summer outlook

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

I have a problem with some of what you say. You say the sea and atmosphere are attached - correct. And there are well known interactions between the to, such as sensible heat flux, moisture exchange, etc. I'm puzzled though as to the physics of how the atmosphere's tide can be solidly and reliably linked to that of the ocean? Explain the physics of this interaction, as this is what you base your methods on.

And just as you say we can predict ocean tides years in advance, we cannot predict small scale disturbances in the ocean the same way. Likewise your forecasts - I find it FI myself that you can say with confidence that a certain county will have snow in September and the others not. That to me is the real definition of FI.

The air is just an ocean above us. We live between two vast oceans that have the same dynamics and that are controlled by the same forces at the same time. That is why weather balloons float higher on new and full moon days - there are kingtides in the air at the same time as kingtides in the sea. When sea tides are highest, barometric pressures do a dive and vice versa. That is how the two oceans are linked. Both are fluids in flux affecting each other by their adjacency. If you are sitting in your bath and your hand is on the water, it could be viewed as either depressing the water level(high pressure), or the water going down which would pull your hand lower(low tide). Causality doesn't come into it - the greater force(sun and moon) causes both. The sea surface is an exchange station for CO2 entering the ocean and water vapor leaving it. Imagine trains entering and leaving a station. Anything happening up one line affects the whole station and down the other lines. No one train is in charge, rather, the whole is a river of energy.
I would disagree and say we can detect small scale disturbances in the ocean far ahead - I would call that the tide charts for individual beaches along the coastline. Our prediction capability is only limited to the technology we can bring to that arena. Not much instrumentation has been developed for the different parts of the sea because no one lives there and no one perceives a payoff. Instead, data gathering devices sit on the land beside the sea, which is still affected but less directly. To that extent science is the poorer. But just because our focus has been elsewhere does not disprove it. I am saying it seems to me that the "tides" of both subzero temps and of rain combine in September for Roscommon and others. Inland counties cool quicker than those nearer the coast. It may make snow, hail or sleet - the potential is there for one of the three. And that's all I'm able to say.
www.predictweather.com

Deep Easterly

Kenring wrote: »

If you are sitting in your bath and your hand is on the water, it could be viewed as either depressing the water level(high pressure), or the water going down which would pull your hand lower(low tide). Causality doesn't come into it - the greater force(sun and moon) causes both. The sea surface is an exchange station for CO2 entering the ocean and water vapor leaving it. Imagine trains entering and leaving a station. Anything happening up one line affects the whole station and down the other lines. No one train is in charge, rather, the whole is a river of energy.
www.predictweather.com

Dosen't that ignore the sheer randomness of physics though? Most likely a stupid analogy but pick up a ball, drop it and observe how it bounces, what way it bounces, how many times and which way it will eventually stand still. Pick it up again and drop it from the same height, position and force as you did the first time and you can be 100% certain it will not bounce and stop in exactly the same way as it did the 1st time, or the next time.

Kenring

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Dosen't that ignore the sheer randomness of physics though? Most likely a stupid analogy but pick up a ball, drop it and observe how it bounces, what way it bounces, how many times and which way it will eventually stand still. Pick it up again and drop it from the same height, position and force as you did the first time and you can be 100% certain it will not bounce and stop in exactly the same way as it did the 1st time, or the next time.

I don't see any randomness there, just because we don't have the instrumentation to drop a ball from exactly the same height and angle each time doesn't mean it won't bounce exactly as high and to the same angles as before. Champion snooker players know how to do it and get consistent bounce results. And what about those domino-effect sequences that have bouncing balls, trip switches and rolling disks that trigger a whole line of reactions? If you set it up properly physics is never random. That's the exercise and the point of it, 100% predictability. There's scientists and there's gamblers. Scientists talk about prediction and cycles, reliable evidence, certainty and confidence. Gamblers talk about randomness, luck, probability, chance, risk of, hunches, proxy results or hearsay (in lieu of real evidence) on which they base opinions, and fear. Global warmers, many meteorologists and most climate scientists seem to prefer to be in the gamblers category.

