Autumn And Winter

[Dawlish]

One aspect of the current modelling I find quite encouraging .....GP

Looking good, this time last year wasn`t nowhere near as cold as that up over greenland.

"encouraging", "looking good". I don't have to ask, "for what?" the clue is in your names guys.

Some of me really hopes that there is an anomalous, UK cold winter, for the sake of all the people desperate to see one!!

Any possible pointers are put forward as encouraging signs whereas the big picture, of the world continuing to warm, of the first half of this year, globally, being in the top 10 first halves (as usual), of the first half of this year being well above average temps in the UK, of SSTs being warm, of a historical record of rising temperatures, both globally and in the UK, over a reasonably long period of time, now are just ignored, in favour of whatever cold pointer is the flavour of the month.

Balance guys and gals. That's all I'd ask for, balance! Tell us about possible mild pointers, from time to time, as well as the cold ones.

Paul

Edited September 6, 2006 by Dawlish

[Glacier Point]

Balance guys and gals. That's all I'd ask for, balance! Tell us about possible mild pointers, from time to time, as well as the cold ones.

Paul

ask seek and ye shall find.....

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...st&p=771969

[Duane S.]

Balance guys and gals. That's all I'd ask for, balance! Tell us about possible mild pointers, from time to time, as well as the cold ones.

Paul

The balance comes from different peoples viewpoints not from people's differing viewpoints. ummm that sentence made sense in my head, not sure it does now B)

What do you seriously expect those who love the cold to do?? To balance out a previously pro-cold posting with an equvilent mild one?? errr don't think so. There are enough people in all camps to put forward pessimistic, optimistic and pragmatic points of view at all times to achieve a balance of sorts.

[The Eagle]

One aspect of the current modelling I find quite encouraging is the persistence of height anomalies over Greenland and a strong slow moving or even stationary Icelandic low helping to draw down some of that anomalously cold Arctic Air into the Greenland High.

Arctic surface temp anomalies August

With the re-emergence of the (SSTA driven) summer pattern into September and the east-Atlantic trough-west European ridge, this will help to maintain the longitudinal pattern of Greenland High - Icelandic Low in turn perpetuating cycles of cold air development over Greenland.

The 06Z GFS demonstrates this quite nicely:

cold pool building.......

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn002.html

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn1202.html

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn1802.html

dispersal.....

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn2282.html

re-building......

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn2762.html

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rtavn3482.html

This run has been used to illustrate the theorectical process and is no guarantee of what might happen but it is a trend worth looking for as we head towards October. Notice even at t120 we have -20 850 values. Repeat that cycle several times and a sizeable cold pool could have developed by November.

GP

A very good post there as ever GP.

A very cold pool over Greenland is not nessacarilly a good thing. It can lead to more cyclogenisis and give depressions a kick coming down from newfoundland which in itself is zonality. The only year ive seen really cold pooling over Greenland actually deliver for us was 2001. Its hard to know just how relevant it is B)

[Stratos Ferric]

The balance comes from different peoples viewpoints not from people's differing viewpoints. ummm that sentence made sense in my head, not sure it does now :huh:

What do you seriously expect those who love the cold to do?? To balance out a previously pro-cold posting with an equvilent mild one?? errr don't think so. There are enough people in all camps to put forward pessimistic, optimistic and pragmatic points of view at all times to achieve a balance of sorts.

People can choose, but personally there are some posters whose posts hardly deserve a reading because you know what they're going to say before they've said it. In life I've seen a lot of people, at all levels, whose ability to influence is not based on automatic attachement to a particular dogma (you see it all the time in political debates where e.g. if labour have said it it must be right because all the other parties are bad), but on an impressive ability to make objective decisions based on the evidence and argument before them.

Balance can come from argument and counter argument, but that doesn't make us balanced individuals, and someone predisposed automatically to one view or the other, and without an ability to listen (often evidenced on N-W by the way posters simply come back with their own view rather than seeking to disassemble the other side's argument), is hardly going to become more evenly informed by the type of thread you describe. The automatic tendency will always be to dismiss the other view. Therein, sad to say it, lies the root of all bigotry.

"encouraging", "looking good". I don't have to ask, "for what?" the clue is in your names guys.

