On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:18:43 -0000, "Martin Rowley"
wrote:

... thanks for all the comments: I'm certainly not suggesting that
everything was perfect (I did raise an eyebrow when I saw the plethora
of 'Flash' messages pop-up yesterday), but specifically dealing with the
Early/Advanced Warning saga, a good job IMV.

I don't take much notice of media interpretation of weather events now
having been on the 'other side' as it we

Quite, that's the real problem, the advance warning you posted having
played out very much as I (and most others in the NG) expected. But
you would expect the BBC WC forecasters to *present it* better than
yesterday. An example from my own area (the Solent):

On the day of the original advance warning, I said I'd eat my hat if
we had any significant snow here (S Hampshire) and my coat as well if
anything lay for more than an hour. I felt pretty safe. Yet as
recently as yesterday afternoon, unclear and misleading maps of
"disruption" risks were being shown on BBC TV weather forecasts.

For the South East away from North Sea coasts, the map showed a "high"
risk of disruption (very high nearer the E coasts). But the Western
boundary of this was completely obscured by a huge opaque "HIGH"
[risk] symbol plastered over Hampshire and surrounding areas. This
would have led most people down here to conclude that there was a
better than even chance of disruption over the whole of Hampshire and
the Isle of Wight and everywhere to the East/NE of there. I *knew*
there was very little chance of disruption SW of London and I'm sure
the forecasters did, too... but they (BBC W/C) allowed sloppy
presentation to get in the way of the forecast.

So yes, the real problem is presentation... not just in the popular
media but by professional BBC W/C presenters, too. Sadly, it happens
time and time again and the Met Office should perhaps take more
control over this because in the end it reflects badly on them, too.

--
Dave
Fareham Hampshire

On the day of the original advance warning, I said I'd eat my hat if
we had any significant snow here (S Hampshire) and my coat as well if
anything lay for more than an hour. I felt pretty safe. Yet as
recently as yesterday afternoon, unclear and misleading maps of
"disruption" risks were being shown on BBC TV weather forecasts.

For the South East away from North Sea coasts, the map showed a "high"
risk of disruption (very high nearer the E coasts). But the Western
boundary of this was completely obscured by a huge opaque "HIGH"
[risk] symbol plastered over Hampshire and surrounding areas. This
would have led most people down here to conclude that there was a
better than even chance of disruption over the whole of Hampshire and
the Isle of Wight and everywhere to the East/NE of there. I *knew*
there was very little chance of disruption SW of London and I'm sure
the forecasters did, too... but they (BBC W/C) allowed sloppy
presentation to get in the way of the forecast.

So yes, the real problem is presentation... not just in the popular
media but by professional BBC W/C presenters, too. Sadly, it happens
time and time again and the Met Office should perhaps take more
control over this because in the end it reflects badly on them, too.

--
Dave
Fareham Hampshire
Absolutely spot on there Dave. That was the problem. BBC News 24 at 1.00 am
this morning was talking of major disruption to the rush hour and heavy snow
as far down as Essex and Kent. Even warned people to not to go out! Everyone
looking at the radar then could see the showers moving out to sea and the
pressure rising and the wind in the NW etc. etc.
Dave

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:18:43 -0000,
snip
So yes, the real problem is presentation... not just in the popular
media but by professional BBC W/C presenters, too. Sadly, it happens
time and time again and the Met Office should perhaps take more
control over this because in the end it reflects badly on them, too.

.... battle (and war) lost many years ago ;'(

Martin.

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .
snip
1. Equally as important as the warning itself -- and hardly
anyone else in the thread has mentioned this -- was the clear
expression
of uncertainty. This is essential with a 96-hour lead time, but it is
not
something forecasters do with any consistency. However, this makes
the level of detail provided in the early warning inappropriate.

.... yes a valid point - presenting a "broad target" to aim at;
MeteoFrance seem to do somewhat better at this from the occasions I have
viewed their web site.

2. The more recent warnings -- and many warnings in general --
betray a lack of understanding of how information is absorbed by the
general public (and, by extension, by the news media). For instance,
semantically, "up to 15cm of snow" means anything between zero and
15cm. snip

.... I used to try and get the Chief's (if they asked), to put a *lower
figure*, and then a phrase something like ..... "but stronger gusts in a
few places", or, in the context of the current event " generally 5 to 10
cm, but some places experiencing frequent and heavy showers will have
greater accumulations" etc. Once a 'number' (or wind direction) is
placed in the text, then the highest number mentioned, almost by
default, becomes the 'headline' figure. You are quite right to point
this out, and this is not something that is taught to staff when they
undergo training etc.

Martin.

If 15 cm is mentioned, the public expect 15 cm to fall, anything less and they
will say it was a false warning, imho.

Home Page: http://bellsouthpwp.net/k/h/khogue22/index.htm
Join in chat at #ukweather on undernet and #usweather on Austnet.
K2MAH