Jump to content
Problems logging in? ×
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 25/09/14 in Posts

  1. Good morning Netweather. I have been away for far too long what with a family crisis and a house move co-inciding together so apologies for that. I thought I would begin my return with sharing my daily thoughts on the 00zs from within my website at the moment available from the below link. http://www.norton-radstockweather.co.uk/NEW-Model-Analysis(2859336).htm
    26 points
  2. The GFS 06z op run shows high pressure in charge during the upcoming weekend with warm, mainly dry conditions and a good deal of sunshine, a bit more unsettled across the far north / nw of the uk, into next week, warm and settled for the south & east, indeed, trending warmer with a flow off the continent but more unsettled for the northwest, high pressure relaxes it's grip for a time early next week however, high pressure intensifies over the top of the uk during the second half of next week before slowly migrating eastwards and as atlantic low pressure squeezes up against the blocking scandi high, winds strengthen from the South or SE, especially across NE uk. Then it becomes very interesting, eye popping charts if it was January with high pressure to the north and low to the south with a much cooler and strong Easterly flow, by the end of the run there is a hint of HP retrogression as a trough dives south into scandinavia with a strong cold blast in it's wake. So fine and warm through high res but some rain around, especially further west and north, the SE corner looks driest, warmest and sunniest on the whole, becoming very warm with +10 T850 hPa flooding the uk, then cooler and altogether more autumnal later in the run but not from the atlantic.
    11 points
  3. hi im just one of those people who looks every day at net weather but never posts so heres my first post. just somthing for the coldies who wishes this benign dry weather would finally break into somthing more autumnal i for one dont. ive been looking back at some of the uks and irelands most severe winters and strangely enough nearly all of the worst winters in the last 100 years had relativly dry octobers 2009 1962 1944 1927 1978 1946 and 1939 except south east england. so maybe we might get lucky this winter cant be any worse than the last not even a flake
    10 points
  4. hello mushy old chap, there were a lot of storms last week across england and wales, try telling those who had flash flooding that it was bone dry and I don't think they would agree with you As for the latest model output, staying on the warm side of average for the southern ½ of the uk, mainly dry and bright but cooler and breezier with some rain to the west and north, the south and east enjoying mostly summery weather for another 10 days at least with temperatures frequently into the low 20's celsius..
    6 points
  5. One of the interesting things about climate science is that you cannot take one area of invstigation in isolation, it's all connected and you have to understand many different phenomena to make predictions. The scientists that discovered many of the natural climate cycles are often the same ones working on the human influence too. Without any doubt, CO2 will cause at least 1C of warming, this isn't disputed even among most climate "sceptics". It's how the climate will then respond to that slight warming that matters. When we look at the historical record of temperature changes taken from the Vostok ice core, we can see some large temperature swings, and a close relationship with CO2. Now we know that the ice age cycle are largely controlled by the Milankovitch cycles, changes in the Earths orbit and axis. But we also know that the Milankovitch cycles by themselves cannot cause the temperatures variations seen, they rely on positive feedback mechanisms to kick in to amplify the warming and cooling. Those feedback mechanisms include CO2, ice/albedo feedback, changes in water vapour and others. From these records, it seems that if you give the climate a slight push, feedbacks kick in and cause very large temperature changes. With the CET, we can pick and choose warm and cold months, but the overall temperatures has been increasing, very much in line with global temperatures. Despite the record being so long, we've still set numerous warm month and years record in recent decades. Still, that says little to nothing about climate change in general. As for the cooling scare in the 70s... (other than your mix up with ozone) time to blame the media again! Even then, the majority of scientific studies showed that warming was most likely, but a headline declaring an impending ice age sounds a lot more exciting! The last link I provided in my previous post shows some lines of empirical evidence. We don't explain the warming trend currently seen as being caused by CO2, simply because they seem to correlate a bit. There is plenty of evidence that shows CO2 is causing the warming. One of the best ones is measurements of the incoming and outgoing radiation. I'm sure you know the basics, but just incase... short wave energy leaves the sun, with much of the passing through the atmosphere to the Earth's surface. The surface heats up and releases longwave radiation (heat) in order to cool. CO2 in the atmosphere then absorbs some of that long wave radiation at specific wavelengths and then re-emits it in all directions, some goes back to the surface, some gets reabsorbed by other greenhouse gasses, while some eventually escapes into space. The overall effect is to slow the release of heat back into the space, causing warming. Now, knowing this, we should be able to measure the extra long wave radiation (heat) coming back down to the Earth's surface from the CO2, and at the wavelength that CO2 absorbs and emits. We should also be able to measure a reduction in the same wavelength of radiation leaving the atmosphere. This would be proof that the atmosphere, due to CO2 increases, is holding on to more heat and that CO2 is the cause. These two measurement have been made and they've found exactly that, less longwave radiation leaving the planet and more coming down to the surface. Here's the link for the first study that looked at the radiation leaving the planet, and a more recent one Here's the link for the study that looked at the surface measurements, and another similar one that states: "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming"
