Steve, yes I meant to say OPI - but at the time you were bigging this up as a factor that would/could lead to blocking in the winter months. 

The safest Indicator for me in the modern era that could indicate -ve NAO is solar activity combined with other favourable factors - haven't seen enough YET to make me think that a colder than average winter month is likely. 

 

---

Steve, yes I meant to say OPI - but at the time you were bigging this up as a factor that would/could lead to blocking in the winter months. 

The safest Indicator for me in the modern era that could indicate -ve NAO is solar activity combined with other favourable factors - haven't seen enough YET to make me think that a colder than average winter month is likely. 

 

 

yes correct - based on what they put forward -- not what I had looked at-

Anyway heres further evidence to suggest the 1998 modern winter is well & truly extinct -

Top 3 AO / NAO months since the 66 years of measuring     ( 1950 ) 

All I have done is look at years 2000 onwards - however its clear the trending is more towards the latter years

Jan num 1 2015 + 1.79 NAO
Feb num 2 2010 -1.98 NAO
Mar num 3 2005 -1.83 NAO
April num 2 2011 + 2.48 NAO
May num 3 2009 + 1.68 NAO
June num 1 2008 -1.73 NAO
July num 1 2013 -3.18 NAO
Aug num 3 2006 - 1.73 NAO
Sept num 3 2006 -1.62 NAO
Oct num 2 2002 -2.28 NAO
Nov num 2 2010 -1.62 NAO
Dec num 1 2011 +2.52 NAO
Dec num 1 2009 -1.93 NAO

Jan no record
Feb num 1 2010 -4.26 AO
Mar num 1 2013 -3.18 AO
April num 1 2011 + 2.27 AO
May num 3 2002 -1.20 AO
June num 1 2009 -1.35 AO
July num 1 2009 - 1.36 AO
Aug num 3 2010 -1.06 AO
Sep no record
Oct num 1 2009 -1.54 AO
num 1 2016 ????? AO
Nov num 2 2013 + 2.02 AO
Dec num 1 2009 -3.41 AO

16 negative top 3 years with 9 1st positions

6 positive top 3 years with 3 1st positions

 

The facts speak for themselves, the months especially winter are getting more extreme & the negative index months are more apparent than the positive ones..

 

S

Steve, yes I meant to say OPI - but at the time you were bigging this up as a factor that would/could lead to blocking in the winter months. 

The safest Indicator for me in the modern era that could indicate -ve NAO is solar activity combined with other favourable factors - haven't seen enough YET to make me think that a colder than average winter month is likely. 

 

All very interesting, but 'Father of the large teapot'?

---

Chunky, its reference to the 'other side' where if someone tries to type modern winter that is what will come up, such is their paranoia.

---

Chunky, its reference to the 'other side' where if someone tries to type modern winter that is what will come up, such is their paranoia.

Personally I don't see a problem with it even though I disagree with it for much the reasons Kev Brads points out, however I don't like people jumping all over you just because of it Ian. We're all entitled to our viewpoints and bar the Melanie fiasco  I think you should soldier on if thats what you believe to be the case, after all its only weather. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcGEvnuuIsc

 

Now if we can get another winter like this I'll be more than happy.

Met office going for a cooler but drier start to winter compare to last year

"This year is different: current signals suggest that the start to winter is likely to be cooler and drier than in 2015."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2016/winter-forecast-skill?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter 

Met office going for a cooler but drier start to winter compare to last year

"This year is different: current signals suggest that the start to winter is likely to be cooler and drier than in 2015."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2016/winter-forecast-skill?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Well that's a pretty safe bet seeing as the start of last winter was incredibly record breaking.

This really isn't saying much that most people wouldn't already know.

---

Well that's a pretty safe bet seeing as the start of last winter was incredibly record breaking.

This really isn't saying much that most people wouldn't already know.

Indeed. It's like being 100 not out and playing a forward defensive to a slow full toss. 

---

 

Indeed. It's like being 100 not out and playing a forward defensive to a slow full toss. 

It depends on the calibre of batsmen facing the full toss though a metaphor for reading between the lines of what the MetO are saying. 😉

The Met Office can now predict winter weather one year in advance 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/17/met-office-can-now-predict-winter-weather-one-year-in-advance/

Back to the NAO (but not using May SSTs) and no mention of the strat it would appear. Oddly the article claims 62% accuracy which is a similar correlation to what I thought the May SST profile was supposed to provide. TBH this is all very confusing and it may have more to do with poor reporting than anything else. 

