"Phil Layton" wrote in message
...
Looks as though the forecast Storm is now going to slip along the Channel
at
985mbs and be gone by early afternoon.

Tomorrows Low may well bring us more wind!

I'm off to encounter the cones on the M25.. See you later

Phil



I was about to say the same. Where is it? I had my suspicions when the
temperature kept falling last night. This is too cold for a hefty gale. I
gather it has slipped further south than expected.
In Cambs it is calm, grey, the occasional light rain and just 5C.

Gavin.
--
************************************************** **************************
************************************************** *
Gavin Staples.

website updated regularly
www.gavinstaples.com

For the latest lecture in the Darwin Lecture Series in Cambridge, please
click on my site, and then click on the Darwin Lecture series link.

"I have friends in overalls whose friendship I would not swap for the favor
of the kings of the world". ~Thomas A. Edison


All outgoing emails are checked for viruses by Norton Internet Security
Professional 2004.

************************************************** **************************
************************************************** **

"Gavin Staples" wrote in message
...

"Phil Layton" wrote in message
...
Looks as though the forecast Storm is now going to slip along the
Channel
at
985mbs and be gone by early afternoon.

Tomorrows Low may well bring us more wind!

I'm off to encounter the cones on the M25.. See you later

Phil



I was about to say the same. Where is it? I had my suspicions when the
temperature kept falling last night. This is too cold for a hefty gale. I
gather it has slipped further south than expected.
In Cambs it is calm, grey, the occasional light rain and just 5C.

Gavin.
--

************************************************** **************************
************************************************** *
Gavin Staples.

website updated regularly
www.gavinstaples.com

For the latest lecture in the Darwin Lecture Series in Cambridge, please
click on my site, and then click on the Darwin Lecture series link.

"I have friends in overalls whose friendship I would not swap for the
favor
of the kings of the world". ~Thomas A. Edison


All outgoing emails are checked for viruses by Norton Internet Security
Professional 2004.


************************************************** **************************
************************************************** **



I think that the Met Office would be well served if it did a thorough
investigation into why the GFS model got this one essentially correct, and
the Bracknell model was so far off track. They should both have used the
same data base, with the same inaccuracies and gaps. Is the problem in the
model formulation, or is it being 'fine tuned' by human intervention still?
Could it be that some essential observations are being ignored or rejected
by the Met Office model? Perhaps if less money was spent on ensembles, which
have very limited application in the real world, and more on improving the
observational network, we may see some improvement.

--
Bernard Burton
Wokingham, Berkshire, UK.


Satellite images at:
www.btinternet.com/~wokingham.weather/wwp.html

"Bernard Burton" wrote in message
...
snip

I think that the Met Office would be well served if it did a thorough
investigation into why the GFS model got this one essentially correct,
and
the Bracknell model was so far off track.
.... When I produced a Shipping Forecast (up to August last year), in
critical situations I used to cross-refer to both GFS and Arpege models.
Arpege I found useful, but suffered from the Meso to some extent that it
would 'wind-up' a developmental situation rather too much. The GFS,
whilst not perfect, would maintain consistency, and although I can't
quote you facts and figures, I know from my own experience that on at
least 3 occasions, the GFS correctly identified the 'top-end' of wind
strengths when set against our models (in two of these some *four* days
ahead of the event). I would go along with you Bernard and ask why the
GFS managed to do quite well.

snip
Perhaps if less money was spent on ensembles, which
have very limited application in the real world, and more on improving
the
observational network, we may see some improvement.

.... I can't comment with sound knowledge regarding the ensembles - they
are a fact of life and some good work is being done there; however, I
wholeheartedly concur with your other comment - I believe that the area
where this disturbance originated from and transfered through was
particularly poorly-served with observations. I've said in another
thread: the models are *superb*, even more so when you realise just how
little data they often have to go on, but we are in danger of forgetting
that observing the weather is the key to a successful forecast - if we
haven't got the data (or the data are poor), then we start off with a
limp.

Martin.

In message , Bernard Burton
writes

I think that the Met Office would be well served if it did a thorough
investigation into why the GFS model got this one essentially correct, and
the Bracknell model was so far off track. They should both have used the
same data base, with the same inaccuracies and gaps. Is the problem in the
model formulation, or is it being 'fine tuned' by human intervention still?
Could it be that some essential observations are being ignored or rejected
by the Met Office model? Perhaps if less money was spent on ensembles, which
have very limited application in the real world, and more on improving the
observational network, we may see some improvement.

--
Bernard Burton
Wokingham, Berkshire, UK.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but .............

