So, how did it fare ..... here is the original Advanced Warning posted
here last Wednesday:

" Here is an ADVANCED WARNING of Heavy Snow affecting Northern Scotland,
Eastern Scotland, North
East England, South East England and East Anglia AND Lincolnshire.
Issued by the Met Office at 10:29 on Wednesday, 17 December 2003.

Strong northerly winds are forecast by the Met Office to bring frequent
and
blustery snow showers on Sunday, particularly to Northern and Eastern
coastal counties.
There is a good deal of doubt regarding the severity of the weather but
there is the potential
on Sunday for heavy snow showers to be driven well inland from the east
coast on the strong to
gale force northeasterly winds. Several cm of snow is possible locally
with some
drifting which could lead to widespread disruption to transport.
Transmitted by the Met Office. at 10:29 on Wednesday 17 December"

Looking at the traffic reports and listening to the radio (2 and 5) this
morning, this warning seems to have worked out very well. The
accompanying % probability map (not shown here) indicated 40-50%
probability of disruption: given the long lead time, this was
*excellent* guidance and enabled people to plan well ahead.

Several roads are currently blocked, or PWC, due combination of
snow/ice/frozen slush in the areas mentioned above.

Note, however, that this (and subsequent) warnings did not promise a
'white hell' for the entire country. The Met Office are not to be blamed
for that: this is a 'media' problem (& I include the BBC - they are no
better), not a Met Office problem. Once the warning is issued, it is
very difficult to control how it is interpreted & presented.

To give an example, on the day that the range-rover/trailer rig crashed
onto the East Coast main line, GM-TV wanted a 'live' broadcast looking
for snow! They rang me up the previous day and asked where they should
position cameras etc. Despite my patiently explaining the fact that
there were problems with deciding exactly when, where and how much etc.,
and that was reflected in the forecast, the researcher I was talking to
was absolutely clueless about the difficulty - on the morning, the
camera rig was set up in areas to the west of Leeds; hopefully the
altitude would help. As it happened, as soon as the accident news came
through, the OB team high-tailed it down the M62 to cover that story.

There are many, many stories like that: the media teams that are put on
a weather story (often 'cub' teams cutting their teeth) want a story! It
gathers a momentum of its own, and we end up with the entire country on
standby for acres of snow!

Don't confuse the media hype with the outcome - there was *never* any
indication of significant snowfall away from the areas outlined in the
various warnings.

.... and if anyone suggests I am trying to promote the Met Office because
I used to work for them: I am! It is because I *know* the difficulties
of this situation in an operational environment: the doubts,
uncertainties, the fact that the models are NOT perfect, the fact that
the public will misinterpret the forecasts and warning, that I can
recognise that this was a first-class job.

Martin.

--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm

Martin Rowley wrote:
So, how did it fare .....

Need to know who got snow who did not and how much.

No snow here 8 miles south of Leeds, but perhaps that is unsurprising.
But we were within the shaded area for snow.

GMTV was a bit over the top about the snow this morning "Martin Rowley"
wrote in message
...
So, how did it fare ..... here is the original Advanced Warning posted
here last Wednesday:

" Here is an ADVANCED WARNING of Heavy Snow affecting Northern Scotland,
Eastern Scotland, North
East England, South East England and East Anglia AND Lincolnshire.
Issued by the Met Office at 10:29 on Wednesday, 17 December 2003.

Strong northerly winds are forecast by the Met Office to bring frequent
and
blustery snow showers on Sunday, particularly to Northern and Eastern
coastal counties.
There is a good deal of doubt regarding the severity of the weather but
there is the potential
on Sunday for heavy snow showers to be driven well inland from the east
coast on the strong to
gale force northeasterly winds. Several cm of snow is possible locally
with some
drifting which could lead to widespread disruption to transport.
Transmitted by the Met Office. at 10:29 on Wednesday 17 December"

Looking at the traffic reports and listening to the radio (2 and 5) this
morning, this warning seems to have worked out very well. The
accompanying % probability map (not shown here) indicated 40-50%
probability of disruption: given the long lead time, this was
*excellent* guidance and enabled people to plan well ahead.

Several roads are currently blocked, or PWC, due combination of
snow/ice/frozen slush in the areas mentioned above.

Note, however, that this (and subsequent) warnings did not promise a
'white hell' for the entire country. The Met Office are not to be blamed
for that: this is a 'media' problem (& I include the BBC - they are no
better), not a Met Office problem. Once the warning is issued, it is
very difficult to control how it is interpreted & presented.