    6 points
  6. What a beauty of a chart for the 4th of october from the ecm. ............
    5 points
  7. Geoff. Perhaps your intellect is simply beyond that of us in a weather forum with a small climate section. My advice would be to organise your thoughts, get it down on paper and submit it to peer review. Obviously none of us here are atmospheric physicists so we cannot dismiss or approve of your ideas mathematically, so perhaps by presenting them to an expert in the area you might get a proper appraisal of your ideas. If they dismiss your work with faulty arguments, then publish the reviewer comments, go to the press, at the very least you could get a guest post on WUWT! As a first step before submitting to peer review, perhaps try posting on a site with a more expert knowledge base, such as realclimate? If you think you have some revolutionary ideas that can completely overturn our current thinking on how climate and weather operates, pushing them here is going to achieve nothing more than an ego boost. If you really believe your ideas are true, put them to the test.
    5 points
  8. I know It isn't Norway, but parts of Finland atm is looking very Sledge'able!!! i know that isn't a proper word but who cares it's snowing http://www2.liikennevirasto.fi/alk/english/kelikamerat/kelikamerat_5.html
    5 points
  9. The presence of the European blocking continuing into next week,on the afternoons models. UKMO T120hrs. GFS T120hrs. The UK in a wedge of warmth whilst the developing Arctic cold goes into N.Canada and Russia. A deep looking Icelandic low being deflected away to the north as it eventually rides over our block. The jet not yet strong enough it seems to push through for now so the relatively quiet and dry Autumn looks like going into the new month.
    4 points
  10. BFTV, sorry, bit lengthy (but so are some of yours). Some may see this as off post. But I don't. There can be no 'definable human influence' if the current scientific stance and education put forward by authority is questionable. And questionable it is. Both NASA and our friend, Mr Trenburth, in their energy budget diagrams show massive, opposing 'energy' fluxes. The Earth emitting a massive upward radiative flux called 'energy' by NASA (that doesn't heat the atmosphere as it's not in the energy budget for the atmosphere). The 'back radiant', 'energy' transferred downward, and NASA do use the word 'energy' is held responsible for heating the surface with twice the efficacy of the solar flux, but is unavailable for work or power and is generally undetectable without special equipment!!!!! Look, climate science is thinking in terms of photon fluxes. Photon fluxes give the WRONG ANSWERS. Photons only describe REAL, as in NETTED, energy AT THE POINT OF ABSORPTION OR EMISSION ONLY. In all other respects electromagnetic radiation is a wave quantity and has therefore to be treated and described so. In order to account for interference, diffraction and refraction we require a wave analogy. In calculation of 'energy' electromagnetic radiation is a VECTOR QUANTITY. This is the difference; Consider two high emissivity, infinite, parallel plates in a vacuum at equilibrium. Each plate emits the same photon flux Q. Therefore as photons carry energy and energy is always positive, so at all points between the plates the total energy density is proportional to 2Q, (1Q from each of the plates)!!!! Energy multiplication is therefore available from zero thermal gradient. Work and power for nothing!!!! Hooray!!! But, Physical nonsense. Now back to reality; Two high emissivity, infinite parallel plates in a vacuum at equilibrium. Each is producing thermal excitations of the mutual fields as described by Maxwell's equations. The superposition of equal monochromatic but opposite vector flows across the entire spectrum of emissions cancel at all intermediate points, to, wait for it.....,...zero!!! Slight difference there, eh? So this analysis of the equilibrium condition yields that there is NO AVAILABLE ENERGY from the distinct lack of spontaneous exchange. There's is NO 'energy' flow to tap into for work or power, with NO thermal gradient. Mmm....... correct answer. With one plate at a higher temperature to the other the only 'heat transferred' is the 'vector sum', or 'difference' of the opposing electromagnetic waves, see Poynting vector, http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/electromagnetic.pdf So in reality ONLY the netted flux leaves the surface as a quantity we can describe as 'energy' in Wm-2! The superposition of the more complete and stronger surface em continuum annihilates all downward fluxes from cooler objects (sky). Downwelling signals can only be viewed as a temperature signal by a detector with an environmental shield. Fluxes from higher temperature sources (like solar) cannot be cancelled as there is no counterpart and impart themselves as REAL ENERGY UPON THE SURFACE. When calculating the surface emissions, line by line monochromatic subtraction of the opposing vector components across the entire spectrum yields the surface losses. The only radiative heat transferred. So to contradict you, IN CO2's spectral bands NO SIGNIFICANT ENERGY LEAVES THE SURFACE. It is not part of the surface energy budget any more! Therefore this energy cannot be 'absorbed' and re radiated