Su Campu

The main difference I see between predicting ocean tides and atmospheric tides is that for an ocean, the prediction only deals with one parameter, ie. the height of the water, and does not include any variables such as its temperature, salinity, vorticity, etc. Plus intermolecular attraction in water is many times stronger than that of the atmosphere due to hydrogen-bonding, so in effect the ocean acts more like a solid body (like say a blanket) that moves back and forth in sync with lunar and solar positioning.

For the atmosphere, things are very different. There may well be a tide, but a lot more things come into play than that when making our weather. Surface heating, orography, vorticity, sea-surface temperature and salinity, land coverage, atmospheric composition, volcanic activity, solar activity (?), etc. You say you can predict atmospheric tides based on oceanic ones - I won't argue with you cos I haven't studied that much - but I still don't understand how all other parameters mentioned above can be dismissed when predicting weather for a small area several months from now. We can't even predict El Ninos or La Ninas with any great confidence, and they have a worldwide influence on medium term weather, a lot more than tides I would imagine, so how can you be certain that Roscommon will get snow in September? If your methods are so much more reliable than conventional meteorology, then I would expect your accuracy to verifiy at a very high percentage. What is your actual percentage?

Please note this is not a personal attack on you - on the contrary, I find the topic very interesting and would love if it were as easy as you suggest! I am willing to accept anything, as soon as I understand it, it's just that I'm having trouble understanding your theories. Or put it another way, you don't use scientific detail in describing it. Bathtub analogies are well and good, but your arguments are too general for me and don't contain enough physics!

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

The main difference I see between predicting ocean tides and atmospheric tides is that for an ocean, the prediction only deals with one parameter, ie. the height of the water, and does not include any variables such as its temperature, salinity, vorticity, etc. Plus intermolecular attraction in water is many times stronger than that of the atmosphere due to hydrogen-bonding, so in effect the ocean acts more like a solid body (like say a blanket) that moves back and forth in sync with lunar and solar positioning.

For the atmosphere, things are very different. There may well be a tide, but a lot more things come into play than that when making our weather. Surface heating, orography, vorticity, sea-surface temperature and salinity, land coverage, atmospheric composition, volcanic activity, solar activity (?), etc. You say you can predict atmospheric tides based on oceanic ones - I won't argue with you cos I haven't studied that much - but I still don't understand how all other parameters mentioned above can be dismissed when predicting weather for a small area several months from now. We can't even predict El Ninos or La Ninas with any great confidence, and they have a worldwide influence on medium term weather, a lot more than tides I would imagine, so how can you be certain that Roscommon will get snow in September? If your methods are so much more reliable than conventional meteorology, then I would expect your accuracy to verifiy at a very high percentage. What is your actual percentage?

Please note this is not a personal attack on you - on the contrary, I find the topic very interesting and would love if it were as easy as you suggest! I am willing to accept anything, as soon as I understand it, it's just that I'm having trouble understanding your theories. Or put it another way, you don't use scientific detail in describing it. Bathtub analogies are well and good, but your arguments are too general for me and don't contain enough physics!

I would call physics too simplistic and too narrow for describing weather matters. Discussing an apple falling from a tree doesn't describe the moon's gravitational force on the air. Imagine the tree, apple and ground all moving away from each other at different rates. That's why physicists can't find a moon-tide tide using conventional physics, they are just employing the wrong mathematics. Astrological physics was closer, which Isaac Newton, an astrologer, used, which is why Newton is still misunderstood even today. The timing of the tide is what my method best describes through the tidal cycle - the height of the tide is much more variable and subject to unknown factors on the day like wind direction and air pressure. The timing of the tide translates to timing of weather events when it comes to weather, which means when it will rain, snow, hail, flood etc rather than how much will fall. When the temps will drop is generally predictable because of knowing the declination of the moon - when it's in the south the northern hemisphere warms up, like right now. When the moon changes hemispheres great volumes of water shift across and so do great volumes of air. barometric pressures change the most when the moon crosses the equator. Wind increases when the moon crosses the equator.
These factors can all be added to come up with a forecast. Of course it's not exact, but it's better than having nothing, which is the position of the regular met peeople, who are basically only taking photos from satellites of what is happening now, and have to guess at the rest. They therefore are not forecasting at all, merely reacting to weather of the moment. The trouble comes when the mets say what I am doing can't be done, simply because they don't do it. If tides and moon can be measured, then a lot can be done.
The alternative is to say tides have no effect on air, and the moon's movement has no effect on air movement, which would be extremely strange given the size and proximity of the moon. It's like saying a two-year old has no effect whatsoever on its mother and does not influence what she does during the day. Well, maybe that would appear so to a man, but not to another mother! Moreover, something cannot be disproved using empirical science, as every possible trial would have to have been applied and this is impossible.
www.predictweather.com