Some of me really hopes that there is an anomalous, UK cold winter, for the sake of all the people desperate to see one!!

Any possible pointers are put forward as encouraging signs whereas the big picture, of the world continuing to warm, of the first half of this year, globally, being in the top 10 first halves (as usual), of the first half of this year being well above average temps in the UK, of SSTs being warm, of a historical record of rising temperatures, both globally and in the UK, over a reasonably long period of time, now are just ignored, in favour of whatever cold pointer is the flavour of the month.

Balance guys and gals. That's all I'd ask for, balance! Tell us about possible mild pointers, from time to time, as well as the cold ones.

Paul

What I would concede at present, and it's just worth watching, is the pattern of NH surface temperature anomaly at present. For the first time I can remember in ages there are some fairly significant anomalies, including a marked polar anomaly. it might just be a very short term thing, but if it persists, and IF SSTs to our west drop (they are way too warm at present), then there would be some scope for speculation regarding a colder winter than we're used to in these modern times.

[summer blizzard]

Balance guys and gals. That's all I'd ask for, balance! Tell us about possible mild pointers, from time to time, as well as the cold ones.

Paul

Dawlish, i personally try to show no bias in my reasearch, if i come across mild teleconnection anologues in my reasearch, i would post them, as i have done with the anologue of 1994, only yesterday i indentified a stumbling block in regards to the AO and QBO, i will post some more anologue data tonight and also compare the size of the Polar Cell and Arctic cold pool to recent years.

I will repeat a statement that i made yesterday, while the jury is out as to whether we will have an above or below average winter, current anologues favour at least one below average winter month.

[VillagePlank]

Dawlish, i personally try to show no bias in my reasearch, . . .

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

[Stratos Ferric]

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

Wise words.

[Snowly does it]

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

Scientific research needs a bias to it, it needs a reason to be undertaken. Science for science sake is irresponsible and would end this little jaunt of ours in a heartbeat.

One does not look at Global Warming for the sake of looking, one looks at the implications of the assumed (and now proven) trend that could afflict mankind and the planet, one therefore has an inherent bias and reason.

I place no value on science that says 'is' and leaves it at that.

Science, in short, is bereft of reason without the joyous wonder that is philosophy.

[VillagePlank]

Scientific research needs a bias to it

ok?

it needs a reason to be undertaken.

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"

Science for science sake is irresponsible and would end this little jaunt of ours in a heartbeat.

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.

One does not look at Global Warming for the sake of looking, one looks at the implications of the assumed (and now proven) trend that could afflict mankind and the planet, one therefore has an inherent bias and reason.

In all fashions of mathematics, and philosophical reasoning I cannot see how this adds up.

I place no value on science that says 'is' and leaves it at that.

But you do. I presume your internet connection has value?

Science, in short, is bereft of reason without the joyous wonder that is philosophy.

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. Edited September 6, 2006 by Wilson

[SMU]

Evening All-

Sitting here on break at work & reading over the thread that still meanders on as we await the first Northerly in FI !!!-

I must re-iterate a few things like....

Winter LRFS's are as old as the Hills, All with varying degrees of success, Lets be clear the measurements of accuracy CANNOt be applied in the same way as measuring a model accuracy at say 5 days which we tend to see through RMS errors etc from the model statistics Site-

At BEST the Parameters to Measure & Forecast against Are Temperature & Rainfall- as departures from the norm-

The third & one in which I think the MET office should entertain is the Pressure anomalies laid out for the Season-

This then links in the thinking around the forecast correlating back to expected temperature & rainfall anomalies-

I think people get TO hung up with detail- No Snow event, No Storm can be Forecast Weeks, Months in advance- what CAN be estimated is the Relashonship that the teleconnections have with the regions forecast for-

This will obviously include SSTA's, Snow Cover, Stratospheric temps, Maunder Mins etc....