The GFS model did, indeed, handle this one pretty well. I was following
it closely in the days leading up to the event and it consistently
predicted relatively light winds for here.

What I found surprising was that the Met Office forecasts yesterday were
at variance from all of the model output I looked at. Yesterday's 12z
runs of the Met Office global model, Met Office mesoscale model, GFS and
GEM models all predicted a relatively shallow "Channel runner" with
light winds over most of southern England for Monday. In contrast, the
issued Met Office 24-hour prog valid for 12z Monday showed a 973mb low
centred between Cambridge and Peterborough with a very tight gradient on
its southern flank. It seems that, for some reason, a lot of the
numerical predictions were rejected.

It is disappointing that today's Met Office, with all its cutting edge
technology, has not been able to handle this situation a lot better than
its predecessor of 40 years ago might have done using only manual
methods. I haven't been following the developments over the Atlantic too
closely over the past few days. Nevertheless, I am fairly sure that the
situation was such that an experienced forecaster armed with regular
surface and upper air analyses (but no forecast products) could readily
have identified that it was a situation in which a fast moving wave
might deepen explosively and bring very strong winds into the British
Isles. Today's Met Office hasn't been able to do much better than just
that on this occasion. Perhaps one improvement was the ability to
identify today as being the day on which such an event might happen.

Even less than 12 hours before the event the forecasts proved to be
significantly inaccurate. After 11 p.m. last night the weather
presentation on BBC News24 was still showing 70 m.p.h. gusts south of a
line from North Wales to The Wash. This had been hardened up to a firm
forecast by that time.

Around 4 a.m. this morning flash warnings were issued for severe SW
gales in coastal parts of Central Southern England and SE England for
the remainder of the morning. These winds have not materialised. The
News24 presentations this morning are still plugging 60 knot gusts for
the south coast but these are not happening.

The warning issued on Sunday morning predicting "inland gusts of the
order of 70 m.p.h. across the south of the UK" and that SE England had a
40% probability of experiencing "extremely damaging inland gusts of the
order of 90 m.p.h." was still shown on the Met Office website as a
"Current Warning" at 10 a.m. this morning.

I agree with Bernard that some questions need to be asked within the Met
Office, as I am sure they will be.


(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles
England

I am pleased to see that most people are trying to analyse what the reasons
are for an innaccurate forecast rather than either denying that it was poor
or slagging off the M.O. I'm sure it was the best possible forecast with the
available data - it just went wrong. (Although the dead calm in the S.E at
the moment does seem a tad cruel!)
At least it might prevent more posts of "It will never snow again" and
"Winter is over" type posts based on T+240 models.

Dave

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in message
...
In message , Bernard Burton
writes

snip
What I found surprising was that the Met Office forecasts yesterday were
at variance from all of the model output I looked at. Yesterday's 12z
runs of the Met Office global model, Met Office mesoscale model, GFS and
GEM models all predicted a relatively shallow "Channel runner" with
light winds over most of southern England for Monday. In contrast, the
issued Met Office 24-hour prog valid for 12z Monday showed a 973mb low
centred between Cambridge and Peterborough with a very tight gradient on
its southern flank. It seems that, for some reason, a lot of the
numerical predictions were rejected.

Norman,
Things are starting to become a bit blurred now but IIRC yesterday's 00Z and
06Z model runs had a deeper low and further north; the corresponding swathe
of strong winds extending as far north as southern England. The 12Z run then
backed off as you've noted. Based on the available information at the time
(satellite imagery/observations etc) a decision was made to stick with the
earlier model runs and the forecast products were adjusted accordingly.

It's also worth bearing in mind that some of the MetO global model runs
towards the end of last week had an even deeper low (circa 964mb) with 90KT+
gradients on the southern flank.

I'd agree with the comments regarding the GFS, it looks to have been more
consistent over the period and closer to actual events. I'm sure the experts
on the NWP side will examine this case closely as is normal practice.

Jon.

"Bernard Burton" wrote in message
...
snip

I think that the Met Office would be well served if it did a thorough
investigation into why the GFS model got this one essentially correct,
and
the Bracknell model was so far off track.
... When I produced a Shipping Forecast (up to August last year), in

Whoooh, careful in admitting to producing "Shipping Forecasts" I know of
many, many people who would just love to ask you some questions......!!!!

Just a quick question from me and it will only be one (promise) "Do you
sail, or go to sea yourself" ??

Regards
WC

.. Perhaps if less money was spent on ensembles, which
have very limited application in the real world, and more on improving the
observational network, we may see some improvement.

--
Bernard Burton
Wokingham, Berkshire, UK.


