The gfs ensembles have suggested this for 24 hours now and there are
fewer colder scenarios after 10 days, in the 06z ensembles:

http://www.jp2webdesign.co.uk/two/ensembles/

The gfs operational has shown it for 3 runs and the ECM was suggesting
the same on the 00z at 10 days. If the gfs continues in the same theme
and is supported by the ECM, I may forecast a return to zonal at T240.
I'm not certain yet and my criteria for forecasting have not yet been
satisfied, but ATM, that seems the most likely outcome.

Like the last 3 days, there is still nothing in the models that
suggests confidence enough for a forecast that is likely to be
accurate.

On Jan 14, 12:02*pm, Dawlish wrote:
The gfs ensembles have suggested this for 24 hours now and there are
fewer colder scenarios after 10 days, in the 06z ensembles:

http://www.jp2webdesign.co.uk/two/ensembles/

The gfs operational has shown it for 3 runs and the ECM was suggesting
the same on the 00z at 10 days. If the gfs continues in the same theme
and is supported by the ECM, I may forecast a return to zonal at T240.
I'm not certain yet and my criteria for forecasting have not yet been
satisfied, but ATM, that seems the most likely outcome.

Like the last 3 days, there is still nothing in the models that
suggests confidence enough for a forecast that is likely to be
accurate.



12z gfs continues the theme.

On Jan 14, 4:57*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:02*pm, Dawlish wrote:





The gfs ensembles have suggested this for 24 hours now and there are
fewer colder scenarios after 10 days, in the 06z ensembles:

http://www.jp2webdesign.co.uk/two/ensembles/

The gfs operational has shown it for 3 runs and the ECM was suggesting
the same on the 00z at 10 days. If the gfs continues in the same theme
and is supported by the ECM, I may forecast a return to zonal at T240.
I'm not certain yet and my criteria for forecasting have not yet been
satisfied, but ATM, that seems the most likely outcome.

Like the last 3 days, there is still nothing in the models that
suggests confidence enough for a forecast that is likely to be
accurate.

12z gfs continues the theme.

ECM 12z hangs onto its colder theme by its bootstraps. I think it will
probably be gone tomorrow, but my confidence in zonal conditions
returning still hovers below 80%

Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:57 pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:02 pm, Dawlish wrote:





The gfs ensembles have suggested this for 24 hours now and there are
fewer colder scenarios after 10 days, in the 06z ensembles:
http://www.jp2webdesign.co.uk/two/ensembles/
The gfs operational has shown it for 3 runs and the ECM was suggesting
the same on the 00z at 10 days. If the gfs continues in the same theme
and is supported by the ECM, I may forecast a return to zonal at T240.
I'm not certain yet and my criteria for forecasting have not yet been
satisfied, but ATM, that seems the most likely outcome.
Like the last 3 days, there is still nothing in the models that
suggests confidence enough for a forecast that is likely to be
accurate.
12z gfs continues the theme.

ECM 12z hangs onto its colder theme by its bootstraps. I think it will
probably be gone tomorrow, but my confidence in zonal conditions
returning still hovers below 80%
----------------------
I had to smile when I read this after the criticism of Will's "Holding
his nerve".
Not quite sure about the confidence limits of "hovering below 80%"

Dave

On Jan 14, 7:52*pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:57 pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:02 pm, Dawlish wrote:

The gfs ensembles have suggested this for 24 hours now and there are
fewer colder scenarios after 10 days, in the 06z ensembles:
http://www.jp2webdesign.co.uk/two/ensembles/
The gfs operational has shown it for 3 runs and the ECM was suggesting
the same on the 00z at 10 days. If the gfs continues in the same theme
and is supported by the ECM, I may forecast a return to zonal at T240..
I'm not certain yet and my criteria for forecasting have not yet been
satisfied, but ATM, that seems the most likely outcome.
Like the last 3 days, there is still nothing in the models that
suggests confidence enough for a forecast that is likely to be
accurate.
12z gfs continues the theme.

