On Jan 4, 5:50*pm, RK wrote:
On Jan 4, 5:39*pm, Dawlish wrote:
*The severe weather, in terms

of heavy snow that was implied on some of those pre-New Year 24 hour
charts wasn't "delivered" and that's how to upset a coldie, for sure!

True, but that was really a question of temperature rather than
synoptic situation. The spell you refer to was very marginal indeed,
and plenty of precipitation fell, unfortunately (depending on your
views) it was of the cold wet kind rather than the fluffy white kind.
I think I got at least 25mm of rain over two days then. The current
set-up looks rather colder.

Very true Rob and I did write that at the time, actually in defence of
the MetO. I wished they'd have referred to and explained the
difficulties they faced with those forecasts actually on the severe
warnings site, but that didn't happen and it (again) served to
alienate, rather than to educate. However, on that occasion, the
charts did prove incorrect at 24 hours notice; the fronts pushed
further north, the cold air was not as severely cold and many areas
stayed green as a result. That's why I can't agree with the "rarely
wrong" comment, though I understand where Will is coming from as the
24 forecasts have improved considerably over the last 20 years. Most
of the time they are very good and provide an excellent portrayal of
the next day's likely weather but "rarely wrong" is moot!

In terms of seeing snow on Wednesday, part of me wants them to be spot
on so I can make snowmen, toboggan and throw snowballs and part of me
wants them to be inaccurate so we don't have lingering snow problems!

Que sera eh?