---

Met office going for a cooler but drier start to winter compare to last year

"This year is different: current signals suggest that the start to winter is likely to be cooler and drier than in 2015."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2016/winter-forecast-skill?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

---

">http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2016/winter-forecast-skill?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

Well that's a pretty safe bet seeing as the start of last winter was incredibly record breaking.

This really isn't saying much that most people wouldn't already know.

Indeed, but it (IMHO anyway) wasn't record-breaking in any particularly memorable way, unless you happen to be a fan of exceptionally mild winter weather.

I suspect that many people will remember last December for how wet it was and the resulting flooding, especially those who were directly affected by the floods.

---

The Met Office can now predict winter weather one year in advance 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/17/met-office-can-now-predict-winter-weather-one-year-in-advance/

Back to the NAO (but not using May SSTs) and no mention of the strat it would appear. Oddly the article claims 62% accuracy which is a similar correlation to what I thought the May SST profile was supposed to provide. TBH this is all very confusing and it may have more to do with poor reporting than anything else. 

This is the abstract from the paper supporting this press release (rest is behind a paywall)

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2824.html

 

The winter North Atlantic Oscillation is the primary mode of atmospheric variability in the North Atlantic region and has a profound influence on European and North American winter climate. Until recently, seasonal variability of the North Atlantic Oscillation was thought to be largely driven by chaotic and inherently unpredictable processes^{1, 2}. However, latest generation seasonal forecasting systems have demonstrated significant skill in predicting the North Atlantic Oscillation when initialized a month before the onset of winter^{3, 4, 5}. Here we extend skilful dynamical model predictions to more than a year ahead. The skill increases greatly with ensemble size due to a spuriously small signal-to-noise ratio in the model, and consequently larger ensembles are projected to further increase the skill in predicting the North Atlantic Oscillation. We identify two sources of skill for second-winter forecasts of the North Atlantic Oscillation: climate variability in the tropical Pacific region and predictable effects of solar forcing on the stratospheric polar vortex strength. We also identify model biases in Arctic sea ice that, if reduced, may further increase skill. Our results open possibilities for a range of new climate services, including for the transport^{6, 7}, energy, water management⁸ and insurance sectors.

It does seem to look at solar forcing on the stratospheric polar vortex as one of the parameters

 

---

 

This is the abstract from the paper supporting this press release (rest is behind a paywall)

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2824.html

 

The winter North Atlantic Oscillation is the primary mode of atmospheric variability in the North Atlantic region and has a profound influence on European and North American winter climate. Until recently, seasonal variability of the North Atlantic Oscillation was thought to be largely driven by chaotic and inherently unpredictable processes^{1, 2}. However, latest generation seasonal forecasting systems have demonstrated significant skill in predicting the North Atlantic Oscillation when initialized a month before the onset of winter^{3, 4, 5}. Here we extend skilful dynamical model predictions to more than a year ahead. The skill increases greatly with ensemble size due to a spuriously small signal-to-noise ratio in the model, and consequently larger ensembles are projected to further increase the skill in predicting the North Atlantic Oscillation. We identify two sources of skill for second-winter forecasts of the North Atlantic Oscillation: climate variability in the tropical Pacific region and predictable effects of solar forcing on the stratospheric polar vortex strength. We also identify model biases in Arctic sea ice that, if reduced, may further increase skill. Our results open possibilities for a range of new climate services, including for the transport^{6, 7}, energy, water management⁸ and insurance sectors.

It does seem to look at solar forcing on the stratospheric polar vortex as one of the parameters

 

Thanks. Taken in isolation I obviously understand what this says. However, the section I've bolded seems completely inconsistent with previous claims in the early 2000s by the Met Office and UCL/Benfield Hazard about the predictability of the NAO many months ahead. They were talking about similar correlation levels (~60%) back then with the Met Office approach based on May SSTs. I can't remember how UCL/Benfield Hazard produced their NAO forecast. Nonetheless, it gives a feeling that we are going in round in circles.

---

 

Thanks. Taken in isolation I obviously understand what this says. However, the section I've bolded seems completely inconsistent with previous claims in the early 2000s by the Met Office and UCL/Benfield Hazard about the predictability of the NAO many months ahead. They were talking about similar correlation levels (~60%) back then with the Met Office approach based on May SSTs. I can't remember how UCL/Benfield Hazard produced their NAO forecast. Nonetheless, it gives a feeling that we are going in round in circles.

