Evo

I thought I would lob this paper into the pot - I'm wading through it now. It looks into the current methods being investigated for hindcasting (and therefore in the future forecasting) the winter NAO index based on several variables, not just SSTs. The authors mention Northern Hemisphere snow cover as a variable giving significant skill (in the statistical sense). The paper seems pretty relevant to the current discussion and although typically terse, is an interesting reading IMO. http://climate.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/docs/Fletche...unders.2005.pdf

Around 7-10 rumbles this morning between 5 and 7ish. Some heavy rain.

12.9 c

If you look on the cable sheath, it will often have the cable type printed there somewhere. I've no idea what cable you have but you've mentioned telephone cable so I would suggest external grade Cat 5e becuase normal cable will rust and rot eventually, even breakdown under UV from the sun. I bought some to do some external telephone wiring on a 300m reel for about £100, you should be able to find shorter lengths on the Internet. Something like this: http://www.betterbox.co.uk/acatalog/Produc..._Grade_441.html. I can't see that trying some el-cheapo telephone cable (which is actually Cat 3 cable) will do any harm. The worst thing that will happen is that you have to replace it again in a couple of months.

I think a pattern is emerging from this - we have probably all thought through empirical evidence that each model would cope with certain set-ups well, whilst struggling with others. I was slightly sceptical of this view but your analyses seem to be showing that this is the case. The JMA has handled certain recent setups well but it hasn't got a clue with others. This even seems to apply to the GFS and the UKMO, though obviously to a lesser degree. The leader does seem to be the ECM, which given that statistically is the most accurate global model, makes sense. More often than the others, it has something which, whilst obviously not dead on, is good enough to make a pretty decent mid range forecast.

Perhaps the horse was annoyed that you didn't give him some eclipse glasses so he could watch? Didn't get to see anything here - forgot to look but it was cloudy anyway.

7.7 using my super secret and ultra accurate method of prediction.

Thanks john, I think a little knowlege can be a dangerous thing! I've found a formula to convert from QFE to QFF, do I need to convert QNH to QFE, then QFE to QFF or is there an easier way? The formula I found is QFF = QFE / Exp (- ((g*Z)/(R*Tave))) Where: g = the gravitational constant, 9.80617 m/s2 Z = the airfield altitude in metres R = the dry air gas constant, 287.04 m2/s2 Tave = the average temperature between sea level and the station altitude in degrees Kelvin. <--- I can see this being a problem. If I've got this straight in my head, QNH is like QFF but QNH assumes the ISA standard atmosphere, so the above formula would convert QFE to QNH if the temperature used was adjusted from the observed temperature using the ISA tropospheric lapse rate of 0.0065 degrees K per metre. To find the QFF, I would need to know the true lapse rate to find Tave. Am I on the right track or have I confused myself and made it more complicated than it needs to be? Would it instead be best to just allow a few hectopascals difference when analysing?

Hi John The data source I'm using for the GFS gives kph, so the METAR is converted from knots to kph, so they match. I'd rather they were both in knots but they way it's just done now is the easiest! Also, I'll have to check about the pressure, I think you're probaby right - the airfield METAR will be giving the QNH and the GFS will be predicting the QFE.

Attached are some preliminary images covering the GFS from T+24 to T+96 at 18z for a couple of locations. Interesting to note that the GFS was pretty accurate, with the slightly odd exception of the dew point which was totally wrong really. In a couple of weeks, there will hopefully be something a bit better and at longer range to post up.

Ultra light snow grain shower this morning. The very definition of the term "snizzle". (Bournemouth)

I definitely didn't receive anything - not to worry!

I'm not sure if this is a problem or not. I decided to archive my PMs rather than sort through what needed to be kept (if anything http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif ). Having gone through the procedure I haven't received the email. The messages have been auto-deleted OK, they just weren't sent to me (or so it would seem). I don't think there's anything imporant in there - just wondered if it's a known problem?

VB6. If you give me a mo, I'll post the cost. Don't expect it to be pretty :blush: Code PMd. Sorry for cluttering up your thread John!