GFS and WRF both have the heavy winds passing between Brest and Nantes,
then continuing over northern France.
But WRF has the secondary low curving more and breaking out in the St
Malo, Channel Islands area of sea. Then over Cherbourg peninslar going
along the north coast of France.
But who would bet on that track instead of continuing out to mid
channel? 1987 in back of mind.

On 30/12/2017 13:15, N_Cook wrote:
GFS and WRF both have the heavy winds passing between Brest and Nantes,
then continuing over northern France.
But WRF has the secondary low curving more and breaking out in the St
Malo, Channel Islands area of sea. Then over Cherbourg peninslar going
along the north coast of France.
But who would bet on that track instead of continuing out to mid
channel? 1987 in back of mind.

The 06Z runs have brought that secondary low further into the channel,
and a bit more wind to pass, still very low windstrength as it stands.

I decided to compare the MetO "Low M" 1987 15 Oct 24:00 synoptic chart
(note re thread elsewhere here, not 16 Oct 00:00) to current GFS
prediction of the corresponding low just south of the 1987 projected
position.
The closest isobar spacing in 1987 is 90% of the closest spacing for
tomorrow morning. But comparing like-to-like spans northish and southish
of the low, Pembroke to Brest.
1987 8mB and 18mB
tomorrow 2.5mB and 6.5mB, 3 to 1 difference
central pressures 960mB and 995mB

The correct date/time to use is the 16th at 0000 UTC

--
Freddie

On 31/12/2017 22:47, Freddie wrote:
The correct date/time to use is the 16th at 0000 UTC


The past is a different country, they do things differently there.
Since so-callled "9-11" the Americans have been trying to make us say
the likes of "22 November ", not "the 22cnd of November", before long
theu will succeed on that. Then they'll go for converting us to
"November 22"

Well it's been common practice for years. In the 24-hour clock there's no such time as 24:00. The day starts at 00:00 and finishes at 23:59. Watch any digital clock as it crosses midnight and you'll see what I mean.

--
Freddie

On 01/01/2018 12:28, Freddie wrote:
Well it's been common practice for years. In the 24-hour clock there's no such time as 24:00. The day starts at 00:00 and finishes at 23:59. Watch any digital clock as it crosses midnight and you'll see what I mean.


Not for the MetO 1987, download their daily weather report timestamped
15 Oct 1987, unfortunately as a month's-worth download, just for 1 day.

On 01/01/18 14:40, N_Cook wrote:
On 01/01/2018 12:28, Freddie wrote:
Well it's been common practice for years. In the 24-hour clock there's
no such time as 24:00. The day starts at 00:00 and finishes at 23:59.
Watch any digital clock as it crosses midnight and you'll see what I
mean.


Not for the MetO 1987, download their daily weather report timestamped
15 Oct 1987, unfortunately as a month's-worth download, just for 1 day.

Midnight, on a 24-hour clock, can be either 00 or 24 as can be seen from
the link below. However, the standard in the Met Office is to use 00;
when minutes are included, 0001 is preferred to 2359.
http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/faqs/...12-pm-faq-time

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
"Nobody can get the truth out of me because even I don't know what it
is. I keep myself in a constant state of utter confusion." [Col. Flagg]
OS: Linux [openSUSE Tumbleweed]

The standard in the Met Office these days is as I described before - as it is how computer-generated times work, and all products these days are computer-generated to varying degrees. The only time you will see a reference to 24:00 is when you have a product that spans a time period that ends at midnight. Even then, under the covers it is really 00:00, with 24:00 strictly for display purposes.

It is a bit of a minefield tbh - with the ambiguity ever present around midnight with different definitions in organisations around the world. This is one of the reasons that you won't find a severe weather warning either starting or ending at midnight. By starting it at 00:05 (or ending it at 23:55) the ambiguity is removed.

--
Freddie

On Monday, 1 January 2018 11:09:30 UTC, N_Cook wrote:
On 31/12/2017 22:47, Freddie wrote:
The correct date/time to use is the 16th at 0000 UTC


The past is a different country, they do things differently there.
Since so-callled "9-11" the Americans have been trying to make us say
the likes of "22 November ", not "the 22cnd of November", before long
they will succeed on that. Then they'll go for converting us to
"November 22"

They are a bloody nuisance hiding the FAQs all the time, not that I need more than the list of singularities; which I must have downloaded some time or other.
But at least I don't even say: 22cnd of November.
Not even once a year.

Yes I do know that I am a curmudgeon that sacked the lot of you, just saying!