Model Banter, Moans and Ramps Winter 2013/14

[TonyH]

122 hours dull? Nice more like

[North-Easterly Blast]

Why have we had such a dreadful winter.  It almost looks set now that winter 2013-14 will join the horror show list of 1988-89, 1989-90, 1997-98, 2006-07, 2007-08.  Others in these years were pretty much horror shows too (1998-99, 1999-2000, 2001-02).

 

Why have we had to have a winter that has joined the horror show list of the above winters?  The point is that even in most winters that come out above average for temperatures there are usually a few intervals of colder weather with frosts and snowfalls for some, even if not particularly widespread.  Even one of the mildest winters on record, 2006-07, managed two separate short spells of colder weather with frosts and a little snowfall, though short lived and not that widespread.

 

What has gone wrong with this winter?  It must be the same as what went wrong with 88-89, 89-90, 97-98, 06-07, 07-08 and much of 98-99, 99-00, 01-02.  Why do we have to have winters like this that see next to nothing in terms of anything remotely wintry?  Looking further back only winter 1974-75 stands out as a horror show like this one and the above, although 73-74 was pretty poor too.  I do not think that a number of winters from the 1900s to the 1930s were up to much, especially those between the wars, but I am sure that many of those saw something more than this winter has.

 

2013-14 is at least the third horror show in the last ten years.  Three winters in the last ten years absolute bile, and a complete pile of pants, and up to nothing.

 

The others in the late 1990s and 2002 were over ten years ago.  Those in the late 1980s were over 20 years ago.  Why do we have to have three winters each decade as devoid of cold weather as this one has been.  It certainly isn't the norm to see a winter like this one and the two in 2006-07 / 2007-08 that lack the cold weather that this winter has done.  I am sure that there is a significant chance that this whole winter will go by without a single day recording a daily CET less than 2*C, and we may not even see a day less than 3*C.  Looking through the records, I have not yet found a winter that hasn't even recorded a single day less than 2*C for the CET.

 

This week has seen something half way to cold polar maritime zonality;

 

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/archive/2014/brack/bracka20140211.gif

An Atlantic influence, Snow did fall over a number of higher levels as far south as the south Pennines or even the north Midlands.  Not mild zonal by any means, but half way from mild zonal to this:

 

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1984/Rrea00119840115.gif

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1984/Rrea00119840117.gif

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1984/Rrea00119840123.gif

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1984/Rrea00119840124.gif  which is the zonality that is some good, all the more common zonality is just a pile of pants.

 

If we have to have zonality, or an Atlantic weather pattern, why can it not be cold polar maritime zonal, allowing some of the rain to at least fall as snow over part of the country.  Will we ever see cold polar maritime zonality again?  It is something that has mostly dissappeared from the pattern in recent years, but why doesen't it happen?  This is the worst aspect of all the weather patterns in the British climate, not being able to get cold zonality.  It clearly shows that, even if you have a zonal Atlantic pattern, it doesen't, if the orientation is favourable, mean that it will be mild with rain and not snow.

 

What has gone wrong with this winter? 

 

The calendar may say that we have had three winter months but weatherwise we haven't at all, winter hasn't even existed.  It has just been a year with four Novembers and no winter months. 

 

It certainly has been almost as far from the norm as the likes of 1947 / 1962-63 were, which saw sustained deep freezes last continuously for seven or ten weeks without a break.  It is certainly the opposite extreme to this to see a winter as devoid of anything remotely wintry as this one has been, and the ones in 06-07, 07-08, 88-89, 89-90, 97-98 etc. 

 

A winter like 2011-12 is typically what a "mild winter overall" will bring, or even something like 2004-05, or even 2003-04.  You usually do still get a few colder intervals.  Just where the heck has trough disruption and slider lows been this winter?  We have had some HP further north at times, but the trough disruption and sliders haven't allowed cold spells.  Where the heck has cold zonality been this winter?  Why haven't any of these happened?

[Thundery wintry showers]

What we need, 13 years ago. 

