On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:35:08 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 12:09:17 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:

On Friday, December 7, 2012 12:06:54 PM UTC, wrote:



"Dawlish" wrote in message







...







On Friday, December 7, 2012 9:02:09 AM UTC,







wrote:







Now underway ....















http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_s...2012_merra.pdf































Will















--















You should know better and you don't seem to have learned from last year and







the year before Will! To ramp the possibility of snow at this stage from an







SSW event ("stratwarm" is a poor term) is just that - "ramping"; a winter







daftness by people who desperately want it to snow.















For cold (not snow, in the first place) to happen from an SSW event, the







reversal of the higher level winds has to be transmitted to the troposphere







and this then this has to cause blocking. Neither is certain, though both







may happen. The blocking then has to sit in the right position in the







Northern hemisphere and if it sits close to the UK (not certain) it has to







sit in a position to draw cold air our way (i.e. generally to our west, or







to our North). Neither is certain. *Then* amd only then poor robin may have







to tuck its head under it's wing in the run-up to Christmas.















If all these factors follow on sequentially, we may get cold conditions with







a risk of snow for some/many. That little word *if* was huge by its absence







in your post Will and you really should know better.















An SSW is under way, I agree, but the present situation looks like it may be







a weak event and even that it may be almost over before it has developed







into anything major. The forecasts are not "brilliant". Whether it will







affect the UK with snow and be "brilliant news" followed by "COME ON"







is.........well, I'll leave that up to the reader to fill in. *))







======================















Well that's me told off. LOL :-)















Will







--







You deserved to be - and you know it. Tell me something in that post which was incorrect. *))



Just one thing from the first "you" to the last *)), Will



Bet you can't.

Nothing wrong with it Will, is there? Your comment; "It's brilliant news Dave!
COME ON :-)" is simply based on an inaccurate appreciation of the current state of the science. Harsh, I know, but true.

Now come on; my comments on the SSW event are accurate, aren't they? It still looks like a weak event, but we do have some cold weather with perhaps some snow coming . To imply that the one is causing the other would be iffy at best. At worst, it's simply ramping and that is plain silly.

I lurk these days rather than post a lot, but there is the odd and inaccurate post from people who should know better. The ones who haven't the brains to know know better and the ones who feel they can somehow try to police a newsgroup don't deserve comment.

Interesting stuff from you about the MetO too. Someone must have really upset you, or you must have got very peed off with the way you were being treated to be so harsh to your previous employers. Is there really any need? You've left and retired. Let it go now. *))

On Friday, 7 December 2012 11:53:12 UTC, Dawlish wrote:

The forecasts are not "brilliant". Whether it will affect the UK with snow and be "brilliant news" followed by "COME ON" is.........well, I'll leave that up to the reader to fill in. *))

Exactly - leave it up to the reader. People can take or leave Will's forecasts - they don't need you sniping from the sidelines.

In article ,
says...
You should know better and you don't seem to have learned from last year and the year before Will! To ramp the possibility of snow at this stage from an SSW event ("stratwarm" is a poor term) is just that - "ramping"; a winter daftness by people who desperately want it to snow.


It's a little bit of fun that in recent years gets ruined by some
pompous **** that feels compelled to advertise his perceived
intellectual superiority over everyone else. It would be ok if you just
pointed out your disagreements or made constructive interventions but
you don't. You snipe and dis and point score and bore the **** out of
the rest of us.

Go back to the cesspit in a.gw with all the other intellectuals that you
so enjoy that style of debating with, and take your "stupid chair" wit
with you.

Nobody here has the intellectual capacity to be impressed by your ego
massaging, otherwise we would be with you in a.gw enjoying the vigorous
and penetrating in-depth debating that fills that group every day.

Don't bring it here, please. This is usually a fun group to read.

--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

On Friday, December 7, 2012 9:02:09 AM UTC, wrote:
Now underway ....

http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_s...2012_merra.pdf



Will

--

So, anything wrong with my facts in my replies Will? No reply means they are spot on. You can be sure that the sycophants and moral highground crawlers would have taken them to pieces............if they could. Next time, why not be a little more circumspect instead of doing the usual winter ramping of snow. Happens every year. Sometimes it is correct. Most times such ramping is annoying to anyone who isn't a "snow lover".