Deep Easterly

Kenring wrote: »

I don't see any randomness there, just because we don't have the instrumentation to drop a ball from exactly the same height and angle each time doesn't mean it won't bounce exactly as high and to the same angles as before. Champion snooker players know how to do it and get consistent bounce results. And what about those domino-effect sequences that have bouncing balls, trip switches and rolling disks that trigger a whole line of reactions? If you set it up properly physics is never random. That's the exercise and the point of it, 100% predictability. There's scientists and there's gamblers. Scientists talk about prediction and cycles, reliable evidence, certainty and confidence. Gamblers talk about randomness, luck, probability, chance, risk of, hunches, proxy results or hearsay (in lieu of real evidence) on which they base opinions, and fear. Global warmers, many meteorologists and most climate scientists seem to prefer to be in the gamblers category.

I do see randomness there You could analogise the actual ball to a climate in that it is constant, but what is not constant is the knowledge as to how the ball will react when it is dropped and to where it will land. We can take a guess, but our guess will never be 100% spot on, and this I compare to everyday weather. Of course, if ever a machine existed to make a ball drop at exactly the same force each time to see how it would react every time, then fair enough, but weather does not stem from such a machine, there are way way to many random and chaotic forces at work all the time. There is no stable first cause; more of an eternal form and decay that appears as movement.

ch750536

Deep Easterly wrote: »

I do see randomness there You could analogise the actual ball to a climate in that it is constant, but what is not constant is the knowledge as to how the ball will react when it is dropped and to where it will land. We can take a guess, but our guess will never be 100% spot on, and this I compare to everyday weather. Of course, if ever a machine existed to make a ball drop at exactly the same force each time to see how it would react every time, then fair enough, but weather does not stem from such a machine, there are way way to many random and chaotic forces at work all the time. There is no stable first cause; more of an eternal form and decay that appears as movement.

No such thing as random. Only things that appear random as we don't yet understand them. I agree with Ken on this one, the air itself is acted upon by the moon etc as is everything else on the planet. The sheer mass of the atmosphere means it will have a larger impact that other things.

Deep Easterly

ch750536 wrote: »

No such thing as random. Only things that appear random as we don't yet understand them. I agree with Ken on this one, the air itself is acted upon by the moon etc as is everything else on the planet. The sheer mass of the atmosphere means it will have a larger impact that other things.

Yes. Perhaps I should use the word chaos/chaotic rather than random.

Kenring

ch750536 wrote: »

No such thing as random. Only things that appear random as we don't yet understand them. I agree with Ken on this one, the air itself is acted upon by the moon etc as is everything else on the planet. The sheer mass of the atmosphere means it will have a larger impact that other things.

Deep Easterly
Of course a machine does exist to eject a ball with the same force and angle each time, and they use them to coach tennis and golf players. But I agree that weather will never be 100% spot on and have never made a claim otherwise. Rather the opposite, I have always tried to explain the enormous number of unknown factors at work. But overall trends are possible to predict, the bottom line being usefulness. If a decision is being made as to when to book contractors to come in and cut hay, then an informed decision is better. I think I can point to a week more likely to be dry than wet. That makes the cost of the exercise and the investment on the part of the farmer worthwhile - very affordable as a week is 9EURO, and a few hundred EURO will be at stake if the weather turns foul.

