http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/200709...fa6b408_2.html


Ian,

Raunds, East Northants.

Ian wrote:


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/200709...fa6b408_2.html


Ian,

Raunds, East Northants.

BBC are banging on about a series of "mini-tornados".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7010172.stm
Just before 1100, Rob McElwee said "whether it's a line squall or tornado is
a matter of semantics"!!!!!

At least Classic FM news is reporting tornados and eschewing "mini".

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

On 24 Sep, 11:17, Graham P Davis wrote:
Ian wrote:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/200709...ornadoes-fa6b4...



Ian,

Raunds, East Northants.

BBC are banging on about a series of "mini-tornados".http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7010172.stm
Just before 1100, Rob McElwee said "whether it's a line squall or tornado is
a matter of semantics"!!!!!

I find that statement by Mr McElwee remarkably unhelpful to the cause
of climbing out of this slough of dumbing down and general ignorance
which is pervading this country. Semantics it certainly isn't! A
squall line and a tornado are completely distinct phenomena, as well
we all know. Supporting the general scientific ignorance by
indicating that just because the effects are the same, so must the
meteorology producing it, is unacceptable from a scientific
professional.

I hope Rob, whom I think is one the better TV weatherpersons, reads
this and retracts.

Martin


At least Classic FM news is reporting tornados and eschewing "mini".

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

"JPG" wrote

I find that statement by Mr McElwee remarkably unhelpful to the
cause
of climbing out of this slough of dumbing down and general ignorance
which is pervading this country. Semantics it certainly isn't! A
squall line and a tornado are completely distinct phenomena, as well
we all know. Supporting the general scientific ignorance by
indicating that just because the effects are the same, so must the
meteorology producing it, is unacceptable from a scientific
professional.

.... the BBC Weather Centre are getting themselves in a real mess on
this one. Obviously someone higher up the chain has told them to say
it is a squall line, but from the footage I've seen on N24, some, if
not all of the events must have been linked to tornado development;
the damage reported, and the eye-witness reports of 'roaring winds'
etc., would all suggest that the cold front spawned a multiple
outbreak of relatively weak tornadoes (T2 generally) along it's
length: more investigation would reveal this.

What is disappointing is that whilst the N24 presenters were linking
together the viewers responses, and also interviewing Dr. Meaden, the
'strap line' at the bottom boldly stated that the BBC Weather Centre
stated it was a squall line! Egg on faces time I think: you don't rule
out *anything* until proper investigation on the ground and after a
few days reflection.

Martin.



--
Martin Rowley
E:
W: booty.org.uk

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
"JPG" wrote

I find that statement by Mr McElwee remarkably unhelpful to the cause
of climbing out of this slough of dumbing down and general ignorance
which is pervading this country. Semantics it certainly isn't! A
squall line and a tornado are completely distinct phenomena, as well
we all know. Supporting the general scientific ignorance by
indicating that just because the effects are the same, so must the
meteorology producing it, is unacceptable from a scientific
professional.

... the BBC Weather Centre are getting themselves in a real mess on this
one. Obviously someone higher up the chain has told them to say it is a
squall line, but from the footage I've seen on N24, some, if not all of
the events must have been linked to tornado development; the damage
reported, and the eye-witness reports of 'roaring winds' etc., would all
suggest that the cold front spawned a multiple outbreak of relatively weak
tornadoes (T2 generally) along it's length: more investigation would
reveal this.

What is disappointing is that whilst the N24 presenters were linking
together the viewers responses, and also interviewing Dr. Meaden, the
'strap line' at the bottom boldly stated that the BBC Weather Centre
stated it was a squall line! Egg on faces time I think: you don't rule out
*anything* until proper investigation on the ground and after a few days
reflection.

It seems to me that the sensible line to take is that this was a vigorous
cold front with squall-line characteristics, that some of the damage was
quite probably caused by tornadic phenomena, but that some was
just as likely caused by straight-line winds, and that it is impossible
to tell which was which until experts have carried out site-surveys and
interviewed eye-witnesses. Such very active cold fronts are not
untypical of autumn and early-winter and characteristically bring
swarms of short-lived tornadoes. (105 on 23 Nov 1981).

Anyway, it's the line I'm taking ...!

Philip

Martin Rowley wrote:

"JPG" wrote

I find that statement by Mr McElwee remarkably unhelpful to the
cause of climbing out of this slough of dumbing down and general
ignorance which is pervading this country. Semantics it certainly
isn't! A squall line and a tornado are completely distinct
phenomena, as well we all know. Supporting the general scientific
ignorance by indicating that just because the effects are the same,
so must the meteorology producing it, is unacceptable from a
scientific professional.

... the BBC Weather Centre are getting themselves in a real mess on
this one. Obviously someone higher up the chain has told them to say
it is a squall line, but from the footage I've seen on N24, some, if
not all of the events must have been linked to tornado development;
the damage reported, and the eye-witness reports of 'roaring winds'
etc., would all suggest that the cold front spawned a multiple
outbreak of relatively weak tornadoes (T2 generally) along it's
length: more investigation would reveal this.

What is disappointing is that whilst the N24 presenters were linking
together the viewers responses, and also interviewing Dr. Meaden, the
'strap line' at the bottom boldly stated that the BBC Weather Centre
stated it was a squall line! Egg on faces time I think: you don't
rule out anything until proper investigation on the ground and after
a few days reflection.

Martin.


I've just had someone from BBC Three Counties Radio on the phone asking
about these events. A Met Office spokesman had told them that the
damage was caused by squalls, not tornadoes. I'm told that he said that
it was necessary to have thunder and lightning to get tornadoes and no
thunder and lightning had been reported.

