Jump to content


Site development
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Paul last won the day on June 23

Paul had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

16,258 Exceptional


About Paul

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

89,633 profile views
  1. As mentioned at the top of this thread, there does need to be a frequent, general theme of model discussion across it, even if it's not super-strict in here. This evening it's gone too far the other way, and there's way too much banter and not enough discussion, so please consider what you're posting.
  2. That's just because it's the para, the one hour timeframes will still be in the upgraded operational as far as I'm aware.
  3. Santa has been updated https://www.netweather.tv/weather-forecasts/uk/xmas
  4. Here we go with a fresh hunt for cold thread as we move into a colder spell of weather and towards the end of Autumn. As this is a new thread for this season, there's perhaps been a bit of confusion over what does or doesn't fit in here. So to help out, and be transparent in terms of our moderation of the thread, these are the guidelines we're working to, so if everyone can aim to stay within them, happy days! This is a model related thread, so a general, frequent theme of the model output is a given, but it will not be strictly enforced: Some topic drift, humorous responses etc are fine Posts likely to lead the thread off on an entirely off topic tangent are not ok. For example (but not solely limited to): Posts entirely or mainly about Met Office, BBC or media forecasts with little or no model context, and posts solely asking for a weather forecast in a specific location. Posts which start with something like 'I know this is off topic but ...' are not ok. Posts which break the forum guidelines are not ok (eg trolling, troll-hunting, weather guilt tripping, overly defensive/aggressive, abusive, disrespectful to others) Hopefully this helps, if in doubt please ask a member of the team, and if you see a post you think may fall outside of these guidelines, please report it. If you'd prefer a slower paced, more general (not cold slanted) model discussion, please head over to the general thread here. Model Output And Charts On Netweather: GFS GEFS Ensembles ECMWF ECMWF EPS NetWx-SR NetWx-MR Met-Office Fax GEM GFS Hourly Model Comparison Global Jet Stream Stratosphere
  5. So, with the first few account restrictions in place as of this evening due to posts in here, now's maybe a good time to remind those who post the following sorts of things, your cards are marked.. Posting solely to generate negative/extreme reactions Over-reacting to model output/other peoples posts in such a way as to disrupt the thread Jumping all over and accusing people of trolling just because they don't agree with you/the consensus (please report people you think are trolling, don't respond - we will deal with it) Being ultra-defensive As a general rule of thumb, please just be nice - we're all here to enjoy discussing the weather.
  6. This must be at least the millionth time myself or others in the team have requested this, so it would be great if those who keep ignoring these requests could take it on board. Can we keep it to the models in here please, discussion solely about meto updates and the like with zero context around the models is not for this thread. There is a met office thread in the general weather area for that.
  7. @jethro - I suppose the immediate thing I take from your post is the question as to why this particular thread is in this part of the forum if it's unrelated to climate change/agw? My comments yesterday were more general about climate change discussions in here, not this subject in particular. If it's a weather subject, and people want to keep it away from the topic of climate change, then the obvious answer would be to have a thread in a weather related area, which is where all of this started up. Unfortunately, the topic didn't last long before it turned into an argument around agw etc, which ended up with it being locked and moved in here, so the rules were stricter. This is the problem, it's seemingly impossible to stop this type of thing turning in a circular argument, because frankly, there are too many with a pre-decided view about agw/climate change etc, that are entirely happy to ignore any and all evidence presented to them which disagrees with their view. We had to take a stand by making these discussions science only - yes that's limited the discussion in here, but when 90% of those discussions essentially turned into slanging matches anyway, what was the point in having them? Ultimately, it's a case of self-moderation vs site-moderation, if those involved could stop being so protective of their 'views' and open themselves up to debating without being defensive, even being prepared to change their minds in the light of evidence once in a while, then the issues resolve themselves. If that were the case, we could have threads like this in weather areas, and we could loosen the rules on debate on climate change in here too, but so far at least, that's not been the case. I'm not against this thread being open in 2 places, one weather, one climate, but it's down to the participants to not turn them into arguments.
  8. You can discuss it however you want in your own time etc, but in terms of the discussions on here, that's the way it is.
  9. No-one has said that, this from my post earlier: And as Pete says, providing some evidence to back up hunches or views is the way forwards to. Bringing no backup, and being unwilling to take evidence on board is what won't work.
  10. This is a science based forum area, and it's a science based subject, so it's not the place for those who want to ignore that side of things, I'm afraid.
  11. I'm confused, what you seem to be requesting @SteveB is a thread where people can disagree with proven science based on hunches and not have anyone present evidence which disproves that hunch? Why would that be a good thing? Why do you feel that you're being 'put down', when all that's happening is that you're presenting a view with no evidence, and those who have more knowledge are showing evidence which disagrees? At some point, when a mountain of evidence points in one direction, hunches backed up with nothing can't be given their own place to be discussed without any sort of evidence or science based elements to it. That's just a recipe to mislead those who want to learn, and an echo chamber for those who don't want science and evidence to get in the way of whatever it is they want to believe. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with asking questions, giving views etc based on hunches, and finding out whether there is any evidence to support those hunches, etc. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that, when presented with answers to questions, and science based evidence to back those answers up, that it's taken on board and accepted. Otherwise, you end up with a never ended circular debate where evidence apparently counts for nothing when it comes to some of the participants, and nothing good can come of that.
  12. Can we keep it to the models in here please, BBC forecasts and the like need to be posted about elsewhere.
  13. Although this thread is a bit more laid back in terms of having some banter, it does still need to be at least loosely model related, and at the moment some general winter and not model related comments are sneaking through. For those, please head over to the winter thread. https://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/90634-winter-201819/