http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/rel...inter-guidance
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...pe-and-the-uk/

http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 1:43:48 PM UTC, wrote:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/rel...inter-guidance

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...pe-and-the-uk/



http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm

Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)

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

thanks you Will. After reading and learning from these, I doubt you will be as willing to draw such strong links to SSW's and especially to very weak ones, ("stratwarm" is a term used nowhere in the article, or the blog). I could be wrong on that, of course.

If you wish me to post the same papers again that I've linked to before, explaining SSW's and their effects on surface conditions in more detail, to help you, I'm willing to do so. They are easily researched.

thanks you Will. After reading and learning from these, I doubt you will be as willing to draw such strong links to SSW's and especially to very weak ones, ("stratwarm" is a term used nowhere in the article, or the blog). I could be wrong on that, of course.


In the 1st link that Will provided by the Met Office:

The new model, dubbed the "high top" system, is different from the previous system as it takes into account something known as sudden stratospheric warming's (SSWs) - which have previously been shown to be responsible for cold conditions at ground level.

SSWs happen when the usual westerly winds in the stratosphere, between 10km and 50km up, break down and ultimately reverse.

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

Maybe dear pupil you should read the detail before lecturing & trying to offer the teacher advice.

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:39:36 PM UTC, Teignmouth wrote:


thanks you Will. After reading and learning from these, I doubt you will be as willing to draw such strong links to SSW's and especially to very weak ones, ("stratwarm" is a term used nowhere in the article, or the blog).. I could be wrong on that, of course.





In the 1st link that Will provided by the Met Office:



The new model, dubbed the "high top" system, is different from the previous system as it takes into account something known as sudden stratospheric warming's (SSWs) - which have previously been shown to be responsible for cold conditions at ground level.



SSWs happen when the usual westerly winds in the stratosphere, between 10km and 50km up, break down and ultimately reverse.


Errrrrr yes. We all know the atmospheric signatures of strong SSWs. We also know that the MetO have changed their models and incorporated strong SSWs in their forecasting. So your point is about the effects of the weak SSW that Will got hopelessly wrong? Will understands exactly what I mean. A pity you don't.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:39:36 PM UTC, Teignmouth wrote:


thanks you Will. After reading and learning from these, I doubt you will
be as willing to draw such strong links to SSW's and especially to very
weak ones, ("stratwarm" is a term used nowhere in the article, or the
blog). I could be wrong on that, of course.





In the 1st link that Will provided by the Met Office:



The new model, dubbed the "high top" system, is different from the
previous system as it takes into account something known as sudden
stratospheric warming's (SSWs) - which have previously been shown to be
responsible for cold conditions at ground level.



SSWs happen when the usual westerly winds in the stratosphere, between
10km and 50km up, break down and ultimately reverse.


Errrrrr yes. We all know the atmospheric signatures of strong SSWs. We also
know that the MetO have changed their models and incorporated strong SSWs in
their forecasting. So your point is about the effects of the weak SSW that
Will got hopelessly wrong? Will understands exactly what I mean. A pity you
don't.

==========================

The point is, is that even relatively weak or shortlived warmings will
decrease the zonal wind and if there is an existing block that will help
prolong it. It is no coincidence that the last block retreated eastwards in
the models when the stratwarm ceased.

Will
--

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:29:28 PM UTC, wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:39:36 PM UTC, Teignmouth wrote:





thanks you Will. After reading and learning from these, I doubt you will

be as willing to draw such strong links to SSW's and especially to very

weak ones, ("stratwarm" is a term used nowhere in the article, or the

blog). I could be wrong on that, of course.











In the 1st link that Will provided by the Met Office:







The new model, dubbed the "high top" system, is different from the

previous system as it takes into account something known as sudden

stratospheric warming's (SSWs) - which have previously been shown to be

responsible for cold conditions at ground level.







SSWs happen when the usual westerly winds in the stratosphere, between

10km and 50km up, break down and ultimately reverse.





Errrrrr yes. We all know the atmospheric signatures of strong SSWs. We also

know that the MetO have changed their models and incorporated strong SSWs in

their forecasting. So your point is about the effects of the weak SSW that

Will got hopelessly wrong? Will understands exactly what I mean. A pity you

don't.



==========================



The point is, is that even relatively weak or shortlived warmings will

decrease the zonal wind and if there is an existing block that will help

prolong it. It is no coincidence that the last block retreated eastwards in

the models when the stratwarm ceased.



Will

--

Show us the research that shows that a very weak event (the SSW last week was exactly that), which does not actually propagate to the surface (it didn't), produces an enhanced effect to a surface block.

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:29:28 PM UTC, wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:39:36 PM UTC, Teignmouth wrote:





thanks you Will. After reading and learning from these, I doubt you will

be as willing to draw such strong links to SSW's and especially to very

weak ones, ("stratwarm" is a term used nowhere in the article, or the

blog). I could be wrong on that, of course.











