[Model output discussion - 5th December 2016 - Into Winter we go]

31 minutes ago, CreweCold said:

I'll repeat, it's a fact that we are discussing what we see in front of us. It's a fact that the NWP modelling is showing less than desirable synoptics through into the new year and it's a fact that it's more than a touch hypocritical that you slate someone for posting a day 9 chart only for you to go ahead and post a day 16 chart and try to use it as evidence of 'potential'.

It's also a fact that there is nothing on the horizon at present which could even begin to change the pattern that we're locked in.

Well the point I was trying to make was that the chart you posted was not so bad as an evolution from the current predicted zonal pattern. This is highlighted by for example P8 which is a similar chart at the time you posted

and the situation a couple of days later looks even worse and would no doubt induce a lot of moaning

 

but only a few days later goes to this

 

All speculation of course but shows the potential from the chart you posted  which was the point I was trying to make  - that the chart was not so bad. Most of the HP for MLB and HLB comes from amplification of HP to our S. So as long we get some amplification there are possibilities - as shown by P8 and P2 (even more closely matching the op which you showed) which goes from this

to this

 

 

 

 

 

[Model output discussion - 5th December 2016 - Into Winter we go]

7 minutes ago, CreweCold said:

It's fact, based on what we're seeing being modelled in front of us. Don't know what you want people to say? 

It is not fact in that this is NWP for 9 days away - we will have to see what the actual fact is. What is fact is that climatology tells us that the normal/average/most common situation is for us to have high pressure to the South and low pressure to North (not sure why this question was asked). This will be shown more often than not in most winters with SW winds. So moaning about it when it is shown seems rather pointless to me. Much more interesting is to see what changes could occur as shown by several of the ensembles (and the ECM yesterday). Often this will get watered down to something less favourable but that is because this is the norm. The actual chart you showed was not that bad as far as I can see as it was reasonably amplified providing the opportunity for something more interesting later. If it was completely flat then we would continue with the zonality with mostly mild, wet windy weather with some Pm incursions in between. In fact the benefit of the amplification  is shown at 384 with a move towards retrogression of the high that does form with some potential.

All this is FI of course but show potential which at that range is all that we can ask. Moaning does not help at all.

[Model output discussion - 5th December 2016 - Into Winter we go]

6 minutes ago, Bristle boy said:

You guys wont want to look at Summer Sun's latest post in the Meto contingency planners thread

Dire for cold for rest of Winter. Probability of colder temps reduced.

Winter 16/17 - already ticked off as likely to be rubbish for cold and snow

Wow - on the basis of a long range forecast for several weeks of 'above average temperatures being slightly more likely than below average temperatures'  you are going to write of the whole the winter for any cold and snow - amazing.

[Model output discussion - 5th December 2016 - Into Winter we go]

3 minutes ago, karyo said:

I also don't agree that the Met Office got the pattern right. They predicted below average temperatures for December at the very least but this is not what we are getting.

I think you will find that it was a probability of lower temperatures not a prediction.

[Model output discussion - 5th December 2016 - Into Winter we go]

12 minutes ago, CreweCold said:

Aye.... Bang on.... 

Which part of that was incorrect - it did turn wetter, there were stronger winds and there was a risk of ice and snow. I imagine the risk was much less than 50% but because it affects more people than other weather events probably thought it was worth mentioning.

[Model output discussion - 5th December 2016 - Into Winter we go]

24 minutes ago, blizzard81 said:

I couldn't agree more Nick. Don't get me wrong, I do respect the knowledge of those who use teleconnections etc to predict at quite long range but something has gone wrong big style so far this winter. We were supposed to be in a cold spell by now but apparantly this is not likely now until the beginning of Jan! The ecm is a big culprit. It did exactly the same thing a few winter's back - persistently forecasting HLB only to put it back by a couple of weeks on each subsequent update. It feels like the carrot is constantly being dangled but we never get a sniff, let alone a bite!

Actually most of the LRFs (I am talking about monthlies, EC46 etc.not direct correlations with MJO etc.) up to this point have been pretty good. They have been predicting general blocking (both MLB and HLB) and a lack of zonality have been the main message (as was shown earlier).I think you have to agree that we have effectively had no zonality for most of the autumn and so far all this winter. The fact that the blocks that have formed have not been in a place to give us any significant cold weather is unfortunate but this is what often happens (except for the spell in November). Blocking does not equal cold spell - just means it is more likely. Cuurently we are blocked and I think you would agree it is not currently cold or likely to be in the near future.

So the forecast chart provide by IF for the ECM ENS anomaly showed a significant change from climatology with a large +ve anomaly east and slightly north. So this would indicate that many members of the ENS had blocking solutions. However this does mean necessarily mean cold weather with piles of snow from -10 uppers in an easterly. It could equally mean we are back to where we just now with rather mild southerlies but dry weather. So you might think (and say) that it was a fail or bust of the LRF but in actual fact it would not be.