To give an example, on the day that the range-rover/trailer rig crashed
onto the East Coast main line, GM-TV wanted a 'live' broadcast looking
for snow! They rang me up the previous day and asked where they should
position cameras etc. Despite my patiently explaining the fact that
there were problems with deciding exactly when, where and how much etc.,
and that was reflected in the forecast, the researcher I was talking to
was absolutely clueless about the difficulty - on the morning, the
camera rig was set up in areas to the west of Leeds; hopefully the
altitude would help. As it happened, as soon as the accident news came
through, the OB team high-tailed it down the M62 to cover that story.

There are many, many stories like that: the media teams that are put on
a weather story (often 'cub' teams cutting their teeth) want a story! It
gathers a momentum of its own, and we end up with the entire country on
standby for acres of snow!

Don't confuse the media hype with the outcome - there was *never* any
indication of significant snowfall away from the areas outlined in the
various warnings.

... and if anyone suggests I am trying to promote the Met Office because
I used to work for them: I am! It is because I *know* the difficulties
of this situation in an operational environment: the doubts,
uncertainties, the fact that the models are NOT perfect, the fact that
the public will misinterpret the forecasts and warning, that I can
recognise that this was a first-class job.

Martin.

--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm

--
Dave in Ferryhill, Co. Durham, UK. For webcam, look to
http://www.napier.eclipse.co.uk/weather/sample.htm
"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
So, how did it fare ..... here is the original Advanced Warning posted
here last Wednesday:

" Here is an ADVANCED WARNING of Heavy Snow affecting Northern Scotland,
Eastern Scotland, North
East England, South East England and East Anglia AND Lincolnshire.
Issued by the Met Office at 10:29 on Wednesday, 17 December 2003.

Strong northerly winds are forecast by the Met Office to bring frequent
and
blustery snow showers on Sunday, particularly to Northern and Eastern
coastal counties.
There is a good deal of doubt regarding the severity of the weather but
there is the potential
on Sunday for heavy snow showers to be driven well inland from the east
coast on the strong to
gale force northeasterly winds. Several cm of snow is possible locally
with some
drifting which could lead to widespread disruption to transport.
Transmitted by the Met Office. at 10:29 on Wednesday 17 December"

Looking at the traffic reports and listening to the radio (2 and 5) this
morning, this warning seems to have worked out very well. The
accompanying % probability map (not shown here) indicated 40-50%
probability of disruption: given the long lead time, this was
*excellent* guidance and enabled people to plan well ahead.

Several roads are currently blocked, or PWC, due combination of
snow/ice/frozen slush in the areas mentioned above.

Note, however, that this (and subsequent) warnings did not promise a
'white hell' for the entire country. The Met Office are not to be blamed
for that: this is a 'media' problem (& I include the BBC - they are no
better), not a Met Office problem. Once the warning is issued, it is
very difficult to control how it is interpreted & presented.

To give an example, on the day that the range-rover/trailer rig crashed
onto the East Coast main line, GM-TV wanted a 'live' broadcast looking
for snow! They rang me up the previous day and asked where they should
position cameras etc. Despite my patiently explaining the fact that
there were problems with deciding exactly when, where and how much etc.,
and that was reflected in the forecast, the researcher I was talking to
was absolutely clueless about the difficulty - on the morning, the
camera rig was set up in areas to the west of Leeds; hopefully the
altitude would help. As it happened, as soon as the accident news came
through, the OB team high-tailed it down the M62 to cover that story.

There are many, many stories like that: the media teams that are put on
a weather story (often 'cub' teams cutting their teeth) want a story! It
gathers a momentum of its own, and we end up with the entire country on
standby for acres of snow!

Don't confuse the media hype with the outcome - there was *never* any
indication of significant snowfall away from the areas outlined in the
various warnings.

... and if anyone suggests I am trying to promote the Met Office because
I used to work for them: I am! It is because I *know* the difficulties
of this situation in an operational environment: the doubts,
uncertainties, the fact that the models are NOT perfect, the fact that
the public will misinterpret the forecasts and warning, that I can
recognise that this was a first-class job.

Martin.

--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm



I hear what you're saying Martin, but the Met Office have perpetrated their
own hype by issuing the warnings they did yesterday. I quote :

"AFFECTING Northumberland, Durham, Tyne and Wear and Teesside.