I remember that spell quite well- it was an exceptionally sunny anticyclonic spell in the Tyne and Wear area with daytime temperatures between 9 and 12C and frosts overnight, though some areas of the country had more issues with persistent freezing fog. 

It would certainly provide a substantial relief to the flooded and windswept areas.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Thundery wintry showers

[johnholmes]

Why have we had such a dreadful winter.  

 

Why have we had such a dreadful winter.  

 

one has to ask the question have you not watched/listened/readwhat various folk have explained in some detail why this is? 

[Weather-history]

An Atlantic influence, Snow did fall over a number of higher levels as far south as the south Pennines or even the north Midlands.  Not mild zonal by any means, but half way from mild zonal to this: http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1984/Rrea00119840115.gifhttp://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1984/Rrea00119840117.gifhttp://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1984/Rrea00119840123.gifhttp://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/archive/ra/1984/Rrea00119840124.gif  which is the zonality that is some good, all the more common zonality is just a pile of pants. If we have to have zonality, or an Atlantic weather pattern, why can it not be cold polar maritime zonal, allowing some of the rain to at least fall as snow over part of the country.  Will we ever see cold polar maritime zonality again?  It is something that has mostly dissappeared from the pattern in recent years, but why doesen't it happen?  This is the worst aspect of all the weather patterns in the British climate, not being able to get cold zonality.  It clearly shows that, even if you have a zonal Atlantic pattern, it doesen't, if the orientation is favourable, mean that it will be mild with rain and not snow. 

Oh for goodness sake, NELyBlast, give it a rest.You go on about cold zonality and ruddy January 1984 and will we ever see it again?I ask the question, "will you ever shut up going on about it?"

[North-Easterly Blast]

Just to show what a dreadful winter it has been, there has never been an occasion all winter when there has been cross model agreement of the start of a cold spell.  All winter any cold looking charts have always been at T240 or beyond and at the same time confined only to one model - no cold charts have ever come closer than T216 or ever been shown by the GFS and ECM at the same time. 

 

Why have we had the third dreadful winter in the last ten years (2006-07, 07-08, 13-14)?  It is very much the opposite extreme of seeing three winters in ten years coming close to a 1962-63 or 1947.

 

The only winter I know of prior to 1988, was 1974-75, and possibly one or two back in the earlier part of the 1900s, (apart from back in 1868-1869), that has been up there on the horror shows of 1988-89, 1989-90, 1997-98, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2013-14.  So it is just so dissappointing to see another winter join this list, and it is only six or seven years since two others joined this horror show list.  On top of this, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2001-02 were not far behind these horror shows either.  I am just so seriously concerned that next winter, 2014-15, or another winter in the not too distant future could join the list.

 

Why did such weather have to be invented to give the UK the dreadful winter that it has had this year and in the other horror show winters listed?  Why does the UK's place make such dreadful winters for lack of anything remotely cold likely?  It just seems that it is just a few hundred miles too far west for continental cold, and the same distance too far south for cold polar maritime zonality.  There is nothing to life at all to have to live through the sort of winter the UK has experienced this year.  How has this winter done anything any good?  I cannot see that it has, and has just made life a painfully slow process to live through.  It has just been four Novembers and no Dec, Jan or Feb.  Winter has just simply not existed for most of the UK except possibly high ground in the north.

Edited February 13, 2014 by North-Easterly Blast

[Weather-history]

There is nothing to life at all to have to live through the sort of winter the UK has experienced this year.  How has this winter done anything any good?  I cannot see that it has, and has just made life a painfully slow process to live through.

You have made such comments in the past and to be frank, I find it a little disturbing. Surely you life doesn't not revolve around how cold and snowy a winter is? Yes if you are a snow fan it is disappointing but you should not let it dictate your life. There are plenty other things to do, other hobbies and pastimes. Snow should not be allowed to dictate your life.