by such gases. These gases obey local thermodynamic principles. Therefore double the CO2 if you like, this coupled thermal system is using other available routes. (Except for the slight broadening of lines, compensated by reduced energy reaching the surface and greater upper atmospheric losses to space.) So if it doesn't go up, it cannot come back down!!!! Or be passed to other 'powerful greenhouse gases'!!!! Ever wondered why your domestic 'radiator' is a convection heater? Ever wondered why your car 'radiator' uses forced convection (conduction to the air and a fan)? Ever wondered why the black CPU in your computer needs conductive paste and a heat sink and a fan? Radiative heat transfer at low thermal gradients in a coupled thermal system is INEFFECTIVE. The atmosphere is not in radiative balance.
    4 points
  11. not sure what you expect, im enjoying this weather, it can stay like this all blinkin winter for me!
    4 points
  12. It wasn't bone dry last week, we had all those thunderstorms, it hasn't been bone dry this week either and next week won't be bone dry, I expect at least some rain in places with a warm airflow sourced from southern europe / north africa.
    4 points
  13. anyone giving the detail I heard just listening up to the start of November let alone 3 months down the line is about as reliable, in my view, as a piece of seaweed. To not pick with his start to october, can someone show me how his prediction matches what the anomaly charts are showing consistently. Nope he is peddling what many want to hear, cold and snow, and those who look for this will probably be able to support his overall winter come 1 March whatever the 3 winter months actually give. good for a listen if you are a cold fan rather than someone wanting some science. Sorry I have had a go but after almost 50 years weather watching as an amateur and a professional these folk really are not to be believed in my view.
    4 points
  14. To be honest this weather can carry on until the end of October, then winter can return with a vengeance
    3 points
  15. UKMO shows the high persisting well into next week, though the north west could see some early next week along with some stronger winds, by mid week it settles down widely with it remaining warm by day
    3 points
  16. oopsy I used the incorrect term!!!lets change it to generally dry with maybe a few showers here and there!!!ecm out now and high pressure rules till the end of the run with no end in sight!!!
    3 points
  17. Hi Timmytour . First 2 paragraphs, I agree. The 3rd seems to be based on the points you've listed, so I'll attempt to address these 1 at a time. It is true that every notable weather event gets linked with climate change. However, the majority of that is down to the media. There are only a few individual events that have undergone thorough scientific attribution studies. But the media is the media, they will do what they can to generate headlines and interest, often to the detriment of many scientific fields, not just climate science. It is also true that the climate is highly variable. When it comes to determining the cause, while 40 years is useful for seeing a trend, you need longer term data to really see if the current trend fits in with past variability. So looking back thousands and even millions of years helps to put our current change into perspective. Yep, I think it was Dr. Viner in a BBC article said that children aren't going to know what snow is and that it will soon become a rare event and cause huge disruption. We can't really get an idea of what time frame he was referring to, but it was likely a developing scenario over the next few decades. Anyway, science generally works best with a consensus. Individual scientists can have many different ideas about a topic, but when they start to converge within the scientific literature, that's when more certainty can be attributed to a particular theory. Take comments from individual scientists with a pinch of salt, especially if they're in news articles. Also check to see if they are an expert, actively publishing research in the area they are discussing! Hurricane trends can be highly variable depending on the particular basin being studied. In general, there is little consensus on how climate change will alter hurricanes. There does appear to be consensus that warmer conditions allow for stronger hurricanes for form. But there may also an increase in sheer, preventing some hurricanes from forming at all. But cherry picking how many cat3 or higher storms have hit the US in recent years says nothing about how CO2 effects temperature, especially when there are so many other countries, stats and hurricane basins to consider, such as the Super Typhoon Haiyan, the strongest storm to make landfall on record last Autumn. I'd have to see some links about the claims of a climate change induced drought in 2012, I suspect that was media exaggeration yet again. No scientists ever claimed that temperatures would go unrelentingly upward. In fact, many climate projections that showed Pacific SST close to what occurred accurately simulated the trends that we're seeing. Some projections even have longer slowdowns than what we've seen. Also, if you improve the Arctic coverage, as Cowtan and Way did, you'll find that the hiatus no longer exists, as