ukmoose

Don't worry, the Daily Express 'journalist' who wrote the article will have to go back to school soon after work expeience. Utter fiction (nothing new there then). Moose

Are you a BBC forecaster?? 6 degrees is not that cold is it?? Moose

Thanks for your reply TWS - a worrying picture don't you think? Moose

Thanks, SM. I will bow (on this occasion!) to your superior knowledge. Moose

I think, John, for what it's worth, that long range forecasting (say, for a season) is likely to be more accurate than three weeks to a month ahead for two reasons. One, it relies partly on looking at past performance over a long period of time and looking for similar statistical paterns in the models and I have already stated how powerful the use of past statistics can be. Secondly, it doesn't require any great detail in terms of local area and timings and specific weather which closer range forecasting does. It's merely a broad brush stroke about temperature and precipitation largely. I didn't think the season ahead forecast relies too much on recently gathered data which is why I questioned why they had changed their minds. Their first suggestion, statistically, seemed to be very reasonable. I just wondered why it had been changed to a much more ambiguous one. Sneering is easy - forecasting is bloody near impossible! Moose

I think the physics behind such a manoeuvre would mean that so much energy would need to be created the object being 'teleported' would no longer exist as a result of the huge release of that energy ie an explosion of some kind. Not very likely then. More chance of getting the trains to work! Moose

Why did they bother with that one does anyone think?? And what has caused them to change their mind to such an extent after their first punt which still looks very accurate to me - 'milder and wetter than the long term average...' Moose

Has it got a sell by date? Moose

The season is certainly getting longer. However, last year, as we had a lot more frosts and cooler days, it did actually slow up more than it had done for some time. Still growing well at the moment! Moose

It was a very cold period. Mr Data is right about the bridges, but I would imagine the temperatures at the time were low enough to have frozen the river anyway. Temperatures have always fluctuated (well before man started to change things) but no theory as to why has ever gained universal acceptance. The 'Little Ice Age' as it was known came and went. before that, in Shakespeare's day, 'milk came frozen i' the pail'. Before that, Greenland during the Viking period was much wamer than it is now and vines were common in England during some parts of the Middle Ages. Interesting though.... Moose

Worryingly, I think, it's not just the fact that so many months are now above the long term average, but it's how far above they are. 2.5 C is an awfully long way above the average. How far above were the other 7 months, John? Moose

Sorry Mods for being off topic here but I'm a little puzzled. Unless I had too much wine and can't remember it, I didn't make this post gloating about how close my October CET call might be. I don't do that. Can any one explain how someone could have impersonated me to add this comment???? Thanks :o :o :o Moose

Any volcanic eruptions around that year? Certainly very odd but really interesting Mr D. Moose

Really interesting discussion this. The technical aspects of global warming certainly need studying in great detail if we are to understand the extent of it, the duration of it and of course all of the resulting effects. These factors are very complex. However, some factors (which do. I think, prove the current extent of GW) are much simpler to see and understand. Many meteorological and other scientific journals in recent years have contained articles relating to these issues. All of the world's ice sheets are smaller now than in living memory and probably longer than that. They have been measured and it is beyond dispute. Evidence from the Greenland ice shelf, the extent of sea ice in the arctic and the antarctic, the more rapid disintegration of glaciers from the ice shelves and the considerable reduction in size and extent of mountain glaciers in Euope all point to rising temperatures, but not necessarily lack of snowfall. The antarctic, being climatically 'a desert' doesn't receive much prcipitation anyway. The reduction in its (and Greenland's) ice sheets and glaciers is due to much warmer summer time temperatures. This is also the reason for Europe's shrinking galciers - they are shrinking in size and retreating to higher and higher levels as summer temperatures continue to rise and the summer season lengthens. There is therfore more moisture in the atmosphere (more water in liquid or gaseous form) due to this melting ice. This could cause heavier precipitation in parts of the world (snow included) but the rising temperatures mean that fewer areas will receive snowfall but some places may well receive heavier falls. The rising temperatures will mean that this increased snowfall will not be able to sustain the glaciers and ice sheet which will continue to shrink to a sustainable size. What that size will be is uncertain. Moose

Actually WIB, it's reasonably common for night time temperatures to exceed day time temperatures, especially in winter when a cold spell ends overnight. I can recall below freezing temperatures during the day being ended abruptly over night with temperatures rising by as much as 10 or 11 degrees. In any 24 hour period, the maximum and minimum temperature could be at any time during that period regardless of day or night. Moose

Ok here goes: 10/12/06 Aberdeen 3 14/01/07 Glasgow 5 23/01/07 Edinburgh 4 26/01/07 Carlisle 3 30/01/07 Norwich 3 04/02/07 Dundee 2 That's my lot. :blink: Moose