Frequent snow showers overnight will give local falls of up to 15cm in Tyne
and Wear, Teesside and eastern parts of Durham and Northumberland. Temporary
blizzards are likely as the northerly wind gives gusts to 60mph in exposed
places causing some severe drifting. Driving conditions will become
dangerous and icy stretches will also form on roads.

Issued by the Met Office, Manchester.

Issued on: Sunday 21 December, 2003 at 17:02

Expires on: Monday 22 December, 2003 at 09:00"



This is just the warning for my area. Similar, or more dramatic warnings
were in force in other areas. The areas at risk were outlined on the map on
TV yesterday afternoon. From the local conditions 'observed' I could see
that the only areas with significant snow in quantities the warnings talked
about were the North York Moors. The wind blew everything down the North Sea
because there was no North Easterly component driving the showers inland.
Watching the radar, I could see the showers were marching down the North Sea
and NOT coming inland other than in areas that are exposed to the North.

The Met Office/BBC are forecasting for the public, not people on a uk
weather group. I think the public will interpret this as a damp squib as
they'll say widespread snow was promised and none arrived. Remember 6" of
snow is mentioned here. I have a light dusting in a Very High risk area and
that shower didn't happen until about 3 am this morning.

I'd be interested in any reports of anyone who has snow in the quantities
forecast. I don't think there'll be many.

I reckon this advance forecast was one of the Met Office's better efforts -
well done. Martins comments are absolutely right. It is obvious from some
of last nights postings here that some people are only reading what they
want to hear, i.e. the scare-mongering 'news' output rather than the real
Met Office forecast. 'Roads blocked today' is probably more likely to be
due to a skidded vehicle that actual depth of snow in this area. We
currently have around one cm of lying snow here, 5 miles to the south of RAF
Honington in Suffolk.
I do wonder how the Met Office knows what the lying snow situation actually
is to verify their (good) forecast, as all the complete Military
observations which include snow depth reports seem to cease from last week
for the holiday. I cant find any useful chart showing complete lying snow
reports for UK.

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
So, how did it fare ..... here is the original Advanced Warning posted
here last Wednesday:

" Here is an ADVANCED WARNING of Heavy Snow affecting Northern Scotland,
Eastern Scotland, North
East England, South East England and East Anglia AND Lincolnshire.
Issued by the Met Office at 10:29 on Wednesday, 17 December 2003.

Strong northerly winds are forecast by the Met Office to bring frequent
and
blustery snow showers on Sunday, particularly to Northern and Eastern
coastal counties.
There is a good deal of doubt regarding the severity of the weather but
there is the potential
on Sunday for heavy snow showers to be driven well inland from the east
coast on the strong to
gale force northeasterly winds. Several cm of snow is possible locally
with some
drifting which could lead to widespread disruption to transport.
Transmitted by the Met Office. at 10:29 on Wednesday 17 December"

Looking at the traffic reports and listening to the radio (2 and 5) this
morning, this warning seems to have worked out very well. The
accompanying % probability map (not shown here) indicated 40-50%
probability of disruption: given the long lead time, this was
*excellent* guidance and enabled people to plan well ahead.

Several roads are currently blocked, or PWC, due combination of
snow/ice/frozen slush in the areas mentioned above.

Note, however, that this (and subsequent) warnings did not promise a
'white hell' for the entire country. The Met Office are not to be blamed
for that: this is a 'media' problem (& I include the BBC - they are no
better), not a Met Office problem. Once the warning is issued, it is
very difficult to control how it is interpreted & presented.

To give an example, on the day that the range-rover/trailer rig crashed
onto the East Coast main line, GM-TV wanted a 'live' broadcast looking
for snow! They rang me up the previous day and asked where they should
position cameras etc. Despite my patiently explaining the fact that
there were problems with deciding exactly when, where and how much etc.,
and that was reflected in the forecast, the researcher I was talking to
was absolutely clueless about the difficulty - on the morning, the
camera rig was set up in areas to the west of Leeds; hopefully the
altitude would help. As it happened, as soon as the accident news came
through, the OB team high-tailed it down the M62 to cover that story.

There are many, many stories like that: the media teams that are put on
a weather story (often 'cub' teams cutting their teeth) want a story! It
gathers a momentum of its own, and we end up with the entire country on
standby for acres of snow!

Don't confuse the media hype with the outcome - there was *never* any
indication of significant snowfall away from the areas outlined in the
various warnings.