the trend from 1998 to present becomes statistically significant. Besides that, starting your trend at 1998 is a huge cherry pick, when there are so many other years. Short time frames are not suitable for measuring climatic trends, but only internal variability. The same way you wouldn't decide that winter isn't going to arrive this year because the warm weather is lasting longer than expected! I think the actual science, and the policies resulting from it are 2 very different issues. Many people appear to base their disregard of AGW solely on the basis of not wanting extra taxes or their dislike of other green measures. They then flock to climate denial websites like WUWT, climate depot, GWPF, or spoof sites like iceagenow, in order to find any semblance of scientific reasoning for their beliefs. You're right that it doesn't prove anything. Especially when 9 of the top 10 warmest years on the CET record have occurred in the last 25 years! While a lot of the hype has been media driven, much of it is justified within the scientific literature. I mean, if we're not going to take notice of what the expert scientists say on a scientific matter, who do we listen too? Politicians with no expertise that simply push a positions their funders demand? Journalists and bloggers hired by PR firms to spread doubt about climate change in order to protect the profits of the most powerful companies on the planet? Mother nature will still prove mightily powerful. But when you consider all she's thrown at us in order to cause cooling, such as: record strong trade winds driving extra heat into the Pacific ocean. a cooling phase in the Atlantic driving heat into the Atlantic ocean. Both of these are contributing to a massive increase in ocean heat content We also have the quietest solar cycle in about a century A cooling influence from extra volcanic eruptions Isn't it impressive that we're still warming? What will it take to actually cause cooling? What will happen when these cooling factors switch to promoting warming? Something worth considering. Finally, there are many lines of empirical evidence linking CO2 with warming and a change in our energy budget. The science is solid. The only real debate is how much warming will occur.
    3 points
  18. hi allseasons yeh spotted it plus northern lights too but looks like the cameras are getting harder to see so im going to call it a night goodnight all
    2 points
  19. yes but the NOAA anomaly of heights is 90 or less DM, only the EC version takes it higher than this away from the UK. How much that will distort the otherwise westerly flow is very difficult to decide, if any in my view. If we look at the contours predicted only, then there is little in the way of ridging other than to the east of the UK. So how effective will the ridging/+ve heights in this area be in keeping the fairly settled weather for the UK. Looking at the trend over the last few days and, as a result of the main wavelength, measured trough to trough, not being quite long enough, the charts over the last 3 days have shown a very slow movement east of this ridge. Will this continue? The 8-14 as it often does smooths out things even more so it is not that clear. But probably the form horse is for it to become slowly less settled away from the already not really settled far NW of the UK. For simplicity then not that different from the current Met O 6-30 day forecast.
    2 points
  20. At least there are some changes with tonight's anomalies not that they portend a more active surface synopsis. Basically the HPs are not so intense and they have moved east. The HP over North America is now in the western Atlantic and the other east of the UK. The Atlantic trough has gone. Progressing this further the HP covers the mid Atlantic accompanied by a weak jet, On the surface slack HP stretching over the Atlantic with the cold air way north so fairly settled weather for some time to come with around average temps.
    2 points
  21. looking at the patterns developing across the far reaches of the GFS ( with some coherent condistency ) there appears to be a developing signal for a strong + PNA pattern which will be sending warmer air up the western side of the US at the same time displacing the early season cold town towards the Southern/ Eastern part of canada possibly sliding into the NE US. Expect to see snow moving into these areas but this positive being offset by the decrease in snow across alaska. In terms of the rest, while northern norway & finland look pretty on the cams the continuing Scandi positive anomaly doesnt allow for the snowcover to be sustainsble ( unless your up past svalbard ) & certainly zero autumn chill in western & northern Europe. In terms of russia it looks all east at the moment on the eastern flank of the scandi high. No great concerns at the moment - a while to wait for any real movement west - A revisit on Oct 10 to see where we are..... S
    2 points
  22. Nice to see you back LS though I'm not ready for winter just yet. It was a very pleasant 20c here in NE Fife this afternoon, quite likely the last 20c of the year... I do wonder what this winter will bring. It was entirely snow-free here last year and the last snowfall of a cm or more in my garden was way back in Dec 2010. Only a few dustings since then. So in that sense I'm due!
