In article ,
Graham writes:



This may be a case of forecast something often enough, then
when it eventually happens they can claim 100% accuracy?

My thoughts exactly, we get plenty of snow warnings through a
winter and most fall by the wayside but then one comes of and it's
what a great forecast.
People then soon forget about the previous warnings that
produced little or nothing, bit like next week I feel, at least here

Surely the purpose of warnings is to alert people to the /possibility/
that the event might occur in enough time for them to alter their plans
if that seems advisable. If a warning was only issued when the
probability was close to 100%, then you can bet that people would
complain about the occasions when severe conditions occurred without
sufficient warning.

If you click on the + to show the "warning assessment" on the page that
Col linked to, you will see that there is a matrix covering the range
of possible likelihoods and impacts (much like is often done for risk
assessments in the H&S field). Foe example, the risk of icy conditions
in the south tonight is shown as being at the third of the four
likelihood categories and the second of the four impact categories,
which rates a yellow warning.
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde

In article ,
willie eckerslike writes:
If you look closely at the warnings areas, you will see that the
great swathe covering S and SW England is for ice and not snow.

Well, there's a novelty. Ice in January, at night.
snip

But wet roads and pavements freezing can create very dangerous
conditions. A frost after a dry day isn't much of a problem, but a frost
following a wet one is.
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
willie eckerslike writes:
If you look closely at the warnings areas, you will see that the
great swathe covering S and SW England is for ice and not snow.

Well, there's a novelty. Ice in January, at night.
snip

But wet roads and pavements freezing can create very dangerous
conditions. A frost after a dry day isn't much of a problem, but a frost
following a wet one is.

Indeed John. Also not all roads are treated. (We don't have pavements up
here). Tomorrow morning my B road will be treated but I have to be at my
walk venue by 0930 and none of the roads en-route will be gritted. They will
be *very* icy as everywhere here is still soaking wet and saturated with the
rain still falling, so it will be a slow and careful drive. I'm used to
driving on ice but many folk aren't. I'm also going to take a detour to
avoid a road with a 200 foot drop if you skid off. That's the "white
knuckle" road in wintry weather.

Will
--

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:05:54 +0000
John Hall wrote:

In article ,
willie eckerslike writes:
If you look closely at the warnings areas, you will see that the
great swathe covering S and SW England is for ice and not snow.

Well, there's a novelty. Ice in January, at night.
snip

But wet roads and pavements freezing can create very dangerous
conditions. A frost after a dry day isn't much of a problem, but a
frost following a wet one is.

I'd generally agree but I've got into a skid a couple of times on hoar
frost. One was a four-wheeler but that was exacerbated by rear disks
misbehaving. Quite an interesting experience, just sitting there with
feet off the pedals and arms folded waiting for the car to stop
spinning whilst hoping that the single-track country road would remain
clear of other traffic.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
Time flies like an arrow but fruit flies like a banana. [Marx]

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:05:54 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
In article ,

willie eckerslike writes:

If you look closely at the warnings areas, you will see that the

great swathe covering S and SW England is for ice and not snow.



Well, there's a novelty. Ice in January, at night.

snip



But wet roads and pavements freezing can create very dangerous

conditions. A frost after a dry day isn't much of a problem, but a frost

following a wet one is.


I know this, you know this - and I suspect that many millions of other people know this.

Is it necessary to have blanket warnings for half the country, just to tell people what they know? Just so that the media can have a "field day" exaggerating everything to extremes?

Sorry, I know that I am being a kind of Devils Advocate here, but do not the proliferation of ordinary warnings reduce the impact of severe warnings?

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 04:03:25 -0800 (PST), willie eckerslike
wrote:

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:05:54 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
In article ,


But wet roads and pavements freezing can create very dangerous

conditions. A frost after a dry day isn't much of a problem, but a frost

following a wet one is.


I know this, you know this - and I suspect that many millions of other people know this.

Is it necessary to have blanket warnings for half the country, just to tell people what they know? Just so that the media can have a "field day" exaggerating everything to extremes?

Sorry, I know that I am being a kind of Devils Advocate here, but do not the proliferation of ordinary warnings reduce the impact of severe warnings?

Half the problem is that the yellow awareness 'warnings' aren't really
warnings at all, they are just "keep an eye on tomorrow's forecast"
bulletins. They should call them something less dramatic than warnings
IMO, to lessen the "cry wolf" syndrome.

--
Dave
Fareham

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:10:38 PM UTC, Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 04:03:25 -0800 (PST), willie eckerslike


Is it necessary to have blanket warnings for half the country, just to tell people what they know? Just so that the media can have a "field day" exaggerating everything to extremes?



Sorry, I know that I am being a kind of Devils Advocate here, but do not the proliferation of ordinary warnings reduce the impact of severe warnings?