[I remember Atlantic 252]

feel as though its been a normal 2 and half months here, cannot expect anything else other than Atlantic air between Nov to 28th Feb

 

other areas had it wetter than normal, but here just seems average so far, but next week is looking the wettest yet with slow moving fronts

[North-Easterly Blast]

You have made such comments in the past and to be frank, I find it a little disturbing.Surely you life doesn't not revolve around how cold and snowy a winter is? Yes if you are a snow fan it is disappointing but you should not let it dictate your life. There are plenty other things to do, other hobbies and pastimes. Snow should not be allowed to dictate your life.

Another aspect to this winter that hasn't even been much in the way of frost either, or even fog, or even anything in the way of really cold days.  It has been just absolutely dire to say the least, and just a three month extension of November.  Little frost or fog, no really cold days, very little snow for most parts of the country away from possibly higher ground in the north.  Winter 2013-14 has been devoid of absolutely all of the weathers that you can even call winter.

 

 

My point is that most winters that come out above average for temperatures overall usually see a few short cold snaps, with a few frosts or fog, and a little snow for higher levels and favoured areas even if not widespread - this winter has just been devoid of anything that has brought any particularly cold days.

 

So what has gone wrong?  Something has gone badly wrong for us to have the dreadful winter we have had.

 

A winter that is very wet hasn't always historically meant that it was mild and devoid of anything remotely cold.  Winter 1914-15, the wettest on record up to this year, wasn't especially mild, at 4.3*C (at 4.6, 4.1 and 4.3) wern't that far above the average, and that winter had a few cold snaps from time to time.  Winter 1993-94 was another wet winter, but that winter was an OKish winter, with the cold zonal nature of the December, and an easterly spell in February.  Winter 1978-79 shows how it is possible to get a very cold winter that is also wet overall too.

 

 

The Uk is only likely to see a winter like 1962-63 or 1947 once or possibly twice a century if you are lucky, but to see three winters almost or completely devoid of anything that you could call winter in the last ten years (06-07, 07-08, 13-14) is just unthinkable, and far more than our fair share, on top of those in the late 1990s and in 1988-89 / 89-90 in the last 25 years is drastically more than our fair share.  It is like us getting a 62-63 or a 47 once or twice in a decade.

 

 

I believe that winter 2011-12 was dissappointing for most people, but it at least saw a bit more in the way of cold weather than this one has, even though it wasn't cold overall, but this one just takes us back on the dross of 2007-08, 06-07 etc.

 

 

 

I am just so fearful of having to live through the same dross as this winter next year or in another winter in the next few years.  It is just as far or almost as far away from what you should expect in the UK as a 63 or 47 is at the other extreme.

 

 

 

What it is to the UK is that when a severe cold spell of weather does hit the UK it is just not used to it, and is never prepared for it.  Other countries that have a better guarantee of notable cold every winter seem to cope far better than the UK, and severe cold in other countries never causes the disruption that it often brings to the UK.  If you could gaurantee a potent cold spell hitting the UK for one or two weeks every winter it would at least be something, and would keep the UK more prepared for when it comes.  I would much prefer the UK to see a pattern like this, so that myself and the rest of the UK knows where it is more.

 

 

 

I just hate the fact that the British Weather throws up winters like this one and others in the last ten and even 25 years that are utterly devoid of anything even remotely resembling winter.  Why are patterns invented that can give the UK the dreadful winter it has seen this year?  There is just nothing worse than seeing endless rain, or days with temps at 8-10*C all winter as you can't even feel any warmth from the sun, the countryside doesen't look wintry, and just looks very bare and brown all the time. We end up with an early spring, and then a lot of plants get killed by late frosts.

 

So what has gone wrong?  There has obviously been something very wrong for us to have the dreadful winter we have had, with no really cold days, little frosts and fog and hardly even a slight snowfall away from high ground in the north.

Edited February 13, 2014 by North-Easterly Blast

[OldMetMan]

With the extraordinary weather pattern this winter, and especially with the growth in flooding in recent days and weeks, once again the subject of "climate change" is thrust into the headlines, not least because those advocating it came out with an amount of "I told you so" when the question of adequate flood defences was debated, and apparently their advice wasn't heeded.

