Yarmy

. Ignore it, it's the pub run. Wait for the 00z.

Cool. Scuppered by clouds here this evening.

The physics of the atmosphere *are* understood and have been for over a 100 years (Navier-Stokes etc). That isn't the issue. The big problem is the data assimilation process, i.e. working out the initial values for wind, pressure, humidity, temperature, etc at every box in your grid. You obviously can't measure it everywhere so you have to take the millions of data points you receive and somehow extrapolate it from that. In fact what actually happens is that the previous run's output is taken (for T6 or T12 or whatever) and the real physical data is used to amend it to get the starting point for the new run.

That's completely wrong. As mentioned above, the GFS modelled the shortwave feature on Greenland's southern tip very early and the others picked it up later. I don't think the UKMO picked it up until T96 or so. Poor old GFS still can't get any love, even when it's right (as it might yet be here).

Why should anyone apologise for chasing cold in Winter (or any other time)? It's not like major disruptive cold and snow is a problem for the UK. On the contrary, it's incredibly rare. Should we all be wagging patrician fingers at those who chase Storms in the States? Personally, I'm looking for clear skies and warmth from now on, but I don't begrudge (and moreover, don't judge) anyone chasing a last shot of Winter weather.

Ok, had a look around and if you can't see it in Stellarium, try the following: Configuration > Plugins > Solar System Editor Make sure Load at Startup is checked. Click configure and it will list comets and asteroids. Comet 2011 L4 should be in the list. Edit: jtay beat me to it!

A few weeks. It should get easier as the days go by.

As jtay says, make sure planet labels are showing, then slew round to the Western Horizon, and it should appear labelled just above the horizon from about 18:26 onwards (fast forward to see it now). It shows for about 45 minutes, getting gradually brighter as the skies darken before setting at about 19:20.

I use Stellarium so I had a pretty good idea where it would be at what time. It's still tricky though, even with binoculars. Might try Starwalk on the iPad this evening if the skies are kind.

It set at about 7pm, so I hope you were out before then.

Well I just managed it with some 7 x 35 bins. Probably visible to the naked eye, but pretty difficult to be honest. Hopefully be easier in the coming days, but then I'll be plagued by clouds no doubt.

Skies cleared here. Everywhere but the Western horizon.

Ah, the fabled Tufnel snow.

Run outside and grab a few flakes.

As has been demonstrated by the NOAA's own internal stats, there is a negligible performance difference between the 06z and the other GFS runs at T120. In fact for <T72 it is better than the 00z. Of course, that's in general so I've no idea whether it is more accurate in this particular instance.

Ferocious cold on the NASA GEOS thingy. Never really looked at it before: is it new, and are there any verification stats for it?

Uncertain for the UK; utterly bewildering for Denmark.

I suppose if one averaged *all* the models then the GFS would be two or more standard deviations from the mean and so probably has a less than 20% chance of verifying. But, for me, part of the fun of this thread is seeing the extreme synoptics and knowing that it is physically plausible even though unlikely to happen. (I actually have an interest in this not coming off given I will be trudging around Elveden Centerparcs with a 4-year old and 1-year old at the weekend)

It's just language, isn't it. Personally, I'm looking for clear nights above everything else at the moment (c'mon Comet PANSTARRS!), but I understand that when people say good or better, it's shorthand for cold/snow potential. As long as everyone's aware what is meant by the jargon, what's the problem?

PM'd. Once done, we can all point and laugh at NW's most isolated member. Although it possibly could be me.

Definitely get the first Stroud book then as it will cover all that. I would also get a good physics textbook and a chemistry one. Other guys could help you more with the Meteorology books, but I also have this (short) book on basic Climate physics: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Elementary-Climate-Physics-F-Taylor/dp/0198567340 Not because I'm studying it, but just because I wanted to know something about the subject. :-)

Mechanics will mean Classical Mechanics, specifically Newton's laws of motion. You'll need a physics textbook for that. Engineering is a misnomer for those Mathematics books I listed: they are just general purpose Maths books that are suitable for all the Sciences. (Engineering is in the title because they were originally targeted at Engineering undergraduates)

Neither Autumn nor Winter arrived late, did they?

279K

I haven't done a Masters, but I did do a Maths degree with a few subsidiary physics courses about 20 years ago. You will need a significant amount of Maths, Physics, and Chemistry if want to study Atmospheric Physics "properly", e.g. you'll need to know and understand Vector Calculus and partial differential equations when you see them (e.g. Navier-Stokes equations). However, my advice is not to be intimidated by it. If you can do a degree in Meteorology, you can certainly acquire the Maths you'll need for further study. Like anything else, it just takes practice. Be patient, nobody (and I mean nobody) understands everything in Maths straight away. I highly recommend you invest in the following pair of books: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Engineering-Mathematics-K-Stroud/dp/1403942463 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Advanced-Engineering-Mathematics-K-Stroud/dp/0230275486/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361870273&sr=1-1 They will cover everything you need Mathematics-wise with a somewhat unique pedagogical approach. Don't worry about the word "engineering", it's not targeted at that subject: it's just tonnes of practical Maths without the rigorous proofs you would get in a straight Maths course. Anyway, good luck and have fun and enjoy the Fine City.