As a general point about these LRFs I would much rather see them showing potential blocking than either climatology or worse enhanced zonality. If they did either of the latter then we can be pretty sure it would likely verify and the chances of getting significant blocking would be low. I think the main point though is that you need to use them just as guide as to what is more probably rather than this is what is going to happen. If it is 60/40 more likely for blocking as opposed to zonality but in practice it turned out to be the latter would you consider this as a fail?

[Model output discussion - 5th December 2016 - Into Winter we go]

11 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

The 18z GEFS have trended very zonal by the look of things to me although I haven't delved to deep, I have only picked out a few and looked at the mean.

Maybe in the medium term but not really in the longer term

 

There are some very nice ones but much more variability though with a big swathe of yellows at or slightly higher than our latitudes.

Problem is it keeps staying at the +300 mark so nothing definite or you could say is trend. However it does show what is possible and if the majority showed raging zonality then we could be sure that would happen so this preferable.

 

 

[Model output discussion - 5th December 2016 - Into Winter we go]

16 minutes ago, Man With Beard said:

Right now I've cracked the code for the ECM 46 I can easily go back and see what it was showing in the past. Here's 24 Nov for midish-December...

Looks pretty good to me.This is the GEFS mean anomaly for the 15th

And the EPS

 

A couple of days later

 

I do not really understand all the bashing of these long range products. Of course they are not going to be correct all the time - they just indicate a favoured outcome. As I said given the range I think this looks pretty impressive - others may disagree.

 

[Model output discussion - 5th December 2016 - Into Winter we go]

Short ensembles look distinctly colder than previously - at least in Holland

[Model output discussion - 5th December 2016 - Into Winter we go]

3 minutes ago, IM NOT REALLY HERE said:

So basically they haven't got a clue? 

I think the phrase that used  is highly uncertain until one solution is favoured over the other.

[Model output discussion - 5th December 2016 - Into Winter we go]

1 hour ago, Steve Murr said:

Note the proper anomaly-

That is the anomaly of 1 run and therefore will obviously be much larger. The previous post that you commented on showed  a mean anomaly in this position which, being an average of 21 runs, was much smaller of course. You dismissed this as just showing slightly less low pressure which for the mean was of course true. In practice though it was showing some runs (6/7) with HLB set against many runs that were climatically normal.

Looking at the mean anomaly at this time shows something similar if a little stronger  due to the increased number of runs now showing HLB.

In my view relatively small mean anomalies in the mean can be of significance but do not necessarily mean one of the smaller number of runs is going to come to fruition. Same with other long range products such as EC46. A small +ve deviation from the climate mean can be significant but does not necessarily mean HLB is going to set up shop in this precise region. This is the EC46 3rd week which was put up yesterday evening - shows something very similar apart from also having some lower heights to the SE. Also much as IF alluded to with everything aligned NW-SE

Note: if we do see a black hole on the mean charts then we are in business

[Model Output Discussions 06z 04/11/16]

2 minutes ago, nick sussex said:

Looking at the ECM and GFS 18hrs run trends I think the quickest route out of watching this bloated high hang around and drive us nuts is going to be the PV split and then hope we can see any high quickly retrogress with a Scandi trough.

The UKMO could get us there with a bit more interest along the way , with that in mind tonights fax chart for T120hrs:

 

Gosh, things must be looking up - 1st time the 120 fax has been wheeled out this season

[Model Output Discussions 06z 04/11/16]

Gem has the low sliding over the top and breaking the link between the HP cells as well ala ECM and now UKMO . Looks like the GFS is maybe going to be on its own again.

 

[Model Output Discussions 06z 04/11/16]

The ECM is really out on its own this one with LP sliding over the top of the Atlantic ridge and breaking the tie with the one in E Canada.. Below are the day 7 images for all the models available at http://ruc.noaa.gov/hfip/tcgen/ 

UKMO

GFS

 

GEM

FIM8

FIM 9

ECM

 

The only support it has is from the NAVGEM - hardly a ringing endorsement

 

 

If the new ECM has got this right against all the other models this will be quite a coup - if not back to the drawing board maybe for the new version. The effect and placement of the tropical depression does seem to be having an effect.

 

[Model Output Discussions 06z 04/11/16]

If we are going to look at FI in this depth then it seems to me the mean for the GEFS is quite an upgrade on the 12Z (FWIW) with a much more pronounced ridge to our W.

 

 

 

 

I can't believe people are complaining they have not had any snow before winter has even started and the fixation with every op run.

 

Things looking pretty good overall as far as I can see. Lots of changes to come though

[Model Output Discussions 12z 01/09/2016]

3 hours ago, Steve Murr said:

 

To answer your the November query, its very easy.

NO !

November for the last 16 years has been a mostly positive index month with the odd bout of negativity.

2009 had a low AO reading which started to feed into the winter - circa -3, however never this much sustained 'negative output'

October is on the cusp of breaking the -AO record & November will be starting around -3 values.

There arent really any comparable years unless you head back into the 60s .... 