We are only just starting out on this journey towards a 'Decent' LRF especially when we look at the Americans who use these all the time around the Energy businesses, trust me there are people out there that make significant amounts of money based around their LRF's-

What we have here though ( & I have said this before) is one or two organisations -Like The Met office/ Net weather / Metcheck who are taking the first steps into attributing time & Investment into these products- because After all they are 'Products' & marketable ones at that-

For those that still have reservations around how good we can ever get should remind themselves of how often the statement ' It cannot be done' has actually been proved wrong-

This is particularly relevent when we start discussing this winters forecasts, - The Met office one will be much speculated & forgive me for trying to second guess their outlook- Im strongly looking towards a milder than the norm outlook due to the relashonship between the SSTA around Iceland during the Early Summer for the following Winter-

I suspect their NAO outlook will say +VE phase, Milder & Possibly wetter than the average-

However I hinted at the prospect of an Extreme Winter ( Against the recent Norm) Rather than a Normalised Winter due to the Forcing thats going on in the atmosphere-

If we look at the Teleconnections & SST'AS there NEVER seem to be any anolgues to measure against these days ( Measuring data goes back to the 50's) Everything appears to be an Extreme, or have extreme anoamlies involved- ( polar anomaly included)

This where I think thinking outside the nine dots comes in-

To forecast this Winter- using the NAO relashonship is not enough of the pie from My Perspective, The data that will need to be as UP TO DATE as possible will need to span the tropics, The Poles, The oceans ,The Stratosphere & So on-

My Winter Outlook will be released late- again the preliminaries ( thats the data from a CURRENT standpoint) suggest a similar Winter ( AT LEAST START) to Last, Pos NAO with BIG neg heights towards Greenland & LOW frequencies of Northerlies- Not to much peoples pleasure-

The core of the cold- which has to be said has developed early & to a better depth will Strongly Manifest itself to the East with the Polar vortex Probably displaced in 2 locations-

The key here this year COULD well be the strength of the Pacific Jet- Its was anomalously fast last year with assistence from the Negative PDO & Easterly QBO -

As we head into early Sept the QBO isnt where it was last year (Its Westerly) & we correlate a weaker jet back to the OVERALL pattern observed last winter you will all know this could be VERY significant....

Anyway best regards

Steve

Edited September 6, 2006 by Steve Murr

[Turnedoutniceagain]

Can someone refresh my memory please. Out of the plethora of LRFs that Members posted for winter 2005/6, who proved to be the closest ??? (No fisticuffs please Gents )

[John Cox]

Hi Steve,

Great post. What I like about it is that it looks well "outside the posts".

In this day and age it is the likes you you and a few others here on nw that really offers a chance to expand the accuracy of long range weather forecasts.

Indeed it is obvious from this and other posts that you place here on NW that you always are progressing your knowledge. You seem to learn from what you predict (and I use this term loosely) even if it goes pear shaped. You move on and use what has actually materialised and use the lessons learned for your next thoughts.

I know some of nw members can be sceptical of your ideas and thoughts but you are always pushing the boat out to its extremes and this is how you are learning (forgive me if I am being presumptious) and thankfully are prepared to bare your thoughts even if the results end up not as you might have predicted.

From my point of view and i am sure others (noggin would be a great example) you put the technical perspective to, what we know from our love of meteorology, what we "feel" from real observations, may be on the horizon.

I realise that you are not giving a definitive LRF for this winter but I do follow with interest your winter thoughts as that season nears.

Keep up the good work

[SMU]

Can someone refresh my memory please. Out of the plethora of LRFs that Members posted for winter 2005/6, who proved to be the closest ??? (No fisticuffs please Gents )

Hi-

To be fair the Met office prediction of the 2 parameters I mentioned earlier was pretty much spot on, Although some question around the NAO model- However probably the best-

As for everyone else- Im probably not the best person to pass judgement- Id say there was aspects that we ALL picked up on & were all right about but a few not so good-- However to be fair Across the piste there were far to many things trying to be measured-

I would say keep it simple- The Methods to arrive at forecast can be as complicated or as ecentric as possible- Vis a vee Teleconnections or old wives tales but the output would be better served sticking to either the 2 Met office Parameters OR 3 including the Pressure anomalies...

S

Cheers big John...

Edited September 6, 2006 by Steve Murr

[January Snowstorm]

I must admit the current zonality has come as a shock to the system.

We all had become used to prolonged blocking and dry weather.