 

My own view is that we, as a species, are having little significant impact on the evolution of our climate. I say this for a number of reasons, in particular because of the arrogance and dogmatism of certain scientific voices, but mainly because, in the context of the extremely long and complicated history of weather on this planet, it makes no sense at all to me that we can make any assumptions about the future course of our climate, based on what is a microscopically tiny fraction of time when records have been kept, relative to the immense length of Earth's history. Even if ice core samples are included for the purpose of making these determinations, it is still an extremely small set of data.

 

This was particularly brought home to me when I once attempted an Open University course on Climate Change. Not only were the reasons given for how CO2 was affecting our atmosphere unclear and not very convincing, but these vague reasons were then used to project up to 50 years ahead, to produce the most ludicrous predictions. After valiant attempts to take the entire course seriously, I gave up because it was basically stupid! It offended all my years of weather study and insulted my intelligence with its preposterous conclusions.

 

So, any debate or argument that seeks to blame so-called climate change for any particular weather event or pattern, makes me bristle, especially when it is expressed in such a way by anyone who believes they are beyond all criticism.

 

In the vast history of the planet, every imaginable weather pattern must have happened at some time, plus many unimaginable events that we are clueless about. It hardly needs saying but the winter we have been enduring could have happened hundreds or thousands of times in the past, possibly many times worse. We simply do not know and have no way of knowing. Extreme climate variations in the past have been deduced from evidence left behind, such as the Ice Ages, there are theories yes, but unless it happens at a time when we can measure it, we can only speculate at best as to the reason(s).

 

As climate understanding has advanced, a great many indicators, signals, cycles have been discovered, and these are often cited as being reasons for this or that happening. Yet there is still a tendency, I think, to use these in isolation. The atmosphere is a system, an immensely complicated system, and as such, it could be argued that every single event within that system, has an effect elsewhere within it, either in space or time, or both.

 

Models have become extremely sophisticated in recent years, yet for all their cleverness, their use beyond a few days is mostly limited. I accept that never before have so many factors, variables been included in model calculations, but it would be next to impossible to factor in everything. Variations in the Sun's behaviour, not just basic changes in the amount of actual heat we receive from it, but all the many other forms of electromagnetic radiation it affects us with, all this has to influence not only present conditions but future evolutions.

 

I applaud the accuracy achieved in short-term forecasts as a great achievement. This advance has saved countless lives. I love watching how models take a particular situation and then develop it, first one way and then another, and often marvel at how this development can so quickly change. So I have respect for the scientific method as used in this way.

 

Having said at the outset that I do not agree with the assertions of man-made climate change, and then apparently contradicting this by saying that every aspect of a system has some effect of the rest of it, I should make it clear that I think by that reasoning, we must be changing the system somewhat, but I cannot accept that we are doing so to the extent and necessarily in the way the climate change advocates claim.

 

Every natural system has balancing mechanisms that always attempt to restore equilibrium. The climate is such, and although the sheer length of these balancing factors may be over millennia, the fact that we cannot perceive them, does not mean they do not exist. Cycles of climate patterns of this kind must surely exist, or else the atmosphere as we know it would simply have gone, or changed in such a way as to extinguish all life. So, in other words, the nature of climate IS change, but not in the sense it is used these days.

 

Our ruthlessly scientific approach has, in my opinion, robbed us of a more natural relationship with our planet, because we have been unable to see how changing one facet of this system can have many unexpected effects elsewhere. In other words, we are not in tune with our world and have destroyed so much in our ignorance. Our ancestors possessed this relationship, of this I am sure, and were able to work with, rather than against, the planet. We need to find a modern-day equivalent of this.