    2 points
  23. Just FYI but looking at the most extreme and least extreme setups for October in terms of gaining snow, what we want to see is a Pacific Trough anomaly (with higher pressure closer to Bering above it) as opposed to a Pacific High. Current anomolies although they have high pressure over Western Russia do look good in the Pacific which i imagine due to the trough would indicate the jet stream leaving Asia further south adding to our sub-60N totals which is what the index is based on.
    2 points
  24. A reply to BFTV:- "One of the interesting things about climate science is that you cannot take one area of invstigation in isolation, it's all connected and you have to understand many different phenomena to make predictions. The scientists that discovered many of the natural climate cycles are often the same ones working on the human influence too." You got that one pretty much spot on. "Without any doubt, CO2 will cause at least 1C of warming, this isn't disputed even among most climate "sceptics". It's how the climate will then respond to that slight warming that matters." Yes that is pretty standard stuff as well but without any doubt is not a scientific certainty or in fact supported. It is theory only. "When we look at the historical record of temperature changes taken from the Vostok ice core, we can see some large temperature swings, and a close relationship with CO2. Now we know that the ice age cycle are largely controlled by the Milankovitch cycles, changes in the Earths orbit and axis. Yes the statement is essentially correct. "But we also know that the Milankovitch cycles by themselves cannot cause the temperatures variations seen, they rely on positive feedback mechanisms to kick in to amplify the warming and cooling. Those feedback mechanisms include CO2, ice/albedo feedback, changes in water vapour and others. From these records, it seems that if you give the climate a slight push, feedbacks kick in and cause very large temperature changes. Your statement lacks any evidence to substantiate your claims about the cycles themselves not being able to cause the variations. While I agree that feedbacks "the current buzzword" are probably involved there is no way we can at this time put any realistic or codged up number (sorry rude) on any such supposed feedback. The ice ages remain a scary and unknown/unpredictable reality of the worlds future and documented past. Documented as in the little ice age and ice core records. There are other theories regarding ice ages out there besides the orbital anomalies including the solar systems passage through the galaxy. "With the CET, we can pick and choose warm and cold months, but the overall temperatures has been increasing, very much in line with global temperatures. Despite the record being so long, we've still set numerous warm month and years record in recent decades. Still, that says little to nothing about climate change in general." Quite so, nothing at all. "As for the cooling scare in the 70s... (other than your mix up with ozone) time to blame the media again! Even then, the majority of scientific studies showed that warming was most likely, but a headline declaring an impending ice age sounds a lot more exciting! Sorry but the scare was real as was the cooling. Where does your majority of scientific studies come from?. Please show your work. Saying all this the whole issue is largely irrelevant other than showing unexpected and unexplained climate variation in a chaotic system. ​As for the empirical evidence by satellite the error bars are wider than the conclusions and there is no evidence that we are retaining or losing energy/heat. If the instruments up in orbit were able to accurately measure the energy budget there would be no dispute but they are not able to do so. We will just just have to wait and see what happens here on the surface where we live. You claims of accuracy in energy flux from satellites are bogus (not your fault) but bogus none the less.
    2 points
  25. come on old chap, most of us saw very little rain and the bit that did fall has dried up within hours. its certainly 'bone dry' here mate! and looking at the current outputs theres very little chance of much, if any, of things getting wet. with any rain soon drying up.
    2 points
  26. This weather certainly is a barrel of laughs. It doesn't get any better than this. I could barely sleep last night so electrified with excitement was I as a weather enthusiast. If this continues much longer I may just spontaneously combust with the exhilaration of it all.
    2 points
  27. 2 points
  28. After a blink and you'll miss it day of cooler air for the north ECM shows it turning very warm later next week with the 850's as high as +15 for a time
    2 points
  29. The ECM ops for next is basically sticking with HP dominating and the low pressure confined to the west and north. A few sample charts.
