where?

probably in your warped mind



On 08/11/2010 8:20 PM, Dawlish wrote:


There were many warnings and a lot of talk about a "potentially
dangerous" system.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 21:05:57 +0000, terylene wrote:

There were many warnings and a lot of talk about a "potentially
dangerous" system.

where?

The early warning on the met office site about 5 days ago had words
to that effect.

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL.

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice writes:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 21:05:57 +0000, terylene wrote:

There were many warnings and a lot of talk about a "potentially
dangerous" system.

where?

The early warning on the met office site about 5 days ago had words
to that effect.

Surely five days in advance it was perfectly reasonable, indeed prudent,
to flag up the potential for dangerous conditions? The depression did
turn out to be an unusually deep one, though without in the event quite
the destructiveness that might well have resulted from such an intense
feature.
--
John Hall
"I look upon it, that he who does not mind his belly,
will hardly mind anything else."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84)

i doubt the met said "dangerous"



On 08/11/2010 9:22 PM, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 21:05:57 +0000, terylene wrote:

There were many warnings and a lot of talk about a "potentially
dangerous" system.

where?

The early warning on the met office site about 5 days ago had words
to that effect.

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL.

John Hall wrote in
:

Surely five days in advance it was perfectly reasonable, indeed
prudent,
to flag up the potential for dangerous conditions? The depression did
turn out to be an unusually deep one, though without in the event
quite the destructiveness that might well have resulted from such an
intense feature.

One glance at the ECMWF ensembles at those timescales would have
justified it.

Richard

Col wrote:
You've probably got to look pretty hard for lying English snow that
that is accessible by road, but here's some at the Cat& Fiddle pub
at 515m asl.

http://www.maccinfo.com/cat/

The road was apparently closed to lorries earlier today.

Nothing on Winter Hill above Bolton (and I took a good hard look),
which is 456m so not quite high enough on this occaison.

I think today was one of those days that was meteorological
unusual given the track of the low and the central pressure
reading rather than any really unusual weather conditions.
Sure, it was wet, windy, cold, raw and very unpleasant but
nothing that the general public would think of as being
anything out of the ordinary for this time of year.

---------------------
Nothing too remarkable down here Col, less windy and not as wet as I had
expected. I didn't quite get my record low but it was noticeably colder
than I expected.Temp was 5C at midday and remained below 6C all day so
I'm not surprised there was snow on higher ground up your way.
Dave

terylene wrote in news:ib9s6n$pa9$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

i doubt the met said "dangerous"

Will got moderately exciteable so it probably was a par-for-the-course
storm.

Sorry Will!

Richard

On Nov 8, 9:22*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 21:05:57 +0000, terylene wrote:
There were many warnings and a lot of talk about a "potentially
dangerous" system.

where?

The early warning on the met office site about 5 days ago had words
to that effect.

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL.

And Lyneside, Dave. Someone else remembers. Last week's merchant of
non-outcome doom was Jon. I don't mean the MetO. Again they seemed to
get this reasonably correct. I suppose it's the old forecasting
chestut that has been discussed many times on here and the ECM
ensembles will often flag something up at 5 days which doesn't happen:
if you over-forecast, you'll never be wrong, as once in a while,
you'll be correct and then all will be well. The Met Office themselves
are terribly guilty, via the severe warnings pages - again, something
that has been highlighted many times by a range of people on here.

"Better safe than sorry" is the forecasting maxim these days. It
doesn't lead to good forecasting, generally and the cry of wolf from
forecasters has been heard so many times the echo from the last one
has not disappeared by the time the next one comes around.

On Nov 9, 7:18*am, Dawlish wrote:


"Better safe than sorry" is the forecasting maxim these days.

No it isn't, and frankly, if you'll forgive me, that's a pretty unfair
swipe at professional meteorologists. We are as unhappy with an over-
forecast as an under-forecast, and verification is unforgiving of any
pessimistic or optimistic bias.

I would agree that there might be a problem with the presentation of
severe weather warnings, but the Met Office are obliged to warn of
severe weather within the preset regions even if only one or two
locations therein are expected to suffer (correct me if I'm wrong, Met
Office people). I sense that some criticism emanates from preceived
inaccuracy simply because not everywhere within the warning area
experiences the forecast conditions ("well, we didn't get a heavy snow
shower at our house").

Stephen.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:05:13 +0000, terylene wrote:

There were many warnings and a lot of talk about a "potentially
dangerous" system.

where?

The early warning on the met office site about 5 days ago had
words
to that effect.

i doubt the met said "dangerous"

I'd almost put money on that word being used. I'm not a betting man
unless the odds are in my favour...

Does the met off ice have the Early Warnings or Advisories archived
some where?

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL.