"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"

May I add my two penn'orth? My impression is that this was a
good call -- and quite a bold one at such a long lead time, but with
the probable large numbers on the move over the weekend some residual
public service ideal seemed to have filtered through. I said as much in
the S.Tel yesterday, and as I am miserly with my praise, it should count
for more on those rare occasions when I lose control and actually offer
some.

With that in mind, I hope a couple of minor criticisms will be seen as
constructive.

1. Equally as important as the warning itself -- and hardly
anyone else in the thread has mentioned this -- was the clear expression
of uncertainty. This is essential with a 96-hour lead time, but it is not
something forecasters do with any consistency. However, this makes
the level of detail provided in the early warning inappropriate. In
fact, offering such detail, tends to negate the expressed uncertainty. The
detail was, as others have pointed out, in some respects wrong, and
four days ahead an experienced forecaster would have expected that.
An early-warning issued four days in advance shouldn't really try to
offer anything beyond the nature of the hazard, the broad timescale,
and the approximate geographical extent.

2. The more recent warnings -- and many warnings in general --
betray a lack of understanding of how information is absorbed by the
general public (and, by extension, by the news media). For instance,
semantically, "up to 15cm of snow" means anything between zero and
15cm. This may be precisely what the issuing forecaster means, but it
is certainly not (as many posters in u.s.w. have demonstrated) how the
information is received. A different form of words should be used for
such statements (it goes for wind gusts, amounts of rain, visibility in
fog, etc). I'm not sure I have the answer, but maybe a typical value
followed by a possible extreme value would be less subject to
misinterpretation ... for example, "2 to 5 cm of snow, but in the worst
hit areas such as the North York Moors there could be as much as
15cm".

This is too big a subject to cover all the aspects, and I wouldn't even
try to address the thought processes which are clearly not going on
inside the heads of some of the weather presenters. But I will say that
my experience is that, when there is serious weather about, it is vital
to maintain an objectivity and a sense of calm. *That* gives you
authority.

Philip Eden