Model Output Discussion - Cold spell ending - what next?

[Dennis]

start Febr 2024

NAO

[Catacol]

1 hour ago, Penguin16 said:

But is it categorical that it was cut short by the SSW? or is it just a case of selective revisionism as to way to explain why the background signals were a major fail once again? Only 10 days ago we were hearing about a 1978 pattern from a god and to ignore the models breakdown. I’ve never seen one of the background zealots on here actually hold their hands up and say actually guys I got it wrong. There’s always an excuse.

"Background Zealots"? Hmm. Is this where we are at now, where those trying to unravel the complex task of forecasting get labelled as zealots? Either you know what that word means and are therefore genuinely trying to put the boot in, or you don't know what it means and perhaps shouldn't be using it.

I see in general the knives are out today. Disappointing. Let's have a go at a broad response:

1. There are 2 areas of ongoing research that interest those with a passion for this kind of stuff. First is the GSDM theory first put together about 15 years ago by Ed Berry. The second is a greater understanding of stratospheric impacts on our weather, another fledgling science that has also been around for 15-20 years approx.

2. One of the challenges of both approaches is to try and understand the inter relationship between the two. GSDM is largely anchored on developments in the Pacific alongside momentum impacts created by the big mountain ranges - Tibet and Rockies probably most importantly, Urals also. Strat modelling tries to interpret the impact of vertical wave propagation and how the column of air above the arctic is shaped/squeezed/stretched/split (or not) by these waves. Tropospheric patterns feed into the strat and vice versa - so they are definitely linked - but an understanding of the links is still in its infancy. When Amy Butler tweets that the reasons for the failed SSW in early January are not understood (given models tend to under rather than over model the likelihood of an SSW) then you know you are walking in a world of grey. And that failed SSW and what has transpired instead has had a huge hand to play in how January has developed.

3. From this, we have 2 options. Label these areas of research as a waste of time, as likely to produce accuracy as the advice of a cat (!!), or we engage with what is going on and try and unpick it. CC is not making this any easier because CC is making a mess of analogues - the atmosphere and the overall climate just isn't what it was in the 1960-90 period and adapting to the pace of change and how it impacts forecasting is a challenge.

4. Some of today's posters would clearly favour the former. Don't bother trying to unlock the door to understanding because it cannot be done. Fair enough - but not for me. I'm not a nihilist and wish to continue to try and learn. Perhaps those who see chaos theory as the only answer to our weather should have a thread all of their own, though the thread would probably make for pointless reading.

5. Finally - you might want to read posts more carefully. Only the other day I acknowledged in a post that the Xmas forecast was a bust, and that the recent cold was shorter lived than expected. Reasons for both were set out, bust was advertised. Two successes at the same time, early Dec and the snap just gone. And it looks as though next week will bust too. There you go - is that clear enough? If you want the reason laid out again, reflective strat event. Not forecast, not spotted even by those with proper qualifications in relevant climate science. But this winter is not done yet, and I still see distinct opportunity for further cold in February and again into March. 

 

As a concluding comment, we are dealing in probability forecasting. No one will ever get to the stage where we say "in 10 days' time it will snow in London and 6 inches will fall and stick." Nonsense. We look at probabilities. And when dealing in probability a 95% chance does not always land. I see some criticism of the MetO today as well. Really? Those of you happy to criticise forecasting methodology and happy also to criticise (possibly) the most advanced national Met Office in the world and its choice of language are seeking a level of absolute clarity that is unattainable.

If you have something to say that adds to the debate, say away. If your words are designed to tear, rip and demolish - silence is a better alternative.

 

[cheshire snow]

@Catacol

fantastic post.

[MattStoke]

It's always easier to dismiss something as useless than it is to look into and understand it.

[johnholmes]

56 minutes ago, Catacol said:

 

 

As a concluding comment, we are dealing in probability forecasting. No one will ever get to the stage where we say "in 10 days' time it will snow in London and 6 inches will fall and stick." Nonsense. We look at probabilities. And when dealing in probability a 95% chance does not always land. I see some criticism of the MetO today as well. Really? Those of you happy to criticise forecasting methodology and happy also to criticise (possibly) the most advanced national Met Office in the world and its choice of language are seeking a level of absolute clarity that is unattainable.

If you have something to say that adds to the debate, say away. If your words are designed to tear, rip and demolish - silence is a better alternative.

 

Very well said C, as an ex senior forecaster for the often maligned Met Office much of what you discuss was barely seen in my days, an occasional very complex item in the more learned scientific magazines certainly nothing in practical meteorology. The science of meteorology has come a long way since then but some of you on here, yourself included, absolutely amaze me with your depth of knowledge. Keep going at it you will never, in my view, get a total answer but you will become more accurate as will the professionals. Thanks for all the hard work you and others on here do, way above me much of the time but well done.

[chapmanslade]

4 hours ago, Penguin16 said:

They haven’t failed? Reading over this forum this winter must have been a dream then. It’s amusing every time they go bust, they get downplayed by those who put most emphasis on how important they are and ramping it only to fall back to the micro vs macro argument. They never factor that in when ramping the prospects. All in all another major fail for the background signals, you can’t polish a turd.

