Winter 2013/2014 Forecasts/Hopes/Discussion Thread

[Ian Brown]

No it's not in the bag.

I think something you will find as you get used to viewing the NWP is that changes from strongly zonal patterns just don't suddenly pop up n 6/7 days time in the way that they can in other scenarios. When a change comes you will see the models start to play around with how the pattern breaks post T200. At the moment, there are no such signs and the METO support that.

[Captain Shortwave]

yes looks very zonal but as we all know things can change in the models in a hurry and out of the blue and it woudnt take much from that chart to leave us in a very different position and in a much colder airmass

 

ECM1-216.gif

Nothing in the way of cold though, the ECM would at least try and push heights over the UK

With the jet as strong as it is, the ridge just gets flattened, but at least we might start to get some drier weather developing which if it becomes calm could lead to some chillier weather.

[Don]

I was running thru some archives the other day and I hope for the sake of the forum and Carinthians skiing resort that we don't see another 88/89 or 89/90. Absolute zonality.

 

You couldn't get a worse Winter than 88/89 or 89/90 from a coldie's POV!  They really were the pits.  I don't think this Winter will be as bad as those, but my hopes aren't high for a cold one.

[UV-RAY]

I think something you will find as you get used to viewing the NWP is that changes from strongly zonal patterns just don't suddenly pop up n 6/7 days time in the way that they can in other scenarios. When a change comes you will see the models start to play around with how the pattern breaks post T200. At the moment, there are no such signs and the METO support that.

Indeed, I don't see anything in the models suggesting a change in the long wave pattern  in the next 10-15 days and possibly beyond,

Edited October 28, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Weather-history]

You couldn't get a worse Winter than 88/89 or 89/90 from a coldie's POV!  .

December 1989 was the coldest December since 1981 for Scotland, a little interesting fact. The storm just gone was nowt compared to the Burn's Day and Towyn storms of that winter of 1989-90. That winter was the more interesting of the two and costly.

[Buriedundersnow]

Actually, without our atmosphere (mainly the greenhouse gasses) the Earth would be a ball of ice anyway!

 

Nobody is disputing that the sun has an integral role in our weather and climate, but claiming that it's slight variations are the cause of every and any little thing, without presenting any evidence, is pointless.

 

yeah I agree with the not showing evidence but not everyone on here knows how to load things up and that.

 

quick look just now and came up with this

 

http://solarflareeffects.wordpress.com/category/natural-disaster/volcano/

 

its still all theories I think but like all theories it isn't right or wrong till its picked through properly and that's what this period of time will give us.

 

we cant say yet if theres evidence but i'm sure in coming years we will find out.

 

it goes the same with the weather we cant dismiss solar effects just now it has to be put in there with the rest and only when the sun returns to normal we can know for sure if climate and other affects are due to this or not.

[Weather-history]

December 1989 was the coldest December since 1981 for Scotland, a little interesting fact. .

To illustrate the two differences between the two Decembers, look at the air frosts that were recorded at Glasgow Airport during those months1988: 01989: 18A bit of a difference!

[UV-RAY]

We need to be looking at UV output not TSI and try and identify whether this can be correlated with the change in pressure patterns we have seen over the last 5 years, plenty of research is being done in this field but we still have so much to learn that we've barely scratched the surface.

[legritter]

Not many posters over in modell forum so i thought id pop in here .im realy looking forward to this winter .it would be nice to see a continuation of winters with a bit of bite to them ,or are we heading back to the time of mass mild muck with just topplers .i personally dont think so ,not anyhints on any modells or data at the moment but that can only be expected ,im personally going by gut feeling as the weather is certainly not in a boring mode ,and already some signs of northern latitudes seeing some good cold .perhaps we are due the holy grail ,but even if it did grace our charts come real winter time im prety sure at this range there would only be the odd sign especially if it arrived after the new yr .feeling prety pleased with myself today ,as i wrote the track of last nights storm down as coming in a tadge further south which it did over good old bristle ,i was actually up in early hours and was amazed at a stary sky before the gusts arrived ,i hope this winter is a fair share winter so all the prams stay clean and tidy ,cheers gang and heres to an interesting spell coming up ,what next 

[BornFromTheVoid]

yeah I agree with the not showing evidence but not everyone on here knows how to load things up and that.

