"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
"JPG" wrote

I find that statement by Mr McElwee remarkably unhelpful to the cause
of climbing out of this slough of dumbing down and general ignorance
which is pervading this country. Semantics it certainly isn't! A
squall line and a tornado are completely distinct phenomena, as well
we all know. Supporting the general scientific ignorance by
indicating that just because the effects are the same, so must the
meteorology producing it, is unacceptable from a scientific
professional.

... the BBC Weather Centre are getting themselves in a real mess on this
one. Obviously someone higher up the chain has told them to say it is a
squall line, but from the footage I've seen on N24, some, if not all of
the events must have been linked to tornado development; the damage
reported, and the eye-witness reports of 'roaring winds' etc., would all
suggest that the cold front spawned a multiple outbreak of relatively weak
tornadoes (T2 generally) along it's length: more investigation would
reveal this.

What is disappointing is that whilst the N24 presenters were linking
together the viewers responses, and also interviewing Dr. Meaden, the
'strap line' at the bottom boldly stated that the BBC Weather Centre
stated it was a squall line! Egg on faces time I think: you don't rule out
*anything* until proper investigation on the ground and after a few days
reflection.

It seems to me that the sensible line to take is that this was a vigorous
cold front with squall-line characteristics, that some of the damage was
quite probably caused by tornadic phenomena, but that some was
just as likely caused by straight-line winds, and that it is impossible
to tell which was which until experts have carried out site-surveys and
interviewed eye-witnesses. Such very active cold fronts are not
untypical of autumn and early-winter and characteristically bring
swarms of short-lived tornadoes. (105 on 23 Nov 1981).

Anyway, it's the line I'm taking ...!

Philip