"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
So, how did it fare ..... here is the original Advanced Warning posted
here last Wednesday:

ECMWF in the +168 available as early as last Tuesday morning were showing a
forecast chart that was to all intents and purposes exactly what has
actually transpired.

So the synoptics have been spot on for days. But there has to be a minor
query about the interpretation of these charts. This is nothing new of
course. So often, a forecast chart turns out to be accurate but the weather
doesn't quite behave. It could be argued that the computer models for
charts (at all levels) are now very good. Maybe more research is needed
into the human interpretation of what these charts will actually mean.

All in all though, I reckon this was a pretty good effort.

Jack

Overall very good early advice, given that the Warning was issued last
Wednesday. It surely is impossible to forecast the precise wind flow
direction that far ahead. As Dave suggested in his mail the main 'error' was
the fact that the flow was northerly and not north-easterly. A veer of 20
to 30 degrees would have swept the snow showers across to the Pennines. In
York we had between 1 and 2cm on a weak trough between about 3 and 4am. The
position and intensity of troughs moving south in an unstable northerly flow
is often the main problem is this situation.
However I do think that some of the TV forecasts on BBC 1, News 24, and
locally on Look North, presented by Met Office forecasters) were OTT at
times even as late as yesterday morning. I suspect many viewers will this
morning think the snow was 'overhyped'
Regards
John
--
York,
North Yorkshire.
(Norman Virus Protected)

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
So, how did it fare ..... here is the original Advanced Warning posted
here last Wednesday:

" Here is an ADVANCED WARNING of Heavy Snow affecting Northern Scotland,
Eastern Scotland, North
East England, South East England and East Anglia AND Lincolnshire.
Issued by the Met Office at 10:29 on Wednesday, 17 December 2003.

Strong northerly winds are forecast by the Met Office to bring frequent
and blustery snow showers on Sunday, particularly to Northern and Eastern
coastal counties.
There is a good deal of doubt regarding the severity of the weather but
there is the potential on Sunday for heavy snow showers to be driven well
inland from the east
coast on the strong to gale force northeasterly winds. Several cm of snow
is possible locally
with some drifting which could lead to widespread disruption to transport.
Transmitted by the Met Office. at 10:29 on Wednesday 17 December"

Looking at the traffic reports and listening to the radio (2 and 5) this
morning, this warning seems to have worked out very well. The
accompanying % probability map (not shown here) indicated 40-50%
probability of disruption: given the long lead time, this was
*excellent* guidance and enabled people to plan well ahead.

Several roads are currently blocked, or PWC, due combination of
snow/ice/frozen slush in the areas mentioned above.

Note, however, that this (and subsequent) warnings did not promise a
'white hell' for the entire country. The Met Office are not to be blamed
for that: this is a 'media' problem (& I include the BBC - they are no
better), not a Met Office problem. Once the warning is issued, it is
very difficult to control how it is interpreted & presented.
snip
Don't confuse the media hype with the outcome - there was *never* any
indication of significant snowfall away from the areas outlined in the
various warnings.
snip
Martin.

--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm

"Jennikhbm \(Suffolk\)" wrote in message


I reckon this advance forecast was one of the Met Office's better efforts -
well done. Martins comments are absolutely right. It is obvious from some
of last nights postings here that some people are only reading what they
want to hear, i.e. the scare-mongering 'news' output rather than the real
Met Office forecast.
I doubt many here have any real complaints against the Met Office that
killing a few politicians couldn't cure overnight.

The same is true I am sure for the demise of not a few BBC programme
schedulers.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Michael McNeil" wrote in message
news:ff73a0749fdd942cad3f611c9d314d7e.45219@mygate .mailgate.org
I doubt many here have any real complaints against the Met Office that
killing a few politicians couldn't cure overnight.

The same is true I am sure for the demise of not a few BBC programme
schedulers.
I would like to volunteer.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Martin Rowley wrote:

So, how did it fare ..... here is the original Advanced Warning posted
here last Wednesday:

OK, the advance warning was probably accurate enough, but to get a
Severe Warning for Kent claiming blizzards and up to 15cm of snow seemed
to be greatly wide of the mark. Absolutely nothing in the form of
precipitation here. The Severe Warning was issued within 24 hours of the
alleged snow, but even I (a mere 'rookie'!) could tell that the wind
wasn't going to veer enough for any snow here.

Jonathan
Canterbury, Kent

Hi John,

I think the Look North forecasters got it right, but there was still
conflicting information coming from the National forecasts and weather
warnings from the Mef Office. It was plain to see that the only places that
would get appreciable snow were those sticking out into the North Sea,
exposed directly to the showers. I agree that the warning issued in the
middle of last week was pretty good, but can't quite understand how a bunch
of severe weather warnings issued yesterday could be so wide of the mark.

Do we blame the media for the BBC forecast being overhyped?
--
Dave in Ferryhill, Co. Durham, UK. For webcam, look to
http://www.napier.eclipse.co.uk/weather/sample.htm


"John Whitby" wrote in message
...
Overall very good early advice, given that the Warning was issued last
Wednesday. It surely is impossible to forecast the precise wind flow
direction that far ahead. As Dave suggested in his mail the main 'error'
was
the fact that the flow was northerly and not north-easterly. A veer of 20
to 30 degrees would have swept the snow showers across to the Pennines.
In
York we had between 1 and 2cm on a weak trough between about 3 and 4am.
The
position and intensity of troughs moving south in an unstable northerly
flow
is often the main problem is this situation.
However I do think that some of the TV forecasts on BBC 1, News 24, and
locally on Look North, presented by Met Office forecasters) were OTT at
times even as late as yesterday morning. I suspect many viewers will this
morning think the snow was 'overhyped'
Regards
John
--
York,
North Yorkshire.
(Norman Virus Protected)

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
So, how did it fare ..... here is the original Advanced Warning posted
here last Wednesday:

" Here is an ADVANCED WARNING of Heavy Snow affecting Northern Scotland,
Eastern Scotland, North
East England, South East England and East Anglia AND Lincolnshire.
Issued by the Met Office at 10:29 on Wednesday, 17 December 2003.