Quite correct Brian as I remember the MetO citing the reasons for dropping the NAO Index as a forecasting tool was down to it being incorrect 1/3 times.

 

Indeed. It's like being 100 not out and playing a forward defensive to a slow full toss. 

Err - yes but based on the majority of current forecast model output is probably correct. If this is what they're seeing - why would they say something different ?  That would be like trying to hit a six off a good length delivery on middle stump - which really only becomes necessary if you need 5 to win off the last ball of the innings.

---

Met office going for a cooler but drier start to winter compare to last year

"This year is different: current signals suggest that the start to winter is likely to be cooler and drier than in 2015."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2016/winter-forecast-skill?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

As others have noted - the coming winter could hardly start wetter and milder than last winter. Those who were lamenting "winter is over" by the middle of December were absolutely correct.

However, it is probably more nuanced that that from the Met Office point of view - they know that their press releases are poured over and interpreted, so merely by stating that the start of this winter will be cooler and drier than last winter, will start the hares running and some will be going for a 6 off a sticky wicket.

---

Not sure about the cricket analogues here, but they are using a different approach , using a model to predict the winter pattern. Here is an extract from a paper cited in the recent Nature article

'The forecasts used here were produced using the Met Office Global Seasonal forecast System 5 (GloSea5). The climate model at the core of this forecast system is Hadley Centre Global Environmental Model version 3 with atmospheric resolution of 0.83° longitude by 0.55° latitude, 85 quasi-horizontal atmospheric levels, and an upper boundary at 85 km near the mesopause. The ocean resolution is 0.25° globally in both latitude and longitude with 75 quasi-horizontal levels. This resolution is necessary to reduce key biases in the ocean and atmosphere and give a realistic winter blocking climatology in the model [Scaife et al., 2011]. A 24-member ensemble of forecasts was run for each winter in the period 1993 to 2012 with lagged start dates centered on 1 November (25 October, 1 November, and 9 November) and eight members initialized on each of the three start dates. Members from the same start date differ only by stochastic physics [Arribas et al., 2011]. Initial atmospheric and land surface data were taken from ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA)-Interim observational reanalyses, and initial conditions for the global ocean and sea ice concentration were from the Forecasting Ocean Assimilation Model (FOAM) system [Blockley et al., 2013]. This configuration allows very skillful predictions of various slowly varying components of the climate system to be made for the coming winter (Table S1)'

In other words they are saying that they have a much better method of predicting NAO now certainly for the upcoming winter and indeed as they have now shown a year ahead.

Not sure about the cricket analogues here, but they are using a different approach , using a model to predict the winter pattern. Here is an extract from a paper cited in the recent Nature article

'The forecasts used here were produced using the Met Office Global Seasonal forecast System 5 (GloSea5). The climate model at the core of this forecast system is Hadley Centre Global Environmental Model version 3 with atmospheric resolution of 0.83° longitude by 0.55° latitude, 85 quasi-horizontal atmospheric levels, and an upper boundary at 85 km near the mesopause. The ocean resolution is 0.25° globally in both latitude and longitude with 75 quasi-horizontal levels. This resolution is necessary to reduce key biases in the ocean and atmosphere and give a realistic winter blocking climatology in the model [Scaife et al., 2011]. A 24-member ensemble of forecasts was run for each winter in the period 1993 to 2012 with lagged start dates centered on 1 November (25 October, 1 November, and 9 November) and eight members initialized on each of the three start dates. Members from the same start date differ only by stochastic physics [Arribas et al., 2011]. Initial atmospheric and land surface data were taken from ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA)-Interim observational reanalyses, and initial conditions for the global ocean and sea ice concentration were from the Forecasting Ocean Assimilation Model (FOAM) system [Blockley et al., 2013]. This configuration allows very skillful predictions of various slowly varying components of the climate system to be made for the coming winter (Table S1)'

In other words they are saying that they have a much better method of predicting NAO now certainly for the upcoming winter and indeed as they have now shown a year ahead.

I seem to  remember them saying the NAO SST's back in May had a 2/3 chance of being correct in forecasting the NAO state for the following winter, have the odds increased or is it more of case of GLOSEA5 being able to sniff out the forthcoming winter period NAO index closer to the winter period?