    2 points
  30. And once again compared to yesterday mornings runs the atlantic is held futher north and west on this mornings ukmo amd gfs!!!!!infact its reinvigorated as we head into early october!!!no end in sight to this bone dry weather!!
    2 points
  31. http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earthquakes/ no updates coming through at present off now goodnight all
    2 points
  32. Hi BFTV.....Thanks for the response which I do appreciate. I'm not a screaming denier, nor one who's "denial" is based on not wanting extra tactics......but a growing sense of there being an awful lot of rubbish being spoken about it. So you may be right in that I am being unduly influenced by the hysterical media reactions rather than the science. But i do wonder whether as our knowledge increases in certain fields, we tend to gravitate all our reasoning towards our understanding of those fields and eliminate or remove from consideration those fields in which our knowledge is sketchy. For example.... you make a comment about "cooling factors".....how do we know that these were not in much more abundance in previous years and that the warming we are now experiencing is not just a natural cycle of the earth, something that a relative lack of such cooling activities has been currently aiding. How much do we really understand about the reasons behind the ices ages we've had before and the warming up that consequently ended them? I certainly am aware it's been warmer in recent years.....though at the same time having a feeling that the "seasons" as we know them in the traditional sense seem to have come back more into line in the past few years. I've a spreadhseet of the mean CETs by month since 1700 with the top 25 ranked of each month (in terms of warmth) shown with a red cell and the bottom 25 shown with a blue cell. (so month has 50 of the 315 cells highlighted in one way or another) All very simplistic stuff. Yet it is striking how many red cells there are since 1989 I'd say. Before that there periods of dominance of one or the other colour without ever being near the same level of dominance. In fact the very very lovely December of 2012 ended a run of 175 months without a blue shaded cell in my spreadsheet! And all this time there was an average of four red cells in each year! So the warming is there to see.....and at the same time perhaps the beginning of a switch, with the number of reds per year beginning to decline and another blue month registering (March 2013). So it's easy to portray things either way......but I have issues with how things are only portrayed one way ...ie the apparent fact the climate is getting irreversibly warmer. I do remember in the Seventies when analysis of the ozone layer led to frightening predictions about how cold the world was going to get and how we had to take drastic action to prevent it happening. Well did that cooling stop because we stopped using aerosols? Or was it more that the predictions made, by the very same people who have since led the "global warming science", were the result of our flawed understanding of how the Ozone layer works? If the former, why don't we go back to using those aerosols to counteract the global warming :-) It seems like analysts will jump on a certain type of weather as being evidence of climate change, and then when the opposite happens, jump on the fact that extremes are being experienced and in general jump on about anything as "evidence". Such "analysis" I find ridiculous. I maintain that there are not many groups of years going way way back in history when such arguments couldn't be made with equal validity. In the 58 years between 1929 and 1986 we had nine of the 20 coldest Februarys since 1700 and just two of the warmest, Since then we've not had any of the coldest 25 Februarys. that's 28 years without one when we had been averaging four in the same timeframe. Evidence of warming? Well in the first 39 years in the data range....ie from 1700 to 1739, there weren't any of the coldest 25 Febs either! And what would ye olde Climate change ologists made of the successive Septembers from 1729-1731 if they had known that, getting on for 300 years later, they were still 3 of the 12 warmest Septembers ever recorded? I think there's lots we don't know still about the effect of different things such as the Sun and the varying degrees of axis tilt upon our climate. And we know that every so often the poles of the earth switch or move....but we've never experienced it in our lifetimes. Huge earthquakes and large volcanos can have dramatic effects. Maybe we are headed irreversibly for a big big change....but I think the greatest fallacy around now lies in the belief that we can do something about it. It's the modern equivalent of a raindance.....if it works, it was because raindancing really does work......if it doesn't , it's because not enough people were out raindancing.
    2 points
  33. No one knows. lets remind ourselves of the Met Office 'forecast' issued last Autumn for the winter to come: Dryer than average and colder than average. Perhaps they ran out of seaweed.
    2 points
  34. Heating? Still have the windows open of a night! Nothing better than a cold room with a thick, comfy duvet to snuggle up in of a night.
