linarite
-
Posts
29 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by linarite
-
-
3 minutes ago, tight isobar said:
!!!- mid 40s.. this has to be taken seriously now perhaps not the absolute extremes- but by the way of persistence, the record looks a certainty to be gone within the 8/10 day period..And tbh .. I’d rather not think of what else may possibly be!!!!
whatever the eventual outcome, i think the fact that these extremes are being modelled must concern us all. and there's also the interpolation/extrapolation problem. As we start stepping out into situations we've never seen in the parameter space, models become more and more unreliable. But that cuts both ways, and it could be even more extreme rather than less
-
2
-
-
potentially worrying amounts rain for NW England keep showing up in the later stages of high res GFS. On top of the c. 100mm forecast for next 5 days. We're still clearing up from December's sequence of frontal systems. I imagine the Met Office will be keeping a very close eye on this development.
-
Meanwhile, in the 6-day time-frame, the GFS12z is showing for North Wales an alarming total of 290mm of rainfall. This is the highest 144 hr total I can remember ever being shown by the GFS for England and Wales.
-
3
-
-
some rather nasty rainfall totals for NW England for the end of the week if the latest few GFS outputs are any guide.
-
2
-
-
The GFS 06z run was showing a high of 31C on Friday here - now it shows 23C. Granted, it shows scorching conditions for the SE, and I don't expect any of you to care what the weather will be like up here while something potentially very interesting unfolds in front of your very eyes.. but please, don't mock me when I express my dissatisfaction with what is an obvious downgrade for my neck of the woods - and for a lot of others as well. I can't bring myself to get excited by the prospect of 36C in Kent when it's only 23C here - a perfectly pleasant temperature but totally unremarkable.
Maybe things will change by the 18z - who knows - but this current run isn't that great for here.
agree - though tbh 23C would count as remarkable after the dross we've had in the NW since April
-
06Z - hope this gets a downgrade TBH
T+138 Thursday 15th - was this date an anniversary - 1991?
Ian
rainfall totals for Cumbria looking pretty grim too
-
1
-
-
I hope those pressures modelled on the 06z GFS para for wed/thur next week turn out to be wrong (935mb central pressure??!!). As currently shown this would be a catastrophic event
-
2
-
-
The GFS PARA models a quite extraordinarily severe event for 27th/28th, combined with a spring tide. We must hope for the sake of the north-east and east coast that this downgrades.
-
3
-
-
Warm maybe - dry..I think not!What a turnaround weve seen over the past few days, but given the way things have been going im not really suprised weve seen yet another upgrade of the warmth and dry weather. It wasnt too long ago we were seeing cool air spilling down from the north. Now its another spell of very warm and dry weather thats just around the corner.
-
With the extraordinary weather pattern this winter, and especially with the growth in flooding in recent days and weeks, once again the subject of "climate change" is thrust into the headlines, not least because those advocating it came out with an amount of "I told you so" when the question of adequate flood defences was debated, and apparently their advice wasn't heeded.
My own view is that we, as a species, are having little significant impact on the evolution of our climate. I say this for a number of reasons, in particular because of the arrogance and dogmatism of certain scientific voices, but mainly because, in the context of the extremely long and complicated history of weather on this planet, it makes no sense at all to me that we can make any assumptions about the future course of our climate, based on what is a microscopically tiny fraction of time when records have been kept, relative to the immense length of Earth's history. Even if ice core samples are included for the purpose of making these determinations, it is still an extremely small set of data.
This was particularly brought home to me when I once attempted an Open University course on Climate Change. Not only were the reasons given for how CO2 was affecting our atmosphere unclear and not very convincing, but these vague reasons were then used to project up to 50 years ahead, to produce the most ludicrous predictions. After valiant attempts to take the entire course seriously, I gave up because it was basically stupid! It offended all my years of weather study and insulted my intelligence with its preposterous conclusions.
So, any debate or argument that seeks to blame so-called climate change for any particular weather event or pattern, makes me bristle, especially when it is expressed in such a way by anyone who believes they are beyond all criticism.
In the vast history of the planet, every imaginable weather pattern must have happened at some time, plus many unimaginable events that we are clueless about. It hardly needs saying but the winter we have been enduring could have happened hundreds or thousands of times in the past, possibly many times worse. We simply do not know and have no way of knowing. Extreme climate variations in the past have been deduced from evidence left behind, such as the Ice Ages, there are theories yes, but unless it happens at a time when we can measure it, we can only speculate at best as to the reason(s).
As climate understanding has advanced, a great many indicators, signals, cycles have been discovered, and these are often cited as being reasons for this or that happening. Yet there is still a tendency, I think, to use these in isolation. The atmosphere is a system, an immensely complicated system, and as such, it could be argued that every single event within that system, has an effect elsewhere within it, either in space or time, or both.
Models have become extremely sophisticated in recent years, yet for all their cleverness, their use beyond a few days is mostly limited. I accept that never before have so many factors, variables been included in model calculations, but it would be next to impossible to factor in everything. Variations in the Sun's behaviour, not just basic changes in the amount of actual heat we receive from it, but all the many other forms of electromagnetic radiation it affects us with, all this has to influence not only present conditions but future evolutions.
