dusk

Quite. That is properly kicking off!

O/T, but I'd wager part of the chaos on Southampton roads is caused by c*cksockets taking pictures and tweeting on their phone when driving

I'll buy that for a dollar! That last "proper" storm I witnessed was at work in Wolves back in July 2012, and that one had almost exactly the same track as the one in the clip above

I do lurk on the model thread on a daily basis, and you're absolutely correct in your assertion. It's an informative thread, but thanks to the iron-handed moderation it is certainly the dreariest and po-faced.

As a long time lurker on this forum, of which I'm learning much from the more experienced meteorological observers I might add, I too have noted that "Fergieweather" has disappeared from posting. I've also noted that "Gibby" no longer posts his rather wonderful daily updates here either. Of the above examples, I also noted that Fergieweather would garner "likes" as if there were no tomorrow regardless of the length or quality of his post. For example (and I paraphrase), Ian could post something akin to, 'Major change in ENS from 0z to 18z. Nothing set in concrete, but all to play for" and this would have 36 likes in 2 hours. Yet Gibby posted lengthy and highly detailed analysis of the models on a daily basis, including verification stats, before 09:00 more often than not and would get - maybe - two or three "likes". I, obviously, can't answer for IanF but - personally - I would have found (and did find) the sycophancy regarding his every post nauseating. It was as if his every word was greeted thus:- Nevertheless, I'll miss the musings of both but still read with interest the technical insights of the more........taciturn posters in the models forum. Whilst I'm having a moan (because this is the thread that permits moaning, does it not??) can the mods on the model forum just stop deleting / pruning / modifying members posts just because said post does not specifically mention a model run, please? Each and every post has context to the subject in question, it doesn't de-rail the thread in question, they don't detract from the discussion but adds to it, I'd be hacked off if someone anonymously pruned a post I had spent 15 minutes or so of my time composing (you owe me my time), and topic drift adds spice to a forum. <returnstolurkinghavingsaidhispiece>

The squall line earlier today has grounded all of the helicopters at RAF Shawbury. The Met team there are usually warned of inclement weather, so that they can prep their choppers with rotor brakes. The weather event today escalated so quickly that the ground crew didn't have a chance to make the heli rotors safe!! Shawbury Met recorded a max gust of 75kts today.

Aye. It's probably based on tortured and cherry-picked data used by "scientists" scared by losing their government funding. Maybe you could ask Messrs Mann / Bradley / Hughes / Jones / Briffa / Trenberth / Schmidt / Overpeck / Santer et al for confirmation? I would not, however, hold your breath. HTH!

I think, if one is stressed, Mike's videos should be available on the NHS

In the absence of other relevant threads, and mindful of the zealous moderation on here for "on topic" discussions, I couldn't see anywhere to post this other than starting a new thread. So. I hope you enjoy this: http://twistedsifter.com/videos/monsoon-iii-by-mike-olbinski/ The above link is a time-lapse of Arizona storms.

Ah. I see. "New Research" in this sub-forum allows for papers authored by psycho-analysts (Lewandowsky) and those that distort evidence through advocacy websites such as SkepticalScience (Cook). I suppose that new papers submitted by the likes of Mann / Bradley / Hughes / Ammann / Hegerl / Jones / Briffa / Overpeck et al will be posted as clear evidence of AGW, despite using short-centered cherry-picked proxies.

I thought this was a thread concerning "new research" on the subject of climate "science", not the regurgitation of psycho-analytics from AGW alarmists that examine thought processes rather than the science.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15A-00004.1 Such identification of oscillators and general trends over 160 years would be of great importance for distinguishing long-term, natural developments from possible, more recent anthropogenic sea-level changes. However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world's best recorded region.

No offence caused at all, Ian. I do read your posts elsewhere on this 'ere site with much interest, as I find them detailed and informative and long may they continue. I do disagree with the assertion that "global warming " is an issue and that CO2 is driving it, but I certainly agree that - as the earth's climate has changed over 4.5 billion years, and will continue to change no matter what we do as a species - what needs to be done is a series of committed decisions with regard to mitigation of future climate change i.e. NOT what we can do to stop it, but what we can do to cope with it. The technology is there, we just need to use it in a more targeted way.

I fully take on board what you're saying, and will stoutly defend your right to state it. However. It will not stop my wife & I flying to Cuba next week, nor stop me from driving a car with a large 6 cylinder petrol engine. As I see it, both activities will add 0.000000000001% CO2 (estimated) by volume to the atmosphere. We're actually quite cool with that, deciding - that we did before marriage - that children were not on the map for us. By not adding to the problem of over-population and excess consumption, we can allow ourselves some little pleasures such as holidays and nice cars without the guilt of vicariously adding another 70-odd years - via one child - of natural resource consumption.

Agreeable and usable weather here, today. Lots of cloud cover, but not too warm / humid enough to make valeting the cars a chore.

The sky has been looking very unstable for the last couple of hours, with some Ac Cas threatening to form but no towering Cu. It has turned deeply oppressive, though, and the stiff breeze of early evening has totally dissipated.

After a fairly uninspiring start to the day, with a lot of patchy cloud cover, it turned out bloody glorious from mid-afternoon onwards. It'll be interesting to see what tomorrow brings in terms of temp maxima and storm potential. NickF's storm forecast has Salop seemingly well set to get some fireworks, and the Midlands - temp wise - could top the charts. I do remember July 1st last year when I was working the other side of Wolves, and I got in the car at the end of the day. The OBC stated a temp of 95F when I turned the ignition on!

I'm fairly happy with this winter, as I hate snow and frosty mornings. Actually, I hate winter generally so I've been a happy bunny with the exception of the lack of any decent PPN in this neck of the woods.

Whatever; and moreover that is not catastrophic warming, nor does it have the fingerprint of human induced causality to it.

Really? Honestly? Edited for the swear editor, which edited my mild swear for something a little more w4nk.

At least you got something on the 4th! Even today, all we've had here is about half an hour in total of light PPN.

Aye, shag all storm activity here also. It's currently dripping some occasional big rain drops, but nothing of interest although the lawns will appreciate it as I was just thinking earlier that it's looking very parched indeed. From memory, I think we've had just one day of decent PPN since the beginning of July.

I'm liking the way some of the cells are tracking. Fingers crossed that The Channel doesn't dilute them before they're feet dry on the South coast

Looks like I timed my 3 days off work just about right! Lovely out there today, and some decent potential to see some storms over the next 2 days.