The current zonal spell does not go well for the Winter outlook.It's almost like the climate has reset itself after more than 12 months of unusual synoptics.

Nothing unusual about the current weather and that's the biggest downer.

A mild Winter to come for me with cold zonality our best hope.

[Michael Fishermans Friend]

Nothing hugely zonal at present with a 'weak' HP moving slowly eastwards followed what looks like to be more regular blocking just to our east by the weekend onwards and could bring back possibly further warm weather next week. I dont think zonal weather at this time of the year has any bearing what so ever on the winter to come, as mentioned by many a person on here is the factor SST's play in the next couple of months.

[Snowly does it]

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.

Becuase of the splitting of comments I can't quote your whole post however..

All of the people you mention did what they did for the love of it, or from curiosity. This, in and of itself is a bias or reason for doing it. Climbing a mountain 'because it is there' is doing something for personal reasons, again it has a human tint to it.

Necessity is indeed the mother of invention whether that necessity be personal or global. This is the whole point, scientific discovery and research is driven whether personally or from need and cannot therefore be independant of bias, to undertake such would mean there were no understanding of its nature to humanity, the self, whatever.

Additionally, individuals undertaking a lifetimes work without publishing their results (and having no intention to do so) are the exception, not the norm and are by no means responsible for most discovery/inspiration or future research.

As for dragging philosophy through the mud.... Philosophy owes me for the three years hard work I put into it, so I am sure it will forgive me.

As to the winter, wouldn't even want to guess today, let alone predict.

Edited September 6, 2006 by snowmaiden

[Snowly does it]

Out of interest, with reference to the 'syonptic change' that has been touted from February 2005. Would those that have supported this suggest it is still in place and a factor or is there a feeling that things have perhaps shifted back towards a more pre-Feb 2005 outlook? I really am unsure and would appreicate any thoughts on this.

[VillagePlank]

Becuase of the splitting of comments I can't quote your whole post however..

All of the people you mention did what they did for the love of it, or from curiosity. This, in and of itself is a bias or reason for doing it. Climbing a mountain 'because it is there' is doing something for personal reasons, again it has a human tint to it.

Necessity is indeed the mother of invention whether that necessity be personal or global. This is the whole point, scientific discovery and research is driven whether personally or from need and cannot therefore be independant of bias, to undertake such would mean there were no understanding of its nature to humanity, the self, whatever.

Additionally, individuals undertaking a lifetimes work without publishing their results (and having no intention to do so) are the exception, not the norm and are by no means responsible for most discovery/inspiration or future research.

As for dragging philosophy through the mud.... Philosophy owes me for the three years hard work I put into it, so I am sure it will forgive me.

As to the winter, wouldn't even want to guess today, let alone predict.

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?

[Snowly does it]

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?

indeed so.

[Dawlish]

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?

True, Wilson, but without a philosophy of why we do things in science, we teeter on the brink of an orthodoxy that science is everything. I class myself as a scientist, but my science is tempered by a philosophy that science has to help. Science is a means to an end; if it is the end itself, without temperence, we lose sight of morality.

Why do we use double blind methods? To get our research as free from influence as possible...but why are we doing the research? There has to be a reason and in the reasoning, we find the nugget of philosophy.

There are very few great scientists who were not philosophers in their own right. Einstein was eventualy torn to his conscience to write his letters to Roosevelt about Fermi's research. It took a long time, but in his dotage, he grasped the pernicious nature of the pure scientific non-morality of what was happening. It was the philosophy of massive scientific experience that prompted that. Maybe Fermi and his colleagues and helpers were just too engrossed to realise what Einstein saw.

I don't agree with the idea of scientific research for research's sake, though I could reserve the right to do that myself! I know that sounds terribly contradictory, but Fermi probably justified his research in a similar way - it was so important that morality took a back seat.

Notice I said "could". I would hope, that in a similar situation, I wouldn't.....but, being human, I could never promise that.

Paul

[Roger J Smith]

I think it's fair to say that the professionals have a very strong bias against any theories that stress energy input mainly top down to the surface, as opposed to surface up into the atmosphere. Not sure really why there is this almost religious fervour but I suspect that it is tied up with the notion that since supercomputers have improved the 3-6 day time scale notably since 1980 (a point I readily concede), they must have the ability over time (through intelligent programming, of course) to keep advancing that accuracy thresh-hold well into the medium and long range.

