So they have gone..but I am sure it will not be long before some of
the 'old'presenters leak a few comments?

I recall how certain presenters would point to( with a degree of
excitement) a developing depression, isobars increasing in number and
giving a 'dartboard' appearance - will this now present problems?

I also noticed yesterday evening how (as I anticipated, having looked
at the FNMOC site) later this week a low would spread its frontal rain
across the country, so you can imagine my surprise when,as the
presenter said 'rain would sweep across the country from the south
west' a blob of rain started at Land's End( not to the west), grew,
and then moved SW to NE. I thought this was bizarre. By this morning (
I use the Full Weather Index as seldom able to view scheduled
forecasts after the news) it had changed to a clearly band moving up
from France/Channel.

But the disappearance of synoptics has to be a major disappointment
and all my colleagues at work who have an interest in the weather(
about 8) will be commenting today.It is very clear that a decision has
been made to simplify, but in an instant they have swept away all
those who have a slightly more learned interest

Have forecast radar bands also gone - with the different colours
giving,vividly, an idea of intensity, especially with relief effect?

And the puddles that appear on the country - are these because the
intensity of rain cannot now be realised?

It is certainly a very very sad situation. I wonder whether Philip
Eden might be making a feature of this in his Sunday Telegraph Weather
column?

A very sad Robin

ps: might get my local Radio Station to comment

Robin Nicholson wrote:

It is very clear that a decision has
been made to simplify, but in an instant they have swept away all
those who have a slightly more learned interest

This is what I don't understand, I have no training in meteorology and
synoptics are not even slightly hard for me to comprehend with just a bit of
applied thought. They give a very clear and comprehensive picture of what
the weather might be doing -- now they're gone, or rendered useless (as on
BBCi).

Robin Nicholson wrote:

It is very clear that a decision has
been made to simplify, but in an instant they have swept away all
those who have a slightly more learned interest

This is what I don't understand, I have no training in meteorology and
synoptics are not even slightly hard for me to comprehend with just a bit of
applied thought. They give a very clear and comprehensive picture of what
the weather might be doing -- now they're gone, or rendered useless (as on
BBCi).

Robin Nicholson wrote:

It is very clear that a decision has
been made to simplify, but in an instant they have swept away all
those who have a slightly more learned interest

This is what I don't understand, I have no training in meteorology and
synoptics are not even slightly hard for me to comprehend with just a bit of
applied thought. They give a very clear and comprehensive picture of what
the weather might be doing -- now they're gone, or rendered useless (as on
BBCi).

"Simonb" wrote in
message

It is very clear that a decision has been made to simplify, but in an instant
they have swept away all those who have a slightly more learned interest

This is what I don't understand, I have no training in meteorology and
synoptics are not even slightly hard for me to comprehend with just a bit of
applied thought. They give a very clear and comprehensive picture of what
the weather might be doing -- now they're gone, or rendered useless (as on
BBCi).

Does Bill Giles run a web site. I gather he was given the push from the
BBC for being too reactionary.

(A matter of great credit, as recent events show)




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Simonb" wrote in
message

It is very clear that a decision has been made to simplify, but in an instant
they have swept away all those who have a slightly more learned interest

This is what I don't understand, I have no training in meteorology and
synoptics are not even slightly hard for me to comprehend with just a bit of
applied thought. They give a very clear and comprehensive picture of what
the weather might be doing -- now they're gone, or rendered useless (as on
BBCi).

Does Bill Giles run a web site. I gather he was given the push from the
BBC for being too reactionary.

(A matter of great credit, as recent events show)




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Simonb" wrote in
message

It is very clear that a decision has been made to simplify, but in an instant
they have swept away all those who have a slightly more learned interest

This is what I don't understand, I have no training in meteorology and
synoptics are not even slightly hard for me to comprehend with just a bit of
applied thought. They give a very clear and comprehensive picture of what
the weather might be doing -- now they're gone, or rendered useless (as on
BBCi).

Does Bill Giles run a web site. I gather he was given the push from the
BBC for being too reactionary.

(A matter of great credit, as recent events show)




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Simonb" wrote in message
.. .
| Robin Nicholson wrote:
|
| It is very clear that a decision has
| been made to simplify, but in an instant they have swept away all
| those who have a slightly more learned interest
|
| This is what I don't understand, I have no training in meteorology and
| synoptics are not even slightly hard for me to comprehend with just a bit
of
| applied thought. They give a very clear and comprehensive picture of what
| the weather might be doing -- now they're gone, or rendered useless (as on
| BBCi).
|

The BBC's assertion that they cannot use synoptic charts because the viewers
cannot understand them is an admission of failure. They either do not
employ presenters with the necessary communication skills or they do not
allow said presenters sufficient time to do the job. If the weather
presenting staff are still provided by the Met Office, this also says
uncomplimentary things about the standard of staff training there and also
about the one-sided manner of the agreement between the BBC and Met Office -
surely if the latter have any part in this debacle they cannot have been
happy to accept it without comment? The weather is a subject of great
interest and importance to many residents of the UK, so how can the BBC /
(Met Office?) justify treating it in such a manner?

