chrisbell-nottheweatherman

Does my area count as "Midlands northwards", I wonder?

Fair points, and I'm certainly no extreme mild-lover, but I considered that cold might lead to fronts stalling over those areas most badly affected.

We've been warned about taking each new model run literally, though, especially in Fi. To my inexperienced eyes, this appears to be the best chance for something really wintry in my area since 2013.

According to Dictionary.com: unprecedented [uhn-pres-i-den-tid] adjective 1. without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled: an unprecedented event. By that definition, the situation so far this winter is not and cannot be "unprecedented" as 2013/14 provides a precedent for such conditions. Regarding your larger point, it's my strong opinion that AGW is having profound effects within short periods of time (a few years rather than decades), and I anticipate other extreme weather pattrns to establish themselves in the UK more rapidly than many think.

Sunny here as well, which is very pleasant given the Stygian gloom of yesterday. It appears from the loner-range models that the Euro high may re-establish around the 10th-11th January, which could spell disaster for places north and north-west of here. If it does, I think any reasonable person would want it to become a true Bartlett high, deflecting the Jet and bringing warm, dry conditions to the areas which need it most. Cold and snow can stay away this winter as far as I'm concerned - what's needed up north is dry, warm weather.

Didn't the East London racist sling his hook to Dubai a few years back? Anyway, while for obvious reasons I certainly don't want the Euro high to re-establish itself if it's going to sit in the same place as it has for the past couple of months, if it became a true Bartlett, it might deflect lows so far north and west that they miss the UK entirely, which would surely be good news for all but ardent coldies.

OK, I'll opt for 5.3C, please.

From my point of view, a mean is of most use when the spread of data is somewhere nearly evenly-distributed. If the data is clustered with none of those being close to the mean, it's apt to be misleading, as it suggests a middle-of-the-road result is favoured when the data actually supports one or more clusters of data towards the fringes of the spread. I'm speaking generally here, as I don't have much experience with ensemble means, but what I'm saying is that I'd imagine that, in unstable setups, the mean by itself may be misleading.

All the options I would have considered are already taken, so I'm out.

I'm getting really annoyed at all the coldies in the MOD thread wanting setups which, though they may give a chance of snow, would be much more likely to cause more flooding. I want to see mild, if not warm, dry anticyclonic weather from now until spring for the sake of those affected - I'm not interested in snow this winter.

By the sounds of it, the models (ECM in particular) are backing-away from cold.

At that range, according to Ian Fergusson, the Met Office don't take GFS literally (see the following post): https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/84555-model-output-discussion-1st-december-onwards/?do=findComment&comment=3308322

Have either 5.7C or 5.8C been taken yet? If one hasn't, could that be my guess, please?

Yes Rob, even my "winter's over" pessemism is wavering. It would be nice, from a selfish IMBY point of view, just to get rid of this excessive mildness; of course, this pales into insignificance against the desperate need for the NW to have a chance to dry off.

Hi Nick, as mentioned above, IDO on the previous page of this thread mentioned the MJO entering the COD post-D7. Any sign of that (obviously not in the CFS ouput you posted, but elsewhere)?

Thanks indeed Ian - much appreciated, and I find it instructive that you've now added that the Met Office don't take GFS too literally past T+144 to your previous comments regarding ensemble means being limited in their instructive capability without taking clustering into account. To clarify, I wasn't referring to an easterly, which I never thought would happen within the next fortnight anyway, but rather a veering of mean flow to the west or WNW as opposed to this south-westerly/SSWerly flow we've had so much of at late.

Which possibility is correct? Both?!

Thanks, and I see what you mean. I was just taken-aback with the finality and certainty in the forecast - surely it's pushing it to state that there is no sign of any change for the UK well into the New Year? If that is indeed the case, then either I'm even more stupid than I thought, or all posters bar your good self are shameless cold rampers.

BBC online week ahead forecast showing a continuation of mild SWerlies, powerful Atlantic lows bringing much more rain to the north west, and a continuation of the very mild weather. They were very bulish about there being no sign of any change in the UK setup well into 2016, almost as though they were trying to downplay any suggestion of a pattern change. In fact, the forecaster seemed so insistent it almost reminded me of the old line "methinks the lady doth protest too much".

Slightly O/T I know, though it does relate to the models. Most of our seasoned experts here are showing a switch to a westerly/north-westerly stream into the New Year, yet I've just watched the BBC wek ahead forecast on their website, and the forecaster said that the flow would stay from the south west and exceptionally mild into the New Year, with no change of any sort in sight. Indeed, they showed a jet stream chart with isobars and it showed those isobars forming a trough below Greenland, suggesting low heights there, and a ridge over Europe, indicating to me that they expect the Euro high to remain as is (presumably not Scandi high/WAA). What do they know that we don't, or are they going for the percentages and just forecasting mild as a default?

Apologies for my bluntness, I could (and should) have phrased it a bit more diplomatically. What I should have typed was "...massively over-excited by something that was never going to happen as yesterday's more extreme outputs showed." i.e. a once-in-a-decade easterly with a couple of feet of snow or whatever people were inferring. I'm probably a bit short on patience at present as I'm concerned regarding flooding in the north today and possible damaging winds during the middle of the week. Sadly, in a (perfectly understandable) desire to see some wintry weather rather than the mild, wet conditions we've been enduring, or, in some cases, enjoying, for this past couple of months, I'm annoyed that the more important and pressing modelling is being ignored. MODS, is there an argument, particularly for situations like this where lives may be at stake, to divide this thread into "under +144h" and "Fi" in order that model outouts relevant to this week can be separated from the "search for cold", please?

Sorry, but that's rubbish. There have been plenty of people getting massively over-excited by something that was never going to happen.

Slight hyperbole I admit, but the situation at present seems beyond anything I can recall. That being said, reassuring posts from the likes of TWS and Scott are reassuring. Thanks chaps, in particular given that it's Christmas Day.

That's my big fear. I can see most of NW Englnd and W Scotland having to be abandoned.

Booferking predicting extreme cold, while a certain Conish woodshed-dweller prdicts mild wet and windy for the next 10 millennia. I'm totally confused.