It sounds like you are trying to justify the meteorologists view that longrange weather can't be done. How do you explain tide tables then?

BTW, Random comes from a French word randir meaning to run. Running isn't chaotic. Maybe a chicken without a head is, but we all don't run like that. Chaos means a gap (as in chasm), and I would suggest it is merely a function of admitted ignorance. It seems to be an attempt to make ignorance look scientifically respectable so is a cop-out and has no physical meaning.

www.predictweather.com

Deep Easterly

Kenring wrote: »

It sounds like you are trying to justify the meteorologists view that longrange weather can't be done. How do you explain tide tables then?

www.predictweather.com

I can't explain tide tables as I have absolutely no knowledge about them :o
Of course, long range weather forecasts can be done. For example I know it will be colder in 8 months time than it will be now but what I cannot predict the actual weather in 8 months time. Will it rain or will it not on the 8th Jan 2011? I don't know. I don't even know for sure that it will rain tomorrow, but going by hi res model outlooks and free to view sat imagary it would seem there is a good chance that it might, but nothing is certain, but the chances of even reasonable accuracy must surely be greater closer to the end?

Kenring

Deep Easterly wrote: »

I can't explain tide tables as I have absolutely no knowledge about them :o
Of course, long range weather forecasts can be done. For example I know it will be colder in 8 months time than it will be now but what I cannot predict the actual weather in 8 months time. Will it rain or will it not on the 8th Jan 2011? I don't know. I don't even know for sure that it will rain tomorrow, but going by hi res model outlooks and free to view sat imagary it would seem there is a good chance that it might, but nothing is certain, but the chances of even reasonable accuracy must surely be greater closer to the end?

It sounds like we are in agreement. Sure, chances are better closer to the end, as in on the day of the afternoon in question. But we are talking about the moon as a possible indicator of general trends on say 8 Jan 2011. I can't say anything will but I can say the potential may be there and so it might rain, if I knew the county. In the same way I can say the tide may be in around such and such a time on that day. The fact that you don't know shouldn't put you off accepting that others may think they have some idea..

Deep Easterly

Kenring wrote: »

The fact that you don't know shouldn't put you off accepting that others may think they have some idea..

True, but I do have a reasonable knowledge of what the climate of my country and my locallity is based on. And one thing I have learned, is that nothing is certian. Predicting overall trends for 6 to 12 months is all very good, but as we all know, even within trends the antitheasis may occur. How strong or how weak these antitheasis wil be, and to what degree of frequency they are likely to occur in, is what matters to people on the ground. Is the trend more important than a point within it?

Kenring

Deep Easterly wrote: »

True, but I do have a reasonable knowledge of what the climate of my country and my locallity is based on. And one thing I have learned, is that nothing is certian. Predicting overall trends for 6 to 12 months is all very good, but as we all know, even within trends the antitheasis may occur. How strong or how weak these antitheasis wil be, and to what degree of frequency they are likely to occur in, is what matters to people on the ground. Is the trend more important than a point within it?

I would say some things are certain. I'll list them here.
1. There is a moon and there is an earth.
2. These two planetary rocks are close enough in distance apart to affect each other gravitationally, and everything on each other and that includes the moon on the air.
3. The moon's effect on the air would be the same qualitatively as for any other Earth-bound movable fluid of mass, such as sea, land and inner mantle, which has been verified in other sciences.
4. The moon is very clockwork, returning to the same place in the celestial sky only ten seconds earlier each year, hence reliable cycles are an established fact.
5. These lunar cycles have been known about and utilised in all known ancient societies for thousands of years, for calendric seasonal forecasting.
6. Stone monuments exist that pertain to the last point, with stones aligned to lunar factors like max and min declinations, and precession settings, as well as eclipse calculating marking systems.
7. The weather is the movement of air (the word weather comes from we meaning to blow).
8. Movement of air is a function of ocean/air interface.
9. Ocean currents, both surface and subsurface, are heavily influenced by lunar factors.
10. Religious and political differences have, over the past two millennium, successfully separated the West from the Old Science, to the extent that all lunar matters, especially when used for predictions, have been declared pagan, voodoo and shamanistic in an attempt to separate the populace from anything pre-Christian. An example has been Easter, once a Jewish festival called Pesach (Passover), later changed in name in the 4th century AD by Pope Constantine to Eastre (goddess of Spring) or the festival of Astarte, the pre-Eastre name for the goddess of spring. The Jewish calendar was and still is (in line with that of other Semitic races), lunar. Another example has been the vilification and Satanisation of the number 13, long known as 'the moon's number'.
11. Nonwestern countries are better at predicting arrival dates of monsoons and typhoons.