 

quick look just now and came up with this

 

http://solarflareeffects.wordpress.com/category/natural-disaster/volcano/

 

its still all theories I think but like all theories it isn't right or wrong till its picked through properly and that's what this period of time will give us.

 

we cant say yet if theres evidence but i'm sure in coming years we will find out.

 

it goes the same with the weather we cant dismiss solar effects just now it has to be put in there with the rest and only when the sun returns to normal we can know for sure if climate and other affects are due to this or not.

 

I'm sure solar variability can have an effect of volcanic/tectonic activity, but claiming that changes in the last week is responsible for a single eruption is pushing it a little. In a similar way, we can't say yesterdays storm was caused by the sun, climate change, the AMO or any other individual thing, as there's just too many factors involved! It's only by examining a broad spectrum of factors, can you begin to tease out the causes of such events.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Indeed, the middle part of December 1989 was cold in the north with snow for some, though mild and wet in the south:

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1989/Rrea00119891215.gif

However most of the cold weather of that month was associated with cloudy anticyclones.

 

I don't think I would mind a mild winter too much if it had a lot of weather action and some short-lived wintry outbreaks- the 1994/95 winter was quite a good example of this from my childhood- but there was very little in the way of noteworthy weather during the 1988/89 winter away from the north and west of Scotland until we reached mid-February.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Thundery wintry showers

[Buriedundersnow]

I'm sure solar variability can have an effect of volcanic/tectonic activity, but claiming that changes in the last week is responsible for a single eruption is pushing it a little. In a similar way, we can't say yesterdays storm was caused by the sun, climate change, the AMO or any other individual thing, as there's just too many factors involved! It's only by examining a broad spectrum of factors, can you begin to tease out the causes of such events.

 

totally agree with the putting the single eruption down to it.

 

I think if there is any effects shown between the sun and geological events then its not going to be down to sunspots or uv rays and such that we are thinking might affect the weather but maybe more down to magnetism and the way both fields interact.

[Don]

Indeed, the middle part of December 1989 was cold in the north with snow for some, though mild and wet in the south:

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1989/Rrea00119891215.gif

However most of the cold weather of that month was associated with cloudy anticyclones.

 

 

I vaguely remember seeing weather reports on the news that month about snow in parts of the north.  The reason I remember seeing these reports is that meanwhile down south it was very mild and wet at about 13C!

[Buriedundersnow]

maybe I will just keep my comments to myself,  I thought this forum was different, maybe not

 

IRISHLAD69 don't be put off posting in here.

 

at times you might have someone going against what you say they aren't doing this to be nasty its just simply they have different views to what you have and part of being in the forums is to put your points over and even though not everyone will agree with what you have to say theres no need to leave just take a little time look round the net to find something to back up what you are saying then post that and tell them where they can stick it but done in a nice unthreatening way or find something to post with your original comment.

 

forums can be quite daunting when there is so many people with so many different views but that's part of the fun having good discussions to either prove or disprove your theory.

 

nobody on here will ever intentionally put you down they are just arguing there side of things.

 

just stick with it and you will feel more at home with time.

 

we were all newbies once and all felt the same when trying to put our own beliefs across.

 

don't get downhearted

Edited October 28, 2013 by Buriedundersnow

[irishlad69]

I'm sure solar variability can have an effect of volcanic/tectonic activity, but claiming that changes in the last week is responsible for a single eruption is pushing it a little. In a similar way, we can't say yesterdays storm was caused by the sun, climate change, the AMO or any other individual thing, as there's just too many factors involved! It's only by examining a broad spectrum of factors, can you begin to tease out the causes of such events.

firstly i did not say in any way shape or form that the sun was responsible for the storm this week, I just made a point that it was coincidental that with the rise in sunspots and IF that had any link with Mount Etna erupting, although I can not prove any link, nor can you disprove it, or how long it would take sunspots to affect earth.

[UV-RAY]

firstly i did not say in any way shape or form that the sun was responsible for the storm this week, I just made a point that it was coincidental that with the rise in sunspots and IF that had any link with Mount Etna erupting, although I can not prove any link, nor can you disprove it, or how long it would take sunspots to affect earth.