... and if anyone suggests I am trying to promote the Met Office because
I used to work for them: I am! It is because I *know* the difficulties
of this situation in an operational environment: the doubts,
uncertainties, the fact that the models are NOT perfect, the fact that
the public will misinterpret the forecasts and warning, that I can
recognise that this was a first-class job.

Martin.

--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm

Like you Martin most of the group members would, I'm sure ,agree with your
sentiments re media hype ,unfortunately cub reporters are, like the poor,
'always with us'.
The point though which most pundits seem to have ignore is that bit in the
original warning 'driven on by strong NORTHEAST WINDS. surely that's where
the forecast went somewhat wrong !
Most places seem to have had persistent North Westerlies,including Eastern
England ,and by definition they diverted the showers away rather than inland
..
In our part of the world, down here in the SouthEast there always seems to
be the tendency for the wind to hold west of north until the Spring months
,unless of course the controlling High is north of us..
If the forecasters mentioned the relevance of the wind direction from time
to time in their broadcasts even The Sun readers could grasp that ,but how
we persuade Auntie is another matter......

RonB.
"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
So, how did it fare ..... here is the original Advanced Warning posted
here last Wednesday:

" Here is an ADVANCED WARNING of Heavy Snow affecting Northern Scotland,
Eastern Scotland, North
East England, South East England and East Anglia AND Lincolnshire.
Issued by the Met Office at 10:29 on Wednesday, 17 December 2003.

Strong northerly winds are forecast by the Met Office to bring frequent
and
blustery snow showers on Sunday, particularly to Northern and Eastern
coastal counties.
There is a good deal of doubt regarding the severity of the weather but
there is the potential
on Sunday for heavy snow showers to be driven well inland from the east
coast on the strong to
gale force northeasterly winds. Several cm of snow is possible locally
with some
drifting which could lead to widespread disruption to transport.
Transmitted by the Met Office. at 10:29 on Wednesday 17 December"

Looking at the traffic reports and listening to the radio (2 and 5) this
morning, this warning seems to have worked out very well. The
accompanying % probability map (not shown here) indicated 40-50%
probability of disruption: given the long lead time, this was
*excellent* guidance and enabled people to plan well ahead.

Several roads are currently blocked, or PWC, due combination of
snow/ice/frozen slush in the areas mentioned above.

Note, however, that this (and subsequent) warnings did not promise a
'white hell' for the entire country. The Met Office are not to be blamed
for that: this is a 'media' problem (& I include the BBC - they are no
better), not a Met Office problem. Once the warning is issued, it is
very difficult to control how it is interpreted & presented.

To give an example, on the day that the range-rover/trailer rig crashed
onto the East Coast main line, GM-TV wanted a 'live' broadcast looking
for snow! They rang me up the previous day and asked where they should
position cameras etc. Despite my patiently explaining the fact that
there were problems with deciding exactly when, where and how much etc.,
and that was reflected in the forecast, the researcher I was talking to
was absolutely clueless about the difficulty - on the morning, the
camera rig was set up in areas to the west of Leeds; hopefully the
altitude would help. As it happened, as soon as the accident news came
through, the OB team high-tailed it down the M62 to cover that story.

There are many, many stories like that: the media teams that are put on
a weather story (often 'cub' teams cutting their teeth) want a story! It
gathers a momentum of its own, and we end up with the entire country on
standby for acres of snow!

Don't confuse the media hype with the outcome - there was *never* any
indication of significant snowfall away from the areas outlined in the
various warnings.

... and if anyone suggests I am trying to promote the Met Office because
I used to work for them: I am! It is because I *know* the difficulties
of this situation in an operational environment: the doubts,
uncertainties, the fact that the models are NOT perfect, the fact that
the public will misinterpret the forecasts and warning, that I can
recognise that this was a first-class job.

Martin.

--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm

"Richard" wrote in message ...
| Martin Rowley wrote:
| So, how did it fare .....
|
| Need to know who got snow who did not and how much.
|
| No snow here 8 miles south of Leeds, but perhaps that is unsurprising.
| But we were within the shaded area for snow.

LOL ! The shaded area for 40-50 % chance of snow !? That also means
there's no chance of snow. Some people, oh dear...........

Joe

Like you Ron, I don't think the forecast was particularly good. All eastern
counties would need winds being from the East side of North to give the
forecast any credence. They didn't get out of the North West all day, and
with pressure building all the while the influence of the Low would surely
dwindle. The showers were carried down the North Sea. This could clearly be
seen on radar. The wind direction was crucial to these forecasts and they
got it wrong.

