Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation



About SnowBear

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

4,126 profile views
  1. It really just goes to show after watching the models over the last week and then following today just how difficult it is to get a 40°c in the UK.
  2. I actually find this interesting and anyone who really has an interest in the weather and forecasting would now not be moaning about busts and all that but why, what was over-modelled...or more likely in my view...possibly under-modelled. I personally think the strength of the northerly wind undercutting the plume was enough to hold those storms on the French coast long enough for them to essentially burn themselves out in place (and equally possibly under-modelled in it's ability to hold back the heat that was initially forecast for this week). Forecasting thunderstorms and where they will occur is notoriously difficult, the same goes for hurricanes. Anyone who has done tracking in the USA of either, will know the size of the boxes for tor-warn, storm-warn notifications, hurricane landfall zones and so on which are created when severe storms etc are forecast. Often they are correct, but other times the storms occur completely outside of the warning boxes forecast. We have added complexities here for thunderstorms of water masses such as the English Channel, North Sea and our proximity to a continental land mass. It only takes one small thing to be modelled incorrectly and the storms will be elsewhere, or not happen at all. It's all about probability. Nothing in storm forecasting is a definite until it's happening right over the area forecast, before hand so many things could alter that outcome. I find it quite refreshing that despite all we try to do in bettering forecasting and at times thinking we understand the weather better than say ten years ago, that sometimes Mother Nature just does something completely different and shows us who is really boss and puts us back in our place. Not a bust, the warnings were warranted possibilities, and a great opportunity to learn what caused it to be different than forecast.
  3. To be honest I see it as a Cat 5 and the destruction was of a Cat 5, a couple of mph makes no odds at that intensity either side of the 4/5 category line. I also personally think a rapidly intensifying hurricane is more destructive in some ways over one which evolves more slowly to the same level.
  4. Must admit, was checking text at NOAA as didn't think it was 104 miles. It's moving 295/14kn which would mean land fall in under 10 hours at that range if 104 miles was to the eye. A more likely range perhaps was 1040 miles at an earlier fix?
  5. With the complexity and uncertainty of Fridays low it is pretty much still in the realms of long range even if only a couple of days away, if we cannot get past the outcome of that low all else beyond for now becomes a bit meaningless. Unusual yes, but it is how it is for now.
  6. Sometimes I feel too many take weather models as gospel, it's going to happen. They only show what "might" happen with varying degrees of accuracy depending on the complexities within the weather systems at the time. With the current set up for the coming Friday onwards is quite complex, small shifts in the track of the low (I won't use correction, it's completely the wrong word to use), the depth of cold on land, amount of snow cover remaining plus many other variables make for it to be almost impossible at this time to predict what will happen, but the models give us a range of possible outcomes. Some time ago on here and now when I find time I followed and did Hurricane tracking, it taught me a lot on predictions, potentials, and possibilities within computer models. I suggest maybe some would like to participate later this year in some Hurricane tracking? Tracks and conditions changing hour by hour, sometimes in even less timeframes? Models are an aide into predicting but not the absolute.
  7. Lol, I am sure more than a couple of people have come up with "StormX". I doubt Daniel even saw that.
  8. Must admit, it is a bit pointless and a waste of time too, we never had problems when they weren't named lol
  9. It would work if the agencies wanted it to work. In a couple of hours a set of lists for the next 20 years could be done quite easily and accepted by all. Not that hard to do.
  10. Tbh, all the European Met offices should come up with an agreed name list they work from, avoids confusion as we see today.
  11. Apparently the Metoffice didn't name it as the French Met named it Storm David. Pinned Tweet Met Office @metoffice · 2h For clarification #StormFionn named by @MetEireann affected Ireland on Tuesday night with minimal impact on the UK. Last night's gales were from #StormDavid named by French meteorological service @meteofrance.
  12. Just to put this storm into context with '87, there were an estimated 15 million, yes you read right, 15,000,000 trees downed in '87. Tree after tree after tree. Some roads were blocked for weeks, huge areas of Rendlesham Forest in Suffolk were flattened, chain saws were busy for weeks. I know as I was one of those using one! On top of that was flooding, widespread structural damage and nearly everyone's garden looking like a bomb had hit it. This was a mere breeze in comparison :-D
  13. I don't think so, the dry air is circulating inwards at a lower level to those high cloud tops and it's giving the illusion of an eye. Bit difficult to explain without a bunch of illustrations. Essentially 2d pic doesn't always depict what is happening in 3d.
  • Create New...