[WR] Whistlefield, Tuesday, 4.01.2005
 

Blustery showers.

Where was the forecast big blow? We had more wind on Christmas Eve
than we had last night. Helen Young, this morning at 07:58, was
wittering about high winds on the mountains. Was that an attempt at
face saving?

It looks as though the CF was disorganised as it passed through here.
The temperature fell from 10.6°C at 04:00 to 5.6°C at 08:45, the wind
direction changed from SW at 06:15 to NW at 07:15 and the barometer
bottomed at 1000.8mb at 05:45 before rising sharply. The maximum gust
was 47mph, SW, at 06:30.

Currently, temperature 5.8°C, wind gusting to 25mph, NW, rain 8.0mm,
since 04:00, barometer 1006.6mb, rising.

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow.
Overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
Web cam at http://www.ufcnet.net/~alanlesley1/kabcam.htm

[WR] Whistlefield, Tuesday, 4.01.2005
 

No problems here either Alan. Top gust only 46mph.
Looks like the TAF's were spot on last night and the BBC certainly over done
it for this part of the country - if not for all.
Certainly no 70 or 80mph gusts that I can see of.
I didn't think the SSW direction favoured a funnel effect through the
central lowlands anyway, which is required to see gusts of that nature
here - so I was fairly sceptical.
I wonder if tomorrow afternoon will see a similar over-hyped scenario?
Alex.


ºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº
Wishaw, North Lanarkshire, Scotland
N55º47'14", W3º55'15". 360ft/117m amsl
http://www.alex114.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
ºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº

"Alan White" wrote in message
...
Blustery showers.

Where was the forecast big blow? We had more wind on Christmas Eve
than we had last night. Helen Young, this morning at 07:58, was
wittering about high winds on the mountains. Was that an attempt at
face saving?

It looks as though the CF was disorganised as it passed through here.
The temperature fell from 10.6°C at 04:00 to 5.6°C at 08:45, the wind
direction changed from SW at 06:15 to NW at 07:15 and the barometer
bottomed at 1000.8mb at 05:45 before rising sharply. The maximum gust
was 47mph, SW, at 06:30.

Currently, temperature 5.8°C, wind gusting to 25mph, NW, rain 8.0mm,
since 04:00, barometer 1006.6mb, rising.

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow.
Overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
Web cam at http://www.ufcnet.net/~alanlesley1/kabcam.htm

[WR] Whistlefield, Tuesday, 4.01.2005
 

"Alex Stephens Jr" wrote in message
...
No problems here either Alan. Top gust only 46mph.
Looks like the TAF's were spot on last night and the BBC certainly over
done it for this part of the country - if not for all.
Certainly no 70 or 80mph gusts that I can see of.
I didn't think the SSW direction favoured a funnel effect through the
central lowlands anyway, which is required to see gusts of that nature
here - so I was fairly sceptical.
I wonder if tomorrow afternoon will see a similar over-hyped scenario?
Alex.

Hi Alex,

At least more people were aware of this situation and the potential it had
to cause damage. With the death of the young boy by a fallen tree in
Altrincham on New Year's Day I imagine they were on the back foot slightly.

Joe

[WR] Whistlefield, Tuesday, 4.01.2005
 

Hi Joe
Glad to see you back safe and well.
There's a danger that in over hyping forecasts a "Peter cries wolf "
situation arises , whereby - a couple of severe forecasts with attendant
warnings turn out to be relatively benign and the general population become
sceptical. But then when a really dangerous situation unfolds people
consequently take less notice of warnings.
Thankfully, on the whole, the pro's get it right nowadays, certainly as far
as dangerous winds are concerned. But the BBC forecasts for this morning
(and no doubt other authorities) - were on the whole, very wide of the mark.
Whereas the TAF's issued, correctly disagreed with / contradicted the
warnings issued. (certainly they did for this part of the country). Afterall
the TAF's forecast 50mph gusts, and the beeb were going for damaging 70-80
mph gusts, that is a hell of a difference.
I'm not critisising something I couldn't do better myself. I'm sure it
wasn't an easy call one way or the other for reasons that I don't clearly
understand. But mistakes have to be pointed out when they arise.
Tomorrow afternoon a similar situation looks like arising, I wonder if we'll
have a blanket warning of damaging gusts or a more specific forecast with
intendant risk probabilities?
All the best
Alex.

ºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº
Wishaw, North Lanarkshire, Scotland
N55º47'14", W3º55'15". 360ft/117m amsl
http://www.alex114.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
ºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº

"Joe Hunt" wrote in message
...

"Alex Stephens Jr" wrote in message
...
No problems here either Alan. Top gust only 46mph.
Looks like the TAF's were spot on last night and the BBC certainly over
done it for this part of the country - if not for all.
Certainly no 70 or 80mph gusts that I can see of.
I didn't think the SSW direction favoured a funnel effect through the
central lowlands anyway, which is required to see gusts of that nature
here - so I was fairly sceptical.
I wonder if tomorrow afternoon will see a similar over-hyped scenario?
Alex.

Hi Alex,

At least more people were aware of this situation and the potential it had
to cause damage. With the death of the young boy by a fallen tree in
Altrincham on New Year's Day I imagine they were on the back foot
slightly.

