Easton Luna Boys

I think it was the disdain and arrogance aired by some if you dared disagree with their cold gospel that was most irritating. The constant talk of background signals and teleconnections since the end of November and war and peace ramblings that never seemed to make their point, in the end came to nothing. Despite a positive NAO, no proper signs of HLB, pulses of eastern seaboard cyclogenesis and a dominant AZH, we were told that we were mildmongering, when in fact, we were just being completely realistic and saying it like it was. I'd like to think that some of next year's winter model watchers will cut a more mature, solemn, humble and gracious figure, as opposed to a holier than thou piety, but I fear we may have to wait some time for that!

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you it's the 61/90 stats that count as far as the WMO is concerned, so yes, 2 out of 2 so far re above average CETs. I just think the Meto need to be held to account for their very poor 30 dayers. They seem to get worse each year and the wording is appalling, eg; "high chance of a cold spell in Mid February, but confidence is low..." I mean, that is just farcical! I really do wonder about the mythical "secret data" that they allegedly have access to, that the great unwashed don't.

But if Feb does come into the milder category, then it will mean that ALL 3 winter months will have had a higher than average CET. Tell me; where did any of the forecast organisations predict that Personally, I think the Meto Long range has been shocking. Did they just keep throwing the dice on the hopeful effects of the SSW? One thing we can learn from this winter, is that despite all the talk about background signals and SSWs our understanding is still very limited in these areas.

Agree with this. Beyond that, I just feel some are looking far too hard for something that isn't realistically there. Meanwhile the PV ravages North America. Like the ol' sayin' goes; we were just livin' on the wrong side of the tracks...

You've hit the nail on the head with this. Writing essays about how the colder, snowier weather WILL arrive imminently, but then writing another essay to explain why it hasn't yet happened and that it's just been pushed back (again) only creates credibility issues. If people held their hands up and were completely honest when they get things wrong, then this place would be all the better for it. We need to be more realistic about our expectations. Remember, it's only the weather

Do you spot the recurring theme here? Everything has continued to be pushed further and further back, despite favourable 'background signals'. I stand by my opinion that we still know too little about teleconnections and upper level factors and are rolling dice to an extent hoping for a double 6. The noise has apparently been promising since late November, but you only have to look at the score sheet to see who's winning. Also, ask yourself the question; if we have such a good grasp of these background signals, then why the volte face on Friday that caught so many off guard? (It's a rhetorical question and doesn't require an excuse as to why everything has been pushed further back). So, back to day 10. Have a good working week everybody!

My point exactly

Indeed, however, we are like little boys trying to fly and control sophisticated billion dollar, high-tech, supersonic fighter jets without the manual or the aviation experience. We've a long way to go

My point is, what does the term 'background signals' actually mean? We might as well say 'dark arts' which due to our general lack of understanding of the complexities of the atmosphere, is more apt. How can you say that? I hear you ask; well, the fact that we have been hearing about these signals since November, and despite a well above average December, a benign, largely HP dominated January, with the majority of the UK still not having seen a flake of snow, the Scottish ski resorts desperate for a decent fall, you have to ask the uncomfortable question, what does the term actually mean? It's all well and good some now wanting to rewrite the many many volumous pages on this forum of the last 8 weeks and start to talk about a backloaded winter instead - just for fun or otherwise, but sometimes, to suit their bias, people can just try too hard to will something that wasn't really there in the first place. None of us are sure what February will bring, but remember, it's only the weather after all.

We've been hearing about background noise since November now. It's just that; background noise. We've also seen 'decent' charts (from a cold perspective) which have not come to anything. Hope springs eternal - actually, I'd rather Spring springs eternal!

At least you're man enough to admit it Steve. Maybe something in February will deliver.

Misleading - all major models were NOT in agreement and most certainly not in the realistic time frame! The positives from all of this are that there will be some major lessons learnt from this in terms of; 1) No single model can claim kudos, supreme status - the verification stats prove they are much of a muchness. 2) It was never within the magic marker of T96, so should we really be surprised? 3) If one of the big 3 shows mild (less cold), it will most likely be right 4) SSW...not always the path to glory...

Lol, never mind UKMO, it's ICON that we should all bow to now. You couldn't make it up Been too busy with work these last few days to study the form horse in any detail, but the old fisherman's folklore saying of 'if harmony at T96 ain't in sight, then the models ain't likely to be right' comes to mind. Seriously though, we've never had cross model agreement in the realistic time frame, and over reliance on a sketchy arctic high with an ominous, looming AZH was always going to be playing Russian roulette. So once again, it's back to day 10 (another old fisherman's saying ) There'll be some out of kilter media reports today that might look a bit premature in their backing of proper sustained cold, who wished they'd held back. Mind you, Russian roulette is a funny old game and who knows what this evening's 18z will bring, however, I think we are now starting to see at best, a blended solution that will be on the less cold side, but still chilly nonetheless. Beyond that, we are all clueless. Remember, it's only a hobby

Apologies.

