osmposm

Whoaaaa - that link's very freaky, Scribbler: I've just been chucking a variety of large objects at Great Britain in various places between Windsor and Edinburgh with fascinating results. A dense-ish 200 metre asteroid at average speed on Edinburgh rearranged things a bit up there; but I'm glad to say all we got here was a bit of mainly light dust and a distant rumble of sound......or maybe that was just Shuggee complaining !

Daniel, Daniel, this is a thread about the threat (or not) to Earth of impacts from cosmic bodies. Almost exactly 75% of your post is about the Gulf Stream. You've been asked in a very friendly way by the mods not to start any more identical threads about NAD shutdown just for the moment. That doesn't mean the answer is to insert your obsession into any other threads that take your fancy...this thread isn't even about climate, for goodness' sake !!!!!!

Thanks for the corrections, Snow-man....though I'm not sure a big tweezer makes any more sense than a big tweerer as a possible means of moving threatening lumps of cosmic debris?!

Look, Snow-man, I try not to get too worked up about people's spelling and grammar on here, as long as it's clear what they're saying. But a fair bit of what you're trying to say is incomprehensible because of how it's written. What does "..another method would to build a big tweerer and move it out the way of earth" mean? I have absolutely no idea. Or "if a meterorite was to hit the blue plant then for 1) we would be wiprd out..""? Sorry, the way we write our language may seem like a boring waste of time to you, but the whole point of it is to make what we're saying understandable to other people. How can we have a sensible discussion otherwise? Couldn't you at least use the spell-check on your computer? End of grumble !!

Um, Devonian - I may well agree with you more than I do with Blast & Frozen, but you don't have to quote their long posts in full to make your points, really you don't. In fact, by not selecting the particular points you're dealing with, you run the risk of looking like someone who's just blabbering back without really listening in detail. I know that you're not, but there's a danger you could look like that. It also makes for unnecessarily long and complicated threads !

I'm sure you're right, Peter. Drgl, you can say what you believe until you are "blue in the face", but the only way these things can be judged is by a long string of objective measurements, as we all have different impressions and memories. Sorry, Noggin! It's not that you are not seeing more of these cold-weather phenomena than you're used to (I suspect you're both quite young), it's just the degree and frequency of the cold is always going to be subjectively assessed and remembered. My impressions and memories are significantly different to yours with regard to winters gradually getting back to 'normal'. This winter has been generally colder, yes, but in my part of the S East there's been bugger-all snow - less than '05, which was less than '04, which was less than '03; and although there's been good snow in many other places there've been no seriously cold temps, even over the snow fields. So the last five years "slowly returning to more cold, ice and snow" simply does not accord with my own experience. And in any case round here the wintry phenomena are nothing like they were in 81-2, 85, 86, 87, briefly in 91 - it is still much, much less wintry in winter than it used to be. Where does that leave us? Different people with different subjective impressions. All great fun, I'm sure, but not much good in discussions of climate change. That's why we have to look at boring old hard, measureable facts.

Urban and low-level so no surprise, but never better than sleet or sleety rain here at any time today. Miserable. Stopped entirely now, though pretty much continuous through daylight hours.

....which would, if it continues that way, be rather the opposite of a famous - indeed, star-studded - longterm forecast often discussed on here, which was for a winter not as cold (nor colder) than last, but with significant snow events mentioned - especially for much of the second half of January/into February, and then for the end of February. January certainly hasn't delivered.....and I'd much rather have a snowy Feb than have my doubts about the forecaster confirmed, believe me. We're also, of course, still desperately in need of any kind of precipitation here in the South.

VERY strange hazy light here in South West London, and the temperature has been dropping (from a peak of +3.3 it's now back down to +2. B) ...... Aaaaaaah - just catching the news about the Hemel Hempstead blast and fire. That's obviously it: incredible that it can have such a marked effect, like our own volcanic eruption....Hemel is around 25 miles away, as the crow flies.

Exceptionally stable temperature here in SW London: it's been showing an unchanging 4.6C (under cloudy skies) for the last 6 1/2 hours - since about 5.30. Ah - Sod's Law: it's just dropped 0.2C while I was writing the above !

But do note that these precip type charts are not updated as often as the main ones. The ones currently showing, for example, are still from the 06z on SATURDAY morning. not today(Sunday)

Try splitting into two: OSM - POSM. The second half rhymes with the first. My real name is Osmund - Osmposm was one of the (several) chilhood nicknames that were used to try snd make it slightly less pompous-sounding....

One of the problems with all this SST anomaly stuff is that the fnmoc/NCODA-OTIS maps (as presented by smith25) often - indeed usually - show very little resemblance to the unisys versions (as used by Enforcer). Who should we believe? Why is their data so different? Another problem is that, although the SST over which an airmass moves clearly affects the temperature of that mass, the opposite is also true - and often pretty quickly; it is, after all, only the Sea SURFACE temp we are talking about, and everybody who blows on their cup of tea to cool it down knows how fast that can achieved. For that reason, Enforcer, I am not sure how useful showing the different years' charts for early December is: it's a month away, and as you point out yourself with regard to 1998, things often change dramatically in that space of time. It's all fascinating reading, I admit; but I tend to believe that SSTs are primarily the result of our weather rather than the cause of it.

I have a terrible feeling that this is a really stupid question, but what's the DWR, TM? Dreadful Weather Record?!

Old git, indeed..??!! I was born in 1951. Now that's an old git. Still mad about snow, though! I'm afraid it has changed a lot since I've been around. I was trying to pinpoint the years of some old snow memories and photos (50s - early 70s) recently, and it was mostly (apart from 62-3) impossible - for the simple reason that a little research revealed too many possibilities. The truth is that a snow "event" that gets me excited now - i.e. any settling snow at all - would have happened in the vast majority of winters then, and often more than once. I think I shall have to move to New York for the right combination of "usually something, but not guaranteed" and "sometimes bloody feet of it".