If Wishes made Weather

I was in Cambridge City(!) centre this afternon - and the storm line passed just to the south, I woudl say the northern edge wa ssomewhere like Shelford. No significant signs of flooding though on the train south. Now looking to the west and it looks like the cell that has been running Aylesbury - Stevenage is heading here to Bishops Stortford - so perhaps no dissapointment. T

There does seem to be some difference between the METO/BBC version of "snow north of the M4 and later into East Anglia" and GFS which is suggesting rain in most areas save the higher ground of western areas. This despite the track now being very similar on the GFS and and METO. Anyone any idea why? T

I have put a description of what is done here compared to at least colder parts of continental Europe in the 'Emergency Planning' for those interested. Basically, over their its de-icer on major roads only, otherwise loose snow ploughed off and you drive on the white stuff which has non-salted pure grit (small stone chippings) thrown on it so you can get a bit of traction. T

Bishop's Stortford still snowless. Fair amount of snow now moving NNW from Luxemburg into Belgium ca. 5 hrs away at current rate of travel. Interesting that most of the showers that the SE (except here) are having appear to be forming just offshore. http://www.meteox.com/gmap.aspx?zoom=6&amp...lon=5.888671875

Would it be correct then to state that greater accuracy in models would be served by increased number of accurate observations (higher density of weather reporting stations) being fed into the initial input? T

As we can see here, the BBC is also a bit confused. This is Friday's p.m. chart. Note that the strongest winds are thought to be a little bit near Lowestoft - not Stornaway T

Astonishing really - I have just checked the Met - Office site and there is no mention of this in weather warnings. T

As I've noted in another thread in the media forum (based upon Met Office quote), it appears that the forecast - at least for the public - is not about factual empirical things, its presentation is about how people will subjectively 'find' the weather. Positioning of the jet stream is not something that you can feel, so it has no place. Tim

Sorry about this Stewfox - i think I wasn't expressing myself very clearly. I was using God as a metaphore for pre-determination becuase its always hard to express things as 'accidental', or 'not correct' when there isn't a pre existing benchmark of 'correctness' against which you can measure. it often seems to me that it's one thing to suggest that climate change is substantially inconvenient for us, but once commentators break into the language of it being 'wrong' then they are crossing a boundary towards pre-determinism. I think this must be largely correct we are not really the first here (although some seem to think we are) - although to speak of safeguards is to speak, again, of a natural order that is pre-determined, correct, and that the system has an inherent interest in returing to the status quo. I see that Giya (spelling?) theory moves down this path - but is not without its critics. T Hello Chris - on the bit of your mail that I have italicised - I think I'm approaching the view that without climate change (as is happening now), there would not be man. Correctly, this may be thought to be a little Bronte in its inevitability of doom. Tim

Many thanks for the answers on here. In particular I sort of liked Chris' point about 'taking ourselves out of the system completely'. It raises two important points that I admit expand the arguments on this thread, but nevertheless could put the cat amongst the pigeons. Firstly, a biologist relative of mine enjoys pointing out quite often that "life is an accident" and that in evolutionary terms we are a strange leap from our nearest realtives in that we have overridden of our evolution. Certainly we are no longer subject to climatic influences in our evolution (for example, we wear clothes). This view of course implies a degree of pre-determinism in the universe which is hard to accept as objective, but quite acceptable as subjective (the God not out there puling the strings: rather it is in us [tofind]). This though leads to the second perhaps more interesting point largely classed as anthropic argument: namely that the universe is the way it is because were it to be any different then we would not be here to see it. That means (to simplify horribly) that if we take a 'narrow' anthropic view, climate change is inevitable. A sort of virtue of our nature. To put a 'wide' view in : were climate change not man-influenced then we would not be here. Could have possibilities this line of thought? Tim

Sorry about this (I know I'm going to get :lol: cked for this), but is there anything in the idea that once/if the Arctic ice is gone, the gulf stream will go galloping past our shores without so much as a hello, and we will be plunged into eternal winter/compulsory wearing of ex army stockings etc ... ? Tim

Having read through a fair amount of the debate in this forum (and now being back from my psychiatrist) I can only say that I do not understand half of the science involved. But as TWS noted in the first post, there is a difference between data, and interpretation of data: fact and opinion. Would it nevertheless be fair to say this? 1 – There is unequivocal evidence that the climate is currently undergoing a period of change. 2 – This change is very fast when compared to the record of other periods of climatic change. 3 - There is a substantial, but not unequivocal body of evidence for this climatic change to be one resulting from increased levels of energy in the atmosphere – i.e. warming. 4 – That this change is correlated to changes in the atmospheric chemical composition. 5 – That mankind’s activities are the source of many of these chemicals. 6 – Therefore mankind may be said to be accelerating the rate of change whether or not that change started as a natural (non human influenced phenomena) one or not? Tim

A bit late in looking at this one – but I have a couple of questions that the knowledgeable could perhaps answer: a- I presume that this is based upon the mean average rather than median or modal. b- If this is correct, is there anything published yet that indicates or suggests the frequency and intensity of weather activity or perhaps 'events' that deviate from this mean? Tim

Worrying of course - note how the Express journalist takes out the little bits of the forecast which they want to highlight, and then apply that to the whole of the UK for all of the winter. Bear well in mind, this is the basic tactic for all media, quality or otherwise, in all areas of news. I notice it time and time again in my area of work (law) where long, detailed and [often] well balanced arguments put together by judges and tribunals, are reduced to selective one liners. Saw it again in the reactio to the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments about Sharia earlier this year - his actual speech and what was reported could be taken as evidence for parallel universe theory.