Deep Easterly

Kenring wrote: »

I would say some things are certain. I'll list them here.
1. There is a moon and there is an earth.
2. These two planetary rocks are close enough in distance apart to affect each other gravitationally, and everything on each other and that includes the moon on the air.
3. The moon's effect on the air would be the same qualitatively as for any other Earth-bound movable fluid of mass, such as sea, land and inner mantle, which has been verified in other sciences.
4. The moon is very clockwork, returning to the same place in the celestial sky only ten seconds earlier each year, hence reliable cycles are an established fact.
5. These lunar cycles have been known about and utilised in all known ancient societies for thousands of years, for calendric seasonal forecasting.
6. Stone monuments exist that pertain to the last point, with stones aligned to lunar factors like max and min declinations, and precession settings, as well as eclipse calculating marking systems.
7. The weather is the movement of air (the word weather comes from we meaning to blow).
8. Movement of air is a function of ocean/air interface.
9. Ocean currents, both surface and subsurface, are heavily influenced by lunar factors.
10. Religious and political differences have, over the past two millennium, successfully separated the West from the Old Science, to the extent that all lunar matters, especially when used for predictions, have been declared pagan, voodoo and shamanistic in an attempt to separate the populace from anything pre-Christian. An example has been Easter, once a Jewish festival called Pesach (Passover), later changed in name in the 4th century AD by Pope Constantine to Eastre (goddess of Spring) or the festival of Astarte, the pre-Eastre name for the goddess of spring. The Jewish calendar was and still is (in line with that of other Semitic races), lunar. Another example has been the vilification and Satanisation of the number 13, long known as 'the moon's number'.
11. Nonwestern countries are better at predicting arrival dates of monsoons and typhoons.

12. Death.

Kenring

Deep Easterly wrote: »

12. Death.

and
13. Taxes

Trogdor

Interesting discussion folks:)

Kenring wrote: »

It sounds like you are trying to justify the meteorologists view that longrange weather can't be done. How do you explain tide tables then?

Just on this point Ken, I don't think it is fair to compare long-range weather forcasting to long-range tide prediction.

The algorithm(s) for long-term prediction of tide heights are far far more simplistic than any reliable algorithm for predection of long-term weather forecasts.

When the tide tables are drawn up they are assuming many variables are constant such as the average temperatures of the water (which if increased would result in higher water levels) and ice-coverage. Yes, the tide-tables can predict how high water levels will deviate from what is normal at that time but they cannot predict what "normal" levels will actually be at that time.
The deviation from normal can be calculated accurately though due to knowing the certain forces which our acting on the masses of water.

The range of variables and forces acting on the atmosphere and through many different layers of atmosphere however is far greater. No simple algorithm is going to be able to factor in all these influencing factors, or at least not with 100% accuracy, otherwise we would be able to predict the weather in 24 hours time at least with complete accuracy, but we cannot and therefore do not have a completely accurate standpoint to begin predicting the weather the day after that.