I'd like to hear from anyone who got the amounts of snow mentioned in the
warnings. Mine mentioned up to 15cm of snow for East Durham. I consider
myself in East Durham (15 miles inland) but have had only a light dusting of
snow. The only report of significant snow up here is on the North York Moors
which wuld be expected in any Northerly snow situation.

In my opinion, they forecast based on a North Easterly wind, which just
didn't happen.
--
Dave in Ferryhill, Co. Durham, UK. For webcam, look to
http://www.napier.eclipse.co.uk/weather/sample.htm

"Ron Button" wrote in message
...
Like you Martin most of the group members would, I'm sure ,agree with your
sentiments re media hype ,unfortunately cub reporters are, like the poor,
'always with us'.
The point though which most pundits seem to have ignore is that bit in
the
original warning 'driven on by strong NORTHEAST WINDS. surely that's where
the forecast went somewhat wrong !
Most places seem to have had persistent North Westerlies,including Eastern
England ,and by definition they diverted the showers away rather than
inland
.
In our part of the world, down here in the SouthEast there always seems
to
be the tendency for the wind to hold west of north until the Spring months
,unless of course the controlling High is north of us..
If the forecasters mentioned the relevance of the wind direction from time
to time in their broadcasts even The Sun readers could grasp that ,but how
we persuade Auntie is another matter......

RonB.
"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
So, how did it fare ..... here is the original Advanced Warning posted
here last Wednesday:

" Here is an ADVANCED WARNING of Heavy Snow affecting Northern Scotland,
Eastern Scotland, North
East England, South East England and East Anglia AND Lincolnshire.
Issued by the Met Office at 10:29 on Wednesday, 17 December 2003.

Strong northerly winds are forecast by the Met Office to bring frequent
and
blustery snow showers on Sunday, particularly to Northern and Eastern
coastal counties.
There is a good deal of doubt regarding the severity of the weather but
there is the potential
on Sunday for heavy snow showers to be driven well inland from the east
coast on the strong to
gale force northeasterly winds. Several cm of snow is possible locally
with some
drifting which could lead to widespread disruption to transport.
Transmitted by the Met Office. at 10:29 on Wednesday 17 December"

Looking at the traffic reports and listening to the radio (2 and 5) this
morning, this warning seems to have worked out very well. The
accompanying % probability map (not shown here) indicated 40-50%
probability of disruption: given the long lead time, this was
*excellent* guidance and enabled people to plan well ahead.

Several roads are currently blocked, or PWC, due combination of
snow/ice/frozen slush in the areas mentioned above.

Note, however, that this (and subsequent) warnings did not promise a
'white hell' for the entire country. The Met Office are not to be blamed
for that: this is a 'media' problem (& I include the BBC - they are no
better), not a Met Office problem. Once the warning is issued, it is
very difficult to control how it is interpreted & presented.

To give an example, on the day that the range-rover/trailer rig crashed
onto the East Coast main line, GM-TV wanted a 'live' broadcast looking
for snow! They rang me up the previous day and asked where they should
position cameras etc. Despite my patiently explaining the fact that
there were problems with deciding exactly when, where and how much etc.,
and that was reflected in the forecast, the researcher I was talking to
was absolutely clueless about the difficulty - on the morning, the
camera rig was set up in areas to the west of Leeds; hopefully the
altitude would help. As it happened, as soon as the accident news came
through, the OB team high-tailed it down the M62 to cover that story.

There are many, many stories like that: the media teams that are put on
a weather story (often 'cub' teams cutting their teeth) want a story! It
gathers a momentum of its own, and we end up with the entire country on
standby for acres of snow!

Don't confuse the media hype with the outcome - there was *never* any
indication of significant snowfall away from the areas outlined in the
various warnings.

... and if anyone suggests I am trying to promote the Met Office because
I used to work for them: I am! It is because I *know* the difficulties
of this situation in an operational environment: the doubts,
uncertainties, the fact that the models are NOT perfect, the fact that
the public will misinterpret the forecasts and warning, that I can
recognise that this was a first-class job.

Martin.