 

There, that has gotten that off my chest! Learn about our amazing climate and form your own conclusions. Don't let the dogmatists beat you into submission!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[marksp]

well cannot believe there over 100 pages on model moans !!! suppose it shows lack of real cold this winter, and numerous model let downs (them dam models)

 

when I',m feeling low because there's no snow I tune in to MY favourite you tube clip (has been for couple of years now) definitely worth a watch.

 

what I wouldn,t give to struggle like these guys ( if only)  TURN UP THE SPEAKERS ) hope you enjoy.  I do.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1xJ2DBTeV4

 

panda 4x4 forever.

[phil nw.]

Probably the most depressing Winter pattern for many years.

Nothing to raise interest for cold lovers and the excessive rain and wind has caused misery and problems for many in their day to day lives.

It is what it is but how many different ways can we discuss the same stormy Atlantic set up in the Model thread?

I guess most of us feel like we are repeating the same bad news with each model run.

What we would give for even an Azores high building north.

[DTHFCJ]

Probably the most depressing Winter pattern for many years.

Nothing to raise interest for cold lovers and the excessive rain and wind has caused misery and problems for many in their day to day lives.

It is what it is but how many different ways can we discuss the same stormy Atlantic set up in the Model thread?

I guess most of us feel like we are repeating the same bad news with each model run.

What we would give for even an Azores high building north.

Be just our luck Phil to get a lousy summer too

[linarite]

With the extraordinary weather pattern this winter, and especially with the growth in flooding in recent days and weeks, once again the subject of "climate change" is thrust into the headlines, not least because those advocating it came out with an amount of "I told you so" when the question of adequate flood defences was debated, and apparently their advice wasn't heeded.

 

My own view is that we, as a species, are having little significant impact on the evolution of our climate. I say this for a number of reasons, in particular because of the arrogance and dogmatism of certain scientific voices, but mainly because, in the context of the extremely long and complicated history of weather on this planet, it makes no sense at all to me that we can make any assumptions about the future course of our climate, based on what is a microscopically tiny fraction of time when records have been kept, relative to the immense length of Earth's history. Even if ice core samples are included for the purpose of making these determinations, it is still an extremely small set of data.

 

This was particularly brought home to me when I once attempted an Open University course on Climate Change. Not only were the reasons given for how CO2 was affecting our atmosphere unclear and not very convincing, but these vague reasons were then used to project up to 50 years ahead, to produce the most ludicrous predictions. After valiant attempts to take the entire course seriously, I gave up because it was basically stupid! It offended all my years of weather study and insulted my intelligence with its preposterous conclusions.

 

So, any debate or argument that seeks to blame so-called climate change for any particular weather event or pattern, makes me bristle, especially when it is expressed in such a way by anyone who believes they are beyond all criticism.

 

In the vast history of the planet, every imaginable weather pattern must have happened at some time, plus many unimaginable events that we are clueless about. It hardly needs saying but the winter we have been enduring could have happened hundreds or thousands of times in the past, possibly many times worse. We simply do not know and have no way of knowing. Extreme climate variations in the past have been deduced from evidence left behind, such as the Ice Ages, there are theories yes, but unless it happens at a time when we can measure it, we can only speculate at best as to the reason(s).

 

As climate understanding has advanced, a great many indicators, signals, cycles have been discovered, and these are often cited as being reasons for this or that happening. Yet there is still a tendency, I think, to use these in isolation. The atmosphere is a system, an immensely complicated system, and as such, it could be argued that every single event within that system, has an effect elsewhere within it, either in space or time, or both.

 

Models have become extremely sophisticated in recent years, yet for all their cleverness, their use beyond a few days is mostly limited. I accept that never before have so many factors, variables been included in model calculations, but it would be next to impossible to factor in everything. Variations in the Sun's behaviour, not just basic changes in the amount of actual heat we receive from it, but all the many other forms of electromagnetic radiation it affects us with, all this has to influence not only present conditions but future evolutions.

 

I applaud the accuracy achieved in short-term forecasts as a great achievement. This advance has saved countless lives. I love watching how models take a particular situation and then develop it, first one way and then another, and often marvel at how this development can so quickly change. So I have respect for the scientific method as used in this way.