Joe

[WR] Whistlefield, Tuesday, 4.01.2005
 

In message , Alex Stephens Jr
writes
Hi Joe
Glad to see you back safe and well.
There's a danger that in over hyping forecasts a "Peter cries wolf "
situation arises , whereby - a couple of severe forecasts with attendant
warnings turn out to be relatively benign and the general population become
sceptical. But then when a really dangerous situation unfolds people
consequently take less notice of warnings.
Thankfully, on the whole, the pro's get it right nowadays, certainly as far
as dangerous winds are concerned. But the BBC forecasts for this morning
(and no doubt other authorities) - were on the whole, very wide of the mark.
Whereas the TAF's issued, correctly disagreed with / contradicted the
warnings issued. (certainly they did for this part of the country). Afterall
the TAF's forecast 50mph gusts, and the beeb were going for damaging 70-80
mph gusts, that is a hell of a difference.

It certainly is, especially as the force exerted by the wind is
proportional to the square of the wind speed. The force exerted by a 70
m.p.h. gust is just about double that exerted by a 50 m.p.h. gust.

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England

[WR] Whistlefield, Tuesday, 4.01.2005
 

"Alex Stephens Jr" wrote in message
...

Afterall
the TAF's forecast 50mph gusts, and the beeb were going for damaging 70-80
mph gusts, that is a hell of a difference.

Alex, worth remembering that if the higher gusts (e.g. 60KT+) were
considered less than a 30% probability they wouldn't go in to the TAFs.

I'm not critisising something I couldn't do better myself. I'm sure it
wasn't an easy call one way or the other for reasons that I don't clearly
understand.

The main problem was gauging what percentage of the gradient wind ahead of
the cold front (60-70KT or so) would be realised at the surface,
particulalry over low ground.

A look at the archive reveals the following gusts :-

Loch Glascarnoch 64KT 0500Z
Leuchars 54KT 0600Z
Edinburgh 52KT 0700Z
Ronaldsway 56KT 0800Z

I'm not sure the line convection element was as evident as expected, if it
had I suspect the gusts would've been nearer the gradient speeds, with
results perhaps not dissimilar to events at Dublin last Saturday. Plus there
was concern over possible enhancement due to funnelling effects.

The warning was fully justified, IMHO.

Jon.

[WR] Whistlefield, Tuesday, 4.01.2005
 

In message , Jon O'Rourke
writes
"Alex Stephens Jr" wrote in message
...

Afterall
the TAF's forecast 50mph gusts, and the beeb were going for damaging 70-80
mph gusts, that is a hell of a difference.

Alex, worth remembering that if the higher gusts (e.g. 60KT+) were
considered less than a 30% probability they wouldn't go in to the TAFs.

Following that argument through it would then seem appropriate to say in
the public forecasts that the higher gusts were a possibility but had
less than a 30 percent probability of actually occurring. That's
certainly not the way it came across in any TV forecasts that I saw.

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England

[WR] Whistlefield, Tuesday, 4.01.2005
 

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in
message ...

Following that argument through it would then seem appropriate to say in
the public forecasts that the higher gusts were a possibility but had
less than a 30 percent probability of actually occurring. That's
certainly not the way it came across in any TV forecasts that I saw.

Norman.

I guess we're back to the old chestnut of presentation, Norman.

Jon.

[WR] Whistlefield, Tuesday, 4.01.2005
 

In message , Jon O'Rourke
writes
"Norman Lynagh" wrote in
message ...

Following that argument through it would then seem appropriate to say in
the public forecasts that the higher gusts were a possibility but had
less than a 30 percent probability of actually occurring. That's
certainly not the way it came across in any TV forecasts that I saw.

Norman.

I guess we're back to the old chestnut of presentation, Norman.

Indeed we are, Jon. As a forecaster it's easy to know what message you
want to get across but it's often nearly impossible to find the right
words to actually achieve that. An added problem is that two people
hearing the same words may take in different messages. As we all know,
some people are a lot better than others at composing succinct and
easily understandable scripts.

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England

[WR] Whistlefield, Tuesday, 4.01.2005
 

The warnings may well have been justified if, as you say, there was a chance
a similar situation could have arose as that which happened in Dublin last
weekend. But in the event they were rather wrong for virtually everyone,
alas hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I did notice last night that the beeb emphasised the stronger gusts would be
confined to the onset of the cold front. But perhaps they should've
mentioned there was less than a 30% chance of such damaging gusts, rather
than a broadbrush severe gale being imminent in the north (perhaps I'm
asking for too much).
It would certainly be better if they explained the possibilities and
thinking behind such forecasts as well as you do Jon.
Cheers, Alex.


"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message
...
"Alex Stephens Jr" wrote in message
...

Alex, worth remembering that if the higher gusts (e.g. 60KT+) were
considered less than a 30% probability they wouldn't go in to the TAFs.

The main problem was gauging what percentage of the gradient wind ahead of
the cold front (60-70KT or so) would be realised at the surface,
particulalry over low ground.

A look at the archive reveals the following gusts :-

Loch Glascarnoch 64KT 0500Z
Leuchars 54KT 0600Z
Edinburgh 52KT 0700Z
Ronaldsway 56KT 0800Z

I'm not sure the line convection element was as evident as expected, if it
had I suspect the gusts would've been nearer the gradient speeds, with
results perhaps not dissimilar to events at Dublin last Saturday. Plus
there
was concern over possible enhancement due to funnelling effects.

The warning was fully justified, IMHO.

Jon.