and no truck with any of these terms. Nature doesnt 'balance', there is no 'normal' and there are no 'averages'. The natural environment will never reach a balance. The natural environment simply moves from one real systemic shock to the next without rest or pause. Therefore. the real trick is not to monitor the manmade averages, norms, balances etc etc. In my opinion we are studying the wrong thing. We are studying our own data sets because we wont let go of the idea that there is a comfort zone or balance out there. There is not, never will be. But because we crave security we need to search for this for peace of mind. To really understand nature one must put aside all the text book stuff based along these lines. Thats pretty much all of it. I dont look for a symptom wich is outside of a theoretical manmade average. I dont look for so called 'tipping points' (again another manmade concept revolving around the idea of a balance). I look at the reaction to systemic shocks. How nature moves immediately afterwards and preceeding these points in time. I think that the serial computer synthetic model is totally wrong because it doesnt react as nature does, nature moves in parallel. In many dimentions all at once. Computers are two dimentional and dumb. they have no inteligence. I believe that we need to develop computers that use biology to process data. A biological computer that works in parallel. Thats the first step. However, the most important aspect to overcome is that of predicting the real systemic shock events. We know that chaos exists. However, if that is the case, then how can one possibly model the decision that the butterfly makes when it flaps its wings in that rain forrest which sets the whole process of a Huricane birth into motion? Can we get inside that butterfli'e brain? If we could, who makes the decission to start flapping and when? This is why I am very certain that mankind will never be able to predict the long term future in a way in which he can plan to eliminate risk. He may be able to make predictions of +2C to +5C increases in average temperatures 100 years forth. However the margin of error within the three degrees spread in upper and lower temps absolutely renders the predictions useless. The future can be a very radically different place at any point forward because averages dont exist in the real world, only as a concept within Man's mind. All we can say is that we are more certain that it will continue to slowly warm rather than cool. However, because we can never predict the systemic shocks we are just as likely to find that it is colder than today at a point 100 years forth. It was only a few decades ago when all of climate science believed that this would be the case.

Hello PM,By "real environment" I mean the natural world outside and not a synthetic model of the world.

The fact that the climate models are continually having to be fiddled with to compensate for the wrong data predictions is all the evidence one needs to understand that the approach is wrong. Everytime the models get altered it changes the predictions for the future. Because we know this is the case; one can never expect the models to be a correct representation of the future. By the time we get to 100 years forth, the climate will be quite different than we predicted today. We already know and expect this. Therefore, if we really want a meaningful representation of the future climate we need a new approach other than working from the outside inwards. But this will never happen because chaos is a reallity in the real environment and nobody can predict when and where the next real systemic shock will take place. Therefore one certainly wont be able to predict how the environment will react to a shock which we cant and didnt predict in the first place. My advise is to leave the synthetic cloud cuckoo land to the no hopers because thats not the future of the science.