In the 1st link that Will provided by the Met Office:







The new model, dubbed the "high top" system, is different from the

previous system as it takes into account something known as sudden

stratospheric warming's (SSWs) - which have previously been shown to be

responsible for cold conditions at ground level.







SSWs happen when the usual westerly winds in the stratosphere, between

10km and 50km up, break down and ultimately reverse.





Errrrrr yes. We all know the atmospheric signatures of strong SSWs. We also

know that the MetO have changed their models and incorporated strong SSWs in

their forecasting. So your point is about the effects of the weak SSW that

Will got hopelessly wrong? Will understands exactly what I mean. A pity you

don't.



==========================



The point is, is that even relatively weak or shortlived warmings will

decrease the zonal wind and if there is an existing block that will help

prolong it. It is no coincidence that the last block retreated eastwards in

the models when the stratwarm ceased.



Will

--

Is it "no coincidence" Will? Do; "relatively weak or shortlived warmings will

decrease the zonal wind and if there is an existing block that will help

prolong it".

Where are you getting these "facts" from? Surely you must have evidence to back this up?

On Sunday, 16 December 2012 17:10:32 UTC, Dawlish wrote:

If you wish me to post the same papers again that I've linked to before, explaining SSW's and their effects on surface conditions in more detail, to help you, I'm willing to do so. They are easily researched.

Dear Dave,

I am not anti Dawlish and you do come up with valid points. But I am finding this continual snipping at Will both disrespectful and unnecessary. I have been following this newsgroup for around 15 years and have learnt huge amounts from the various professional and other contributors to this group. Will is unique in his attitude of sharing any unusual and potentially dangerous weather events that appear on the horizon. Most forecasters are reluctant to post, fearing ridicule if they do not materialise. To loose Will on here would mean the demise of "on the edge" knowledgeable warnings and discussions. I always take a squint at Darren Prescotts excellent 7 day summary of the charts. There are other retired meteorologists on here who pop by with their input. I am still trying to fathom the earthquake/weather connection with weatherlawyers ramblings (often to himself it seems), but worth a read. Lawrence keeps his head down these days, but he has relevant views. I remember some time ago there was some sort of expose on you that seemed to suggest that you are a school teacher in Dawlish, which I have no problem with. I am just interested about your meteorological background so that when you post your comments on here, that give the impression that you have or have had some meteorology training. It would just help me in evaluating your replies to Will's and other posts. I just find it incredibly tedious when it all starts getting personnel and ranty, so hopefully this won't happen this time.

Yours respectively,

Mike McMillan

Mike McMillan wrote:
On Sunday, 16 December 2012 17:10:32 UTC, Dawlish wrote:

If you wish me to post the same papers again that I've linked to before, explaining SSW's and their effects on surface conditions in more detail, to help you, I'm willing to do so. They are easily researched.

Dear Dave,

I am not anti Dawlish and you do come up with valid points. But I am finding this continual snipping at Will both disrespectful and unnecessary. I have been following this newsgroup for around 15 years and have learnt huge amounts from the various professional and other contributors to this group. Will is unique in his attitude of sharing any unusual and potentially dangerous weather events that appear on the horizon. Most forecasters are reluctant to post, fearing ridicule if they do not materialise. To loose Will on here would mean the demise of "on the edge" knowledgeable warnings and discussions. I always take a squint at Darren Prescotts excellent 7 day summary of the charts. There are other retired meteorologists on here who pop by with their input. I am still trying to fathom the earthquake/weather connection with weatherlawyers ramblings (often to himself it seems), but worth a read. Lawrence keeps his head down these days, but he has relevant views. I remember som
e time ago there was some sort of expose on you that seemed to suggest that you are a school teacher in Dawlish, which I have no problem with. I am just interested about your meteorological background so that when you post your comments on here, that give the impression that you have or have had some meteorology training. It would just help me in evaluating your replies to Will's and other posts. I just find it incredibly tedious when it all starts getting personnel and ranty, so hopefully this won't happen this time.

Yours respectively,

Mike McMillan
------------------------------------
Hopefully that was meant to say "Dear Paul" !!

On Dec 16, 8:27*pm, Mike McMillan wrote:
On Sunday, 16 December 2012 17:10:32 UTC, Dawlish *wrote:
If you wish me to post the same papers again that I've linked to before, explaining SSW's *and their effects on surface conditions in more detail, to help you, I'm willing to do so. They are easily researched.

Dear Dave,

To lose Will on here would mean the demise of "on the edge" knowledgeable warnings and discussions. I always take a squint at Darren Prescotts excellent 7 day summary of the charts. There are other retired meteorologists on here who pop by with their input. I am still trying to fathom the earthquake/weather connection with weatherlawyers ramblings (often to himself it seems), but worth a read.

***

Posting this with Windows 7 so I apologise for the crap interface.


How can I be writing to myself if you are reading them?
DO WAKE UP IN THE BACK, THERE!

The fact is I have a Fred Hoyle perspective on modern science.

It doesn't help that I am math blind. But like a colour blind soldier,
I have less chance of getting fooled by camouflage when I am looking
for trouble.