 

Having said at the outset that I do not agree with the assertions of man-made climate change, and then apparently contradicting this by saying that every aspect of a system has some effect of the rest of it, I should make it clear that I think by that reasoning, we must be changing the system somewhat, but I cannot accept that we are doing so to the extent and necessarily in the way the climate change advocates claim.

 

Every natural system has balancing mechanisms that always attempt to restore equilibrium. The climate is such, and although the sheer length of these balancing factors may be over millennia, the fact that we cannot perceive them, does not mean they do not exist. Cycles of climate patterns of this kind must surely exist, or else the atmosphere as we know it would simply have gone, or changed in such a way as to extinguish all life. So, in other words, the nature of climate IS change, but not in the sense it is used these days.

 

Our ruthlessly scientific approach has, in my opinion, robbed us of a more natural relationship with our planet, because we have been unable to see how changing one facet of this system can have many unexpected effects elsewhere. In other words, we are not in tune with our world and have destroyed so much in our ignorance. Our ancestors possessed this relationship, of this I am sure, and were able to work with, rather than against, the planet. We need to find a modern-day equivalent of this.

 

There, that has gotten that off my chest! Learn about our amazing climate and form your own conclusions. Don't let the dogmatists beat you into submission!

absolutely agree about the dangers of trying to link one particular event, or one particular season's weather,  to anthropogenic climate change. But you must surely accept the basic physics of the matter - Fourier and Tyndall worked out the essentials in the 19C and nobody, as far I know, has ever  undermined the basic premise that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase the net amount of heat reaching the earth's surface.  

 

It is also indisputable that mankind's burning of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO2 to a level (400ppm) not seen on the planet for 3 million years, probably more.  So given these two reasonably certain premises, it is not on the face of it unlikely that there will be effects on the climate system.  Yes, of course there are natural climatic cycles driven by astronomic factors such as solar activity, and one-off effects resulting from volcanic activity etc etc, These are actually quite well understood because of the ice-core record, use of isotope climate proxies etc,  but because we know there are natural cycles does not make it logical to assume that mankind's effects on the climate are not significant, can't add to, or even override, natural cycles.   And , incidentally, scientists do not believe they are' beyond criticism' - the whole point of a scientific explanation for a phenomenon is that is only the best available explanation, but that the explanation ('model' whatever you want to call it ) is always provisional and open to revision. Scientists are never certain they are right (unlike some of the more vocal opponents of science). 

Edited February 13, 2014 by linarite

[OldMetMan]

absolutely agree about the dangers of trying to link one particular event, or one particular season's weather,  to anthropogenic climate change. But you must surely accept the basic physics of the matter - Fourier and Tyndall worked out the essentials in the 19C and nobody, as far I know, has ever  undermined the basic premise that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase the net amount of heat reaching the earth's surface.  

 

It is also indisputable that mankind's burning of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO2 to a level (400ppm) not seen on the planet for 3 million years, probably more.  So given these two reasonably certain premises, it is not on the face of it unlikely that there will be effects on the climate system.  Yes, of course there are natural climatic cycles driven by astronomic factors such as solar activity, and one-off effects resulting from volcanic activity etc etc, These are actually quite well understood because of the ice-core record, use of isotope climate proxies etc,  but because we know there are natural cycles does not make it logical to assume that mankind's effects on the climate are not significant, can't add to, or even override, natural cycles.   And , incidentally, scientists do not believe they are' beyond criticism' - the whole point of a scientific explanation for a phenomenon is that is only the best available explanation, but that the explanation ('model' whatever you want to call it ) is always provisional and open to revision. Scientists are never certain they are right (unlike some of the more vocal opponents of science). 

