CFS - http://images.meteociel.fr/im/9220/cfs-2-240_eyv3.png

Yup the first lot of energy early on moved it further east thus a slot appeared and it took its chance.

just here

http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/geme_cartes.php?&ech=114&mode=0&carte=1

I do rate the GEM quite highly and it's definetely worth keeping an eye on what it's doing... Never really went from Thu/Fri's northerly and IMO has come out of this northerly episode as the most consistent model...

Hmm, enough to stay interested. But will probably be dismissed as an anomoly by tommorow. NAVGEM is onto this aswell, or at least something similar.

The idea is to literally slice the PV in half by WAA on our side combined with a weaker attack on the pacific side. This allows low pressure to drain out of russia undneath the HP and isolate it where it is then able to retrogress to greenland. 

I find it hard to believe that something like this can just so quickly appear out of nowhere. 

Dec 1981

http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/geme_cartes.php?&ech=228&mode=0&carte=1

So, the day everyone seems to have given up hope, CFS and GEM both go for the Beast.  Funny old game this.

Hi Gavin, how would you rate the GEM model when compared to the GFS?

I agree, days on end of cool, grey. gunk is just about the worst weather type i can think of, its mind numbingly dull

I think it depends on the scenario. GFS always seems to be at it's best in westerlies. GEM can be more unseful in more unusual conditions, IMO.

One thing thats interesting wrg GEM/CFS; look at the 0Z ECM at 192h and 216h. The pacific WAA and the atlantic WAA are essentially out of phase, wheras the GEM has them in phase allowing the PV to split. I would guess that in order for the GEM scenario to come off, height rises will have to occur at the same time on both sides of the arctic. Otherwise we would get an isolated Euro and Siberian high rather than HP over scandanavia. On this basis, I would say the GFS solution is perhaps more likely at this stage. 

Well its american and produced by NOAA. Its main purpose is long range weather forecasting from 1 month to 9 months out. It won't be that useful for medium range forecasting. In that sense inferior to GFS/ECM. 

I've been trawling through the archives of analogue years for CET inspiration - the thing I noticed was the rapid switch in conditions in some of these months. Problem is, some of the match dates are late in December so need to look at the January of the next year for pattern continuation and figure. I'm assuming, maybe wrongly, that the same pattern in January will produce colder surface conditions than in December.

Bottom line - themes of the synoptics in the GEM and CFS charts, shown above, figure in a lot of the months I've been looking at - the signal is about 66% in favour of cold - a few for v cold.

That would be funny

 Uncle Barty dont show Q

http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/ecmwf.php?ech=216&mode=1&map=1&archive=0

Temps from GFS IMBY 12z

7c 5c 6c 8c 9c 9c 6c 6c 5c 5c 4c 7c 8c 5c 6c 3 c

Almost a chilly run of temps

Indeed Classic Friday the 13th horror show ,if you like cold 

Not a million miles away from that crazy CFS run GEM offers something of interest in FI:

http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/geme_cartes.php?&ech=240&mode=0&carte=0

I am not sure that the ECM and GFS evolution is nailed on yet...CFS and GEM just might be onto something, if not could be the most boring two weeks of weather since Jan - Mar 2011