Have a happy and a green Christmas and run-up to Christmas. The country will be far happier with that outcome, but, of course, we cannot choose. *))

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 12:18:21 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 9:02:09 AM UTC, wrote:

Now underway ....



http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_s...2012_merra.pdf







Will



--



So, anything wrong with my facts in my replies Will? No reply means they are spot on. You can be sure that the sycophants and moral highground crawlers would have taken them to pieces............if they could. Next time, why not be a little more circumspect instead of doing the usual winter ramping of snow. Happens every year. Sometimes it is correct. Most times such ramping is annoying to anyone who isn't a "snow lover".



Have a happy and a green Christmas and run-up to Christmas. The country will be far happier with that outcome, but, of course, we cannot choose. *))

Sycophants? Perish the thought! A question for all your detractors, Dawlish, what's wrong with questioning the omnipotence of your God?

you call this lurking dullish?

lets remind ourseleves why you ran off with your tail between your legs. link below

https://groups.google.com/group/uk.s...oredirect=true

now go away

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 12:18:21 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 9:02:09 AM UTC, wrote:

Now underway ....



http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_s...2012_merra.pdf







Will



--



So, anything wrong with my facts in my replies Will? No reply means they are spot on. You can be sure that the sycophants and moral highground crawlers would have taken them to pieces............if they could. Next time, why not be a little more circumspect instead of doing the usual winter ramping of snow. Happens every year. Sometimes it is correct. Most times such ramping is annoying to anyone who isn't a "snow lover".



Have a happy and a green Christmas and run-up to Christmas. The country will be far happier with that outcome, but, of course, we cannot choose. *))

On Friday, December 7, 2012 9:02:09 AM UTC, wrote:
Now underway ....

http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_s...2012_merra.pdf



Will

--

Still waiting Will. If you are going to ignore the actual research, you must expect someone, sometime to criticise you. You are happy to criticise the MetO when you feel they aren't doing things the way you'd like them to and they can't reply. You can. Show me something that I've got wrong in my post and please don't try to say that you know stuff that you can't divulge - because it appears that now you can divulge what you wish.

On 08/12/12 15:39, Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 9:02:09 AM UTC, wrote:
Now underway ....

http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_s...2012_merra.pdf



Will

--

Still waiting Will. If you are going to ignore the actual research, you must expect someone, sometime to criticise you. You are happy to criticise the MetO when you feel they aren't doing things the way you'd like them to and they can't reply. You can. Show me something that I've got wrong in my post and please don't try to say that you know stuff that you can't divulge - because it appears that now you can divulge what you wish.

I think you have made your point now; continuously hounding him like
this is achieving nothing but making you look bad. Let it drop.

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 3:39:13 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, December 7, 2012 9:02:09 AM UTC, wrote:

Now underway ....



http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_s...2012_merra.pdf







Will



--



Still waiting Will. If you are going to ignore the actual research, you must expect someone, sometime to criticise you. You are happy to criticise the MetO when you feel they aren't doing things the way you'd like them to and they can't reply. You can. Show me something that I've got wrong in my post and please don't try to say that you know stuff that you can't divulge - because it appears that now you can divulge what you wish.

Next time you talk about SSW events, maybe you will concentrate on the science rather than the ramping Will. You know *exactly* what I mean - and you really should know better.

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 7:10:58 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Saturday, December 8, 2012 3:39:13 PM UTC, Dawlish wrote:

On Friday, December 7, 2012 9:02:09 AM UTC, wrote:



Now underway ....







http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_s...2012_merra.pdf















Will







--







Still waiting Will. If you are going to ignore the actual research, you must expect someone, sometime to criticise you. You are happy to criticise the MetO when you feel they aren't doing things the way you'd like them to and they can't reply. You can. Show me something that I've got wrong in my post and please don't try to say that you know stuff that you can't divulge - because it appears that now you can divulge what you wish.



Next time you talk about SSW events, maybe you will concentrate on the science rather than the ramping Will. You know *exactly* what I mean - and you really should know better.

Just to review the sense that I talked. This SSW event proved to be weak (the forecasts on the Univ of Berlin site never implied anything else), the reversal in the upper winds lasted no more than a few days and it never propagated (sorry about the typo in the other post; realised after I'd posted) to the surface. Thus any temporary surface blocking is extremely unlikely to have been caused by the SSW event, unless a different, unprposed mechanism is working and it just illustrates the weakness of the relationship with surface weather for all but the strongest SSW events, IMO.