----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Sager, KI6RGR" <ki6rgr@earthlink.net>
To: <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [californiadisasters] Re: Admin Read: Stop Shooting the
Messenger
> Didn't he retire to Porterville?
>
> CD Frederick wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ah... where is Dr. George and his spontaneous, off-the-cuff
> > explanations of all things obscure.
> >
> > After watching his weather "performance" I never really cared what the
> > weather would be. I was just smiling!!!
> >
> > - Chris, in Indiana, formerly a SoCal resident.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Lin Kerns <linkerns@gmail.com>
> > *To:* californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Sat, February 26, 2011 1:31:17 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [californiadisasters] Re: Admin Read: Stop Shooting the
> > Messenger
> >
> >
> >
> > Disagree on the weather folks in the east. After living most of my
> > life in the midwest/south and then spending 5 years in SoCal, my
> > weather geekiness zoned in on one very differing factor in weather
> > prediction. That factor was mentioned briefly by Kim in his initial
> > email on the subject--that weather systems entering the coastal ranges
> > are very hard to predict, thanks to the topography. Storm systems are
> > like fires in that no two are alike; and add into the mix the terrain,
> > which is like no other part of the US and you've got a squirming tiger
> > that appears to have a mind of its own. Not only do you have
> > orographic lifting, which is like a rebound effect with the
> > precipitation, but you have a system interacting with the jetstream
> > and any pressure systems in the area that cannot discern the gentle
> > rise of land.
> >
> > Once that system crosses the Rockies, the weather becomes easier to
> > predict based upon any number of interactions that occur. For example,
> > a system moves into the midwest and encounters Gulf moisture, but even
> > the added mass of contributing factors does not hinder good
> > forecasting. Our weather centers have become very efficient over the
> > years, thanks to technology and those predictable, well understood
> > interactions that occur and have occurred for hundreds of years.
> > Weather prediction in the rest of the country is almost mathematical.
> > I would say we are at the 80% point on accuracy, which is far better
> > than what it was when I was a kid.
> >
> > When I first moved to CA, I was hard on the forecasters, too, but once
> > I understood the random mix of elements involved, I became more
> > appreciative. Give 'em a break--just ignore the brash tv front people
> > who bounce across the screen, all Hollywood, and remember the real
> > work of those hard working meteorologists behind the scenes.
> >
> > Lin
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:13 AM, newnethboy <kef413@gmail.com
> > <http://gmail.com/>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Two reactions:
> >
> > 1. I know from my (not extremely current) exposure that the TV
weather
> > people in the East are not fundamentally different, but even so,
> > here in CA,
> > the weather is such, and the people are such, that the levels of
> > hype here
> > are much greater than elsewhere. I mean, seriously, if we have a
> > half-inch
> > of rain, all the TV stations have "Live Storm Watch" coverage at
> > least on
> > par with the coverage your lot give to a true blizzard.
> >
> > If we get snow into the populated areas Saturday, I can pretty much
> > guarantee we'll have live continuing, pre-emptive news coverage.
> > (But of
> > course, that hasn't happened since 1949, so it really would be
news.)
> >
> > 2. NWS does, in fact, provide "spot forecasts" when/where needed,
> > e.g. for
> > commanders of major fires. (I don't know the circumstances under
> > which that
> > sort of service can be obtained.)
> >
> > Via the Web, I can get a "pinpoint forecast" which is allegedly
> > for about a
> > one-mile square around the coordinates I enter. (The actual present
> > readings, though, are from about 15 miles away in my case.)
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Daithi" <dboconnor1@earthlink.net
> > <mailto:dboconnor1%40earthlink.net>>
> > To: <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:californiadisasters%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 10:08 PM
> > Subject: [californiadisasters] Re: Admin Read: Stop Shooting the
> > Messenger
> >
> > Kim:
> >
> > I will fully agree about not shooting the messenger. NWS does the
> > best they
> > can with the available data and usually their best is very good
> > but weather
> > is still not an exact science.
> >
> > TV weather people sometimes do seem to get a bit overexcited about
> > a storm
> > as a big story.
> >
> > As to the private weather services I was a EMA director for 27
> > years and my
> > city subscribed to a private weather service. What was the benefit
> > to us?
> > NWS provides forecast for larger general areas so has larger
> > ranges for
> > arrival times of the storm and precipitation e.g. "The storm will
> > reach
> > eastern Massachusetts between 4pm and 10pm and bring 6 to 12
> > inches of new
> > snow"
> >
> > Government agencies may have DPW workers who work 7 to 3 every
> > day. We need
> > to know whether to send people home and have them come back at 10
> > or keep
> > them on duty paying overtime the whole time. If you send them home
> > they
> > might not get back through the snow. Keep 200 truck drivers on
> > overtime
> > with no snow and you have spent a lot of money and you don't need
> > them until
> > an hour before the storm to start your salt laydown. The private
> > services
> > can localize more and provide narrower windows for storm start,
better
> > estimates of accumulation and precipitation rate. I know my DPW
people
> > thought the private service was money well spent to save the city
> > money.
