VillagePlank

I've found that if I heat the globe on my desk with a candle it tends to sponaneous combust; if this is any sort of parallel to what might happen to the world, should I be scared?

There doesn't seem to be too many articles linking weather to spaceships. Perhaps I'll look harder next time

Correct me if I'm wrong but . . . (i) El Nino is actually an adjective of a collection of observations in the pacific between Africa and Australasia (ii)El Nino's properties change each and every time (iii) Nino's intensity is, essentially, unpredictable

El Nino has nothing at all to do with weather; in fact it's all spaceships. If you haven't figured that one out, then how do you explain the apparent SST correlation with the moon?

The globe is not warming. (at least the one my desk isn't)

Luck has nothing to do with it. Aren't you already dancing in the garden to ward of bad synoptics?

Time for an idiot to ask a question (that's me, of course) If El-Nino (and it's little cousin El-Nina?) modify the NAO to such a degree where we can expect our whether to be either blocked, or easterly, why do the MetO use North Atlantic SST's (in May?) for their winter forecast if we are, statistically speaking, expecting a below average percentage of our weather to actually come from, or travel over, the North Atlantic? Is it therefore the case, the NA SST's are not significant for short-term delivery, but rather affecting the Northern Hemisphere is some other undisclosed paradigm? I rather assumed that the reason May's SST's were measured was because of ocean/atmosphere thermo-coupling latency rates? Remembering from some distant past that the SST method has a 60% chance of delivering the basics, is it the case, then, that W vs E'ly/blocked is divided by the same percentage? (Do the we'ly components of UK compose of 60% of our weather?)

On top of Bluebell Hill it was an extremely frightening experience for a 13 year old kid (me!) We have trees at the back of our house that are taller than the length of my garden - some large branches came down, but fortunately a tree did not come down on my house. A tree across the road from my house fell within feet of another house. The whole area, in terms of woodland, was decimated. What I do remember was the feeling of community, and of human spirit that followed the days and weeks after the storm; I do wonder if I'll ever see such sights as human beings looking after each other simply because they need help ever again; the world just seems different, somehow, now.

On the very basis that there is this discussion then I’m afraid I will have to agree that LRF is still at an unacceptably low level. If one can point me to this study or that which validates and verifies a LRF technique then, we can bring this discussion to an end. As no one has I can only assume either that LRF is still considered unreliable, or that someone is trying to hide the evidence that it’s not from me. I reject the second on the basis that it is entirely improbable that the complete membership of netweather are conspiring against me . . . I am, therefore, left with the only conclusion which accounts for the very existence of this debate; and that is that long-range forecasting is unreliable.

The cold part is progged for February?

For five months away there is an awful lot of hot air, here; don't scare the snow away

I think you have to start with GW (omitting the 'A') and then move onto causes later.

Slightly unfair if you ask me. BFTP, I would further ratify your bet in that each max CET must be broken by an order of magnitude (say one degree) so as to reflect the inference of incessant warming

I don't think that that's quite the context. If you want a mean to measure against recent trends then the rolling mean will be just fine. It is , of course, summarily difficult to compare one winter to one which occured last year or even 50 years ago, because the means, by definition, will be different.If you want to say (or, more formally, make a forecast statement) something like 'In the light of recent n years, then my forecast is this, then a rolling mean is probably a quite nice neat way of doing it. The difficulty is that it's difficult to choose the period of the rolling mean. Is 30 years enough? Is it too much, or is it too little? But these arguments are mute when one considers a fixed mean suffers from the same injustices. In order to talk to a layman intelligently about future weather states, I can see no problem in using a rolling mean. If you want to compare winters over vast tracts of time, then, as you rightly say Paul, this is nigh on impossible using a rolling mean - although it can be used to reflect, quantitively, the dynamics of a changing climate (how much it changes)

I agree, somewhat, with what you say, here, Paul. Indeed I have produced charts using a 30 year rolling mean as it highlights data in a different way. Some people thought it was useful, some didn't. I did raise some questions (such as triplets) that remain unanswered.The question, in the main, with respect to the mean average period, which, in this case, is 30 years, is why is it that figure? Why not 60, and why not 15? There is always talk of modern winters, and winters 'not being how they used to be' but when people are asked to quantify exactly what they mean normally a chart is produced from the same 3, or 4 previous winters. I hate to point it out but 4 winters, say, in one hundred years is not in any sense significant. With regards to the MetO forecast, if you follow their link on the main page, you'll see that they expect a 40% chance of an average winter, and a 60% chance of anything else. Not a fruitful exercise, but you can understand their stance given that February is still, at least, five months away.

I'm looking forward to the MetO first intial thoughts for this winter. My guess? I've no idea :o

Daniel, that point is valid; but on the basis of the horrors that might happen, do you think we should worry about an imminent bolide strike, too?

Given that the warming trend has been there since the start of the Industrial Revolution there has certainly been enough time for some species to adapt to warming climates, and become dependent upon such warming. It is enough to worry about our own species survival, but when it comes to managing other species, mankind, I'm afraid, is a dismal failure. We should fence of huge tracts of land and let nature do it's bit. All of this environmentalist management talk, in my opinion, is nonsense; and even worse it panders to worst aspects of political correctness.It also presumes that we are somehow above nature. There is a case that we are no longer subject to evolution (that'll wait for another debate) but we are certainly subject to the vagueries and whims of the natural world which, in the main, are the the physical processes that abound upon living on such and active planet. Our joint interests is survival; if we look after the health of ourselves, and limit pollution (whether CO2, toxic fumes, whatever) we will, by default, help the biosphere of our joint home, planet Earth.

SM, in that vein I would have to agree: nothing can be free from bias. It is fortunate that we have the varying degrees of the scientific method and it's double blind methods that help to drive bias out of the equation isn't it?

ok? Discovery exists for its own sake; have you never climed a tree, a hill a mountain? In the words of Louis Armstrong when someone asked him why does he love jazz "If you have to ask, you'll never know" I completely disagree. The fact that you can read this is because someone, once, had an idea that computing might actually be something worth investigating. Ada, the first programmer ever, did it for a hobby and for it's own sake. Her boss, Babbage, never published his analystic (he published designs, though) work during his life - he did it for a love of discovery. Not to further the human race, not to make money, not for fame or fortune, and certainly not because of some sort of misguiding direction attributed to some personal or magnanimous bias. So was Newton; Newton only published his work because some German was on his tail. Da Vinci was the same; most of his works were discovered post mortem. Gilbert of Colchester (of whom I am absolutely sure you've never heard of) published only one book in his lifetime and that was the result of his life's work and on his deathbed; he felt he had something to give. Gilbert reasoned that hypothesis must be proved by reasoned argument, and experimentation. Newton, Galilieo, Da Vinci, Einstein ALL credit Gilbert in his excellent work 'De Magnete' which was the very start of the scientific revolution. In all fashions of mathematics, and philosophical reasoning I cannot see how this adds up. But you do. I presume your internet connection has value? You drag the good name of philosophy throught the mud. And whilst you're on your tractor you're taking mathematical reasoning and logic, too.

Ok so, "How do you constitute 'evidence' for future modelling?"

How do you constitute 'evidence' for future modelling?

Be careful. A bias to scientic study is still a bias. Anyone remember eugenics, and Hitlers complete uptake of a valid genetic theory?

Oh yes; I concur with that most certainly . . .

Is beggin for votes allowed?