Perhaps then we could have our own competition BFTP. Abingdon or Buckingham for the least number of days with snow lying and the least number of nights below minus 1 C. What do you think? Moose I've just realised Abingdon is on SF's list - must be a snowier place than Buckingham BFTP! :lol: Moose

Yep 12.9 is my call...looking good Moose

OK SF, It's a great idea and I am already thinking of my dates. I notice that Buckingham is missing from your list. You must have given this a great deal of thought and realised that said town has absloutely no chance of receiving any snow this winter as we haven't had any to speak of since Decenber 2000 and before that December 1995 and February 1991 making Buckingham the most snowless place n the UK bar St Mary's in the Sicilies maybe! Regards, Moose

T, I actually think the recent evidence points towards us becoming rather more 'mediterranean' than continental. Over the last 15 years or so, the increasingly mild, wet winters and increasingly hot, dry and sunny summers (all moderated by our more northerly latitdue) do point to a change, but not to a continental type in a climatic sense. Moose

Hi teve, I fully accept what you say about the broader picture. The seas around us are indeed relatively shallow and will not have anywhere near as much effect on weather (and climate) as the deeper oceans. They will not generate enough energy to drive or create weather systems. The point I am making is that we are a very small island - nowhere more than about 100 miles or so from the sea as the crow flies. Any cold weather advancing on us has to pass across the sea to reach us. The warmer this water is, the more it can and does warm the air that reaches us. This is why we have been affected more in recent years than our neighbours on the continent who are farther from the sea and have the benfit of land cooling around them quickly when things do start to cool off. We don't have the luxury of a quickly cooling land mass; on the contary, we have an ever warming blanket of water. If the sea temperature was lower, it would not have quite the same warming effect and we might just get snow instead of sleet or rain and some cooler night time temperatures too. This warming effect only has to be in the first few metres of water to have an effect on our small island. I actually don't agree that last year's November temperatures were not significantly modified by the warm sea. We had some lowish temperatures yes, but not as low as one might expect. No longer in my part of the country do we get temperatures lower than minus 5 or 6 at the very lowest. Lower than that is now unheard of - even when we get the pool of cold pushing down like last November. I can't prove it, but my feeling is that before our waters warmed to the extent that they have, last November's cold spell would have brought us lower temperatures than the mins 4 or 5 that we got. However, as always, I stand to be corrected. Regards, Moose Sorry, Steve - don't know what happened to the 'S' ! Sorry, Steve - don't know what happened to the 'S' !

It will matter I'm afraid Tamara - for the reaons I have mentioned before. The seas around us will be storing all of this very late warmth and will not even yet beginning their very slow cool down. The latent heat provided will warm any cold air (from whatever source) advancing upon us. It is, in my opinion (even if I am out on my own) a major contributory factor to our mild winters. Moose

My prediction, SM is based on past seasons and previous stats. I am willing to stick my neck out and say that recent autumns (last year from mid November onwards bucked the trend admitedly) suggest that it will still be considrably warmer than the long term average up to and beyond 5th November. I agree, we can't see that far ahead - I'm looking backwards to make my predictions. It wiil be warm. :lol: Moose

It's not amazing anymore though West, is it? Temperatures are rising, maxima records falling like autumn leaves and no sign of autumn. Autumn, to all intents and purposes, is a 'dead' season. It's just a conitnuation of summer now, just a bit darker. Look at the past few years - it's what we should expect and can base our predictions on. What would be amazing is if it turned cold by Bonfire night (no chance though). Moose

Tamara, I didn't mean to imply that you, or anyone else, can learn anything about weather forecasting from people (perhaps like me) who are interested in past weather patterns. I don't lay claim to being able to teach anyone anything about predicting the weather. You and Teits seem to be in agreement (apologies if I'm wrong) that the past doesn't mount to a hill of beans when looking at the future. I just can't agree with you there - without past weather patterns we would have no climatological studies at all. Climate is based on previous statistics gathered over the years. In essence, climate is statistics. Perhaps I am more interested in weather patterns and climate than actual forecasting, but I do enjoy reading people's forecasts and can certainly appreciate the blood sweat and tears that must go in to producing them. I also think the forum needs these forecasters because we are all interested in what might happen and cold lovers like me hope they come up trumps. However, I don't think we can get away from what has been happening to our weather since about 1990. It is not long in statistical terms but it does throw up a lot of data that is hard to ignore and the facts are there for all to see (and they are measurable facts). We are getting warmer and periods of cold are becoming less frequent and less severe whether we like it or not. (I don't). Therefore, I feel reasonably confident in predicting that the winter ahead (December, January and February) will be mild with temperatures above the long term average. I base this purely on what has happened in recent years - not sexy I know, but let's see what happens. Having said that, I will continue to read people's forecasts with interest and will acknowledge that they all know a lot more about the weather than I do; theywork damned hard at putting their forecasts together and I enjoy reading them. I just think history is against us. ukmoose .