If anything i would say that longterm weather prediction is similar to longterm prediction of ocean currents and temperatures (current strengh and temperature through the different layers) along with any disturbances in the oceans, which i have yet to see accurately predict accurately over long-term periods either.

pauldry

This thread is very interesting indeed now and perhaps its going beyond what I tend to know. But what I would say is that weather predicting be it by tides or long range models is uncertain all of the time to say the least. As mentioned above there are numerous variables that make it so but all of us can do our best to come up with a broad picture of what is potentially going to happen in the future with the weather. Most of us will be using different means of getting our predictions in but a lot of the time the predictions come out the same. In the boards contest this is called the consensus and for exmple the consensus would seem to suggest that we are going to get a warmer than average June. This could of course not happen but from all the models and from Kens predictions it is looking the case. As with others though Ken, I have difficulty in understanding how you can make a prediction of snow in a certain county in September. I just dont think an accurate long range forecast can be made a lot of months in advance like that. Maybe saying September is going to be a cool month at times is more accurate with even a chance of wintry precipitation? I cant remember seeing snow at all in September. Can anyone else?

Let the debate continue....:)

M.T. Cranium

This thread is about the summer forecast for Ireland, but in the past few pages it has become a thread about alternative forecast methods. I wanted to share a few ideas on that subject, but I will start a new thread to do so.

Look for it later this weekend. Some of us already had part of the discussion that is sure to follow, on the Ken Ring thread about a year ago.

My approach to this question may be a bit different from Ken's but I know from our conversations over the past few years that we share some concepts and then I think each of us has some additional concepts that may be different from each other's.

I happen to think there's a lot of knowledge out there waiting to be assembled and made systematic in such a way that it will be convincing to believers and skeptics alike, and that either this has not quite happened yet or that paradigm dissonance makes it impossible. You'll be aware of that general principle known as cognitive dissonance that up to a certain "tipping point" very different paradigms can co-exist with both sides seeing things their way until an unmistakeable "proof dichotomy" emerges. For example, global warming is in that state, I would submit -- both sides (to be fair, there are many shades of opinion rather than two sides) can find justification for their point of view in the available evidence, and sometimes from the same data. However, at some point, one paradigm overcomes the other(s) through a process of numerical adherence. There are still "flat earthers" out there, I'm not sure if any of them are serious because I can see how it might be a sort of affectation like dressing in medieval costumes, but clearly the "round earth" paradigm has overwhelmed the flat earth paradigm.

The lunar control of weather paradigm has not lost ground since I first became aware of it in the 1970s, and I would say it has gained some ground, but realistically, it is still the outsider paradigm on the field of play and when you press most people interested in weather, they generally say something like "perhaps it is a factor" which is essentially where I am at only with a lot of development of how much of a factor -- I don't say it is the governing factor without any other competition, but I do find it to be significant.

Anyway, rather than further mucking up this thread, I will post on this in a dedicated thread and we can all have at it there, and leave the summer fanciers undisturbed.

pauldry

MY CURRENT SUMMER 2010 OUTLOOK

June warmer than average some thundery bursts
July warm at first cooler later and unsettled
August drier normal temps some rain

Kenring

trogdor wrote: »

Interesting discussion folks:)


Just on this point Ken, I don't think it is fair to compare long-range weather forcasting to long-range tide prediction.

The algorithm(s) for long-term prediction of tide heights are far far more simplistic than any reliable algorithm for predection of long-term weather forecasts.

When the tide tables are drawn up they are assuming many variables are constant such as the average temperatures of the water (which if increased would result in higher water levels) and ice-coverage. Yes, the tide-tables can predict how high water levels will deviate from what is normal at that time but they cannot predict what "normal" levels will actually be at that time.
The deviation from normal can be calculated accurately though due to knowing the certain forces which our acting on the masses of water.

The range of variables and forces acting on the atmosphere and through many different layers of atmosphere however is far greater. No simple algorithm is going to be able to factor in all these influencing factors, or at least not with 100% accuracy, otherwise we would be able to predict the weather in 24 hours time at least with complete accuracy, but we cannot and therefore do not have a completely accurate standpoint to begin predicting the weather the day after that.

If anything i would say that longterm weather prediction is similar to longterm prediction of ocean currents and temperatures (current strengh and temperature through the different layers) along with any disturbances in the oceans, which i have yet to see accurately predict accurately over long-term periods either.

