For me living in South Devon, the Burn's Day Storm of 25th Jan 1990
was more severe.

In 1987 Teignmouth was just North of the strongest winds.


Here's some comparisons.


1987 Storm (Exeter)
http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/Exeter...1987/38390.htm
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/archive...0119871016.gif
Maximum Sustained Velocity = 48.2 (km/h)
Maximum Gust = 101.9 (km/h)


1990 Storm (Exeter)
http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/Exeter...1990/38390.htm
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/archive...0119900125.gif
Maximum Sustained Velocity = 81.3 (km/h)
Maximum Gust = 137 (km/h)

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:26:23 +0100, "Philip Eden"
philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote:

The one I feel sorry for is the chap who was chief forecaster
at Bracknell on the 15th and who was responsible
(with others) for the guidance supplied to Giles, Fish, and
co,

including the chap who did the midnight forecast on R4
whose name for the moment escapes me...

Hmmm... are you _sure_ his name escapes you?

I listened to that midnight R4 forecast (it was possibly at the end of
the midnight news bulletin, about 0025?) and the cat was well and
truly out of the bag by then.

That midnight forecaster (well known to us in here) was only too well
aware of what was to follow, he reported a 100 mph gust that had just
occurred in the Channel Islands and I am pretty sure that he gave an
accurate forecast of the timescale of the coming carnage - including
the time it would hit London. A lot changed between the 9pm and
midnight forecasts!

Although i was safe and sound in South Cheshire at the time, it
prompted me to stay up for the entire nightand the following morning,
listening to radio and watching TV. It was quite a night, even from
afar!

--
Dave

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:20:00 GMT, "MichaelJP" wrote:


"crazyhorse" wrote in message
roups.com...

Does Michael Fish's explanation work then? Was there an item on the news
about a Florida hurricane, and did a woman from Wales phone in, presumably
misinterpreting the item as being about the UK?

Much as I have sympathy for Michael, he has contributed to his own
continuing difficulties by persistently following the Met Office
line that there was no hurricane. To the man in the street, clearly
there was a hurricane... or at least, an event of hurricane
proportions. If he (or the Met Office) ever took the defence of that
definition to some imaginary Court, they would lose, based on the
principle of "the man on the clapham omnibus" (although there was
certainly no negligence involved).

It is almost irrelevant _which_ hurriicane Michael was referring to. I
accept that he was referring to one out in the mid or Western Atlantic
but he said there wouldn't be one here and to all intents and
purposes, there was one. Admitting that the _forecast_ was wrong is
not enough. Michael and the Met Office should accept that his
statement to the general public that there would be no hurricane was
inadvertently misleading and effectively wrong.

--
Dave

On Oct 17, 12:16 am, Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:20:00 GMT, "MichaelJP" wrote:

"crazyhorse" wrote in message
roups.com...

Does Michael Fish's explanation work then? Was there an item on the news
about a Florida hurricane, and did a woman from Wales phone in, presumably
misinterpreting the item as being about the UK?

Much as I have sympathy for Michael, he has contributed to his own
continuing difficulties by persistently following the Met Office
line that there was no hurricane. To the man in the street, clearly
there was a hurricane... or at least, an event of hurricane
proportions. If he (or the Met Office) ever took the defence of that
definition to some imaginary Court, they would lose, based on the
principle of "the man on the clapham omnibus" (although there was
certainly no negligence involved).

It is almost irrelevant _which_ hurriicane Michael was referring to. I
accept that he was referring to one out in the mid or Western Atlantic
but he said there wouldn't be one here and to all intents and
purposes, there was one. Admitting that the _forecast_ was wrong is
not enough. Michael and the Met Office should accept that his
statement to the general public that there would be no hurricane was
inadvertently misleading and effectively wrong.

--
Dave

Here in Surrey there were a couple of hours of Force 9,
occasionally Force 10. If the Man on the Clapham Omnibus thinks
that's a hurricane he needs an educational trip to the Caribbean, say,
at the appropriate time.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On 16 Oct, 19:17, Paul Bartlett wrote:
In message . com,
Richard Dixon writes



On 16 Oct, 11:20, "MichaelJP" wrote:

Does Michael Fish's explanation work then? Was there an item on the news
about a Florida hurricane, and did a woman from Wales phone in, presumably
misinterpreting the item as being about the UK?

Perhaps a full public enquiry should be launched!- Hide quoted text -

There was never a "woman from Wales" - it was Fish's paraphrasing of a
colleague's mother or something. I feel sorry for Fish's treatment by
the media and their rather selective snipping (sniping?!) of his
"don't worry, there isn't", but some things really stand out to me
from what's been said of late.

1) It's pretty clear that the scale of what was about to happen wasn't
known. If there was a really severe event about to happen as did
happen, then Fish would have started quite sternly and wouldn't have
started with a flippant throw-away comment. He seems to think he was
actually right as he said afterwards (secondary to his "hurricane"
comment) that we were in for some windy weather. I get the impression
that Fish suffers from the common human failing of "inability to admit
when you're wrong" - something that Ian McCaskill did when he held his
hands up when interviewed on the One O'Clock News the following day
(looking rather tired and sweaty IIRC!) and admitted as such.

