On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:40:40 +0100, Gianna wrote:

paulus wrote:
I often wonder what difference there would have been to the outcome of the
storm if Mr. Fish (or Mr. Giles) had given a warning of an impending violent
storm.

I always draw the same conclusion - absolutley none!

I also like to keep in mind the fact that he was absolutely correct.
He said that there would be no hurricane, and there was no hurricane.

It is odd how in certain cultures, a man can be pilloried for being right.

Technically he was right but technicalities aren't much use to the man
or woman in the street... at whom such forecasts are (or should be)
be aimed. There were hurricane force winds along the South Coast and
parts of the East Coast. I am talking mean wind speeds here, not just
gusts. The man or woman in the street cares not one jot if such winds
come from a tropical, sub tropical or temperate system.

And if wind speeds are converted from ten minute means to one minute
means (as used in the Atlantic Basin hurricane belt) "hurricane
force" winds were probably widespread along the South Coast and
reached or were close to category two hurricane *strength*.

Billl Giles'/ Michael Fish's forecast for the lay person, the average
TV viewer, was quite simply wrong, however hard the Met office tried
(and still try on their website) to disguise that fact. There were of
course good reasons for the error and my *only* criticism of them is
that they seem to persist in defending the forecast with
technicalities completely over the heads of the lay person at whom the
forecast was directed.

However, had the forecast been accurate, I doubt if it would have made
a significant difference to the outcome - in terms of loss of life
and injuries.

--
Dave