Do You Like The Term Modern Era ?

[stewfox]

The 'christmas pudding' is seen by some as a a term used to describe the last 20 years of UK winter weather. Its used a lot by some on the model output discussion.

The term as I understand seeks to summarise the last 20 uk winters, which have generally been characterised by a lack of real cold particularly long lasting or any wide spread long lasting snow cover.

Forgetting last year, which some people suggest was localised and anyway lack real cold, no one can dispute over all for cold lovers the last 20 uk winter years has been disappointing

So why don't I like the term, I'm ok with labels we use them to describe 'the little ice age 1150 -1460' and numerous others.

What I don't like about the term is some people seem to 'suggest' we cant now go back to seeing a 47 63 or even a 86 /87 type period

Seems to imply a permanent fundamental shift rather then a blink on the stats.

Any thoughts ?

Edited November 29, 2009 by stewfox

[Polar Gael]

I think it is an essentially meaningless term. By definition, whatever era one lives in will be "modern" until one day, it isn't. Hence my sig!

The term itself doesn't especially annoy me; it's more the manner of, shall we say, its over-deployment by certain posters on the site - as in, every other post on some threads.

Endlessly repeating a phrase doesn't prove a theory. Rather, it renders one the human equivalent of a parrot.

Thank goodness the mods are around to occasionally drape the towels over our meteorological pollys' cage(s).

I wonder how many cold and snowy winters we would have to experience before we could declare the post christmas pudding underway?

Edited November 29, 2009 by Polar Gael

[Mondy]

I'll get back to this properly in a day or so if the thread is allowed to remain. However, define "quality" in the same token as "modern" - both are well used everyday words, which much meaning, generally over-used.

I'll get back to this properly in a day or so if the thread is allowed to remain. However, define "quality" in the same token as "modern" - both are well used everyday words, with much meaning, generally over-used.

[Terminal Moraine]

I'm indifferent to the term. It's only a label for what has been a remarkably warm period and has no bearing on what the weather will do in the future. I get the impression that some people are so angered by its use because they fear it has some sort of mystical property which will prevent cold winters ever returning.

It has been used before, in a slightly different wording, to describe the warm, Atlantic driven period of the 1920s and 30s so in my view nothing to get excited about.

[sundog]

The term christmas pudding doesnt bother me, but i do think our winters can go back to the way they used to be and hopefully they will sooner or later. I think its just a cycle we are in. I think wording it- post 87 winters is better though (some might say post 97 winters)

Edited November 29, 2009 by sundog

[SP1986]

The term modern era will eventually run out - but if there's a cold period will that become the new modern period?

Time isn't defined it's essentially ongoing so to define something within the term modern era is probably incorrect.

However, what Ian actually means in the recent era (recent period) which there has been an unmistakable trend towards milder weather.

I can't disagree with the theory behind it, but the terminology is somewhat incorrect.

The only way the modern era would work is if it was mild beyond our lifetimes.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

When it is appropriated towards fashion, art, architecture etc in the real world (beyond the relevant to topic cyber weather neurosis exposed in the specific context here) then it is a very appropriate term to use at it depicts a REAL historical vs present significance.

That is different to using it as a hobby catch phrase, to enbody a personal angst about a perceived specific irreversible UK winter climate shift, which is then projected persistently on everyone else (supposedly to embrace in the same obsessive way) but in reality just done in a likewise persistently deliberate manner to get a reaction.

In that sense I would conceed there is of course a peversely (hollow) success!

I've just answered the question as truthfully and honestly as was asked within its context. Answer, in summary, is then probably obvious!

Edited November 29, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[SP1986]

Not sure it's to get a reaction, because someone doesn't forecast cold every day doesn't mean they're trying to get a reaction.

Ian may see it as the most likely, I'm sure if it turned much much colder as a trend, Ian would acknowledge that. It's understandable why the mild spell is referred to more by Ian, because we certainly ain't in a cold era that's for sure.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Not sure it's to get a reaction, because someone doesn't forecast cold every day doesn't mean they're trying to get a reaction.

Ian may see it as the most likely, I'm sure if it turned much much colder as a trend, Ian would acknowledge that. It's understandable why the mild spell is referred to more by Ian, because we certainly ain't in a cold era that's for sure.

Inserting the term in 99% of posts that you make, on top of blatantly self advertising the catchphrase at every opportunity and on any public domain surely HAS to be borne of a need for reaction/give me attention insecurity Stephen. And I think you must know that surely!

I am sensitively and tactfully aware of the personal nature of such comments, but genuinely I think that Ian wants such reaction. So yes, I am as guilty as anyone else for commenting and giving my own opinion as it is probably part of Ian's masterplan

Edited November 30, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[TEITS]

Whilst I agree since the late 80's our winters have changed, the "christmas pudding" phrase still irritates me.

I do speak my mind and what irritates me is the frequency that these words are used in every single post. I have no doubts that the intention of using these words is to simply wind up and irritate other members.

Edited November 30, 2009 by THE EYE IN THE SKY

[SP1986]

Inserting the term in 99% of posts that you make, on top of blatantly self advertising the catchphrase at every opportunity and on any public domain surely HAS to be borne of a need for reaction/give me attention insecurity Stephen. And I think you must know that surely!

I am sensitively and tactfully aware of the personal nature of such comments, but genuinely I think that Ian wants such reaction. So yes, I am as guilty as anyone else for commenting and giving my own opinion as it is probably part of Ian's masterplan

Well perhaps, but if he uttered cold in 99% of his posts would you see it as attention seeking, honestly? (That's where the question will get answered for me)

I just wonder because it seems the discomfort of the term modern era, is just as much rejected because it doesn't conform to the cold, as it is fundamentally incorrect.