Well how about you put these zealots and turd polishers on ignore and then your day will not be interrupted by their posts seeing as how you consider them so worthless. 

Most of those posting on 'background signals' rarely 'ramp' and just discuss trends and suggestions going forward. Some of those who add 2+2 and make 25 from those discussions are the ones you should be complaining about.

The background signals cannot 'fail'. They are what they are (and their predictability is no better than anything else in the models). The only fail comes when folks hang too much on them either through a lack of understanding or a desire for a particular outcome.

[cheeky_monkey]

as a complete neutral (no feelings either way if its cold or not in the UK) IMO the only real problem here is the huge bias towards looking for cold and snow..hence many posters are blinded by that fact and don't give a balanced view of the models which in turn to leads to massive over expectation by others who may not understand what the whole output is showing and thus massive disappointment ensues and finger pointing starts when things don't turn out the way they wanted or expected. Its always been that way and unfortunately anyone who does give a fully balanced viewed will be swamped by hope casting in the winter months.

[Dennis]

febr MJO event 

just to give an idea there is something soon going on..... also NAO is going neg. values 

Edited January 22 by Dennis

[mulzy]

Back to the models, the outer reaches of the ICON has the continuing theme of intense PV over Greenland and Euro high.  Are we going to break out of this pattern in time?  Time will tell.

 

[Northern Sky]

I think a point to recognise is that many people on here hang onto every word that some of our knowledgeable and experienced posters post. Like most of us these people can become excited by the prospects of cold and this can influence the presentation of the evidence. I think it's fair to say that we did see some of these hugely respected posters drop references to iconic past Winters in relation to the signals that presented at the time. For some, all the caveats are dismissed and this could only mean a definite ticket to a Winter wonderland - and inevitably all the despondency that comes with anything less than that. 

Were those knowledgeable posters wrong to do that given that every word is scrutinised by everyone else? Personally I don't think so - where would be the fun in a dour presentation only in the most certain of outcomes? The vast majority of us look at the models for the love of the chase and the chance of some special Winter weather. 

I try to tell myself always to keep my expectations to a minimum no matter where the long range models and background signals are pointing. Save the excitement for the short and occasionally medium term outlook and then the disappointments will be kept under control. That's what I tell myself but it doesn't always work!

[UnderTheAnvil]

1 hour ago, Catacol said:

"Background Zealots"? Hmm. Is this where we are at now, where those trying to unravel the complex task of forecasting get labelled as zealots? Either you know what that word means and are therefore genuinely trying to put the boot in, or you don't know what it means and perhaps shouldn't be using it.

I see in general the knives are out today. Disappointing. Let's have a go at a broad response:

1. There are 2 areas of ongoing research that interest those with a passion for this kind of stuff. First is the GSDM theory first put together about 15 years ago by Ed Berry. The second is a greater understanding of stratospheric impacts on our weather, another fledgling science that has also been around for 15-20 years approx.

2. One of the challenges of both approaches is to try and understand the inter relationship between the two. GSDM is largely anchored on developments in the Pacific alongside momentum impacts created by the big mountain ranges - Tibet and Rockies probably most importantly, Urals also. Strat modelling tries to interpret the impact of vertical wave propagation and how the column of air above the arctic is shaped/squeezed/stretched/split (or not) by these waves. Tropospheric patterns feed into the strat and vice versa - so they are definitely linked - but an understanding of the links is still in its infancy. When Amy Butler tweets that the reasons for the failed SSW in early January are not understood (given models tend to under rather than over model the likelihood of an SSW) then you know you are walking in a world of grey. And that failed SSW and what has transpired instead has had a huge hand to play in how January has developed.

3. From this, we have 2 options. Label these areas of research as a waste of time, as likely to produce accuracy as the advice of a cat (!!), or we engage with what is going on and try and unpick it. CC is not making this any easier because CC is making a mess of analogues - the atmosphere and the overall climate just isn't what it was in the 1960-90 period and adapting to the pace of change and how it impacts forecasting is a challenge.

4. Some of today's posters would clearly favour the former. Don't bother trying to unlock the door to understanding because it cannot be done. Fair enough - but not for me. I'm not a nihilist and wish to continue to try and learn. Perhaps those who see chaos theory as the only answer to our weather should have a thread all of their own, though the thread would probably make for pointless reading.

5. Finally - you might want to read posts more carefully. Only the other day I acknowledged in a post that the Xmas forecast was a bust, and that the recent cold was shorter lived than expected. Reasons for both were set out, bust was advertised. Two successes at the same time, early Dec and the snap just gone. And it looks as though next week will bust too. There you go - is that clear enough? If you want the reason laid out again, reflective strat event. Not forecast, not spotted even by those with proper qualifications in relevant climate science. But this winter is not done yet, and I still see distinct opportunity for further cold in February and again into March. 

