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.