On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 10:27:30 AM UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 01:36:48 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
Minor SSWs can and do affect the tropospheric circulation, as we
saw
this month.

As you say. If you believe that, please show us the research that
show a hi=
gh likelihood of a causal link between a minor SSW event and
surface conditions in the UK
If you followed events earlier in the month you would've seen that
the SSW split the polar vortex. As it tends to do. This had the
effect of altering the orientation of the cross-Atlantic flow.
Remember that the atmosphere is a contiguous fluid, and that the
tropopause isn't a barrier between troposphere and stratosphere, and
that changes of momentum in one *easily* affects the other, and
frequently.

The research you link to is concerned with SSWs causing tropospheric
blocking, is it not? We're not discussing blocking here - just fluid
dynamics.

--
Freddie
Pontesbury, Shropshire
102m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
https://Twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly reports

Yes, I'm quite aware of what was being discussed and I am conversant . Now if you'd answer my question about showing the research that backs what you are saying, I'll enjoy reading it.

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 10:43:09 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
In message , Freddie
writes
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:15:24 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
You really must read the research, or you will continue to believe
that minor SSW events cause this all the time. Which would be a shame.

Minor SSWs can and do affect the tropospheric circulation, as we saw
this month.


And it's interesting that the models are strongly suggesting we'll have
a northerly outbreak in a week or so's time. That will certainly be a
change of type for us, even though it's uncertain how long it will last.
Of course it could just be a coincidence.
--
I'm not paid to implement the recognition of irony.
(Taken, with the author's permission, from a LiveJournal post)

Heh!. It can't be a coincidence, John, when this SSW 'event' has not actually developed!! Will is attempting to link a *possibility* on an SSW event (a forecast) to weather which currently showing on the models.

a) This pattern will have to persist well beyond 3rd Feb (T+240) and:
b) The SSW event that is being talked about will have to actually develop.

See the problems here? *))

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 02:54:25 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
Yes, I'm quite aware of what was being discussed and I am
conversant . Now if you'd answer my question about showing the
research that backs what you are saying, I'll enjoy reading it.

Just to be clear before I go searching for a link: you want me to
find research into fluid dynamics - in particular, the transfer of
momentum through a density discontinuity?

--
Freddie
Pontesbury, Shropshire
102m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
https://Twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly reports

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 10:58:12 AM UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 10:43:09 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
In message , Freddie
writes
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:15:24 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
You really must read the research, or you will continue to believe
that minor SSW events cause this all the time. Which would be a shame.

Minor SSWs can and do affect the tropospheric circulation, as we saw
this month.


And it's interesting that the models are strongly suggesting we'll have
a northerly outbreak in a week or so's time. That will certainly be a
change of type for us, even though it's uncertain how long it will last..
Of course it could just be a coincidence.
--
I'm not paid to implement the recognition of irony.
(Taken, with the author's permission, from a LiveJournal post)

Heh!. It can't be a coincidence, John, when this SSW 'event' has not actually developed!! Will is attempting to link a *possibility* on an SSW event (a forecast) to weather which currently showing on the models.

a) This pattern will have to persist well beyond 3rd Feb (T+240) and:
b) The SSW event that is being talked about will have to actually develop..

See the problems here? *))

Just to evidence b) http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_s...2014_merra.pdf

Nothing showing ATM, though I do understand it is a forecast which is being talked about. However, with no SSW event ATM, and the last one having peaked 3 weeks ago, I cannot see how the likelihood of a northerly plunge next weekend can be linked to an SSW event.

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 11:12:47 AM UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 02:54:25 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
Yes, I'm quite aware of what was being discussed and I am
conversant . Now if you'd answer my question about showing the
research that backs what you are saying, I'll enjoy reading it.

Just to be clear before I go searching for a link: you want me to
find research into fluid dynamics - in particular, the transfer of
momentum through a density discontinuity?

--
Freddie
Pontesbury, Shropshire
102m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
https://Twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly reports

I couldn't be clearer, Freddie. I'd really like to see research which links *minor* SSW events to *changes in surface weather* especially in the UK, with a high likelihood. In other words, cause and actual surface effects in our part of the globe. Don't please waste time researching theory. Research that.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 03:20:52 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
Just to be clear before I go searching for a link: you want me to
find research into fluid dynamics - in particular, the transfer
of
momentum through a density discontinuity?