ECM 12z hangs onto its colder theme by its bootstraps. I think it will
probably be gone tomorrow, but my confidence in zonal conditions
returning still hovers below 80%

----------------------
I had to smile when I read this after the criticism of Will's "Holding
his nerve".
Not quite sure about the confidence limits of "hovering below 80%"

Dave



It's always good to smile.

I don't quite know what you mean though Dave. I have particular
criteria, which have to be satisfied before I feel 80% confident that
something will happen. It's got nothing to do with the, frankly silly,
phrase; "holding one's nerve" and everything to do with recognising
when the probability of something happening is 80%+. ATM nothing is,
beacuse the 12z ECM still holds out the chance of an extended colder
spell...........just. *))

Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 7:52 pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:57 pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:02 pm, Dawlish wrote:
The gfs ensembles have suggested this for 24 hours now and there are
fewer colder scenarios after 10 days, in the 06z ensembles:
http://www.jp2webdesign.co.uk/two/ensembles/
The gfs operational has shown it for 3 runs and the ECM was suggesting
the same on the 00z at 10 days. If the gfs continues in the same theme
and is supported by the ECM, I may forecast a return to zonal at T240.
I'm not certain yet and my criteria for forecasting have not yet been
satisfied, but ATM, that seems the most likely outcome.
Like the last 3 days, there is still nothing in the models that
suggests confidence enough for a forecast that is likely to be
accurate.
12z gfs continues the theme.
ECM 12z hangs onto its colder theme by its bootstraps. I think it will
probably be gone tomorrow, but my confidence in zonal conditions
returning still hovers below 80%
----------------------
I had to smile when I read this after the criticism of Will's "Holding
his nerve".
Not quite sure about the confidence limits of "hovering below 80%"

Dave



It's always good to smile.

I don't quite know what you mean though Dave.
----------------------------------------------

Well as you've asked, "hovering below" a specific value isn't a
particularly well defined statistical term. I would imagine 10% could
hover below 80%. It was a wry observation that if you are worried about
others' semantics then in this instance yours might have been better.
Dave

On Jan 14, 9:47*pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 7:52 pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:57 pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:02 pm, Dawlish wrote:
The gfs ensembles have suggested this for 24 hours now and there are
fewer colder scenarios after 10 days, in the 06z ensembles:
http://www.jp2webdesign.co.uk/two/ensembles/
The gfs operational has shown it for 3 runs and the ECM was suggesting
the same on the 00z at 10 days. If the gfs continues in the same theme
and is supported by the ECM, I may forecast a return to zonal at T240.
I'm not certain yet and my criteria for forecasting have not yet been
satisfied, but ATM, that seems the most likely outcome.
Like the last 3 days, there is still nothing in the models that
suggests confidence enough for a forecast that is likely to be
accurate.
12z gfs continues the theme.
ECM 12z hangs onto its colder theme by its bootstraps. I think it will
probably be gone tomorrow, but my confidence in zonal conditions
returning still hovers below 80%
----------------------
I had to smile when I read this after the criticism of Will's "Holding
his nerve".
Not quite sure about the confidence limits of "hovering below 80%"

Dave

It's always good to smile.

I don't quite know what you mean though Dave.

----------------------------------------------

Well as you've asked, "hovering below" a specific value isn't a
particularly well defined statistical term. I would imagine 10% could
hover below 80%. It was a wry observation that if you are worried about
others' semantics then in this instance yours might have been better.
Dave



My own position is clear as a bell. If I don't get 5 consecutive gfs
runs and see agreement with the ECM, or see that the ensembles are set
against the pattern, I don't see an 80% chance of the model output
being correct. If I do, there is. Then I forecast and I always return
to the forecast every time to analyse it, right, or wrong. Sometimes
it proves complete rubbish within 3 days and I abandon it. If it's
wrong, It's wrong and sometimes it is very clear that it is wrong,
very quickly.

The gfs has shows zonal for 5 runs. The ECM 00z showed agreement with
that, but the 12z suggested that the cold spell may still continue.
I'm close to 80% certain, but not quite, as a result. Hence; "hovering
below". If you don't like the semantics, take your pick from close,
almost, nearly, not quite, very close, etc. I honestly don't mind, but
I think you know exactly what I mean. I'm not 80% certain the forecast
would achieve outcome, I'm about 75% confident, but 75% isn't enough
for me.