S

( Nov 62 was in the top 5 date records of negativity )

 

The last time I can remember significant cold at the beginning of November was 1980 when there was snow in the channel islands and -8 uppers in SE England

 

 

[Model output discussion - 20th Feb onwards]

1 hour ago, knocker said:

MV had this to say about the GFS 11-15 op.

"I'd say the 12Z GFS op liked the idea of a -NAO in the 11-15d period. Probably a spurious run but with Strat... hmm"

Now the GEFS 10-15 anomaly doesn't exactly go along with that

The EPS 10-15 is not dissimilar to the GEFS but has a deeper trough just to the SW of the running down to Iberia. It continues in this vein and by day 15 has an area of low pressure to the south of the UK. One can speculate regarding height rises to the NW and low pressure to the south. This would produce a SE flow for the southern half of the UKwith temps perhaps a little below average.

HI Knocker,

 

I do not really understand why you say the GEFS anomaly does not go along with the Op. As far as I can see it shows anomalously high pressure over Greenland, low over the SE and S Atlantic (i.e to the SW of us) and v. low over NE US - which is what the Op shows?

 

Using the Meteociel view this is apparent.

 

 

It seems very likely that we will get the -ve NAO as backed up by the MetO 30 dayer.

 

 

 

[Model output discussion - 20th Feb onwards]

9 minutes ago, Banbury said:

Something new from ECM...............interesting

Yes those looking for warmer weather next weekend will be disappointed with this -similar at 144 to UKMO though.

 

[Model output discussion - 20th Feb onwards]

53 minutes ago, Timmytour said:

Personally I've seen JH hit the jackpot with his calls too many times to ever dismiss his thoughts....I've learned not to get excited by great looking charts if his interpretation of the anomaly charts don't back them up....and likewise if he senses something changing for the better in them (by which I mean cold and snow potential), then I allow my hopes to get up

Well the GEFS anomalies still showing the same thing with a blocked scenario

 

10 days

 

15 days

Seems odd that the ops keeping showing the flat option with AH ridging NE.

 

Not that cold though

but dry - could be quite pleasant

[Model output discussion - 20th Feb onwards]

Just now, IPredictASnowStorm said:

dont get too excited that will change soon

 

We know  - we are just discussing what is being shown.

[Model Output Discussions 18z 31/01/2016]

2 minutes ago, chris55 said:

I did wonder if that was the case, i know those graphs have an odd timeframe mark, it can be misleading to be honest!

Tonight's for WEERplaza - looks pretty good to me.

 

and mean 850 for 1 week away - -6 across middle of England - also pretty good

[Model Output Discussions 18z 31/01/2016]

6 minutes ago, Mildcarlisle said:

And where did all this hype come from regarding snowfall from this front moving southeast? It may still happen that snowfall occurs but taking a look at this 'now' chart,head scratching can commence forthwith likes...

No hype - people discussing what the models were/are showing (including the MetO) which varied from no snow to significant snow from run to run. I would wait until it has happened in any case but whatever happens this is what was shown.

[Model Output Discussions 18z 31/01/2016]

Heavens above  - we can get cold weather with a tanking -ve AO

If we do not get something interesting in a couple of weeks I will be amazed  - unfortunately probably not as extreme as this (this is for the benefit of NS who wanted to see some N blocking)

[Model Output Discussions 18z 31/01/2016]

Looking through the GES and this one caught the eye - now that is what I would N blocking and -ve AO - still can't get cold for the UK from this though.

[Model Output Discussions 18z 31/01/2016]

37 minutes ago, mushymanrob said:

yep , thats how i read them too john (im learning! lol)
 

ok, theres some 'tastey' runs being produced, which those of you seeking cold must be hopeful about. but the 'best' charts for something cold (deep/lasting) are being produced by the suits that have got a lower verification rate. i note no ones championing the ecm, but statistically it performs the best.

as some of you know, im a convert to the noaa anomaly charts as i found that what john was saying about them - and their high accuracy rate was pretty much spot on.

the current charts dont really allow for much cold, other then a brief 48 hour or so shot (maybe a little longer) but the upper flow remains in the western quadrant, and backs more westerly as john mentions. so they IMHO dont support some of the more amplified cold outputs, theres no strong lasting scandi ridge on these charts (please feel free to correct me if im wrong) . so i wouldnt have thought the chances for anything other then a transitory cold few days are very great, and theres no widespread 'big freeze' (3 + ice days/ lying snow) that some runs appear to hint at.

the lower ecm chart is the sort of synoptic chart id expect the noaa's (esp the 8-14 day) to produce.

The thing is that the first chart perfectly agrees with GFS 06 and the protracted cold spell. If you look at the chart for 19th which is in the middle of your anomaly chart you can the Atlantic high, LP to the N, HP to the NE and near normal pressure over us.

The anomaly charts are great for broad brush average deviations from normal (over a few days) but can conceal local effects which is what is occurring here.  So your statement that the anomaly chart does not allow anything other than a 48 hr cold spell is not correct obviously