I applaud the accuracy achieved in short-term forecasts as a great achievement. This advance has saved countless lives. I love watching how models take a particular situation and then develop it, first one way and then another, and often marvel at how this development can so quickly change. So I have respect for the scientific method as used in this way.
Having said at the outset that I do not agree with the assertions of man-made climate change, and then apparently contradicting this by saying that every aspect of a system has some effect of the rest of it, I should make it clear that I think by that reasoning, we must be changing the system somewhat, but I cannot accept that we are doing so to the extent and necessarily in the way the climate change advocates claim.
Every natural system has balancing mechanisms that always attempt to restore equilibrium. The climate is such, and although the sheer length of these balancing factors may be over millennia, the fact that we cannot perceive them, does not mean they do not exist. Cycles of climate patterns of this kind must surely exist, or else the atmosphere as we know it would simply have gone, or changed in such a way as to extinguish all life. So, in other words, the nature of climate IS change, but not in the sense it is used these days.
Our ruthlessly scientific approach has, in my opinion, robbed us of a more natural relationship with our planet, because we have been unable to see how changing one facet of this system can have many unexpected effects elsewhere. In other words, we are not in tune with our world and have destroyed so much in our ignorance. Our ancestors possessed this relationship, of this I am sure, and were able to work with, rather than against, the planet. We need to find a modern-day equivalent of this.
There, that has gotten that off my chest! Learn about our amazing climate and form your own conclusions. Don't let the dogmatists beat you into submission!
absolutely agree about the dangers of trying to link one particular event, or one particular season's weather, to anthropogenic climate change. But you must surely accept the basic physics of the matter - Fourier and Tyndall worked out the essentials in the 19C and nobody, as far I know, has ever undermined the basic premise that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase the net amount of heat reaching the earth's surface.
It is also indisputable that mankind's burning of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO2 to a level (400ppm) not seen on the planet for 3 million years, probably more. So given these two reasonably certain premises, it is not on the face of it unlikely that there will be effects on the climate system. Yes, of course there are natural climatic cycles driven by astronomic factors such as solar activity, and one-off effects resulting from volcanic activity etc etc, These are actually quite well understood because of the ice-core record, use of isotope climate proxies etc, but because we know there are natural cycles does not make it logical to assume that mankind's effects on the climate are not significant, can't add to, or even override, natural cycles. And , incidentally, scientists do not believe they are' beyond criticism' - the whole point of a scientific explanation for a phenomenon is that is only the best available explanation, but that the explanation ('model' whatever you want to call it ) is always provisional and open to revision. Scientists are never certain they are right (unlike some of the more vocal opponents of science).
-
3
-
-
According to the top scientist at the MET OFFICE this very stormy winter is a result of................................yep CLIMATE CHANGE.
And the UK should expect similar in the future.
IMO its a stupid statement from them, don't you think its a little too early to tell?
It would be stupid if that is what the Met Office said, but what Dame Slingo actually said was "...all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change." (my italics). Rather different. So if you are going to criticize, get your facts straight first.
-
1
-
-
I can’t believe that there is a discussion going on about mild vs. cold, I thought it would be pretty obvious that when people use the word mild on here during the winter they just mean everything from average upwards in other words not out and out cold.
In terms of the models we are certainly seeing the variability of output I would expect when a possible pattern change is in the offering but that’s a wait a see job. More pressing is the here and now, with even more rain and another powerful storm waiting in the wings for Saturday for areas badly affected, some scary stuff on the news today. I have to say outside of cold and snow this is the most interesting winter I can remember for a very long time; it is a shame that we have not had a decent cold spell so far, especially for those whose weather interest only appears to be snow, any snow, even a few transient flakes, a bit odd in my book but each to their own.
Not being discussed is this beauty, most likely because its wind is more of an issue for the Biscay regions, although I’m sure it’s not making Nick S feel very comfortable.
Indeed this little storm is unusual in terms of position and intensity.. after giving Aquitaine a good seeing-to it looks like it will track NE, possibly bringing yet more rain to SE England. It wil be interesting to see how it's modelled in this evening's output
-
1
-
-
Hi,
Firstly, it's not a daft question at all - it's a perfectly reasonable one to ask. The broad answer is 'yes', NWP does indeed get things wrong; indeed, sometimes very wrong. NWP models - especially those that are stochastic in origin - are highly sensitive and susceptible to variance, the degree to which will depend largely on the integrity of the initialisation data (the 200m odd daily readings that feed into them) If there are ghost areas of data - and this does happen, albeit not often - then you will often see a fairly dramatic consequential effect. To counteract that, many variables are parameterised during assimilation and, where required, smoothed-out through applied algorithms (winsoring, outlier factoring) This essentially 'cleanses' the data, pre-processing; not a perfect option by any means, but nevertheless it calms erroneous signals.