I find it hard to believe that it is not possible to present a synoptic
chart in a way that conveys information to the connoisseur whilst also
giving an overall impression to the general public. A synoptic chart is,
after all, a picture; and I think the BBC managers would be surprised at the
number of people who still (in spite of their best efforts) appreciate that
fronts on the chart mean belts of rain and that the wind blows along the
isobars. A few discreet arrows to remind Joe Public of the direction should
be all that is required. Why not start with the synoptic chart and, if
necessary, have it "melt" into the clouds and weather which the various
lines and symbols represent?

I write as someone who once had to re-write the instruction manuals provided
for a railway TV Customer information system so that the staff could
understand them. This was done to such effect that the system could be
installed at smaller stations where there were only platform staff and not
the trained "clerical" announcing staff that large stations had - and they
got keen enough to program the system themselves with timetable changes and
engineering work information. So explaining apparently complex tasks and
technology to the "man in the street" CAN be done. The "down side" is that
a plain language explanation of a difficult concept is more "wordy" than
using the technical jargon for the initiated, and I suspect this is the real
reason why the BBC and others prefer a "dumbed down" version - it makes less
demands on the presenters and demands less time, which can then be more
profitably filled with the latest juicy gossip from the world of showbiz or
gory pictures from the current war-zone.

Perhaps I should offer my services to the BBC as a consultant. They
certainly seem to lack any personnel who understand that the "educate" part
of their charter means helping people to understand what they *don't*
currently know, rather than just feeding them a diet of the bland and
familiar. You can educate people to any standard they are capable of
attaining if the subject is approached in the right way. There is a "middle
way" between "blinding with science" and "dumbing down".

Even when the "experts" are involved, there are still ways of making
information more presentable. I once studied Meteorology at Reading
University (in the days when we still used the old M.O.D. blocks) and every
week there used to be a "Current Weather" discussion where various charts -
upper air, surface and "thickness" amongst others - were all analysed and
often augmented with colour so those sitting at the back could also see what
was going on. Many an undergraduate learnt communication skills here -
often the people we were presenting to were those who had written the
text-books we were studying! As a matter of interest, does this excellent
institution (or something like it) still survive in the new world of steel
and glass which now graces the Reading campus?
--
- Yokel -
oo oo
OOO OOO
OO 0 OO
) ( I ) (
) ( /\ ) (

"Yokel" now posts via a spam-trap account.
Replace my alias with stevejudd to reply.

"Simonb" wrote in message
.. .
| Robin Nicholson wrote:
|
| It is very clear that a decision has
| been made to simplify, but in an instant they have swept away all
| those who have a slightly more learned interest
|
| This is what I don't understand, I have no training in meteorology and
| synoptics are not even slightly hard for me to comprehend with just a bit
of
| applied thought. They give a very clear and comprehensive picture of what
| the weather might be doing -- now they're gone, or rendered useless (as on
| BBCi).
|

The BBC's assertion that they cannot use synoptic charts because the viewers
cannot understand them is an admission of failure. They either do not
employ presenters with the necessary communication skills or they do not
allow said presenters sufficient time to do the job. If the weather
presenting staff are still provided by the Met Office, this also says
uncomplimentary things about the standard of staff training there and also
about the one-sided manner of the agreement between the BBC and Met Office -
surely if the latter have any part in this debacle they cannot have been
happy to accept it without comment? The weather is a subject of great
interest and importance to many residents of the UK, so how can the BBC /
(Met Office?) justify treating it in such a manner?

I find it hard to believe that it is not possible to present a synoptic
chart in a way that conveys information to the connoisseur whilst also
giving an overall impression to the general public. A synoptic chart is,
after all, a picture; and I think the BBC managers would be surprised at the
number of people who still (in spite of their best efforts) appreciate that
fronts on the chart mean belts of rain and that the wind blows along the
isobars. A few discreet arrows to remind Joe Public of the direction should
be all that is required. Why not start with the synoptic chart and, if
necessary, have it "melt" into the clouds and weather which the various
lines and symbols represent?

I write as someone who once had to re-write the instruction manuals provided
for a railway TV Customer information system so that the staff could
understand them. This was done to such effect that the system could be
installed at smaller stations where there were only platform staff and not
the trained "clerical" announcing staff that large stations had - and they
got keen enough to program the system themselves with timetable changes and
engineering work information. So explaining apparently complex tasks and
technology to the "man in the street" CAN be done. The "down side" is that
a plain language explanation of a difficult concept is more "wordy" than
using the technical jargon for the initiated, and I suspect this is the real
reason why the BBC and others prefer a "dumbed down" version - it makes less
demands on the presenters and demands less time, which can then be more
profitably filled with the latest juicy gossip from the world of showbiz or
gory pictures from the current war-zone.

