On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:18:43 -0000, "Martin Rowley"
wrote:

... thanks for all the comments: I'm certainly not suggesting that
everything was perfect (I did raise an eyebrow when I saw the plethora
of 'Flash' messages pop-up yesterday), but specifically dealing with the
Early/Advanced Warning saga, a good job IMV.

I don't take much notice of media interpretation of weather events now
having been on the 'other side' as it we

Quite, that's the real problem, the advance warning you posted having
played out very much as I (and most others in the NG) expected. But
you would expect the BBC WC forecasters to *present it* better than
yesterday. An example from my own area (the Solent):

On the day of the original advance warning, I said I'd eat my hat if
we had any significant snow here (S Hampshire) and my coat as well if
anything lay for more than an hour. I felt pretty safe. Yet as
recently as yesterday afternoon, unclear and misleading maps of
"disruption" risks were being shown on BBC TV weather forecasts.

For the South East away from North Sea coasts, the map showed a "high"
risk of disruption (very high nearer the E coasts). But the Western
boundary of this was completely obscured by a huge opaque "HIGH"
[risk] symbol plastered over Hampshire and surrounding areas. This
would have led most people down here to conclude that there was a
better than even chance of disruption over the whole of Hampshire and
the Isle of Wight and everywhere to the East/NE of there. I *knew*
there was very little chance of disruption SW of London and I'm sure
the forecasters did, too... but they (BBC W/C) allowed sloppy
presentation to get in the way of the forecast.

So yes, the real problem is presentation... not just in the popular
media but by professional BBC W/C presenters, too. Sadly, it happens
time and time again and the Met Office should perhaps take more
control over this because in the end it reflects badly on them, too.

--
Dave
Fareham Hampshire