You bring up some interesting points. However you appear to assume that a tidal flow is local, rather than the end result of a process that is far from local. The reason that the timing of greatest tidal variation for a month is shared by locations all around the world is because of moon - earth distance, and that affects the whole body of ocean at any one time. Measurement of tide is then symboilic of greater forces at any one time, and measurement of local variation depicts volumes of water combined with local air that is either displaced by or pulled into the general area of, that body of water. The periphery is neither random nor controlling of the main body. Instead it is both linked and representative at any one time. Consider medicine. Some believe the hands and nose show the state of blood circulation, and the tongue both in colour and coating shows the condition of organs. I happen to believe that the shape of one's hand can help forge one's destiny - a delicate thin hand would be a liability for a builder, rugby player or boxer.
I know this is a summer forecast thread, but when a diversion appears to question the reason for my comments, they should be addressed in the same forum. But I agree with MTC that we should at some stage get back to topic.

Su Campu

I'm going for a normal to slightly below normal summer temperaturewise, below normal rainfall, and above normal sunshine.

The warm sea-surface anomaly west of Africa should lead to lower pressure than normal in that area, and the cold anomaly east of the US, which should do the opposite. This will shift the Azores high a little north of normal, generating a more northerly component to our westerlies. With a disappearing El Niño and a possible La Niña, this normally leads to a more southerly track of atlantic systems, therefore northern Europe should be cooler and drier.

JUNE continuing similar to May, still a persistant northerly component keeping temperatures and rainfall below normal. Sunshine above normal.

JULY possible giving more in the way of heatwaves, as the southwesterly conveyor belt from the above-mentioned east atlantic low pressure anomaly leads to increasing heights over central Europe. There is a good chance that this may break west from time to time, bringing warm east-southeasterly winds, and possible Spanish plume convection.

AUGUST With La Niña possibly taking more of a hold, we could see temperatures revert back to normal or below, and a setup more like June.

Just my stab at it, a lot of ifs and buts in there! :rolleyes: But I'd be fairly hopeful that it won't be a washout like the past two years.

gally74

all in all i think were goin to have a good summer,

the atlantic is defiently different than last year,

M.T. Cranium

I will post that new thread some time on Monday, just letting my mind go blank this weekend. With the time difference, I guess it could be Tuesday before anyone sees this new thread. Hope to make it easy to read and so will probably break it down into small daily doses of new information.

ch750536

Using my maths head and nothing more....

It's all about balance unless there is a change in the trend. Since I don't believe there is a change in the trend I think this year will have some atlantic storms (rain) coming in but nothing like the previous years.

Average temps will be lower than recent years but max's will be higher due to clear nights.

Rainfall slightly lower than average.

Basically not so much a continuation of the long dry spell we have had but definately drier.

Deep Easterly

Deep Easterly wrote: »

The Norwegian Met Service reckons, through the ECMWF model, that temps will be around, or a little above average for the period covering May to July this year:



The overall forecast pattern for the period seems to suggest that blocking to the NW will be a feature of the early summer with troughing to the east of Britian and into Scandinavia.

That could be all bollix though!

Well, so far at least, this model seems to have called it well! :mad:

Redsunset

Looking wetter and cooler next month but these charts aint gospel.

mike65

I'm predicting a "Phew! What a scorcher" summer (relatively speaking) I just feel it in my bones.

M.T. Cranium

June is rarely the warmest of the three or even four summer months, so with this kind of start, I think that the odds are now about 2:1 for a warmer than normal July and August period in general. Warm usually goes with dry in this climate region. I was leaning towards slightly warmer and drier than average before, now I would revise that slightly to 1 to 1.5 C above normal and 70-90 per cent of normal rainfall through the whole summer period.

nacho libre

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Well, so far at least, this model seems to have called it well! :mad:

i'm looking forward to see what they anticipate for next winter.

yes, i know what you're thinking Summer has barely started...:p

pauldry

I know Kenring predicted the rains to come in mid July and the last two weeks of June to be settled and fine but it increasingly looks like from 22nd and 23rd June the weather is going to breakdown. I thought myself maybe 24th or 25th June but models are showing a Low planted over or near us from 22nd. Who knows this might be back to the Kenring model by tomorrow but I dont want Summer to end. I was getting used to burnt grass.