2) The lack of teamwork from Fish/Giles. Fish did the lunchtime
forecast and had an air of "well I was right, it was Giles you should
be lambasting". The impression distinctly comes across as if Fish did
his forecast at lunchtime and then Giles did his in the evening - it's
almost as if they were separate forecasting entities and not both
representing the same source of information (from Bracknell). It all
smacks of two men with very large egos (unlike the aforemention Mr
McCaskill !).

Richard

I was on duty that night at RAF Cottesmore as S.Met.O. The HQSTC prog
VT 0001 showed a 140KT gradient behind the low as it swung north. The
prog was issued by my mate Jim Lawson, even knocking a bit off for
cyclonic curvature it was damn good. The defence side therefore
suffered no damage.
The fine mess however ran the low up the channel, I was lead to believe
that was because the intervention forecaster at Bracknell had a choice
of two Russian trawlers in Biscay, but they had a 10MB pressure
difference - he chose the wrong one. The reports from Russian trawlers
were always suspect - yet useful. (As I realised when forecasting for
the Falklands war).
Fish et alia were irrelevant - apart from the media.

The "fine mess" - love it, Paul. Interesting to see that strike
command got it right. Which model run was this?

I really must dig out Glenn Shutts' paper to find his conclusions
about a 15km re-run he did in 1990.

Cheers
Richard

In message , paulus
writes

....

Though it was a major cock up, we should remember that even in Fishy's day,
they were first and foremost presenters. If the latest output from the MetO
had been indicating something so nasty was on the horizon I'm sure they
would have given it a slot in the news bulletin and followed with an
extended forecast slot.

Why does old Fishy get it in the neck when the MetO failed?

The tried and tested tradition of shooting the messenger?

--
Peter Thomas

On 16 Oct, 13:26, "Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote:
"Richard Dixon" wrote in message

ups.com...

On 16 Oct, 09:52, "Alan Murphy" wrote:

Interesting thing was that on the lunchtime news
he explained, at some length, that he was referring
to Florida when he made the the 'no hurricane'
remark. On the evening news this explanation was
not forthcoming. Perhaps the BBC did not like the
idea of him publicly impugning their integrity :-)

Fish was also cut off mid-sentence - after the "don't worry, there
isn't" - he also says that we are expecting some very windy weather. I
think it was an error on Fish's part to expect the nation to
distinguish between a hurricane and an extratropical storm. Giles in
my mind was more palpable 6 hours before it happened, if we're looking
into shooting the messenger! I get the impression that Giles v Fish at
the London Weather Centre was a battle of egos given some of their
responses in recent days regarding the incident.

LOL ... I think Bill has always been palpable ... I think you meant
'culpable', or perhaps 'palpably culpable! ...

Having gone through the two reports (MO and Swinnerton-Dyer ...
internal and independent respectively) with a fine-toothed comb
when they came out in 1988, and reminded myself with a rapid
re-reading just now, it's amusing to see how the various
protagonists have gently spun there own stories. And after the
hundreds of retellings they have undoubtedly come to believe their
own spin. Nor should anyone feel sorry for them ... they've lived
off that event for twenty years.

The one I feel sorry for is the chap who was chief forecaster
at Bracknell on the 15th and who was responsible
(with others) for the guidance supplied to Giles, Fish, and
co, including the chap who did the midnight forecast on R4
whose name for the moment escapes me. That chief
forecaster's name never came out, thanks to an excellent closing
of ranks, for his name was attached to the guidance which went
out to dozens of individual users, and I'm not about to reveal it now.
I rather suspect that, if the events were replayed today, his name
would have escaped into the wild before you could say 'cheese'.
However, he soon disappeared from the bench ... whether by
his own volition or pushed by others I have no idea.

Philip

I worked with the Chief Forecaster concerned a few years before. I
have to say I had very little confidence in his ability as a
forecaster......

"Paul Bartlett" wrote in message
...
In message . com, Richard
Dixon writes
On 16 Oct, 11:20, "MichaelJP" wrote:

Does Michael Fish's explanation work then? Was there an item on the news
about a Florida hurricane, and did a woman from Wales phone in,
presumably
misinterpreting the item as being about the UK?

Perhaps a full public enquiry should be launched!- Hide quoted text -

There was never a "woman from Wales" - it was Fish's paraphrasing of a
colleague's mother or something. I feel sorry for Fish's treatment by
the media and their rather selective snipping (sniping?!) of his
"don't worry, there isn't", but some things really stand out to me
from what's been said of late.

1) It's pretty clear that the scale of what was about to happen wasn't
known. If there was a really severe event about to happen as did
happen, then Fish would have started quite sternly and wouldn't have
started with a flippant throw-away comment. He seems to think he was
actually right as he said afterwards (secondary to his "hurricane"
comment) that we were in for some windy weather. I get the impression
that Fish suffers from the common human failing of "inability to admit
when you're wrong" - something that Ian McCaskill did when he held his
hands up when interviewed on the One O'Clock News the following day
(looking rather tired and sweaty IIRC!) and admitted as such.