Interesting point Chris – I got two answers from the MO. The first referred me to that site, which purely defines the meaning of the symbols on the charts (dark cloud with plural raindrops = heavy rain). But it seems that is now it.

Because in renders the investment in high technology that enables fine short term forecasting otiose if all we need are indications of how you may feel about the weather. Also, perhaps, it assumes a particular reader/user type only, which might not be appropriate for a publically funded service.

Oh dear oh dear: it’s official. As you will know, there has been discussion on here for some time that the Met Office forecasts are long on adjectives, and short on empiricals. So, following a nudge, I enquired, using the example of whether or not ‘hot’ in a forecast meant something specific (say temperatures between 25 and 27 celcius) or whether it was more subjective (‘it will feel hot’). I compared my question to the position in Germany (where I sometimes live) were the forecasts are very tightly defined. So the answer from the horse’s mouth is: "In general terms when we use Hot we do mean more than 5 degrees above average in summer (May to Sept), but I suppose anything above 25 to 27C would be classed as hot. Sometimes we say it will feel hot, especially in light winds, when the sun will feel hot even though temperatures may only be 23 or 24C, so there is some scope for flexibility. We have found that if you ask 5 people on a particular day how it feels, you may get 2, 3 or 4 different answers as different people feel the warmth, or cold very differently to each other". Now, I know I get as confused as the next man about things, but by this measure anything can mean anything. Just to avoid the allegation of intellectual elitism, here is tomorrow’s forecast when things mean nothing. The weather in the North – which may be the South depending upon where you are – will feel either warm, or cold depending upon your metabolism at the time, and if you so choose, you could class the horizontal air movement as windy, or very windy, or not windy, depending upon how you are turned out. The weather will, of course, depend upon what you are doing. If you have had your hair done, it will, inevitably be too windy, if you have washed the car very rainy – no matter what the intensity is – and, if the sun should appear, it will be too warm, even hot, if you have a coat on, or otherwise cold, if you are semi naked. Unless, that is, you are going out in Harlow to get hammered on buckets full of green cocktail stuff, in which case semi naked is obligatory and you won’t feel anything anyway, so, by definition, there is no weather. :wacko: Tim

Am I correct in thinking that the 'tropical elements' that Rob M alludes to in Thursday's low (running up the Western side of the Hebrides) are the remains of TS Hannah?

Many thanks John - I had somewhere in what passes for my memory some info as you are suggesting, I'll mail the Met O as to the current and report back. T

Interesting mail 'The Pit'. You seem to pick up on two points that I (and others) have previously noted: a) - for whatever reason, the Met O' seem to use vague phrases (severe, heavy, torrential ...) rather than simply expressing the expected weather in empirical terms. I'm slightly bemused by this - the dumbing down thing may have something to do with it - but the problem that they lead themselves into when using subjective language is that it awakes and links to people's own subjective expectations. - here I could give chapter and verse ... measurably, in the UK we build infrastructure projects to lower tolerances than many other comparable countries. Coupled to that, our rescue services - and this is not aimed at the individuals who work hard in the rescue services for little grace - are similarly inadequate, when not in equipment, then certainly in numbers. Again, the point is measurable, rather than my opinion. Tim

Many thanks for the link Jackone. I've been through the posts and obviously it is an area that gets many people reaching for the asprin/shotgun/meths ... Tim

The biggest problem that I have with the BBC - and some other - forecasts is the terrible amount of woolly language in which they are phrased. "Quite a few" showers. A "good chance" of some "warm" sunshine (as if the sun has changed its temperature) etc. I recognise that the BBC has dumbed down in recent years, but what is the point of reducing and expressing the weather forecast into a form of language that is only attractive to those who couldn't care about the weather and won't remember the forecast anyway? I'm very happy to plead guilty to intellectual snobbism, but I'm sure that in an area like weather forecasting - which is essentially an emprical matter - then the language of its expression should be appropriate both to it as a subject, and to its interested audience. The problem though is one that is very specific to the BBC since they, as national broadcaster, are funded by licence, not to attract a mass audience, but to provide a product that may well be sufficiently specialised to be not commercially viable whether that be in areas of culture, sciences, humanities. Whereas, many broadcasters and other media could argue that their reason for existence is shareholder satisfaction. With the BBC it is not and the uninformation that it will be "damp in the west" has no place in the output.

Following up on the comments in the thread earlier, there is a nice example of weather warning systems abroad which might interest people: there is a cold front moving slowly eastwards through Southern Germany in the Munich area. The system has thunderstorms embedded. As the system advances, weather warnings are given out for particular regions (here in red and pink): As the storm approaches, the areas coloured red and pink will move accordingly and the warnings will be called off for the areas affected now, and light up for the areas that will be affected next. I believe that updates are every quater of an hour. The warnings in the pink areas are being given out by the DWD for rain and hail amounting to 30l/m² in an hour, hail up to 3cm diameter and wind gusts of up to Beaufort 10. I understand that the civil authorities in the various regions are also informed, and depending upon the severity of the expected weather, fire crews will be on standby in their engines at strategic points around the region (not always in the stations) and possibly the technical assistance people will alerted as well. They have depots and lorries with pumps, tents, sandbags and other technical equipment for civil emergencies. Map is from www.unwetterzentrale.de