--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm

Well, they were spot on.... 50% chance of disruption means 50% without.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
So, how did it fare ..... here is the original Advanced Warning posted
here last Wednesday:

" Here is an ADVANCED WARNING of Heavy Snow affecting Northern Scotland,
Eastern Scotland, North
East England, South East England and East Anglia AND Lincolnshire.
Issued by the Met Office at 10:29 on Wednesday, 17 December 2003.

Strong northerly winds are forecast by the Met Office to bring frequent
and
blustery snow showers on Sunday, particularly to Northern and Eastern
coastal counties.
There is a good deal of doubt regarding the severity of the weather but
there is the potential
on Sunday for heavy snow showers to be driven well inland from the east
coast on the strong to
gale force northeasterly winds. Several cm of snow is possible locally
with some
drifting which could lead to widespread disruption to transport.
Transmitted by the Met Office. at 10:29 on Wednesday 17 December"

Looking at the traffic reports and listening to the radio (2 and 5) this
morning, this warning seems to have worked out very well. The
accompanying % probability map (not shown here) indicated 40-50%
probability of disruption: given the long lead time, this was
*excellent* guidance and enabled people to plan well ahead.

Several roads are currently blocked, or PWC, due combination of
snow/ice/frozen slush in the areas mentioned above.

Note, however, that this (and subsequent) warnings did not promise a
'white hell' for the entire country. The Met Office are not to be blamed
for that: this is a 'media' problem (& I include the BBC - they are no
better), not a Met Office problem. Once the warning is issued, it is
very difficult to control how it is interpreted & presented.

To give an example, on the day that the range-rover/trailer rig crashed
onto the East Coast main line, GM-TV wanted a 'live' broadcast looking
for snow! They rang me up the previous day and asked where they should
position cameras etc. Despite my patiently explaining the fact that
there were problems with deciding exactly when, where and how much etc.,
and that was reflected in the forecast, the researcher I was talking to
was absolutely clueless about the difficulty - on the morning, the
camera rig was set up in areas to the west of Leeds; hopefully the
altitude would help. As it happened, as soon as the accident news came
through, the OB team high-tailed it down the M62 to cover that story.

There are many, many stories like that: the media teams that are put on
a weather story (often 'cub' teams cutting their teeth) want a story! It
gathers a momentum of its own, and we end up with the entire country on
standby for acres of snow!

Don't confuse the media hype with the outcome - there was *never* any
indication of significant snowfall away from the areas outlined in the
various warnings.

... and if anyone suggests I am trying to promote the Met Office because
I used to work for them: I am! It is because I *know* the difficulties
of this situation in an operational environment: the doubts,
uncertainties, the fact that the models are NOT perfect, the fact that
the public will misinterpret the forecasts and warning, that I can
recognise that this was a first-class job.

Martin.

--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:57:57 -0000, Martin Rowley wrote:

So, how did it fare .....

" Here is an ADVANCED WARNING of Heavy Snow affecting Northern
Scotland, Eastern Scotland, North East England, South East England
and East Anglia AND Lincolnshire.

No North West England, must have added that later but we are in the
middle...

Strong northerly winds ...

Not up here, it's been pretty calm, F4 at the most and then only for
short peaks. There was an brief excursion to F5 on saturday morning
but that's it for the wind. Certainly no gales or even moderate
breezes. Even Great Dunn Fell has been below F8 for the period.

Several cm of snow is possible locally with some drifting which
could lead to widespread disruption to transport.

3.5cm here on late Sunday evening nothing since. High routes passable
with care or 4WD only immediatly after the fall. No problems for the
ploughs, all routes cleared and gritted by 0100.

Several roads are currently blocked, or PWC, due combination of
snow/ice/frozen slush in the areas mentioned above.

Are these blocked/PWC roads on the schedules to be treated/cleared
within the 3 or 5 hr deadlines? Not all A roads are on these
schedules, not that the mejia would let a little detail like that get
in the way of the story...

Note, however, that this (and subsequent) warnings did not promise a
'white hell' for the entire country.

No but it did expand to NW England up to 15cm snow at low levels,
gales, drifting, heavy snow showers through Sunday etc. Way off the
mark. No mention of the temperature, -5C since 2000 last night,
currently -4C, wind F1/F2.

There are many, many stories like that: the media teams that are put
on a weather story (often 'cub' teams cutting their teeth) want a
story!

Remember that does not just apply to weather stories but *all* news
stories. Always take all "news" media information with a large pinch
of salt. B-)

So where was the wind? and given our exposure and altitude a larger
quantity of snow?

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL. pam is missing e-mail