It's a valid point you make irishlad, some prominent scientist also argue over how long it takes an increase in solar output  to effect climatic conditions at ground zero. As for volcanic activity and solar output  again you'll find different scientists stating the for's and against with neither side being able to put forward any concrete evidence. Keep posting and don't be put off from enquiring replies, I've had my run in's with BFTV but I'm pretty certain he wasn't arguing for arguments sake.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Buriedundersnow]

It's a valid point you make irishlad, some prominent scientist also argue over how long it takes an increase in solar output  to effect climatic conditions at ground zero. As for volcanic activity and solar output  again you'll find different scientists stating the for's and against with neither side being able to put forward any concrete evidence. Keep posting and don't be put off from enquiring replies, I've had my run in's with BFTV but I'm pretty certain he wasn't arguing for arguments sake.

 

yes I don't think BFTV was trying to be argumentative he just seems really head strong about his own ideas but hey we are all a bit like that on here and that's the fun because if we all agreed with each other it would get pretty boring in here quite quick.

[BornFromTheVoid]

firstly i did not say in any way shape or form that the sun was responsible for the storm this week, I just made a point that it was coincidental that with the rise in sunspots and IF that had any link with Mount Etna erupting, although I can not prove any link, nor can you disprove it, or how long it would take sunspots to affect earth.

 

I was just using the storm as an example, I wasn't trying to attribute that to you.

Proving a negative is something few rational people would attempt! As I've said, many things, including perhaps solar activity, need to be examined to work out the cause of events like individual volcanic eruptions (but I don't think we're close to figuring out exactly why eruptions occur when they do anyway!). I'm sure we both agree on that?

[Buriedundersnow]

storm rainfall radar animation

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzWMbmKebGY

[Roger J Smith]

Today scores a zero on my retrograde index. Just sayin.

[bobbydog]

although I agree with you that its not the only factor, I believe its one of the main factors in controlling our weather, also has anyone noticed since the sunspots have risen Mount Etna has erupted, surely IF the sun has an effect on volcanos it must have an effect on out very delicate weather system

 

 

firstly i did not say in any way shape or form that the sun was responsible for the storm this week, I just made a point that it was coincidental that with the rise in sunspots and IF that had any link with Mount Etna erupting, although I can not prove any link, nor can you disprove it, or how long it would take sunspots to affect earth.

 

hi mate, if you read your original post on the subject, you did seem to suggest that the sunspots may have caused etna to erupt!

now i'm fairly sure there is no direct link between solar and volcanic activity, as it would be well documented by scientific studies should that be the case. however, there is a definite link to solar activity and the weather, after all, weather is temperature driven and we get our heat from the sun!

an interesting theory though, could be- what if solar heating variances over time could affect the heat within the earths core? the sun puts out a lot of heat. we know it is absorbed by the surface of the earth (land and oceans alike) if, due to heat transfer, the molten 'underworld' absorbs some of that heat, could it increase global volcanic activity during periods of increased solar activity?...

 

probably complete bo!!ox but an interesting thought....

[feb1991blizzard]

I have a feeling that our high oil usage is responsible for some of the unusual seismic activity recently, no evidence but if you just think logically, oil is heavy, dense and sticky and surely that amount being taken could possibly affect faultlines, even 1000s of miles away, no agenda here as people who read my posts will testify, just a thought.

[bobbydog]

I have a feeling that our high oil usage is responsible for some of the unusual seismic activity recently, no evidence but if you just think logically, oil is heavy, dense and sticky and surely that amount being taken could possibly affect faultlines, even 1000s of miles away, no agenda here as people who read my posts will testify, just a thought.

 

 a possible theory but is recent seismic activity unusual?

[DAVID SNOW]

I have a feeling that our high oil usage is responsible for some of the unusual seismic activity recently, no evidence but if you just think logically, oil is heavy, dense and sticky and surely that amount being taken could possibly affect faultlines, even 1000s of miles away, no agenda here as people who read my posts will testify, just a thought.

 

And I was informed by contacts in the US  that all those subterranean  nuclear detonations carried out in the 50s  have caused the slight increase in global temperatures.

[feb1991blizzard]

 a possible theory but is recent seismic activity unusual?

 

 

I don't remember Japan and New Zealand ever having ridiculous earthquakes before, I stand corrected but also wasn't that 5.9 one we had rather big, yes there is a faultline running just to the West of Birmingham but it remained dormant for 1000s of years before that.