chrisbell-nottheweatherman

Met Office aren't seeing it.

Massive game in a fortnight. I thought Nigel Owens made two uncharacteristic mistakes today, both of which went against France, but England were superb. Where do France go from here, though?

Wales beat Italy 26-15, but I felt the scoreline made it seem more impressie than it actually was (though Wales had several inexperienced players initially).

Ireland didn't seem to miss his contribution today, though. Scotland were the better side initially, and had a very good first half, but penalties and handling errors cost them momentum in the second half, allowing Ireland to win 13-22.

Indeed. England hasn't produced a genuine Test opener since the Chef, due to an emphasis on 50-over and 20-over domestic cricket rather than the four-day County Championship. Now we have the 100-ball ategory coming in to the equation as the supposed answer to the question of introducing people to the game when the answer is evident to most cricket fans - show home Tests, ODIs and even T20s on free-to-air TV. Not only that, but, thanks to the County Championship taking place at eith end of the season, there is insufficient incentive for bowlers to develop either genuine speed or spin, hence we produce plenty of medium-fast or fast-medium swing bowlers who excel in home Tests, but we lack the 90+ mph seamers and proper spinners to generate a threat to batsmen on hard wickets in Australia, the Subcontinent and West Indies.

Best performance from them in at least a couple of years, i think.

Scotland win by 33-20 at Murrayfield against Italy, though, with around 20 minutes to go, Italy were out of it. Scotland had a man sent off for 10 minutes and their defence seemed to stop working, allowing the Italians to score three soft tries.

Bartlett set-up?

Strange game - I can't recall the last time I saw a Six Nations match changethat much at half time. Wales sorted-out their problems at half tie and the French seemed unable to respond, instead making awful mistakes like that sequence of awful long passes that lead to the second try by North.

Might not be suitable for his thread, but is there any expanation in the stratospheric models, MJO, GLAAM or anything similar as to why the jet seems likely to do a passable impression of an average November after the SSW that was supposed to finish-off the trop. vortex?

They really ought to have replaced that with this:

I sometimes wonder whether thev forecaster that compiles these is having a laugh. It seems as though they think "small gap there - I know, stick another trough/upper front in".😂

See p.53 of the following PDF - it's what i use to remind myself of the difference between how frontolysis and frontogenesis are shown on a FAX chart: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/library/factsheets/factsheet_11_weather_charts.compressed.pdf

Dewpoint is still above 0C, so it'll stay as rain.

Not here it isn't LOL!

That must explain why our depoint is above 0c!

Rain, 2C, DP 1C.

Presumably, that effect still applies up here?

According to Dan Holley (Staplehurst on Netweather), reduced upper forcing (whatever that is) means that the front is fading.

2C ans 1C dewpoint here, so any ppn. will be rain.

I must have misunderstood the discussion. I thought there was a suggestion that the stratospheric vortex divide hadn't affected the tropospheric vortex, which was based on the thought that the two weren't coupled.

I'm not seeing much indication of the cold air associated with the lobe over eastern Canada entering the Atlantic on that output; am I mistaken?

I understand Rossby and Kelvin waves, secondary lows, shortwaves and upper troughs, but I'm unclear as to the details of what happens when waves break. I've found discussions of ocean waves breaking, and there's highly mathematical analysis of atmospheric breaking, but I can't find a more qualitative explanation of the causes and mechanism of atmospheric wave breaking and its consequences, especially in the mid latitudes. Does anyone have any information on this, please?

Cheers Malcolm - I read more into it than there was! Would this suggest that the stratospheric and tropospheric vortices are more coupled than some here have speculated?

Apologies for the delay, but could you explain further,please Malcolm?