Is that OK?

Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 9:47 pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 7:52 pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:57 pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:02 pm, Dawlish wrote:
The gfs ensembles have suggested this for 24 hours now and there are
fewer colder scenarios after 10 days, in the 06z ensembles:
http://www.jp2webdesign.co.uk/two/ensembles/
The gfs operational has shown it for 3 runs and the ECM was suggesting
the same on the 00z at 10 days. If the gfs continues in the same theme
and is supported by the ECM, I may forecast a return to zonal at T240.
I'm not certain yet and my criteria for forecasting have not yet been
satisfied, but ATM, that seems the most likely outcome.
Like the last 3 days, there is still nothing in the models that
suggests confidence enough for a forecast that is likely to be
accurate.
12z gfs continues the theme.
ECM 12z hangs onto its colder theme by its bootstraps. I think it will
probably be gone tomorrow, but my confidence in zonal conditions
returning still hovers below 80%
----------------------
I had to smile when I read this after the criticism of Will's "Holding
his nerve".
Not quite sure about the confidence limits of "hovering below 80%"
Dave
It's always good to smile.
I don't quite know what you mean though Dave.
----------------------------------------------

Well as you've asked, "hovering below" a specific value isn't a
particularly well defined statistical term. I would imagine 10% could
hover below 80%. It was a wry observation that if you are worried about
others' semantics then in this instance yours might have been better.
Dave



My own position is clear as a bell. If I don't get 5 consecutive gfs
runs and see agreement with the ECM, or see that the ensembles are set
against the pattern, I don't see an 80% chance of the model output
being correct. If I do, there is. Then I forecast and I always return
to the forecast every time to analyse it, right, or wrong. Sometimes
it proves complete rubbish within 3 days and I abandon it. If it's
wrong, It's wrong and sometimes it is very clear that it is wrong,
very quickly.

The gfs has shows zonal for 5 runs. The ECM 00z showed agreement with
that, but the 12z suggested that the cold spell may still continue.
I'm close to 80% certain, but not quite, as a result. Hence; "hovering
below". If you don't like the semantics, take your pick from close,
almost, nearly, not quite, very close, etc. I honestly don't mind, but
I think you know exactly what I mean. I'm not 80% certain the forecast
would achieve outcome, I'm about 75% confident, but 75% isn't enough
for me.

Is that OK?
---------------
:-))

On Jan 14, 10:33*pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 9:47 pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 7:52 pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:57 pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:02 pm, Dawlish wrote:
The gfs ensembles have suggested this for 24 hours now and there are
fewer colder scenarios after 10 days, in the 06z ensembles:
http://www.jp2webdesign.co.uk/two/ensembles/
The gfs operational has shown it for 3 runs and the ECM was suggesting
the same on the 00z at 10 days. If the gfs continues in the same theme
and is supported by the ECM, I may forecast a return to zonal at T240.
I'm not certain yet and my criteria for forecasting have not yet been
satisfied, but ATM, that seems the most likely outcome.
Like the last 3 days, there is still nothing in the models that
suggests confidence enough for a forecast that is likely to be
accurate.
12z gfs continues the theme.
ECM 12z hangs onto its colder theme by its bootstraps. I think it will
probably be gone tomorrow, but my confidence in zonal conditions
returning still hovers below 80%
----------------------
I had to smile when I read this after the criticism of Will's "Holding
his nerve".
Not quite sure about the confidence limits of "hovering below 80%"
Dave
It's always good to smile.
I don't quite know what you mean though Dave.
----------------------------------------------

Well as you've asked, "hovering below" a specific value isn't a
particularly well defined statistical term. I would imagine 10% could
hover below 80%. It was a wry observation that if you are worried about
others' semantics then in this instance yours might have been better.
Dave

My own position is clear as a bell. If I don't get 5 consecutive gfs
runs and see agreement with the ECM, or see that the ensembles are set
against the pattern, I don't see an 80% chance of the model output
being correct. If I do, there is. Then I forecast and I always return
to the forecast every time to analyse it, right, or wrong. Sometimes
it proves complete rubbish within 3 days and I abandon it. If it's
wrong, It's wrong and sometimes it is very clear that it is wrong,
very quickly.