Of course, if energy cycles are generated from above the atmosphere as implied in my type of theory and research, then this is all wishful thinking. There is no way that supercomputers will have any way to anticipate the onset and life cycle of such energy cycles, unless of course they detect a pattern that amounts to a cyclical pattern.

On the other hand, rapid progress might be made if a theory were accepted along the lines of predictable geomagnetic and solar system magnetic variations being linked to atmospheric variations. People keep telling me what can't be done, but I've already seen a number of examples of how that can be done. Each time it is done, perhaps imprecisely, observers then say "that was a fluke, show us another one."

Eventually, even a patient person such as myself gets the paradigm -- the observers don't want to believe what they may be seeing, they are suppressing all possibility of having their minds changed, and they throw in a little condescension for good measure.

This has been the pattern in the earth sciences for two centuries, actually, and my point goes largely unappreciated when I say that the first step is for the community to set standards of what LRFs should predict so that all can be verified by the same standards. This would at least remove some of the obscurity about what methods are working better than others.

I hope I see some progress in this direction, because a lot of time and effort will soon be wasted by the inevitability of the human life cycle, in my case, and I would guess in other cases as well, when it comes to some alternative methods. Meanwhile, those who believe that existing global models can be extended far into the future with great accuracy will almost certainly be waiting a very long time to see even modest gains out to ten days. The amount of resources being wasted in this approach may be very large indeed.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Roger J Smith

[North-Easterly Blast]

Much speculation from many people that this coming winter is likely to be milder than the long term average has arisen after the Met Office has issued a forecast of a positive NAO back in July, based on SST Anomalies in June. I do not know how they can base this to predict the weather 6-8 months down the line. SSTs are one factor, but others are involved as well.

In my view things are not looking good for cold weather fans this coming winter especially with a weak El Nino developing, and warm SSTs to the east of Newfoundland, and this may well contribute to putting our part of the world in the grip of Bartlett High conditions. Only the Met Office have made a prediction yet, we still await Brian's on TWO and Ian Brown's on Net Weather. I would also like to say that I do not believe that any long range forecaster, not even the Met Office, back in the spring and even in May, predicted the scorching July that we have just had this year. Correct me if I am wrong.

I will say that I would get much more excited if cool and unsettled weather in September was replaced by warm and dry conditions during October - this would indicate at least that the repetitive autumn weather patterns of recent years have changed, and that the forthcoming winter will deliver something different to recent winters. What I just love to see is frequent low pressures crossing the UK in September and then much high pressure over Europe influencing the UK's weather during October. What I just hate to see and am sick to death of is these patterns the opposite way round which has prevailed so much during recent years.

I do not know what has happened to the UK's winter weather patterns. Before 1988, the chances of getting the sort of classic spells that we saw in 1962-63, 1969, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1986 and 1987 were about as equal as getting the mild zonality and Bartlett Highs that we saw in 1974, 1975, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1997, 1998 and 2002. Whereas now, and ever since 1988 all the odds seem to be stacked in our favour of the Bartlett High and / or constant depressions running through the Iceland / Greenland corridor.

[izi]

for the past few years (at least two) i remember the Metoffice and Metcheck forcasting a cold winter. Esp last winter which didnt really happen.

Therefore if they are forecasting a warmer winter, just possibly we may see some cooler weather! :lol: :blink:

[Dawlish]

for the past few years (at least two) i remember the Metoffice and Metcheck forcasting a cold winter. Esp last winter which didnt really happen.

Therefore if they are forecasting a warmer winter, just possibly we may see some cooler weather! :lol: :blink:

Certainly, the winter before last, the Met Office suffered dreadfully from Metcheck's erroneous forecast of a cold winter. The Met Office did NOT forecast a colder than average winter, that year but were roundly criticised, come the spring, for having done so!! The press got metcheck and the Met Office confused. They were really very upset about it and with justification!

Last year the Met Office forecast the coldest winter for a decade and were correct. I think the metcheck forecast was for colder than that.

Paul