The Perfect Disaster (Documentary)
Time - 20:00 - 21:00 (1 hour long)
When - Tuesday 5th September on five
Ice Storm.
Documentary series, combining dramatisations, special effects and
scientific testimony. A decade ago, an ice storm brought the city of
Montreal to its knees. But scientists now believe that there us far
worse to come.

Anyone watch the documentary on Five just now?

Interesting but uninspired commentary about the ice storms that hit
Montreal -apparently quite regularly. This effort played with the idea
of one that might last a little too long.

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
ups.com...
The Perfect Disaster (Documentary)
Time - 20:00 - 21:00 (1 hour long)
When - Tuesday 5th September on five
Ice Storm.
Documentary series, combining dramatisations, special effects and
scientific testimony. A decade ago, an ice storm brought the city of
Montreal to its knees. But scientists now believe that there us far
worse to come.

Anyone watch the documentary on Five just now?

Interesting but uninspired commentary about the ice storms that hit
Montreal -apparently quite regularly. This effort played with the idea
of one that might last a little too long.

That topic was covered last week, I can't remember which channel, but the
whole stark warning that the programme gave, about the increased extremes of
weather caused by evil wasteful AGW; which was totally under pinned by the
undeniable intellectual presence of Sian Lloyd.
How can anyone mount a counter argument against such authoritive hand
gesticulations.

Weatherlawyer wrote:

Interesting but uninspired commentary about the Montreal ice storms.

Just outside the remit of this site:
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/tkfaxbraar.htm
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=...-8&sa=N&tab=wg

A more sensible description from the Wikipedia:
On January 4, 1998, an upper level low system stalled over the Great
Lakes pumping warm and moist air from the Gulf of Mexico toward the
upper St. Lawrence Valley.

The upper flow, then turning Eastward, was bringing this airmass down
toward the Bay of Fundy. At the same time, a high pressure centre was
sitting further north in Labrador, keeping an Easterly flow of very
cold air near the surface.

For winter, an unusually strong Bermuda high pressure area was anchored
over the Atlantic Ocean, which prevented these systems from moving
further to the east, as most winter storms do when they pass over the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region.

A series of surface low pressure past [passed?] in this circulation
between January 5 and January 10, 1998.

For more than 80 hours, steady freezing rain and drizzle fell over an
area of several thousand square miles of Eastern Ontario, Canada,
including Ottawa and Kingston, an extensive area in southern Quebec,
northern New York, and northern New England, USA (including parts of
Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Ice_Storm

So it is the presence of an exceptionally positive NOA. I had been
working on the idea that we might get snows in the negatives. I
couldn't quite see how though.

So it turns out to be exceptional just the same. I'd never have thought
of the NAO cycles having zeniths.

Interesting. It means there is no such thing as a negative NAO nor a
positive one. Just degrees of separation.

Mild winters are due to the Azores high and the Icelandic Low being
very nearly the same pressure whilst bitter ones are due to the
oppossite effect? I need some examples from 1999 onwards.

It also means that there may be a way to forecast them without knowing
a lot more than we already do about the Antarctic Sea Ice. But I can't
see myself ever bothering to do the spadework.

It should be straightforward enough though. Let some other bugger do it.

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Weatherlawyer wrote:

Interesting but uninspired commentary about the Montreal ice storms.

Just outside the remit of this site:
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/tkfaxbraar.htm
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=...-8&sa=N&tab=wg

A more sensible description from the Wikipedia:
On January 4, 1998, an upper level low system stalled over the Great
Lakes pumping warm and moist air from the Gulf of Mexico toward the
upper St. Lawrence Valley.

The upper flow, then turning Eastward, was bringing this airmass down
toward the Bay of Fundy. At the same time, a high pressure centre was
sitting further north in Labrador, keeping an Easterly flow of very
cold air near the surface.

For winter, an unusually strong Bermuda high pressure area was anchored
over the Atlantic Ocean, which prevented these systems from moving
further to the east, as most winter storms do when they pass over the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region.

A series of surface low pressure past [passed?] in this circulation
between January 5 and January 10, 1998.

For more than 80 hours, steady freezing rain and drizzle fell over an
area of several thousand square miles of Eastern Ontario, Canada,
including Ottawa and Kingston, an extensive area in southern Quebec,
northern New York, and northern New England, USA (including parts of
Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Ice_Storm

So it is the presence of an exceptionally positive NOA. I had been
working on the idea that we might get snows in the negatives. I
couldn't quite see how though.

So it turns out to be exceptional just the same. I'd never have thought
of the NAO cycles having zeniths.