2) The lack of teamwork from Fish/Giles. Fish did the lunchtime
forecast and had an air of "well I was right, it was Giles you should
be lambasting". The impression distinctly comes across as if Fish did
his forecast at lunchtime and then Giles did his in the evening - it's
almost as if they were separate forecasting entities and not both
representing the same source of information (from Bracknell). It all
smacks of two men with very large egos (unlike the aforemention Mr
McCaskill !).

Richard

I was on duty that night at RAF Cottesmore as S.Met.O. The HQSTC prog VT
0001 showed a 140KT gradient behind the low as it swung north. The prog
was issued by my mate Jim Lawson, even knocking a bit off for cyclonic
curvature it was damn good. The defence side therefore suffered no
damage.
The fine mess however ran the low up the channel, I was lead to believe
that was because the intervention forecaster at Bracknell had a choice of
two Russian trawlers in Biscay, but they had a 10MB pressure difference -
he chose the wrong one. The reports from Russian trawlers were always
suspect - yet useful. (As I realised when forecasting for the Falklands
war).
Fish et alia were irrelevant - apart from the media.
Cheers
Paul

Interesting about the Russian "trawlers", weren't they spy ships and not
actually trawlers at all in those days?

In message , MichaelJP
writes

"Paul Bartlett" wrote in message
...
In message . com, Richard
Dixon writes
On 16 Oct, 11:20, "MichaelJP" wrote:

Does Michael Fish's explanation work then? Was there an item on the news
about a Florida hurricane, and did a woman from Wales phone in,
presumably
misinterpreting the item as being about the UK?

Perhaps a full public enquiry should be launched!- Hide quoted text -

There was never a "woman from Wales" - it was Fish's paraphrasing of a
colleague's mother or something. I feel sorry for Fish's treatment by
the media and their rather selective snipping (sniping?!) of his
"don't worry, there isn't", but some things really stand out to me
from what's been said of late.

1) It's pretty clear that the scale of what was about to happen wasn't
known. If there was a really severe event about to happen as did
happen, then Fish would have started quite sternly and wouldn't have
started with a flippant throw-away comment. He seems to think he was
actually right as he said afterwards (secondary to his "hurricane"
comment) that we were in for some windy weather. I get the impression
that Fish suffers from the common human failing of "inability to admit
when you're wrong" - something that Ian McCaskill did when he held his
hands up when interviewed on the One O'Clock News the following day
(looking rather tired and sweaty IIRC!) and admitted as such.

2) The lack of teamwork from Fish/Giles. Fish did the lunchtime
forecast and had an air of "well I was right, it was Giles you should
be lambasting". The impression distinctly comes across as if Fish did
his forecast at lunchtime and then Giles did his in the evening - it's
almost as if they were separate forecasting entities and not both
representing the same source of information (from Bracknell). It all
smacks of two men with very large egos (unlike the aforemention Mr
McCaskill !).

Richard

I was on duty that night at RAF Cottesmore as S.Met.O. The HQSTC prog VT
0001 showed a 140KT gradient behind the low as it swung north. The prog
was issued by my mate Jim Lawson, even knocking a bit off for cyclonic
curvature it was damn good. The defence side therefore suffered no
damage.
The fine mess however ran the low up the channel, I was lead to believe
that was because the intervention forecaster at Bracknell had a choice of
two Russian trawlers in Biscay, but they had a 10MB pressure difference -
he chose the wrong one. The reports from Russian trawlers were always
suspect - yet useful. (As I realised when forecasting for the Falklands
war).
Fish et alia were irrelevant - apart from the media.
Cheers
Paul

Interesting about the Russian "trawlers", weren't they spy ships and not
actually trawlers at all in those days?


They all commissar on them, they were both loyal to the USSR by force.
So why did they let their invaluable information on the WMO net?

They also had female commissar which a friend of mine had an enjoyable
friendship with, his Russian pillow talk is now very good. But that was
after hostilities .
Cheers
Paul
--
'Wisest are they that know they do not know.' Socrates.
Paul Bartlett FRMetS
www.rutnet.co.uk Go to local weather.
400FT AMSL 25Miles southwest of the Wash

In message . com,
BlueLightning writes
The ITV program on the Storm, has already come out with

"This storm was more powerful and larger than a hurricane"

A minimal cat one maybe, but try telling that to the people who went
through Katrina

Most north Atlantic lows are bigger and more powerful than hurricanes.
Wind speeds in hurricanes are often high though. There was a lot of
very warm tropical air involved in this system though, with
consequential heavy rain in the evening loosening the ground - and then
the 0001 winds, so down came the trees which were still in leaf.
Cheers
Paul
--
'Wisest are they that know they do not know.' Socrates.
Paul Bartlett FRMetS
www.rutnet.co.uk Go to local weather.
400FT AMSL 25Miles southwest of the Wash