Checking the GFS again this morning, it appears that the main bulk of the
extreme cold seems to have moved East aligning down the North sea and to the
East of the UK with green colours over the West.
I am still unsure as to whether this will be as severe as first thought but
only time will tell.

Regards. Len.

Yes, Len, I think you a correct. Sometimes we get convinced by our own hype,
but in this world, just wishing for something does not make it happen. And
forecast models are based on a sketchy knowledge of the starting conditions,
with more than 90% of grid points containing no real data, plus numerous
fixes and fudges to take account of processes that are too small for the
models to handle. Caution is the watchword. Charts for T+24 even have been
known to be wrong, and as the lead time increases, so does the error rate.
Add to that the possibility of human intervention in some model output, and
you increase the uncertainty further.

--
Bernard Burton
Wokingham, Berkshire, UK.


Satellite images at:
www.btinternet.com/~wokingham.weather/wwp.html
"Weatherman" wrote in message
...
Checking the GFS again this morning, it appears that the main bulk of the
extreme cold seems to have moved East aligning down the North sea and to
the
East of the UK with green colours over the West.
I am still unsure as to whether this will be as severe as first thought
but
only time will tell.

Regards. Len.

Add to that the possibility of human intervention in some model output, and
you increase the uncertainty further.

You didn't really mean that, did you, Bernard? I always thought the
purpose of human intervention was rather like a parent trying to guide their
brilliant but erratic child, i.e. to stop it doing something really stupid.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

"TudorHgh" wrote in message
...
Add to that the possibility of human intervention in some model
output, and
you increase the uncertainty further.

You didn't really mean that, did you, Bernard? I always thought
the
purpose of human intervention was rather like a parent trying to guide
their
brilliant but erratic child, i.e. to stop it doing something really
stupid.



.... there is actually a long-running debate about the advisability of
'intervention' in NWP simulation of the atmosphere. The modellers almost
certainly (though I may be doing individuals a dis-service & for
Tropical features, 'support'/positive intervention is definitely an
advantage) would rather that the models were allowed to run without
outside help; and in any case, the purpose of intervention is to aid the
*analysis*, rather than nudge the model into one solution rather than
another - though those that perform this 'deft art' are all too aware
that too much tinkering (particularly with humidity), can have rather
dramatic effects! I'm not sure how many of the main models we all look
at now actually have such intervention; the US models and the EC don't;
not sure about the other European models though.

The following is quite an interesting read:...

http://www.metoffice.com/research/nw...00/Storms.html

Martin.

In my experience, Tudor, you need really sound evidence, in the shape of
reliable observations, before second guessing the model. It is all too easy
to make a bad situation worse by jumping in on a whim.



--
Bernard Burton
Wokingham, Berkshire, UK.


Satellite images at:
www.btinternet.com/~wokingham.weather/wwp.html
"TudorHgh" wrote in message
...
Add to that the possibility of human intervention in some model output,
and
you increase the uncertainty further.

You didn't really mean that, did you, Bernard? I always thought the
purpose of human intervention was rather like a parent trying to guide
their
brilliant but erratic child, i.e. to stop it doing something really
stupid.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

"TudorHgh" wrote in message
...
Add to that the possibility of human intervention in some model
output,
and
you increase the uncertainty further.

You didn't really mean that, did you, Bernard? I always thought
the
purpose of human intervention was rather like a parent trying to guide
their
brilliant but erratic child, i.e. to stop it doing something really
stupid.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

"Bernard Burton" wrote in message
...
In my experience, Tudor, you need really sound evidence, in the shape of
reliable observations, before second guessing the model. It is all too
easy
to make a bad situation worse by jumping in on a whim.



--
Bernard Burton
Wokingham, Berkshire, UK.


I think you are at cross purposes here. Are you talking about intervention
at analysis time (bogussing etc) or at time periods after analysis ?

Joe