Thanks Linarite, I appreciate your comments, but my main point is how little we truly know of our climate history given its massive length, and our assumptions are based on such little data. We cannot know for sure that CO2 has never, well at least for a long time, been this high, nor can we know how the atmosphere managed to rectify the situation in the past, which given the time of 3 million years you gave, must have somehow happened (not sure how that number was arrived at anyway!). If an imbalance occurs of whatever kind, the atmosphere, being a self-regulating system, will somehow balance it.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but the climate change advocates seem to think we are heading to a point of no return, if CO2 continues to be produced at, or above current levels. Maybe it does indeed happen in some cases, that a tipping point is reached beyond which there is no going back. One naturally wonders what happened on Mars for example, as it clearly had a very different atmosphere in the past, judging from the evidence for there being water. But we have no way of knowing for sure how these  changes occur. One explanation could be a comet or asteroid strike for example. Unless you believe that Mars was once populated by intelligent life, then some other process must be responsible for the change.

 

I agree that true scientists are open minded and only too ready to accept new ideas, based on new evidence. Yet, when it comes to climate change, it has, to my mind, become almost a religion. The scandalous manipulation of data that occurred several years ago among certain climate scientists suggests that the belief had to be upheld at all costs, even if it meant fiddling the data. The reason could be politics, who knows. All the most original scientific thinkers challenged beliefs, challenged dogma and were punished for it. Yet so many new ideas came from their work, that better fit the facts and the evidence. The scientists who pontificate on the perils of climate change when the subject comes into media prominence from time to time( or their mouthpieces) are the ones who seem to think they are beyond reproach. To me, they are not true to scientific principals and it is them I object to.

 

My perception is that the weather HAS changed, even in the 40+ years I have been interested in it. Yet, who's to say that more extreme weather is in fact THE norm. As I said, we are only comparing these events to a miniscule period of weather records, it seems more dramatic and significant for that very reason.

 

Time will tell!

[phil nw.]

Just a gentle reminder this is a model related thread and for general comments around them- rather than in-depth climate views.

Some interesting stuff but would be better if you continued this in the related threads guys.

 

Thanks.

[OldMetMan]

Just a gentle reminder this is a model related thread and for general comments around them- rather than in-depth climate views.

Some interesting stuff but would be better if you continued this in the related threads guys.

 

Thanks.

Point taken Phil, sorry I tend to get carried away!

[Timmytour]

I have to admit.....for all we look at the models to guide us on what a winter will turn out to be, the object of much derision on here, the Daily Express, might well have scooped them all back in November...100 DAYS OF HEAVY RAIN: Britain now facing worst winter in SIXTY YEARS warn forecastersOk OK I changed it a bit.....but only one word!!!

[Fat Bloke]

You know our winter is so bad when you see parts of florida have snow  before many of us AND IT'S NEARLY MARCH

[snow freak]

I can't wait for this winter to be over now.  It has been the worst i can remember and one i just want to forget.  If next winter is a repetition of this one I will definately be emigrating.

[mike Meehan]

I saw a big wooden boat floating down the road yesterday - there were lots of animals on board and a man with a long white beard.

 

Any ideas what they may be about?

[mushymanrob]

great to read a sensible, blanced post on gw , thanks old met man

models toying with pressure rise to the south for late feb, some warmth on the cards?

[snow freak]

I saw a big wooden boat floating down the road yesterday - there were lots of animals on board and a man with a long white beard.

 

Any ideas what they may be about?

sounds like it could be Boris Johnson

[mike Meehan]

sounds like it could be Boris Johnson

He doesn't have a beard

[OldMetMan]

I have to admit.....for all we look at the models to guide us on what a winter will turn out to be, the object of much derision on here, the Daily Express, might well have scooped them all back in November...100 DAYS OF HEAVY RAIN: Britain now facing worst winter in SIXTY YEARS warn forecastersOk OK I changed it a bit.....but only one word!!!

I suspect that they are saving that actual headline to apply to the Summer, only in place of "in sixty years" it'll be "ever", knowing them. I like that they take an interest in the weather, but it would be nice to see, now and then, something they write which is even remotely near the facts. Exaggeration doesn't really cover it!