Jimmy0127

Much as I think your enthusiasm for devastating storms is borderline perverse, and that your username should really be "Twistedgirl", I'm inclined to agree!

I think the reasons are: 1.) More people in risk area (=>more interest) 2.) First such synoptics in a while (=> potentially higher impact) 3.) It's been in the forecast for days (=> more coverage)

Well below is the latest GFS, and it shows 60mph sustained wind for the far SW. That's quite violent by most people's standards!

I'm quite impressed at how the GFS spotted this a couple of days ago, given how subtle the instability behind it. The ever reliable BBC weather has given me 5 days to batten down the hatches, so I'm going to watch it fade to black to the south of the jet.

Is this a problem, though? Alpine glaciers cover a minute area of land, albedo, forcing, etc etc. Surely the less ice, the better! More room for cattle to roam - more cheese...

I'm not sure it's ok to increase confidence whilst broadening the goalposts (i.e. climate sensitivity). Everyone knows CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it probably therefore results in heating of the atmosphere. But to broaden the range of error in a prediction is surely a step backwards. IPCC AR6 headline: "Human greenhouse gas emissions will result in an increase in surface temperature of between 0 and 20 degrees by 2100. 100% certain."

GFS 18z less good for those who want the mid-thirties next week, but moves towards rebuilding that lately familiar block:

The trouble is, a discussion in this format doesn't really work if there are 24-stroke rallies between a handful of provocative posters. It just makes it hard to read and antagonising, like youtube comments. Of course there needs to be debate etc, but there has been an abundance of cynical posts that don't offer any fresh information or insight in the last 24-48hrs concerning "the breakdown". That said, I don't have any information or insight so I'll shut up now.

Enclosed - record verified vs ECM 240. Just for fun.

Could be extraordinary weather for you down there if the current output comes close to verifying! Pyrenees and 20+ uppers.

Oh, you've missed out mate. Stunning weather for the rest of us (not to be smug or anything!) GFS for the last six weeks or so has been better than ECM in my unscientifically sound experience. You'll be fine.

One to savour.

I think the last "above average" month was August 2012; the last month above 71-00 average going by Hadley CET data. We've got another six or seven good summers in the bag now (based on experiential evidence from '00 to '13 - a flawless study).

Heights getting a bit further west on GFS 18z vs 12z, and the trend is in disagreement with ECM, that's all I'm saying.

I sense an impending disagreement between GFS and ECM, GFS seems to be going for more ridging over NW Europe than 12z run. Fancy the look of this little feature:

Sorry - didn't notice two members posted this chart before me. Hate to see your excitement dashed, Backtrack - just one run mind...

Unbelievable tekkers:

Sounds sarcastic, but it's over my head. Merely posting the charts. Forgive my ignorance.

C.F. Not sure about this ECM run. Let's bin it until ensemble mean comes out.

18z GFS looks like an improvement on 12z so far - stronger high and weaker trough compared with last run. Still unhappy about ECM, but even that seems to be moving in a positive direction. (I'm focusing on next weekend!)

Oh go on - give us the maths! Couldn't find the paper - do you have a link perchance? Presumably ensembles and statistics aren't going to solve the problem that your forecasts are only as good as your data and your formulas. It's surely a matter of timescales and how much evidence has gone into your formulas. If you're modelling a system with an infinite number of expressions, surely the only way to advance is trial and improvement. Golf analogy: "exactly the same swing, exactly the same force (etc)" - what is etc? There are an infinite number of contributions to the climate, the more that are considered, the better will be the forecast, regardless of the statistical distribution of the latest model's ensemble outcomes. Surely the logical conclusion otherwise would be a regression to maximum uncertainty. Should we put in a term describing wind? - Yes, that improves the verification Should we put in a term describing spin? - likewise Should we put in a term describing the rivals banter? - no, Jimmy's as cool as a cucumber on the golf course. Does the wind affect the spin, etc etc. You can only work out how variables work in this system by historical evidence, and climate is so long term that this trial and improvement process is almost non existent compared with meteorology.

Come on William, the weather isn't going to affect your weekend! I'd bank on a good one anyway. Give my love to Mick, Keith. And have a Brothers festival cider.

GFS has ruined my day. Goodnight.

Hi Jackone, I retract my view that the ECM mean followed the trend of the operational run in light of your comment above (I'm new here), I don't understand why though. (Annoyingly can't now find ECM means from 0z run). The only trend I noticed was the Azores high retreating relative to the previous run, and a big trough increasingly centred over the North Sea which is what the operational showed.