 

As a concluding comment, we are dealing in probability forecasting. No one will ever get to the stage where we say "in 10 days' time it will snow in London and 6 inches will fall and stick." Nonsense. We look at probabilities. And when dealing in probability a 95% chance does not always land. I see some criticism of the MetO today as well. Really? Those of you happy to criticise forecasting methodology and happy also to criticise (possibly) the most advanced national Met Office in the world and its choice of language are seeking a level of absolute clarity that is unattainable.

If you have something to say that adds to the debate, say away. If your words are designed to tear, rip and demolish - silence is a better alternative.

 

People seem to forget too, for every "bust" and "damp squib" we get, we get more data on the reasons why the forecasts fall short. It can only get more accurate. The people analysing the data and getting it wrong are 1000x more useful to us all than people who (accurately) call a bust with no analysis.

 

Some people want to learn what makes the weather tick, and others just want to bet it all on The Atlantic because they think that's a safe bet.

[Rain All Night]

12 minutes ago, Northern Sky said:

I think it's fair to say that we did see some of these hugely respected posters drop references to iconic past Winters in relation to the signals that presented at the time. For some, all the caveats are dismissed and this could only mean a definite ticket to a Winter wonderland - and inevitably all the despondency that comes with anything less than that. 

Were those knowledgeable posters wrong to do that given that every word is scrutinised by everyone else? Personally I don't think so - where would be the fun in a dour presentation only in the most certain of outcomes?

I think you've nailed it there

[Duane S.]

On 22/01/2024 at 11:21, Penguin16 said:

They haven’t failed? Reading over this forum this winter must have been a dream then. It’s amusing every time they go bust, they get downplayed by those who put most emphasis on how important they are and ramping it only to fall back to the micro vs macro argument. They never factor that in when ramping the prospects. All in all another major fail for the background signals, you can’t polish a turd.

This needs addressing.

Sorry but this is no more than attention seeking durge. That or a complete inability to understand complex nuances involved. Not what those exact nuances are, but that such layered complexities exist and what that means for the eventual  'weather on the ground' in the UK.

I ask you... what exactly have you brought to the party?? Respect goes to all those trying to learn (which, let's face it, is all of us to one degree or another every winter). Using phrases like 'another major fail'  'background zealots' clearly harbours an agenda. This sort of dross should not be accepted as an argument, just because you are entitled to 'an opinion'.

Today's societal clamour to show 'two-sideism' unfortunately gives some validity to this sort of agenda-driven rubbish.

So, should we take note of the likes of @Catacol @Tamara (and there are others as well), who go to huge lengths to lay out their thinking and workings (with caveats or course) or... or do I listen to Captain Hindsight and Dr Schadenfreude afterwards? Hmmm, tough one that...

The crux (always conveniently ignored) is that without potential in the first place, we will always get zip in the UK. The clever part is highlighting that potential (irrespective of the outcome).

Cold spells cannot appear without potential but potenital does not mean it will occur

 

Edited January 23 by Paul

[MATTWOLVES 3]

Just now, RainAllNight said:

I think you've nailed it there

I sometimes wonder if it would be better as it was in the old days..no social media..no wealth of access to model data and making do with the countryfile forecasts,and I tell you what back in the day many of these forecasts would nail it...even more so than the greater degree of information we have now.

Ñext year I'm returning to the old school when I was 8...getting a picture of the UK from an old atlas,cutting some cardboard weather symbols and drawing my own isobars...yeh it's old fashioned but it seemed to work a treat..Try it folks it definitely eases the stress of it all

[sebastiaan1973]

Just now, Duane S. said:

 

Cold spells cannot appear without potential but potenital does not mean it will occur

 

I think expection management is here the key. For the one who reads the comments and the one who writes them. If one writes about potential, I think it is important to write about the things that can go wrong. For the reader, I guess it is matter to understand this text of Duane S above and realise it is not settled science but developing knowledge. WIP. Work in progress.  

[SilverWolf]

4 minutes ago, MATTWOLVES 3 said:

Next year I'm returning to the old school when I was 8...getting a picture of the UK from an old atlas,cutting some cardboard weather symbols and drawing my own isobars...yeh it's old fashioned but it seemed to work a treat..Try it folks it definitely eases the stress of it all

Sound like weather magic! Please start now if it works. 

[Catacol]

1 hour ago, johnholmes said:

Very well said C, as an ex senior forecaster for the often maligned Met Office much of what you discuss was barely seen in my days, an occasional very complex item in the more learned scientific magazines certainly nothing in practical meteorology. The science of meteorology has come a long way since then but some of you on here, yourself included, absolutely amaze me with your depth of knowledge. Keep going at it you will never, in my view, get a total answer but you will become more accurate as will the professionals. Thanks for all the hard work you and others on here do, way above me much of the time but well done.

Thanks John - appreciate that and very much appreciate your 6-10 and 8-14 day outlook interpretations. They are as accurate as anything out there....

[Paul]

I'm going to lock this one and start a fresh thread, as it's a virtually impossible job to detangle the arguments in here from the reasoned comments etc. 

As ever though, I do think it's important we don't respond to people who are clearly breaking the forum guidelines, as it is only fanning the flames of the fire that they're perhaps trying to start..