Perhaps I should offer my services to the BBC as a consultant. They
certainly seem to lack any personnel who understand that the "educate" part
of their charter means helping people to understand what they *don't*
currently know, rather than just feeding them a diet of the bland and
familiar. You can educate people to any standard they are capable of
attaining if the subject is approached in the right way. There is a "middle
way" between "blinding with science" and "dumbing down".

Even when the "experts" are involved, there are still ways of making
information more presentable. I once studied Meteorology at Reading
University (in the days when we still used the old M.O.D. blocks) and every
week there used to be a "Current Weather" discussion where various charts -
upper air, surface and "thickness" amongst others - were all analysed and
often augmented with colour so those sitting at the back could also see what
was going on. Many an undergraduate learnt communication skills here -
often the people we were presenting to were those who had written the
text-books we were studying! As a matter of interest, does this excellent
institution (or something like it) still survive in the new world of steel
and glass which now graces the Reading campus?
--
- Yokel -
oo oo
OOO OOO
OO 0 OO
) ( I ) (
) ( /\ ) (

"Yokel" now posts via a spam-trap account.
Replace my alias with stevejudd to reply.

"Simonb" wrote in message
.. .
| Robin Nicholson wrote:
|
| It is very clear that a decision has
| been made to simplify, but in an instant they have swept away all
| those who have a slightly more learned interest
|
| This is what I don't understand, I have no training in meteorology and
| synoptics are not even slightly hard for me to comprehend with just a bit
of
| applied thought. They give a very clear and comprehensive picture of what
| the weather might be doing -- now they're gone, or rendered useless (as on
| BBCi).
|

The BBC's assertion that they cannot use synoptic charts because the viewers
cannot understand them is an admission of failure. They either do not
employ presenters with the necessary communication skills or they do not
allow said presenters sufficient time to do the job. If the weather
presenting staff are still provided by the Met Office, this also says
uncomplimentary things about the standard of staff training there and also
about the one-sided manner of the agreement between the BBC and Met Office -
surely if the latter have any part in this debacle they cannot have been
happy to accept it without comment? The weather is a subject of great
interest and importance to many residents of the UK, so how can the BBC /
(Met Office?) justify treating it in such a manner?

I find it hard to believe that it is not possible to present a synoptic
chart in a way that conveys information to the connoisseur whilst also
giving an overall impression to the general public. A synoptic chart is,
after all, a picture; and I think the BBC managers would be surprised at the
number of people who still (in spite of their best efforts) appreciate that
fronts on the chart mean belts of rain and that the wind blows along the
isobars. A few discreet arrows to remind Joe Public of the direction should
be all that is required. Why not start with the synoptic chart and, if
necessary, have it "melt" into the clouds and weather which the various
lines and symbols represent?

I write as someone who once had to re-write the instruction manuals provided
for a railway TV Customer information system so that the staff could
understand them. This was done to such effect that the system could be
installed at smaller stations where there were only platform staff and not
the trained "clerical" announcing staff that large stations had - and they
got keen enough to program the system themselves with timetable changes and
engineering work information. So explaining apparently complex tasks and
technology to the "man in the street" CAN be done. The "down side" is that
a plain language explanation of a difficult concept is more "wordy" than
using the technical jargon for the initiated, and I suspect this is the real
reason why the BBC and others prefer a "dumbed down" version - it makes less
demands on the presenters and demands less time, which can then be more
profitably filled with the latest juicy gossip from the world of showbiz or
gory pictures from the current war-zone.

Perhaps I should offer my services to the BBC as a consultant. They
certainly seem to lack any personnel who understand that the "educate" part
of their charter means helping people to understand what they *don't*
currently know, rather than just feeding them a diet of the bland and
familiar. You can educate people to any standard they are capable of
attaining if the subject is approached in the right way. There is a "middle
way" between "blinding with science" and "dumbing down".

Even when the "experts" are involved, there are still ways of making
information more presentable. I once studied Meteorology at Reading
University (in the days when we still used the old M.O.D. blocks) and every
week there used to be a "Current Weather" discussion where various charts -
upper air, surface and "thickness" amongst others - were all analysed and
often augmented with colour so those sitting at the back could also see what
was going on. Many an undergraduate learnt communication skills here -
often the people we were presenting to were those who had written the
text-books we were studying! As a matter of interest, does this excellent
institution (or something like it) still survive in the new world of steel
and glass which now graces the Reading campus?
--
- Yokel -
oo oo
OOO OOO
OO 0 OO
) ( I ) (
) ( /\ ) (

"Yokel" now posts via a spam-trap account.
Replace my alias with stevejudd to reply.