I couldn't be clearer, Freddie. I'd really like to see research
which links=
*minor* SSW events to *changes in surface weather* especially in
the UK, w=
ith a high likelihood. In other words, cause and actual surface
effects in =
our part of the globe. Don't please waste time researching theory.
Research=
that.
Well, this thread (and the point I am making) is about transfer of
momentum through a density discontinuity - i.e. the dynamics that
brought about the cold snap. It's as common as Sunday roast dinners.
I'm sure you can find your own links.

--
Freddie
Pontesbury, Shropshire
102m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
https://Twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly reports

Thought you'd struggle. But you will continue to believe that the colder weather we've just experienced was down to the minor SSW event which preceded it. The fact that there is nothing in research to suggest such a definitive link means nothing to you and shows a very fixed mindset.

Similar in many ways to larry and his beliefs around Antarctic sea ice not being anything to do with GW having stopped. Nothing that is shown to him will change his mind. Same with you here Freddie.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 05:49:17 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
Thought you'd struggle. But you will continue to believe that the
colder we=
ather we've just experienced was down to the minor SSW event
which preced=
ed it. The fact that there is nothing in research to suggest such a
definit=
ive link means nothing to you and shows a very fixed mindset.

Similar in many ways to larry and his beliefs around Antarctic sea
ice not =
being anything to do with GW having stopped. Nothing that is shown
to him w=
ill change his mind. Same with you here Freddie.
Paul, it is basic fluid dynamics that caused the split polar vortex
to alter the tropospheric flow. Simples :-) No links to research
needed :-) You should brush up on your theory - then you'll see what
I'm driving at. No fixed mind set here :-)

--
Freddie
Pontesbury, Shropshire
102m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
https://Twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly reports

"Freddie" wrote in message
.net...
Paul, it is basic fluid dynamics that caused the split polar vortex to
alter the tropospheric flow. Simples :-) No links to research needed :-)
You should brush up on your theory - then you'll see what I'm driving at.
No fixed mind set here :-)


Yes Freddie all simple fluid dynamics stuff, basic meteorology course level.
The significant warming started at the beginning of January and as you say
first split the polar vortex. It is now shifting the vortex east of Novoya
Zemyla and almost introducing a wind reversal over the pole.
http://users.met.fu-berlin.de/~Aktue...lert=1&lng=eng
In the next few days we will see high pressure established in the Arctic and
a low pressure system over Scandinavia introducing the much colder weather.
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsavnnh.html
Are the two linked? Well as we keep saying the atmosphere is a continuous
fluid and bottom affects the top and top affects the bottom. Simples :-)
Well that bit is, the dynamics does get a tad more advanced than that of
course.

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 2:34:22 PM UTC, Freddie wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 05:49:17 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
Thought you'd struggle. But you will continue to believe that the
colder we=
ather we've just experienced was down to the minor SSW event
which preced=
ed it. The fact that there is nothing in research to suggest such a
definit=
ive link means nothing to you and shows a very fixed mindset.

Similar in many ways to larry and his beliefs around Antarctic sea
ice not =
being anything to do with GW having stopped. Nothing that is shown
to him w=
ill change his mind. Same with you here Freddie.
Paul, it is basic fluid dynamics that caused the split polar vortex
to alter the tropospheric flow. Simples :-) No links to research
needed :-) You should brush up on your theory - then you'll see what
I'm driving at. No fixed mind set here :-)

--
Freddie
Pontesbury, Shropshire
102m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
https://Twitter.com/PontesburyWx for hourly reports

Yes. No direct link, with any kind of confidence, to surface conditions from a minor SSW is there?

You may not think so Freddie, but your beliefs, are exactly that. Of course there are links. Everyone knows that, but it is the likelihood of effects which neither you,; beliefs. They are nor based in current research facts. A fact which neither you, nor nor Will appear capable of grasping.

I will repeat - and it is, I'm afraid, for your beliefs, very probably correct (though I would love to see research which shows I'm likely to be wrong) - there is no statically significant, or even likely link between a minor SSW event, such as the one we've just experienced and surface conditions in the UK. With a major event and a reversal of upper winds, that is a very different situation, but neither of you appear to be able to discriminate between the likely effects of each.

I honestly don't understand why you try to cling to your beliefs by simply saying "there is"............when research shows that it is unlikely that there will be.

PS You can be absolutely certain that in the background, there will have been feverish googling to try to prove my statements wrong..........the silence speaks louder that your posts. *))