Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?

mud_error

Members
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mud_error

  1. 31 minutes ago, Eagle Eye said:

    Meteologix, it's a complicated way of getting to it though, if you get onto radar and lightning in the past and press on lightning then looks back in the past and press on an individual lightning strike this comes up.

    Thanks! this is pretty cool. This shows 5 CG strikes within a few hundred metres of me last night in the space of 3 mins around 9:56, thought that was a scarey and loud episode. Is it accurate, do we think? Also, 4 of them show as positive and only one negative - how can they tell? Also interested if the power they say they have can be measured - the worryingly close 13 KA "strong slammer" does sound kind of dramatic.

    • Like 1
  2. odd day today, max 15 deg this morning at 10am and a strong steady SE wind. Warmest day this late in the month I can remember. While we would have had a foehn wind going with a SEly here at the foot of the mountains, I'm can't quite understand why we where so very much warmer than others, normally my readings are nothing to write home about.

    some great clouds too, some 'waterfalling' down the fells and a series of wave like clouds much higher up

  3. evening 

    just checked the latest and seen the output for here on Boxing day. Can't quite believe it. What's causing the front to stall? or is it another one of those   horrible lined up with the isobars long fetch rain forever systems from hell again?

    Would really like to get a feel for the reliability of this, given the significant change from the prior run as I might be building heavy walls tommorow as a result!

    • Like 3
  4. 2 hours ago, ColdFront80 said:

    I'm not sure one storm proves or disproves anything. We have many factors strong jet stream, strong El Nino, strong polar vortex, high pressure pulling in moisture from Florida. So lots of contributions. Climate change could play a part but I don't think one storm proves anything.

    what they mean is that the probability of an event of this magnitude was made that much more likely because of climate change. They start from climate change being accepted as fact rather than using this event to try to 'prove' climate change, which as you say, as a single data point be pretty hopeless.

    So, I think they say, which is in line with concensus is, that these storms have always happened, it is just that bit more likely that we get a storm with rainfall over x amount than it would have been prior to climate change. 

    • Like 3
  5. moutainsnow, I assume you have livestock and farm. I know this may be off topic, but I feel your pain. I trust you are now getting access to the support you need. 

    My post earlier was mainly just trying to understand the linked data source, does anyone have any data suggesting higher rainfall past events (pre current MO modern records). If there is, it would really provide challenge to these 'one in x years' event statements that always seem bold to me.

  6.  

    25 minutes ago, keithlucky said:

    More nonsense lake district flooding of 1897 and and again in 1898 were worse ,surface irrigation by modern agriculture methods, makes the flooding situation far worse. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/library/archive-hidden-treasures/british-rainfall

    Worse how? Where in the attached document are you looking? I'd be interested if you think the 341mm exceeded long ago. Modern agriculture not much to do with anything, unless you count sheep grazing the fells as modern.

    • Like 4
×
×
  • Create New...