Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 4, 7:20*pm, "Joe Whyte" wrote:
"Dawlish" *wrote in message ... Hmmmmm. "I don't see the merit anymore of Paul constantly interjecting into threads like this one you started": oddly; I do. And that right will continue to be exercised when I see blatent exaggeration of whatever cold situation happens to arise. It irritates some people and others enjoy seeing people taken to task for doing the exaggeration for effect. I would never kill-file anyone; I like to be able to reply if someone posts something foul about me, or others. I'll ignore the worst, but I'll always reply if I wish to. That's what usenet is about. My replies are never foul-mouthed, but I do ask awkward questions. Kill- filing is as much of a right, however, as the right of reply and however silly I think it may be (the three monkeys come to mind) people have every right to do it. To say that one kill-files "to avoid never ending discussions" is frankly ridiculous to me. Never-ending discussions are again what usenet is about - see the one that Will started himself on his picket line duty and then returned to many times. Will actually kill files to try to avoid criticism of his weak long-range record (it is - that's a fact and it's no different to anyone else's, but it is no better than "weak") and the embarrassment at being found wanting, on occasions, by a mere enthusiast. I'm no respecter of "reputations"; a reoutation is not what makes a person, for me, though I'm happy for others to feel whichever way they wish about people's abilities in whatever sphere. Enjoy Will's posts, but if they are, as I've said, blatant exaggerratons to hope for cold, I'm likely to say something; fair enough? *Time for me to move on to the 18z........... ================================================== == Paul, your response is as I had expected. Naturally you're entitled to reply to anything...as we all are. My own opinion is that in your replies you express the same things (to Will anyway) over and over and, rightly or wrongly, it comes across almost as a form of harassment!!! I do think though you give yourself too much credit if you think Will kill-filed you to avoid criticism of "his weak long-range record" or that he's embarrassed at being "found wanting"!!??? From reading Will's posts from the time I've subscribed to this newsgroup many, many years ago(!), I wouldn't think that's Will's reasoning to kill-file you...but then I can't and don't speak for him. It seems to me that you do have a very high opinion of yourself and your influence on the actions or behaviour of people on this newsgroup. It's for others to judge of course whether that is merited or not. As far as I'm concerned I don't think it is, Paul, but then as I'm sure you'll ay my opinion counts for nought! *) ! *You contribute valuable posts but the "badgering" of those you seem to have taken umbrage is taking away from the social aspect of this newsgroup where mere enthusiasts like you (and me) can engage with those more qualified in the field of meteorology and learn at the same time. I'll read Will's posts, Paul, and I'll make my own judgements and comment back to Will as I see fit when there's something to query, challenge or whatever. Enjoy your 18z but remember it's only one run!!!! *;- Any chance you might try a post to weatheraction.com and see if "yer man" would reply!??? *I've given up there... Joe Dublin 28m AMSL I've tried Joe. No response either. Points noted; not that it'll change anything, or that I agree with you, but I respect your point of view. |
#32
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Joe Whyte" wrote in message ... From reading Will's posts from the time I've subscribed to this newsgroup many, many years ago(!), I wouldn't think that's Will's reasoning to kill-file you...but then I can't and don't speak for him. Hi Joe, I thought I did explain why. Basically I do not have the time to argue. Dawlish seems to spends hours and hours on usenet. I simply don't have that time, having to work and pursuing many other interests. It's as simple as that! Always happy to expand on queries and questions. OK looking at the 12Z runs the pattern is still the same with the very cold wodge of air persisting over Greenland helping to maintain Atlantic mobility but even at 3-4 days ahead the detailed outcomes are very uncertain due to crtical timing of phasing in of upper troughs with the tight low-level baroclinic zone. The pattern is too mobile for development of a block I'd say and the solutions offered by ECM and JMA in my opinion look very reasonable with deep lows moving towards UK introducing milder air with colder air returning quickly. Obviously the coldest conditions will stay in the north, especially Scotland where an occlusion on Wednesday morning could give quite a bit of frontal snow to quite low-levels. That's it now, beer this evening (not wine Dave), work tomorrow :-) Cheers, Will -- |
#33
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Lawrence13" wrote in message ... And you are who? Why don't people use their real names. Looking at your profile it would seem you come from the land of silly false ID's. and you call me childish-bloody unbelievable! I think you have just proved my point... |
#34
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Eskimo Will" wrote in message
... "Gavino" wrote in message ... Forecast, speculation and fantasy are all fine and worthy of discussion here, but often they are mixed up and it's not always clear which category some comments fall into. And something which originally looks like a forecast is often recast after the event as mere speculation when it doesn't happen. It would be useful if people could give some indication of probability when making statements about the future. I don't mean necessarily a mathematical percentage, simply an informal expression like "likely", "highly likely", "possible", etc, would do. All my musings are a commentary on the situation indicating possibilities and are not always model based (one can talk meteorology without mentioning models). All commentaries are based on 40 years of professional experience and are definitely not idle speculation. [snip] Goodness knows why I am now justifying what I say and do though? :-) No need to justify yourself, Will - your experience is well-known and respected, and my comments were not aimed at anyone in particular. Perhaps "speculation" was the wrong word? I didn't mean 'idle' speculation (although we get some of that too), simply that statements about future weather are bound to be uncertain and it would be useful to know how much confidence to attach to them. It's often unclear whether something is being put forward as fairly likely to happen or simply as a possibility or just a long-shot (a 'speculation', even if based on scientific grounds rather than the tea leaves prepared by the famous MetO teaboy). |
#35
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 3, 12:46*pm, Nick Humphries
wrote: Howard Neil wrote: I certainly would appreciate your musings, Will. Please just ignore the destructive children that always think they are right and should have their own way. The rest of us would like to see this newsgroup return to what it once was and your musings are a wonderful way of achieving this.. Ditto - Will makes the Annual Snow Watch fun, whereas Dawlish just drains all the fun out of an interesting hobby. Ahh yes but he uses *)) all the time so he's only joking - no really... Richard |
#36
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 4, 7:43*pm, "Gavino" wrote:
"Eskimo Will" wrote in message ... "Gavino" wrote in message ... Forecast, speculation and fantasy are all fine and worthy of discussion here, but often they are mixed up and it's not always clear which category some comments fall into. And something which originally looks like a forecast is often recast after the event as mere speculation when it doesn't happen. It would be useful if people could give some indication of probability when making statements about the future. I don't mean necessarily a mathematical percentage, simply an informal expression like "likely", "highly likely", "possible", etc, would do. All my musings are a commentary on the situation indicating possibilities and are not always model based (one can talk meteorology without mentioning models). All commentaries are based on 40 years of professional experience and are definitely not idle speculation. [snip] Goodness knows why I am now justifying what I say and do though? :-) No need to justify yourself, Will - your experience is well-known and respected, and my comments were not aimed at anyone in particular. Perhaps "speculation" was the wrong word? I didn't mean 'idle' speculation (although we get some of that too), simply that statements about future weather are bound to be uncertain and it would be useful to know how much confidence to attach to them. It's often unclear whether something is being put forward as fairly likely to happen or simply as a possibility or just a long-shot (a 'speculation', even if based on scientific grounds rather than the tea leaves prepared by the famous MetO teaboy).- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So Gavino is Gavino your real name? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Greenland's rising air temperatures drive ice loss at surface andbeyond | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Greenland's rising air temperatures drive ice loss at surface andbeyond | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Nike Air Force Ones,Air Force One Air Force One-1 | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Warm air from Greenland | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
warm air over Greenland and Iceland. | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |