Very poor.

http://tinyurl.com/zw7k6vj

On 07/01/2016 22:44, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Very poor.

http://tinyurl.com/zw7k6vj

--------------------------------------------------
You've been there enough times to know - just one run.
All models, all ensembles need to be considered.
(You've also been there enough times to know the law of sod and what
will probably happen south of the M4 ;-(
Dave

In message ,
Lawrence Jenkins writes
Very poor.

http://tinyurl.com/zw7k6vj

Wrong link, Lawrence. It takes me to
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/mani...irfix.jpg.html

But assuming it was to either the GFS or ECMWF 00Z operational run, both
of those look to be mild outliers to a great or lesser extent. There
still seems to be a great deal of uncertainty about developments beyond
as little as 5-6 days out.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

On 08/01/2016 09:27, John Hall wrote:

But assuming it was to either the GFS or ECMWF 00Z operational run, both
of those look to be mild outliers to a great or lesser extent. There
still seems to be a great deal of uncertainty about developments beyond
as little as 5-6 days out.

It's a hold fire moment if model forecasting.
One thing that makes me a bit sceptical about any cold spell is that
there has been a lot of talk of a SSW event on the cards but the links I
use current show quite the opposite at present.

http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_s...2015_merra.pdf

http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_s...2015_merra.pdf

We shall see..

--
Keith (Southend)
"Weather Home & Abroad"
http://www.southendweather.net
Twitter:@SS9Weatherman

On Friday, 8 January 2016 09:35:40 UTC, John Hall wrote:
In message ,
Lawrence Jenkins writes
Very poor.

http://tinyurl.com/zw7k6vj

Wrong link, Lawrence. It takes me to
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/mani...irfix.jpg.html

But assuming it was to either the GFS or ECMWF 00Z operational run, both
of those look to be mild outliers to a great or lesser extent. There
still seems to be a great deal of uncertainty about developments beyond
as little as 5-6 days out.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

Looking at the ensemble for London, it does look like the operational has a few chums joining along. Basically looks like there are two camps -

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/MT8_London_ens.png

Also if the operational is an outlier for two or three consecutive runs, does that not perhaps suggest it is picking up on something the ensembles are not seeing. Aren't the ensembles run on a coarser grid?

In message ,
"Alan [Guildford]" writes
On Friday, 8 January 2016 09:35:40 UTC, John Hall wrote:
In message ,
Lawrence Jenkins writes
Very poor.

http://tinyurl.com/zw7k6vj

Wrong link, Lawrence. It takes me to
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/mani...irfix.jpg.html

But assuming it was to either the GFS or ECMWF 00Z operational run, both
of those look to be mild outliers to a great or lesser extent. There
still seems to be a great deal of uncertainty about developments beyond
as little as 5-6 days out.

Looking at the ensemble for London, it does look like the operational
has a few chums joining along. Basically looks like there are two camps
-

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/MT8_London_ens.png

Also if the operational is an outlier for two or three consecutive
runs, does that not perhaps suggest it is picking up on something the
ensembles are not seeing. Aren't the ensembles run on a coarser grid?


I believe so, yes.

That the models seem to have pulled back in their enthusiasm for cold
compared with 24 hours ago could be related to the SSW charts that Keith
has posted. These suggest that the modest warming that was being
forecast now seems to be forecast to go rapidly into reverse.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

On Thursday, 7 January 2016 22:44:32 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Very poor.

http://tinyurl.com/zw7k6vj

I'm not sure I trust any model at the moment - plenty of chopping and changing.

Richard

On 08/01/2016 16:16, Richard Dixon wrote:
On Thursday, 7 January 2016 22:44:32 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Very poor.

http://tinyurl.com/zw7k6vj

I'm not sure I trust any model at the moment - plenty of chopping and changing.

Richard

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's funny but they rarely (GFS) chop to colder though do they? They can
chop to wetter, or even cooler in summer, but having seen probably 50
cold spells get milder with time I've probably only seen one get more
severe. I said it ten years ago and I'll say it again - who the hell
writes the algorithms for these GFS models when they can't correct this
obvious and inherent bias!
Dave

In message ,
"Alan [Guildford]" writes
Also if the operational is an outlier for two or three consecutive
runs, does that not perhaps suggest it is picking up on something the
ensembles are not seeing.

That's suggested even more strongly now, now that the GFS operational
has been an outlier for a couple more runs.

Meanwhile the 12Z ECM operational run has an interesting new development
by day 10.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

The ECM is at least entertaining, John!

Fun model runs ahead for sure....a Scandi High? Hah!!

Joe