Graham P Davis wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:31:22 +0100
"Col" wrote:

Or how about a fragmenting front that is giving intermitent periods
of rain, something that most people would think of as showers.

'Showery rain' perhaps?

But if there is no convective element it's not showers. People on here
complain often enough about dumbing-down of the weather forecasts and
here you seem to be advocating it. As for 'drizzly showers', I vaguely
recall complaining here and perhaps to the Met Office over that
particular one.

Well I'm just trying to be realistic as to what Joe public thinks
of in terms of 'showers'. They don't think of convection, they
think of periods of rain interspersed with drier interludes.

Anyway, that's my hard-line, pedantic attitude but I see the 1956
'Weather Map' has a little sympathy for your point of view.

================================================== ====================
Occasional rain, etc = Not continuous. The periods of rain, etc., are
relatively short and occupy only a small fraction of the total time.
During the periods without rain the sky remains overcast or nearly
so. If clearances are expected the term 'showers' is used.

Intermittent rain, etc. = Not continuous over a considerable period,
but the rainy periods are of substantial duration and the sky remains
overcast during the intervals.
================================================== ====================

Note, however, the point that there must be breaks expected in the
cloud cover for 'showers' to be used. 'Drizzly showers' wouldn't get
past the censor.

So there doesn't have to be a convective element then?
In other words in my fragmenting front scenario it would be OK
as long as there were at least some brighter periods between the
rain, which is plausible.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg