On Saturday, 25 August 2012 12:36:37 UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Saturday, 25 August 2012 12:12:32 UTC+1, wrote:
"Lawrence13" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 25 August 2012 09:51:29 UTC+1,
wrote:
"Tudor Hughes" wrote in message
So when did this 'stricter regime' start to apply itself.
...
On Friday, 24 August 2012 21:42:15 UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:
Go get lost you tax paid feeble idiotic namby pamby idiots
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/w...?regionName=se Be
carefull out there. Oh *&%^ Off you big girls blouses
Tudor wrote:
Don't get in such a rage, Lawrie, and in reference to your later
post,
leave the politics out of it, for there is ample scope for mockery here
and
for making more serious points.
"Surface water flooding", a recent addition to the lexicon of the
verbally incontinent, means there could be big puddles in the road,
really
big ones. Driving through heavy rain you could go through one, quite
unexpectedly, and few of us have the savvy the connect heavy rain with
seriously wet roads. In any case the term is "local minor flooding"..
The real hazards are fog (where am I? Into the back of another
car),
snow (you may not get home) and severe gales (bits flying about, trees
down). A longer-term and often unexpected hazard is rivers bursting
their
banks, something we are usually well warned of and with good reason. But
we
do not need to be told of the localised consequences of heavy showers,
because that's what this is. The rain is covered in the normal forecast
and
is not itself a true hazard, unlike the elements mentioned earlier.
====================================
====================================
The Met Office now works in partnership with the EA on flooding issues.
EA
hydrologists and MetO forecasters now work together in the same room..
Some
have both skills and are called hydrometeorologists.
Flooding can either be pluvial, fluvial or a mixture of both. The term
surface water flooding is used for pluvial events (i.e. torrential rain)
to
distinguish them from fluvial events (rivers overflowing banks). I doubt
the
public would understand the difference between fluvial and pluvial. Local
minor floding would not distinguish either.
Finally the warning system is totally impacts based. No expected
impacts -
no warning. When the water table is high minor rain events will get a
warning for possible flooding. Likewise 1 inch snowfalls in the Highlands
will get no warning but will in London for obvious reasons.
The MetO are obliged to warn under strict criteria with a little bit of
leeway. Flooding can kill (and it has in Devon) and I would expect flood
warnings to continue.
Will
--
Couple of things Will.
You say the MetO are obliged under strict criteria : has this always been
the case and where does that come from?
More strict nowadays and as part of the Public Weather Service Customer
Group who are meant to consult with the public and government departments on
requirements.
Also where are they expected to inform the public? Lets face it the bulk
of the population thet are obliged to warn don't even know there is a UKMO
let alone visit the website.
TV, radio, mobile phone apps, twitter, facebook, .......
Now I can accept that torrential rain following after a wet period can
cause flooding but here last night in my part of the SE we had a couple of
showers
But other parts may have been different? What was your local automated site
forecast for Sydenham?
Check out todays!
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/w...ecast/sydenham
Bookmark it for future ref :-)
Really should thes warnings be for the general public are they in danger?
Some idiots will be.
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------
So when did this stricter regime start to apply itself?
As for "some idiots". Are these idiots the sort of people that would be looking for warnings on the UKMO website-I doubt it very much. Alernativley if there is a danger then maybe the news outlest should warn the public or that idiotic part of the public. I mean my son was out in Sydenham last night did he need to be made aware of the possible dangers of rain? I meaan I would have thought that if getting wet was an issue then taht is incumbent upon the person going out to cheack one of the thousands of weather forecasts issued every single day, then he could avoid getting wet but awarning for idiots in the SE ? For what getting wet? Now if rivers are in danger of flooding or agriculture for example then surely the EA would warn locally anywhere in danger of flooding.
But a general yellow be aware of 'rain?' is way over the top.
Biggest danger in Sydenham at the moment is the rare puddles left from the first yellow warning are now in danger of dissapearing rapidly so we now need a puddle shartage warning as puddle scan confuse and present a clear danger to the public. I mean it goes on how about a sarcastic silly whinging post warning system for people who were made aware by the yellow warning system but found there was no danger or hardly any rain to speak off and wanted to nknow why there was an intial warning in the first place.
It never rains it just pours
Hold on a mo Will!!!!!!
I've just found out how you cut your head. You fell whislt climbing in areas that would go of the UKMO scale where danger was concerened.
So you think warnings for dangerous rain sre justified especially where idiots are concerened and then you go an fall scrambling over rocks in an arrea where the weather can turn and actually be dangerous. And now you plan to do the same up the Himalaya's . As for your NHS treatment: I think you were lucky to get it considering you realised the dangers but still took risks . Self inflicted if you ask me.
Rain in towns = dangerous
Climbing rocks and mountains = safe
Sounds Orwellian if you ask me.