Interesting. It means there is no such thing as a negative NAO nor a
positive one. Just degrees of separation.

Mild winters are due to the Azores high and the Icelandic Low being
very nearly the same pressure whilst bitter ones are due to the
oppossite effect? I need some examples from 1999 onwards.

It also means that there may be a way to forecast them without knowing
a lot more than we already do about the Antarctic Sea Ice. But I can't
see myself ever bothering to do the spadework.

It should be straightforward enough though. Let some other bugger do it.


Erm I take it that wasn't a response too me, so I can only guess your'e
talking to yourself?

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

Erm I take it that wasn't a response too me, so I can only guess your'e
talking to yourself?

How did you work that out?

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

Erm I take it that wasn't a response too me, so I can only guess your'e
talking to yourself?

How did you work that out?


Blind permutation will not suffice, we need a deeper almost more palpable
philosophical dialectic when approaching such a dichotomy. The future of all
the species of this planet is at stake, Stan's dot com can't be relied upon.

Whether lawyer? Goodnight and god bless, the 'big one 'is due very soon.

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
oups.com...

Weatherlawyer wrote:

Lots of stuff snipped


Erm I take it that wasn't a response too me, so I can only guess your'e
talking to yourself?

I think he usually does.

Steve R.
Swansea

wrote:
Lots of stuff snipped

I can only guess your'e talking to yourself?

I think.

But not more deeply than a troll it would seem.

What I have to say I say, regardless of who wishes to get or not get
involved. That's why I use Google Groups. It is very good at following
the Christian mandate of not whispering things in secret but
broadcasting them from the rooftops.

As it happens what I am saying is pretty well right on the money and
goes across the grain of accepted science. The mere fact we live in a
democracy does not make me wrong. Look at the worlds great leaders at
the moment. Which one of them isn't a war criminal?

And they have all been chosen democratically, have they not?

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
Lots of stuff snipped

I can only guess your'e talking to yourself?

I think.

But not more deeply than a troll it would seem.

What I have to say I say, regardless of who wishes to get or not get
involved. That's why I use Google Groups. It is very good at following
the Christian mandate of not whispering things in secret but
broadcasting them from the rooftops.

As it happens what I am saying is pretty well right on the money and
goes across the grain of accepted science. The mere fact we live in a
democracy does not make me wrong. Look at the worlds great leaders at
the moment. Which one of them isn't a war criminal?

And they have all been chosen democratically, have they not?


How do you define "war criminal" ?

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
ups.com...
The Perfect Disaster (Documentary)
Time - 20:00 - 21:00 (1 hour long)
When - Tuesday 5th September on five
Ice Storm.
Documentary series, combining dramatisations, special effects and
scientific testimony. A decade ago, an ice storm brought the city of
Montreal to its knees. But scientists now believe that there us far
worse to come.

Anyone watch the documentary on Five just now?

Interesting but uninspired commentary about the ice storms that hit
Montreal -apparently quite regularly. This effort played with the idea
of one that might last a little too long.


I would tend to think that Montreal gets more pure snow than ice. I live in
Kentucky and we get a lot of ice storms here. Typically, they follow a
pretty regular pattern. The NOAA issues a winter storm watch for snow
amounts of up to 6 inches but is almost always unsure of the exact storm
track or where the rain/snow line will be. It's difficult to ascertain that
in an area which averages winter high temperatures in the 40's in Dec, Jan
and Feb. What almost always happens is the rain snow line is right over the
Ohio River, leaving Louisville (where I live) with sleet and ice. A good
example is the Xmas storm of 2004, it occured two or three days before Xmas.
There was a winter storm warning for up to 16 inches of snow but I knew
better, the local forcasters predicted as much as 24 inches! It didn't
happen, what did happen was 3 inches of snow, followed by 3 inches of ice,
sleet (****) followed by 2 more inches of snow, making air and road travel
nasty bidness. Typically though, we don't even get any snow, just sleet and
ice, which sucks. I'd rather have the snow, much easier to deal with. On
one occasion though, in early Feb of 1998, we did receive a lot of snowfall,
25 inches to be exact. The interesting part was it never got below freezing
the whole time, even at night, the temp stayed at 32 or 33. The result was,
20 inches of snow on the ground (5 inches melted on impact) and roads that
hardly had any snow on them because of the warm temps. Still, it was a
record snow for this area. I moved here in 1997 and it's only gotten below
zero once. I'm from Minnesota so I've never gotten used to these mild, wet
and icy winters!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----