    2 points
  35. increased SO2 caused by the Icelandic volcano last month could increase ozone in these places. Thus, the stratosphere would have more ease to warm. Here is the current ozone and the difference from last year is eloquent on Iceland / Greenland September 20, 2013: september 20, 2014: Regarding QBO, it is now in the full negative 5 to 50 included hpa: It is certain that winter 2014/2015 should be significantly different from 2013/2014 for the simple reason that the current settings (QBO, ENSO, Stt etc) are in total contrast with 2013 and conducive to wave surges waves into the stratosphere regular way. Stay tuned...
    2 points
  36. I'm thinking maybe it gone beyond that now for Eastern Siberia ..I maybe wrong http://www.yr.no/place/Russia/Sakha/Mirnyy/long.html
    1 point
  37. Couldn't resist a peek at Rovaniemi; while it's looking rather drizzly and damp there, Lordi Square at least treated me to 1 degree showing on its digital temperature thingy: http://international.rovaniemi.fi/en/webcam Ah yes Reefseeker very festive looking! Also maybe worth a peek in the morning at this slide show. http://www.webcam-4insiders.com/de/Wetter-Kleine%20Scheidegg/1026-Kleine%20Scheidegg-Wetter.php
    1 point
  38. Each to there own, every body is aloud to have there own predictions/opinions, we all know its hard even impossible to predict the winter. But i think its a bit unfair for people to write other people off when they havent got a clue them selves. Whats the point in having a forum when its not even considered right for you to give your own opinions. i predict a colder than average winter based on what i have read so far E.G. Eastern QBO, El Nino and many other factors which could go our way.
    1 point
  39. The ice is definitely expanding again now ....good stuff! :-)
    1 point
  40. We are still in the 'In between period' where snow gains are very susceptable to snow loss the next day. But it does look good seeing some of that white stuff in Scandi.
    1 point
  41. not sure if this has been posted? but here is a good pic showing how close the fissure is getting to the glacier https://twitter.com/RUVfrettir/status/507962994626945024/photo/1
    1 point
  42. The trigger mechanism was that it had passed over the storm shield that holds strong in this little corner of our island and it thought right, now we're good to go lol. I was woken at 5 something by lightning app, shot out of bed only to find that it fired up just past us. A bit frustrating although I enjoyed a nice peaceful couple of hours alone before the kids woke up good luck to everyone today fingers crossed for some juicy storms. Blue sky peeping through cloud here in Fav
    1 point
  43. here we go...they always appear in the exact same spot in the sky from where I'm looking in my garden. Todays one... some other ones I took today...can see a bit of a theme here haha
    1 point
  44. afternoon all what a beautiful day! almost as nice as Monday which was amazing. Its such a real treat after the total dross we've had for a few months. I've been out all day with the wee one taking pics. We just saw a rainbow which wasnt a rainbow (one in the clouds) I cant think what they're called. I've seen a few of them and they're always in the same place in the sky...weird! When I've sorted through my 500 odd pics I took today I'l post one up!
    1 point
  45. Afternoon Happy Friday! Beautiful day here in Faversham, Was just sitting there enjoying the peace and quiet and heard rain. Had a peek out the back and it was sunny blue, peek out the front and it was black, opened the door and saw the end of a rainbow in the park! I couldn't get a good pic as my little one is fast asleep and I couldn't leave her indoors but I could just see it through the trees coming down onto the grass. Thats a first for me. No pot of gold that I could see but maybe I'll be lucky on the lottery tonight.
    1 point
  46. My Dads garden took a battering here in Fav! Ripped down the wall so now they have open plan garden with nextdoor and took out the gazebo frame on the way! My Dad is ok about it, I was more upset than him lol. My Dad said the town has a bit of damage, street lights smashed, fences all down, a few trees down etc
    1 point
  47. 1 point
  48. Good morning all YAWN! Hope everyone is ok and hasnt sufffered too much damage after last night! Still a bit gusty in Faversham. I tried sleeping at 11pm and set my alarm for 1am but it wasn't needed through that racket. I sat in bed from 12 until about 4 eating biscuits and wondering if the windows were going to be ripped off the hinges, as you do. I cant see any immediate damage here apart from big branches off the trees and more trees are now creeking in the wind. I think St Judes was definately more ferocious but last nights was much longer lasting. The wind always seems much worse at night as you cant see so your other senses compensate for that and it seems worse. Thats my theory anyway.
    1 point
  49. Fully expecting to lose power here soon. Lights are strobing! I just stood at the back door and it's incredible! So mild and a constant roar with sirens going off and the sounds of things crashing, glass breaking. Judging by sound alone this beastie is on par with st Jude's storm.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...