Expect more swings back and forth over the next few days, but still need to see the AZH retreat and a serious sign of upper level heights developing otherwise it's more HBK than HLB.

The 1987 profiles without the 1987 European temps; as an example, temperatures in Finland were ominously low at -35c in the build up to that momentous event for the UK. Further east, Siberia was -76f. No such chilly temps on the continent this time around.

Absolutely, I kept away from here last night as the ramping was verging on hysterical. The golden rule of model watching is always, always wait for cross model alignment at T96 and then cross your fingers as it can still go wrong at that range. Not saying I don't expect to see some swing backs later - I've been around long enough to know how the drama unfolds, but it does seem to be a slow, blending out of any substantial cold as each day progresses, leaving us with a dose of good ol' fashioned PM air bringing its usual, standard wintry mix, so plenty to look forward to for hill walkers and those living in the remote Scottish Highlands. Seriously though, as I've said before, while I'm not championing any particular model, as a Nescafé blend is always better than Mellow Birds, the GFS is definitely the picked on kid in the playground. It has a tendency to blow up LPs off the eastern seaboard and pump up the AZH for a reason; its modelling of the Northern Hemisphere profile is better than ECM in my view, which year on year can't resist producing HLB scenarios, that rarely come to fruition. Caveat; I'm not saying that there won't be further drama (there always is) but the now out of favour) De Bilt aside, the signs look ropey.

Funny that, someone said something similar on the other side, using the analogy of waiting for blood test results to come back that you know have been spoilt/tampered with. Day 10, it's been day 10 since the end of November! I'm not championing any model's cause that far out - including the picked on kid in the playground that is the GFS! So we are not really any the wiser, apart from it looking to become colder, with the possibility of some wet snow over higher ground especially in the north. Stick to the <5 day fax charts for now, as still far too much inconsistency further up the track. Still can't see that train...

Not quite true arctic; it woulf be tempered on its route (if it makes it at all). Still looks messy. As mentioned by another poster earlier, there's no point looking beyond 4/5 days at present. We need at least a hint of some kind of cross model agreement, before we can get off level 1 of Donkey Kong.

Yes, everything looks to have shunted east again with the AZH looking ominous. FI remains firmly in FI. The wait continues.

I can't verify atm whether this is the case or not as I don't have time, but if this was the situation (re the SSW) then it certainly didn't do the great Jan '87 cold spell any favours; once we got past the middle of the month, we were stuck under a rather benign, dirty HP which lasted until the end of the month but triggered an arduous, painfully boring thaw in the process. Temperatures then took a significant upturn at the beginning of February and that was the winter that was. I remember it vividly.

We need to be really careful here of not falling into the 'top 100 excuses for delay in propogation' trap - this theory is far from substantiated with very different views by a number of commentators. Remember; we will have a default winter's end SSW anyway due to the natural warming come March, so any further pot of gold at the end of the rainbow delay could be mistaken for Mother Nature's usual last hurrah.

Yes, I think that's the best anyone can say right now; downward trend in temperatures, a spell of cold zonality (caveat alert - WNW bias, not W to E conventional tracking), with marginal 850s - and yes, before people jump on me, I know we don't need -10s due to polar maritime LP tracking, however they will STILL be marginal and hit and miss - bringing the usual challenges for UKMO in such messy situations. At least it won't be the wrong kind of snow (no powder snow, more traditional wet compacted stuff) where it does fall. Whether it settles is another point altogether, elevation will be your friend (hello Buxton). All looking fairly standard fayre in the mid term, with at least some snow to satisfy the starved, beyond that, no one knows. However the winter bar of expectation has definitely been lowered in the MME.

? Not sure where I write off colder weather?? Lol. Have made reference to a cooler polar maritime flow and then mentioned caution longer term (SSW or otherwise) as FI is still in FI. The train isn't coming until you can see the train...

Excellent post. The trouble is, SSTs are no longer the media darling, with too many hung up on higher level warming that is more dark arts than dark, snowy winter arvos... It's gotten lost in the frenzy of posts, but someone boldly mentioned earlier that the westerly phasing of the QBO was no longer relevant...declare that at your peril. We still have a strong westerly signal - not overly progressive, and not quite zonal, but it ain't a classic - NAO situation - interim cold messy polar maritime air aside, I'd be expecting to see a stronger, more consistent signal by now in the outer reaches. I think it is highly likely that we will see the wind veer round to a N/NW component imminently, and all the russian roulette that brings, but this cannot be considered an odds on precursor to a more sustained N/NE flow down the line. Anyone predicting that at this time is being model naive, especially with Mr omnipresent aka AZH in close situ. Many of us have been on NWP patrol since the early 00s so should be long enough in the tooth to realise the dangers in trying to second guess the longer range output. Not sayin' it won't happen, but let's keep a reasoned perspective here. J