Norman


--
Norman Lynagh
Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire
85m a.s.l.
(remove "thisbit" twice to e-mail)

"Norman" wrote :
Martin Rowley wrote:

"JPG" wrote

I find that statement by Mr McElwee remarkably unhelpful to the
cause of climbing out of this slough of dumbing down and general
ignorance which is pervading this country. Semantics it certainly
isn't! A squall line and a tornado are completely distinct
phenomena, as well we all know. Supporting the general scientific
ignorance by indicating that just because the effects are the same,
so must the meteorology producing it, is unacceptable from a
scientific professional.

... the BBC Weather Centre are getting themselves in a real mess on
this one. Obviously someone higher up the chain has told them to say
it is a squall line, but from the footage I've seen on N24, some, if
not all of the events must have been linked to tornado development;
the damage reported, and the eye-witness reports of 'roaring winds'
etc., would all suggest that the cold front spawned a multiple
outbreak of relatively weak tornadoes (T2 generally) along it's
length: more investigation would reveal this.

What is disappointing is that whilst the N24 presenters were linking
together the viewers responses, and also interviewing Dr. Meaden, the
'strap line' at the bottom boldly stated that the BBC Weather Centre
stated it was a squall line! Egg on faces time I think: you don't
rule out anything until proper investigation on the ground and after
a few days reflection.

I've just had someone from BBC Three Counties Radio on the phone asking
about these events. A Met Office spokesman had told them that the
damage was caused by squalls, not tornadoes. I'm told that he said that
it was necessary to have thunder and lightning to get tornadoes and no
thunder and lightning had been reported.

LOL. I wonder whether that came from Exeter, of from the BBC
Weather Centre (local radio stations often speak with them even though
the may not get their weather presentation from there).

I must say that the output of the MO Press Office has improved
markedly since Dave Britton took over from Wayne Elliot earlier this
year. Most (though not quite all) of their releases are now sensible and
sober
and measured and factual, and lack the sensationalism and hyperbole
of before.

Philip

On 24 Sep, 13:55, "Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote:

It seems to me that the sensible line to take is that this was a vigorous
cold front with squall-line characteristics, that some of the damage was
quite probably caused by tornadic phenomena, but that some was
just as likely caused by straight-line winds, and that it is impossible
to tell which was which until experts have carried out site-surveys and
interviewed eye-witnesses. Such very active cold fronts are not
untypical of autumn and early-winter and characteristically bring
swarms of short-lived tornadoes. (105 on 23 Nov 1981).

Anyway, it's the line I'm taking ...!

Philip

My take on events is that it was a vigorous ana-cold front, something
I retain a keen interest in. I personally think the ana-front is
different to a squall line where the leading edge is characterised by
deep convection. The ana-front rainfall comes only from the an
approximately 2km deep leading edge, and this leading edge has been
seen to be convectively neutral. As for the swarms of tornadoes 24th
Oct 1995 is another good case.

I'd imagine that damage would come from a mixture of the strong low-
level jet ahead of the front (i.e. straight line winds), but also the
gusty winds that occur at the line convection cores and maybe from the
dry descending air behind the front that is fuelled by evaporating
precipitation.

Another notable example is Windstorm Kyrill on 18th/19th January this
year, as it moved into Europe, I was expecting it to have died given
that the pressure gradients were slackening off, but was surprised to
see that damage occurred in Eastern Germany, Czech Republic and Poland
from what looked like a common-or-garden dying extratropical cyclone.
Only on closer inspection was it clear that an ana-cold front - which
became convective and squall-line-esque formed as it crossed Eastern
Europe, causing the most damage since 1976 in these parts - for those
interested in the case study, some quite nice radar animations of the
front as it crossed Czech Republic here. What separates that from this
event is that this actually became deep convective and so winds from
higher aloft were able to be brought to the surface.

http://www.chmi.cz/meteo/sat/galerie...070118-19.html

Cheers
Richard

"Richard Dixon" wrote:

My take on events is that it was a vigorous ana-cold front, something
I retain a keen interest in. I personally think the ana-front is
different to a squall line where the leading edge is characterised by
deep convection. The ana-front rainfall comes only from the an
approximately 2km deep leading edge, and this leading edge has been
seen to be convectively neutral. As for the swarms of tornadoes 24th
Oct 1995 is another good case.

I'd imagine that damage would come from a mixture of the strong low-
level jet ahead of the front (i.e. straight line winds), but also the
gusty winds that occur at the line convection cores and maybe from the
dry descending air behind the front that is fuelled by evaporating
precipitation.

Another notable example is Windstorm Kyrill on 18th/19th January this
year, as it moved into Europe, I was expecting it to have died given
that the pressure gradients were slackening off, but was surprised to
see that damage occurred in Eastern Germany, Czech Republic and Poland
from what looked like a common-or-garden dying extratropical cyclone.
Only on closer inspection was it clear that an ana-cold front - which
became convective and squall-line-esque formed as it crossed Eastern
Europe, causing the most damage since 1976 in these parts - for those
interested in the case study, some quite nice radar animations of the
front as it crossed Czech Republic here. What separates that from this
event is that this actually became deep convective and so winds from
higher aloft were able to be brought to the surface.

Fair enough, but the discussion heretofore was really about
the immediate response to journalists' questions.

Philip

On 24 Sep, 15:49, "Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote:

Fair enough, but the discussion heretofore was really about
the immediate response to journalists' questions.

Philip

Maybe I should have started a thread. Still, my two-penneth anyway.

R