You may have heard about the ensemble approach? This is where small degrees of variance is intentionally introduced to the initialisation data, in order to grow forecast depth. You can then analyse that depth to ascertain degrees of confidence in the operational forecast. The ensemble approach has probably been the biggest forward step over the last few years, and that's only really been possible with acceleration of supercomputing power; it takes an incredibly long time to generate forecasts, so you need a LOT of computing power to produce one, let alone an ensemble suite.
In terms of model skill (ie: how accurate are they?) there's been a fairly linear growth, as more powerful supercomputing becomes available. In real terms, the 96hrs forecast is - today - as accurate as the 24hr one, 30 years ago; so, a four-fold increase in skill. Further advancement of skill comes from better understanding of atmospheric science and modelling and translating the effects back the models. This is a continual area of research, and where - for example - there's been an up-tick in understanding of the stratospheric~tropospheric relationship. In addition, ever greater data density (so, more observations / sensors) will only ever be of help to models that rely so heavily on data.
There's a few graphs here to show how accurate the forecast are; the final one depicting the linear growth in skill, over the last 30 years.
Hope that helps?
SB
If there was a 'required reading list' for new members, this would have to be on it!
-
2
-
-
Another day, another metoffice weather forecast which is completely wrong in the south east. I would like to believe that these people would spot when their models are constantly pushing things like troughs and rainfall too far east, but alas
GFS on the other hand yet again spot on, barely a few sots of rain here and the temperature is 25C in London
They say "Since the issue of this Alert yesterday, the probability of heavy rain appears to have decreased, and if this trend continues, the Alert could yet be removed"
-
Oh dear - the GFS is throwing out some rather 2011-like charts in FI
-
12zs - more of the same right now - little windy - little rainy - average temps - cold held out until the last few frames of the GFS - more patience required - while in New Jersey (where they don't need it) it's snowing!
not so sure about 'little rainy'. Looks like a stalled front could bring significant rain to SW Scotland. Actually the synoptics on the GFS 12z for middle of next week are not a million miles from Nov 19/20 2009 - and we all know what happened then
-
See October 18 1991 and Oct 17 1992 in GFS Kartenarchiv. Very similar set-ups to what is forecast for later next week. I remember snow to low levels in Cumbria from the 92 event
-
Some pretty exceptional (for June) rainfall totals being modelled by the GFS00z for North Wales and the Lakes over the weekend
-
Re Thursday/Friday, Chris Fawkes gives a nice little video summary of the Met Office's view of the range of model uncertainty on the BBC weather page
-
I'm surprised that nobody has commented on the way the GFS has been consistently modelling for some days now the possibility of intense and prolonged rainfall for NW England /North Wales next week. Even without the secondary low shown on the 06Z to hit around 162 hrs, rainfall totals could be prodigious between Tuesday 22 and Friday 25. Shades of the 19 Nov 2009 situation (and the charts are worryingly similar). Sorry mods if you feel this post belongs in another thread.
-
What an awful weekend of weather for cumbria, Meto say 150mm of rain possible to to run into the rivers, early warning out for cumbria. The rivers are already at the top of the banks, not looking good could this be a re run of Nov 09, i really hope not. Acompanied by gales gusting 50-60mph.
Laura Tobin really downplayed it on the lunchtime BBC weather. Said 'an inch or two'. Perhaps this means the Met Office don't think it will be too bad, but have used the warnings on their website just to cover themselves.
-
Nah probably wont be right.
GFS is rubbish when it comes to precip.
- exact amounts may not be too accurate at this range, but timing and length of wet spell has been progged consistently for several days now. It looks like between 24 and 30 hours of continuous rain for Cumbria. That's going to add up to around 5" over the fells from past experience.
-
As i have been led to understand the figures 1 in 100, 1 in 1000 etc refer to the chance of it happening in any given year, rather than it only likely to happen once in every 1000 years
Or is it the BBC / government using every possible opportunity to mis-lead over climate again?
Edit
This seems to back up that thought
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37837.aspx
yeh, you're quite right in a hundred year really mean a 1% chance per year. But point i'm making remains the same
-
Totally agree, weather09. It wasn't long ago I was told on this very forum that Climate Change (ex-Global Warming) and weather were not linked. Now Prof James Curran of Sepa goes against that thought process.
It's currently hammering down with rain outside, it's very windy too. The reason? An Atlantic low is edging over western Scotland, with associated weather front giving the weather - NOT the CLIMATE.
I truly despair - and yet another fine example of the BBC pandering to the pro-warming lobby. It's sickening - taking advantage of a severe weather to further their own cause.
Yep, very true - and I get annoyed too by the constant attribution of every weather event to GW. However if GW does manifest itself in a tangible way, then what we'll experience is 'weather'. Here in Cumbria we've now had a 100-year flood event and a 1000-year flood event within 5 years. I'm not saying its 100% certain that this is attributable to GW, but it's natural to start taking it as a serious possibility, and for people involved with flood risk management, it would irresponsible not to, wouldn't it?
Spring 2023 - Moans, Ramps & Chat
in Spring Weather Discussion
Posted
You're being ironic I hope