Satellite images at:
www.btinternet.com/~wokingham.weather/wwp.html


Having served on Voluntary Reporting Ships for many years, I just wonder if
this arrangement is still operational.
Nick Robinson
Colchester NE2

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:46:03 -0000, WeatherCam wrote in


"Bernard Burton" wrote in message
...
snip

I think that the Met Office would be well served if it did a thorough
investigation into why the GFS model got this one essentially correct,
and
the Bracknell model was so far off track.
... When I produced a Shipping Forecast (up to August last year), in

Whoooh, careful in admitting to producing "Shipping Forecasts" I know of
many, many people who would just love to ask you some questions......!!!!

Just a quick question from me and it will only be one (promise) "Do you
sail, or go to sea yourself" ??

I think you are asking a question of the wrong poster. Your attribution
line is totally wrong. It wasn't Bernard Burton who wrote that, but Martin
Rowley.

You have to be very careful about attributing words to the correct poster.

--
Mike 55.13°N 6.69°W Coleraine posted to uk.sci.weather 12/01/2004 12:55:11 UTC

================================================== ==================
This posting expresses the personal view and opinions of the author.
Something which everyone on this planet should be able to do.
================================================== ==================

Norman, clearly you are correct when you say that the 12Z runs were *apparently*
ignored. But the Chief forecaster on duty must have had his reasons as one would
ignore model data at your peril, particularly when it is backed up by the GFS or
other models. Perhaps he was "twitchy" (as I was) about the low developing in a
data sparse area, the obvious developmental satellite imagery and the analysed
160 knot plus jet ?

Will.
--

" Being an expert is no guarantee against being dead wrong "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www: http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk

DISCLAIMER - All views and opinions expressed by myself are personal
and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Norman Lynagh wrote in message ...
In message , Bernard Burton
writes

I think that the Met Office would be well served if it did a thorough
investigation into why the GFS model got this one essentially correct, and
the Bracknell model was so far off track. They should both have used the
same data base, with the same inaccuracies and gaps. Is the problem in the
model formulation, or is it being 'fine tuned' by human intervention still?
Could it be that some essential observations are being ignored or rejected
by the Met Office model? Perhaps if less money was spent on ensembles, which
have very limited application in the real world, and more on improving the
observational network, we may see some improvement.

--
Bernard Burton
Wokingham, Berkshire, UK.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but .............

The GFS model did, indeed, handle this one pretty well. I was following
it closely in the days leading up to the event and it consistently
predicted relatively light winds for here.

What I found surprising was that the Met Office forecasts yesterday were
at variance from all of the model output I looked at. Yesterday's 12z
runs of the Met Office global model, Met Office mesoscale model, GFS and
GEM models all predicted a relatively shallow "Channel runner" with
light winds over most of southern England for Monday. In contrast, the
issued Met Office 24-hour prog valid for 12z Monday showed a 973mb low
centred between Cambridge and Peterborough with a very tight gradient on
its southern flank. It seems that, for some reason, a lot of the
numerical predictions were rejected.

It is disappointing that today's Met Office, with all its cutting edge
technology, has not been able to handle this situation a lot better than
its predecessor of 40 years ago might have done using only manual
methods. I haven't been following the developments over the Atlantic too
closely over the past few days. Nevertheless, I am fairly sure that the
situation was such that an experienced forecaster armed with regular
surface and upper air analyses (but no forecast products) could readily
have identified that it was a situation in which a fast moving wave
might deepen explosively and bring very strong winds into the British
Isles. Today's Met Office hasn't been able to do much better than just
that on this occasion. Perhaps one improvement was the ability to
identify today as being the day on which such an event might happen.

Even less than 12 hours before the event the forecasts proved to be
significantly inaccurate. After 11 p.m. last night the weather
presentation on BBC News24 was still showing 70 m.p.h. gusts south of a
line from North Wales to The Wash. This had been hardened up to a firm
forecast by that time.

Around 4 a.m. this morning flash warnings were issued for severe SW
gales in coastal parts of Central Southern England and SE England for
the remainder of the morning. These winds have not materialised. The
News24 presentations this morning are still plugging 60 knot gusts for
the south coast but these are not happening.

The warning issued on Sunday morning predicting "inland gusts of the
order of 70 m.p.h. across the south of the UK" and that SE England had a
40% probability of experiencing "extremely damaging inland gusts of the
order of 90 m.p.h." was still shown on the Met Office website as a
"Current Warning" at 10 a.m. this morning.

I agree with Bernard that some questions need to be asked within the Met
Office, as I am sure they will be.


(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles
England