On 24/02/13 23:24, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Saturday, 23 February 2013 23:35:56 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:
On 23/02/13 19:18, John Hall wrote:

In ,

Eskimo writes:



wrote in message news:kga6p9$

...

So who are those warnings for?

See John Hall's earlier post. You're best off asking the NHS that

question, rather than the MO.



Ah but it is a real good earner for the MetO. Health is big business

not just the warnings you see but private contracts too and MetO

sales and business staff are *very* enthusiastic as it brings the dosh

in regardless of what other people think of it. It's all about money

nowadays in the MetO.



I don't have any problem with the MetO doing that in the case of the

NHS. After all, I don't have to read the warnings. And I imagine that,

were the MetO to refuse the NHS, they might be forcibly reminded by

central government that they are a government agency, and that there are

certain obligations that they are expected to fulfil as part of that

status if they want to be allowed to retain a measure of independence.



Agreed. I really don't understand why some people get so hot and

bothered about the warnings. They are just advisory, for information,

they are not an order. If they are not useful to you then ignore them,

but that then doesn't mean they won't be useful to anyone else.

Because for the majority of areas they are not true. I can't help it, must be my upringing but I really hate fibs.

Perhaps you need to appreciate the importance of probability and
uncertainty, and their relevance in weather forecasting.

It is a good job you don't live in a hurricane zone, people there get
far more warnings than they get direct hits from hurricanes. Of course,
the reason for this is that the authorities need about 72 hours to
complete preparations (including evacuation), but the 72 hour forecast
track error is about 100 nm, and the diameter of hurricane force winds
on average is only around 60 nm.