The gfs has shows zonal for 5 runs. The ECM 00z showed agreement with
that, but the 12z suggested that the cold spell may still continue.
I'm close to 80% certain, but not quite, as a result. Hence; "hovering
below". If you don't like the semantics, take your pick from close,
almost, nearly, not quite, very close, etc. I honestly don't mind, but
I think you know exactly what I mean. I'm not 80% certain the forecast
would achieve outcome, I'm about 75% confident, but 75% isn't enough
for me.

Is that OK?

---------------
:-))

*))

On Jan 14, 10:33*pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 9:47 pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 7:52 pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:57 pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 14, 12:02 pm, Dawlish wrote:
The gfs ensembles have suggested this for 24 hours now and there are
fewer colder scenarios after 10 days, in the 06z ensembles:
http://www.jp2webdesign.co.uk/two/ensembles/
The gfs operational has shown it for 3 runs and the ECM was suggesting
the same on the 00z at 10 days. If the gfs continues in the same theme
and is supported by the ECM, I may forecast a return to zonal at T240.
I'm not certain yet and my criteria for forecasting have not yet been
satisfied, but ATM, that seems the most likely outcome.
Like the last 3 days, there is still nothing in the models that
suggests confidence enough for a forecast that is likely to be
accurate.
12z gfs continues the theme.
ECM 12z hangs onto its colder theme by its bootstraps. I think it will
probably be gone tomorrow, but my confidence in zonal conditions
returning still hovers below 80%
----------------------
I had to smile when I read this after the criticism of Will's "Holding
his nerve".
Not quite sure about the confidence limits of "hovering below 80%"
Dave
It's always good to smile.
I don't quite know what you mean though Dave.
----------------------------------------------

Well as you've asked, "hovering below" a specific value isn't a
particularly well defined statistical term. I would imagine 10% could
hover below 80%. It was a wry observation that if you are worried about
others' semantics then in this instance yours might have been better.
Dave

My own position is clear as a bell. If I don't get 5 consecutive gfs
runs and see agreement with the ECM, or see that the ensembles are set
against the pattern, I don't see an 80% chance of the model output
being correct. If I do, there is. Then I forecast and I always return
to the forecast every time to analyse it, right, or wrong. Sometimes
it proves complete rubbish within 3 days and I abandon it. If it's
wrong, It's wrong and sometimes it is very clear that it is wrong,
very quickly.

The gfs has shows zonal for 5 runs. The ECM 00z showed agreement with
that, but the 12z suggested that the cold spell may still continue.
I'm close to 80% certain, but not quite, as a result. Hence; "hovering
below". If you don't like the semantics, take your pick from close,
almost, nearly, not quite, very close, etc. I honestly don't mind, but
I think you know exactly what I mean. I'm not 80% certain the forecast
would achieve outcome, I'm about 75% confident, but 75% isn't enough
for me.

Is that OK?

---------------
:-))

That's probably the end of the speculation this morning, however. It
actually looks as if the zonal spell will now resume as soon as this
transient high pressure (this isn't blocking BTW) moves eastwards. As
Mr. Dixon said; "It's finished before it's started!"

For me, the cold spell was never on the cards, but it certainly was,
for some - especially for that particulat cold hopecaster, Steve Murr,
whom we were helpfully linked to from netweather. As for the
prophesied effects of the SSW; that's two January's running that an
SSW has not has the desired effect. Maybe next year, the language of
cause and effect will be less certain, should one happen.

The continuing zonal spell may well produce some snow showers, even
for Will on Dartmoor, but winter really won't "start mid-month". Cold
and frosty this morning for some (not here, the wind is far too strong
and we still haven't had a ground frost this winter) but that's about
what you'd expect on some days in mid-January.