> >
> > Funny story about forecast errors. Several years ago I was at a NWS
> > training session for EMA directors from coastal Massachusetts. A big
> > t-storm arrived just before the start time and then the head warning
> > meteorologist for the region arrived soaked to the skin, no
> > rainjacket, no
> > umbrella. He arrived laughing about himself getting caught in the
> > rain and
> > made the point about not being perfect.
> >
> > --- In californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:californiadisasters%40yahoogroups.com>, Kim Noyes
> > <kimnoyes@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Achtung Gruppe!
> > >
> > > This has been on my mind for awhile and I have been waiting for
> > the right
> > > time to speak and the right words to share.
> > >
> > > There has been a lot of talk here on this list for some time
> > about SoCal
> > > weather forecasts that don't pan out and disparaging remarks
> > about the
> > > performance of the forecasters.
> > >
> > > The attitude seems to be that the forecasters are incompetent
> > fools who
> > > failed at their otherwise easy jobs.
> > >
> > > These comments seem to be based upon the false assumption that
> > weather
> > > forecasting is easy and is an exact science if in the hands of
> > competent
> > > forecasters.
> > >
> > > This could not be further from the truth.
> > >
> > > Weather forecasting will always be suffused with a significant
> > degree of
> > > uncertainty.
> > >
> > > More so in a region bordered by ocean to the west from whence
> > the weather
> > > comes and upon which there are few weather reporting stations
> > which are
> > > essential to accurate weather forecasts.
> > >
> > > In fact, west of our coastline the only weather reporting
> > stations are on
> > > buoys and weather reports from ships.
> > >
> > > Our weather forecasters are for the most part intelligent and
> > well-educated
> > > people doing the very best they can with what they have to work.
> > >
> > > Remember, too, that they have to hedge their bets and error on
> > the side of
> > > caution and if in doubt over-forecast as opposed to
under-forecast.
> > >
> > > Nobody gets hurt from being overly alarmed and overly cautious
> > about the
> > > weather but they certainly can be harmed from being inadequately
> > warned
> > and
> > > under-prepared.
> > >
> > > It is a fact of nature that the transverse ranges of Southern
> > California
> > are
> > > not only a geographical boundary but seem to function as a sort of
> > > meteorological boundary as well.
> > >
> > > Weak to marginal storms coming from the north seem to not hold
> > their own
> > > south of this east-west trend of mountains which are the
metaphoric
> > > "crumpled up fender" of the Pacific Plate colliding with the North
> > American
> > > Plate at the Big Bend in the San Andreas Fault Zone.
> > >
> > > Only the more vigorous storms coming from the north or storms
> > coming more
> > > from the west or southwest (in other words, subtropical
> > moisture) seem to
> > > make it to Southern California to drop significant rain.
> > >
> > > While it is true that not a few LA TV market news outlets employ
> > "bimbage"
> > > to read the weather as "eye candy" to attract the age 18-36 male
> > > demographic, even these silicone-implanted talking heads are
reading
> > > forecasts created elsewhere by professional weather-forecasting
> > agencies
> > > staffed by real weather forecasters.
> > >
> > > The one fault with the current system that I find is that often
> > these
> > > private weather agencies such as The Weather Channel, in contrast
to
> > NOAA's
> > > National Weather Service, are based outside the local area and
> > lack a long
> > > experience with the nuances and complexities of our local weather.
> > >
> > > I would trust a forecast by NWS Los Angeles/Oxnard way more than
> > anything
> > > from The Weather Channel or any news outlet employing a private
> > weather
> > > forecasting agency not based in California to generate their TV
> > weather
> > > forecast.
> > >
> > > I feel we've belabored the issue of weather forecasts that don't
> > pan out
> > and
> > > how much the local weather forecasters suck to the point of
> > beating a dead
> > > horse so let's cool it, gang.
> > >
> > > Acknowledging on the DISCUSSION list something to the effect
> > that "thank
> > god
> > > that mega-storm didn't pan out or bad things would have
> > happened" is fine
> > > but let's stop cheap-shoting our local weather forecasters.
> > >
> > > We certainly don't pick on Cal-Tech for not warning us every
> > time there is
> > a
> > > damaging Southern California earthquake not preceded by a Level
> > A alert.
> > >
> > > Kim Patrick Noyes
> > > List-Oberfurher
> > >
> > > --
> > > Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
> > > Read our blog at http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/
> > > Visit me on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
> > > Visit my Myspace at http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
> > > We have an Ebay store at http://stores.ebay.com/K-K-Earthwerks
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Got Penguins?
> >
> > Penguin News Today <http://penguinnewstoday.blogspot.com/>
> > The Science of Penguins <http://penguinology.blogspot.com/>
> > *The Gentoos are back! Come see them on live cam at:*
> > Gentoo Penguins of Gars O'Higgins Station, Antarctica
> > <http://wiinterrr.blogspot.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 73's
> Michael Sager, KI6RGR
> Vallejo, CA, USA cm88vc
>
>
------------------------------------
Be sure to check out our Links Section at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/links
Please join our Discussion Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters_discussion/ for topical but extended discussions started here or for less topical but nonetheless relevant messages.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
californiadisasters-digest@yahoogroups.com
californiadisasters-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
californiadisasters-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment