"Mark Chamberlain" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:35:45 -0000, "Jon O'Rourke"
wrote:

"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

Jon.

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell if was told as if was seen,

oops :-))

I know, that didn't make any sense to me either, until I read the bit
immediately *after*

Ah well, it's been a trying day.
Sod winter, roll on spring

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

"Col" wrote in message
...

OK, perhaps panic is the wrong word but it was still presented as being
*far* more serious than it turned out to be. Any significant snow appears
(with the exception of parts of Kent) to have been confined to those areas
like the eastern slopes of the Pennines, which are relitively used to such
conditions anyway.

I haven't got the relevant info to hand but don't believe that "significant
snow" (not sure exactly what that is given that it doesn't take much in
certain parts to be significant..) was only confined to the Pennines etc.

I know that it's difficult to forecast in such conditions and that minor
errors
can lead to hundreds of feet difference in the snow line.
However if this was down to forecasting error alone then you would
expect as many 'snow over the hills/rain on lower ground' forecasts to
end up with snow everywhere as you would with today's situation.
This simply does not happen.

There's been a few ! I suspect the main reason is the rarity of snow in
southern parts, at least in recent years.

Time and time and time again severe
weather is exaggerated or simply does not turn up, it happens with
severe gales too. The converse rarely ocurrs.

Well, all I can do is assure you that everyone I work with, and it applies
to all Met Offices, simply try their hardest to get it right. Full stop.

Jon.

"Col" wrote in message
...

OK, perhaps panic is the wrong word but it was still presented as being
*far* more serious than it turned out to be. Any significant snow appears
(with the exception of parts of Kent) to have been confined to those areas
like the eastern slopes of the Pennines, which are relitively used to such
conditions anyway.

I haven't got the relevant info to hand but don't believe that "significant
snow" (not sure exactly what that is given that it doesn't take much in
certain parts to be significant..) was only confined to the Pennines etc.

I know that it's difficult to forecast in such conditions and that minor
errors
can lead to hundreds of feet difference in the snow line.
However if this was down to forecasting error alone then you would
expect as many 'snow over the hills/rain on lower ground' forecasts to
end up with snow everywhere as you would with today's situation.
This simply does not happen.

There's been a few ! I suspect the main reason is the rarity of snow in
southern parts, at least in recent years.

Time and time and time again severe
weather is exaggerated or simply does not turn up, it happens with
severe gales too. The converse rarely ocurrs.

Well, all I can do is assure you that everyone I work with, and it applies
to all Met Offices, simply try their hardest to get it right. Full stop.

Jon.

"Col" wrote in message
...

OK, perhaps panic is the wrong word but it was still presented as being
*far* more serious than it turned out to be. Any significant snow appears
(with the exception of parts of Kent) to have been confined to those areas
like the eastern slopes of the Pennines, which are relitively used to such
conditions anyway.

I haven't got the relevant info to hand but don't believe that "significant
snow" (not sure exactly what that is given that it doesn't take much in
certain parts to be significant..) was only confined to the Pennines etc.

I know that it's difficult to forecast in such conditions and that minor
errors
can lead to hundreds of feet difference in the snow line.
However if this was down to forecasting error alone then you would
expect as many 'snow over the hills/rain on lower ground' forecasts to
end up with snow everywhere as you would with today's situation.
This simply does not happen.

There's been a few ! I suspect the main reason is the rarity of snow in
southern parts, at least in recent years.

Time and time and time again severe
weather is exaggerated or simply does not turn up, it happens with
severe gales too. The converse rarely ocurrs.

Well, all I can do is assure you that everyone I work with, and it applies
to all Met Offices, simply try their hardest to get it right. Full stop.

Jon.

"Col" wrote in message
...

OK, perhaps panic is the wrong word but it was still presented as being
*far* more serious than it turned out to be. Any significant snow appears
(with the exception of parts of Kent) to have been confined to those areas
like the eastern slopes of the Pennines, which are relitively used to such
conditions anyway.

I haven't got the relevant info to hand but don't believe that "significant
snow" (not sure exactly what that is given that it doesn't take much in
certain parts to be significant..) was only confined to the Pennines etc.

I know that it's difficult to forecast in such conditions and that minor
errors
can lead to hundreds of feet difference in the snow line.
However if this was down to forecasting error alone then you would
expect as many 'snow over the hills/rain on lower ground' forecasts to
end up with snow everywhere as you would with today's situation.
This simply does not happen.

There's been a few ! I suspect the main reason is the rarity of snow in
southern parts, at least in recent years.

Time and time and time again severe
weather is exaggerated or simply does not turn up, it happens with
severe gales too. The converse rarely ocurrs.

Well, all I can do is assure you that everyone I work with, and it applies
to all Met Offices, simply try their hardest to get it right. Full stop.

Jon.

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jon O'Rourke writes:
"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

I think you may be seeing an error that isn't there. It makes sense as
it was, but not if you replace either "it" by "if".
--

Arrgh. I blame the dentist, or maybe it's the optician in this case !

Jon.

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jon O'Rourke writes:
"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

I think you may be seeing an error that isn't there. It makes sense as
it was, but not if you replace either "it" by "if".
--

Arrgh. I blame the dentist, or maybe it's the optician in this case !

Jon.

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jon O'Rourke writes:
"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

I think you may be seeing an error that isn't there. It makes sense as
it was, but not if you replace either "it" by "if".
--

Arrgh. I blame the dentist, or maybe it's the optician in this case !

Jon.

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jon O'Rourke writes:
"Jon O'Rourke" wrote in message

Not true, Col. As far as I can tell it was told as it was seen,

for "it" read "if", one of these days I'll read it through before hitting
the send button.

I think you may be seeing an error that isn't there. It makes sense as
it was, but not if you replace either "it" by "if".
--

Arrgh. I blame the dentist, or maybe it's the optician in this case !

Jon.

"Col" wrote in message
...

However I feel that they had probably come to the
conclusion that conditions would be much as they eventually
turned out, but once again covered themselves by forecasting
much more serious conditions.

Col

I think we're in danger of going round in circles here, Col. See my 2123Z
post.

Jon.