Strong northerly winds are forecast by the Met Office to bring frequent
and blustery snow showers on Sunday, particularly to Northern and
Eastern
coastal counties.
There is a good deal of doubt regarding the severity of the weather but
there is the potential on Sunday for heavy snow showers to be driven
well
inland from the east
coast on the strong to gale force northeasterly winds. Several cm of
snow
is possible locally
with some drifting which could lead to widespread disruption to
transport.
Transmitted by the Met Office. at 10:29 on Wednesday 17 December"

Looking at the traffic reports and listening to the radio (2 and 5) this
morning, this warning seems to have worked out very well. The
accompanying % probability map (not shown here) indicated 40-50%
probability of disruption: given the long lead time, this was
*excellent* guidance and enabled people to plan well ahead.

Several roads are currently blocked, or PWC, due combination of
snow/ice/frozen slush in the areas mentioned above.

Note, however, that this (and subsequent) warnings did not promise a
'white hell' for the entire country. The Met Office are not to be blamed
for that: this is a 'media' problem (& I include the BBC - they are no
better), not a Met Office problem. Once the warning is issued, it is
very difficult to control how it is interpreted & presented.
snip
Don't confuse the media hype with the outcome - there was *never* any
indication of significant snowfall away from the areas outlined in the
various warnings.
snip
Martin.

--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm

I saved the Accumulated snow image from a run of the 45km. MM5 ,init. 18z 21st ,VT 12Z 22nd,
( http://www.westwind.ch/?page=mm5f )
comparing with reports this morning,it did pretty well except seems to have forecast snow for the
east Midlands,well inland,and north into central Kent (presumably downwind from the Thames
estuary).
The mesoscale shower systems I pointed out in the NOAA pass last night seemed to rapidly fall apart
by early this morning.I wonder if the meso models were suggesting these wld persist for longer,and
give more snow and stronger winds in central and SE England?Indeed spin up of one of these systems
wld have given a more NEly component to wind as it passed by,

--
regards,
david
(add 17 to waghorne to reply)

.... 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 my wife is petrified (and I
mean seriously so), of thunderstorms and high winds and I'm constantly
having to play down the hype that surrounds these events.

Martin.

Joe Hunt wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message
...
Martin Rowley wrote:
So, how did it fare .....

Need to know who got snow who did not and how much.

No snow here 8 miles south of Leeds, but perhaps that is
unsurprising.
But we were within the shaded area for snow.

LOL ! The shaded area for 40-50 % chance of snow !? That also means
there's no chance of snow. Some people, oh dear...........

Joe

True.:c)

I wonder what counts as a successfull forecast, when the outcome is no
snow. Clearly, a single forecast does not mean much, you would have to
go through several forecasts. So, if no-one at all got any snow this
time, you cannot fault this particular forecast?

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
So, how did it fare ..... here is the original Advanced Warning posted
here last Wednesday:

" Here is an ADVANCED WARNING of Heavy Snow affecting Northern Scotland,
Eastern Scotland, North
East England, South East England and East Anglia AND Lincolnshire.
Issued by the Met Office at 10:29 on Wednesday, 17 December 2003.

Strong northerly winds are forecast by the Met Office to bring frequent
and
blustery snow showers on Sunday, particularly to Northern and Eastern
coastal counties.
There is a good deal of doubt regarding the severity of the weather but
there is the potential
on Sunday for heavy snow showers to be driven well inland from the east
coast on the strong to
gale force northeasterly winds. Several cm of snow is possible locally
with some
drifting which could lead to widespread disruption to transport.
Transmitted by the Met Office. at 10:29 on Wednesday 17 December"

May I add my two penn'orth? My impression is that this was a
good call -- and quite a bold one at such a long lead time, but with
the probable large numbers on the move over the weekend some residual
public service ideal seemed to have filtered through. I said as much in
the S.Tel yesterday, and as I am miserly with my praise, it should count
for more on those rare occasions when I lose control and actually offer
some.

With that in mind, I hope a couple of minor criticisms will be seen as
constructive.

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. In
fact, offering such detail, tends to negate the expressed uncertainty. The
detail was, as others have pointed out, in some respects wrong, and
four days ahead an experienced forecaster would have expected that.
An early-warning issued four days in advance shouldn't really try to
offer anything beyond the nature of the hazard, the broad timescale,
and the approximate geographical extent.

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. This may be precisely what the issuing forecaster means, but it
is certainly not (as many posters in u.s.w. have demonstrated) how the
information is received. A different form of words should be used for
such statements (it goes for wind gusts, amounts of rain, visibility in
fog, etc). I'm not sure I have the answer, but maybe a typical value
followed by a possible extreme value would be less subject to
misinterpretation ... for example, "2 to 5 cm of snow, but in the worst
hit areas such as the North York Moors there could be as much as
15cm".

This is too big a subject to cover all the aspects, and I wouldn't even
try to address the thought processes which are clearly not going on
inside the heads of some of the weather presenters. But I will say that
my experience is that, when there is serious weather about, it is vital
to maintain an objectivity and a sense of calm. *That* gives you
authority.

Philip Eden