In message , John Hall
writes
In article .com,
Tudor Hughes writes:
Similar here, only colder. The max was 10.8°C and most of
the afternoon it was 8.7° to 9°. I heard the forecast you referred to
and I applaud your self-restraint in your description of the
"forecaster." This really was rubbish. I know it's partly the BBC's
fault in not giving them enough time but even so their delivery (with
one or two exceptions) is disgraceful - pauses all in the wrong
places, odd use of the English language, jumping about all over the
place geographically and no real understanding of significant weather
except when it has been formalised as a weather warning. This
afternoon was exceptionally cold for May and could easily have been
mentioned but my guess is that the presenters (you can hardly call
them forecasters) are just not into their subject enough to realise
what was going on. How has this abysmal state of affairs come about?
(rhetorical question, really, don't all shout at once).

Is pert of the problem that meteorology is now apparently viewed by
academia as a branch of physics rather than of geography, and that
recently trained meteorologists don't get taught very much about weather
and climate?

The science of meteorology is, and always was, largely physics and
mathematics. Physical geography does also come into it but if you if you
are making a simple choice between "physics" and "geography" then
meteorology most certainly falls into the "physics" box and it always
has done.

Norman
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England