Half the problem is that the yellow awareness 'warnings' aren't really

warnings at all, they are just "keep an eye on tomorrow's forecast"

bulletins. They should call them something less dramatic than warnings

IMO, to lessen the "cry wolf" syndrome.




The problem they would have with calling them 'advisories' or some other such name, is that no one would take any notice of them, and they would be accused of "nanny-ing" the public.

Although from what I have witnessed on previous occasions, only a small percentage of the public take notice of even the severe weather warnings, and still try to carry on as normal in blizzards, black ice and/or freezing fog.

In my day, for car travel in snow/ice conditions we were taught to remember the five S's - Soup, Shovel, Sack, Sleeping bag and above all Slow down.

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 04:03:25 -0800 (PST), willie eckerslike
wrote:

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:05:54 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
In article ,


But wet roads and pavements freezing can create very dangerous

conditions. A frost after a dry day isn't much of a problem, but a frost

following a wet one is.


I know this, you know this - and I suspect that many millions of other
people know this.

Is it necessary to have blanket warnings for half the country, just to
tell people what they know? Just so that the media can have a "field day"
exaggerating everything to extremes?

Sorry, I know that I am being a kind of Devils Advocate here, but do not
the proliferation of ordinary warnings reduce the impact of severe
warnings?

Half the problem is that the yellow awareness 'warnings' aren't really
warnings at all, they are just "keep an eye on tomorrow's forecast"
bulletins. They should call them something less dramatic than warnings
IMO, to lessen the "cry wolf" syndrome.


I agree. Alerts would be better. But hey, I said so at the time they were
being re-vamped but the powers that be go their own merry way usually :-(
They justify it by saying that they have "stakeholder agreement", whatever
that really means!

Will
--

On 12/01/2013 16:59, Eskimo Will wrote:

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 04:03:25 -0800 (PST), willie eckerslike
wrote:

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:05:54 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
In article ,


But wet roads and pavements freezing can create very dangerous

conditions. A frost after a dry day isn't much of a problem, but a
frost

following a wet one is.


I know this, you know this - and I suspect that many millions of
other people know this.

Is it necessary to have blanket warnings for half the country, just
to tell people what they know? Just so that the media can have a
"field day" exaggerating everything to extremes?

Sorry, I know that I am being a kind of Devils Advocate here, but do
not the proliferation of ordinary warnings reduce the impact of
severe warnings?

Half the problem is that the yellow awareness 'warnings' aren't really
warnings at all, they are just "keep an eye on tomorrow's forecast"
bulletins. They should call them something less dramatic than warnings
IMO, to lessen the "cry wolf" syndrome.


I agree. Alerts would be better. But hey, I said so at the time they
were being re-vamped but the powers that be go their own merry way
usually :-( They justify it by saying that they have "stakeholder
agreement", whatever that really means!

It means they want promotion and have to use certain terms a particular
number of times a day. It is their way of showing membership of the clique.

The workers can then play management bingo. The first person to spot a
certain number of management speak words, wins the pot.


--
Howard Neil

"Howard Neil" wrote in message
...
On 12/01/2013 16:59, Eskimo Will wrote:

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 04:03:25 -0800 (PST), willie eckerslike
wrote:

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 11:05:54 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
In article ,


But wet roads and pavements freezing can create very dangerous

conditions. A frost after a dry day isn't much of a problem, but a
frost

following a wet one is.


I know this, you know this - and I suspect that many millions of
other people know this.

Is it necessary to have blanket warnings for half the country, just
to tell people what they know? Just so that the media can have a
"field day" exaggerating everything to extremes?

Sorry, I know that I am being a kind of Devils Advocate here, but do
not the proliferation of ordinary warnings reduce the impact of
severe warnings?

Half the problem is that the yellow awareness 'warnings' aren't really
warnings at all, they are just "keep an eye on tomorrow's forecast"
bulletins. They should call them something less dramatic than warnings
IMO, to lessen the "cry wolf" syndrome.


I agree. Alerts would be better. But hey, I said so at the time they
were being re-vamped but the powers that be go their own merry way
usually :-( They justify it by saying that they have "stakeholder
agreement", whatever that really means!

It means they want promotion and have to use certain terms a particular
number of times a day. It is their way of showing membership of the
clique.

The workers can then play management bingo. The first person to spot a
certain number of management speak words, wins the pot.


LOL so true in the modern Met Office.

We have, for example:
Stakeholder engagement
Taking the checkpoint forward
Getting ahead of the curve
Going forward (mandatory - to be used several times in any document)
Staff buy in
Resource (meaning staff) utilisation
Going the extra mile
Morph seamlessly
Aggregate vertically
Stay at the bleeding edge
Paradigm shift
Run the topic up the flagpole to see who salutes it
..... etc etc etc

All ******** of course!

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------