I'm not defending him if he is looking for attention, but it seems it irritates those who favour cold, that's all

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Maybe there was a Roman centurian who tended his grapes in England 1800 years ago who muttered about the "Periodicus Warmus Modernus" too.

Oh wise one, you!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Well perhaps, but if he uttered cold in 99% of his posts would you see it as attention seeking, honestly? (That's where the question will get answered for me)

I just wonder because it seems the discomfort of the term christmas pudding, is just as much rejected because it doesn't conform to the cold, as it is fundamentally incorrect.

I'm not defending him if he is looking for attention, but it seems it irritates those who favour cold, that's all

As much as I might honestly want to support someone else who also likes cold winter weather such as me, if they repetitively uttered some equivalent coldie catchphrase at every conceivable opportunity then of course they are not going to get honest respect for that or be taken seriously.

Lets allow intelligent reading between the lines to surface here. I think most of the mainstream members on this forum who are also fans of cold winter weather are much more clued up these days as to what is 'real' and what is not. Yes people get excited about seeing cold charts at this time of year - but most know when to use the proverbial salt.

He should debate the winter season prospects based on its individual merits in terms of likely contributing factors without basing every post around a deliberately inserted catchphrase to get attention. He doesn't need to, he is clearly not unintelligent - that is the whole point.

C'mon TEITS, no one on here ever antagonises anyone else.....

(N.B. I am backing u up....)

As long as wise one means "sarcastic B**TARD" in Kentish....

ooh.err!

Night all

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm indifferent to the term. It's only a label for what has been a remarkably warm period and has no bearing on what the weather will do in the future. I get the impression that some people are so angered by its use because they fear it has some sort of mystical property which will prevent cold winters ever returning.

It has been used before, in a slightly different wording, to describe the warm, Atlantic driven period of the 1920s and 30s so in my view nothing to get excited about.

I think what may well get a lot of people's backs up is Ian Brown's repeated inference that the modern era does have a sort of mystical property that will prevent cold winters ever returning. Specifically, it's taken to be irreversible and a factor that prevents cold snowy winters from ever happening.

Thing is, Ian's "modern era" theory certainly has strong grounds behind it. All of the trends that he regularly points to (less northern blocking, higher SSTs, cyclogenesis around Greenland/Iceland) have indisputably been occurring and they do indisputably reduce the chances of cold snowy winters occurring. The return of cold snowy winters is only likely if the current synoptic trends reverse to enough of an extent to offset any further Northern Hemisphere warming. However, he expresses it in too absolute (black and white) and egotistical a fashion, and there is a sense that there may be subtle attempts to wind up in there.

Like TM, I'm indifferent to the term in itself, mostly for the same reasons.

[NL]

Whether you like it or not big organizations such as NASA are using the terminology 'christmas pudding'..

http://www.usclivar.org/Newsletter/Variations_V4N2/CLIVAR%20NL%20MERRA.pdf

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Whether you like it or not big organizations such as NASA are using the terminology 'Modern Era'..

I wonder if they'll settle out of court, or if Ian will go all the way for huge damages?

[Methuselah]

Pretty indifferent to the term, tbh...Surely, IB's as entitled to post thoughts as is anyone else? And, as has been said above, the idea has more than a grain of support from the facts...

[I remember Atlantic 252]

I dont mind the term at all, just much easier than saying UK climate change etc, cant understand why some people dont like it

I hate the christmas pudding though because I see miles less snow than the 90's, but dont have a problem whatsoever with the expression, everyone knows that our winters are not what they used to be, and i think will gradually continue to get milder into the 2010's

[Solar Cycles]

NO COMMENT!!!

[stewfox]

I dont mind the term at all, just much easier than saying UK climate change etc, cant understand why some people dont like it

I hate the christmas pudding though because I see miles less snow than the 90's, but dont have a problem whatsoever with the expression, everyone knows that our winters are not what they used to be, and i think will gradually continue to get milder into the 2010's

The 90's were part of the 'christmas pudding'.

Unless we have the 2000s at the post modern christmas pudding.

I don't like phases that are still used today like 'run away global warming' which clearly (at present) there isn't.

However the christmas pudding defines a period of weather that you can't really dispute is marked by generally a lack prolonged cold/snow. I am also not against labels

Maybe it's like the phase 'im my day we wouldn't do that'

It kind of has a mild patronising flavour to, like 'kids today don't know what being hungry is'. Even though the statement maybe true.

Ps I'm disappointed that some people have used the thread to have a go at IB (even moderators). It's a term as mentioned above is used elsewhere and by other forumites.

[Methuselah]

Unfortunately, the term 'Modern Era' often provokes a knee-jerk reaction among some; and, I suspect that to be a result of the amount of truth it contains...IMO, if it didn't contain any truth (ie. wasn't backed-up by facts) it would be laughed at like conspiracy theories are??

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I don't see a problem, in the 1970's that was the 'christmas pudding' in the 1940's that was the 'christmas pudding' It's just a term, it has no bearing on what has happened, what is happening or what will happen, it just defines a space in time that we happen to be in.

[TEITS]

Pretty indifferent to the term, tbh...Surely, IB's as entitled to post thoughts as is anyone else? And, as has been said above, the idea has more than a grain of support from the facts...

Like I said before I don't disagree with the phrase but the frequency it is used. As IB mentions "christmas pudding" in 99% of his posts you can understand why some get annoyed.

[Fozfoster]

I bet IB is laughing his socks off at this topic

[Polar Gael]

Maybe we should undertake a rebranding exercise. Who's for the "New" christmas pudding? Worked for a certain well known political party for a while...

Edited November 30, 2009 by Polar Gael