Does NOAA really write this way?
John Seal
purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane
Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very
sensational, for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING
INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was "THE
VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY
THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED."
Shouldn't it be "HARDIEST"?
I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
Philip Eden
"John Seal" <se...@indy.raytheon.com> wrote in message
news:HFWVe.1$i9...@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com...
The latter. Not only is the language wrong, most of the subject matter is
outwith their
purview.
Philip Eden
Jim Lawton
Google for <WWUS74 KLIX 281550> to see same info on many pages - that might help
you decide. I think it is genuine.
--
Jim
"a single species has come to dominate ...
reproducing at bacterial levels, almost as an
infectious plague envelops its host"
http://tinyurl.com/c88xs
Ben Zimmer
NBC News anchor Brian Williams thought it might be a prank too, but
according to his blog, he and his staff verified it...
-----
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9216831/#050905
I will never forget one particular moment: I was on the phone with my
wife while at the checkout area when a weather bulletin arrived on my
Blackberry, along with a strong caveat from our New York producers. The
wording and contents were so incendiary that our folks were concerned
that it wasn't real... either a bogus dispatch or a rogue piece of text.
I filed a live report by phone for Nightly News (after an exchange with
New York about the contents of the bulletin) and very cautiously couched
the information. Later, we learned it was real, every word of it.
[...]
We talked about the document en route to New Orleans. It turned out to
be an advance copy of the script for this storm, predicting in
unbelievable detail the level of destruction that was by now less than
24 hours away. To me it conjured up the image of a lone forecaster,
known but to his or her co-workers, struggling to merge decades-old
boilerplate Weather Service wording with the most vivid language
possible in a final attempt to warn an entire region.
-----
Later, Williams determined the source of the unusual prose:
-----
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9216831/#050909c
Today I received a call from Dan Sobien of the National Weather Service
Employees Association. It seems that many forecasters were aware of our
posting (and had heard me tell the story on the Daily Show last night)
and were thankful that their work had been recognized. The most chilling
news is that the forecaster who was the author of the bulletin, Robert
Ricks, is a New Orleans native... who co-workers believe lost his home
in this storm.
Mr. Sobien confirmed my hunch: some of the language in the bulletin was
cut-and-paste boilerplate, but in other areas the writing was all Mr.
Ricks'... who painted such an awful and vivid picture of the storm
churning toward New Orleans. It proved to be a dead-on prediction of the
destruction and human suffering. I was also reminded today that the NWS
issued numerous predictions of levee failure in New Orleans.
-----
Troy Steadman
Seems genuine to me. "Heartiest" is rather good implying: "Hearts of
Oak". "Hardiest" trees might expect to survive an Ice Age.
Ben Zimmer
>
> John Seal wrote:
> >
> > http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bulletin
> > purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane
> > Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very
> > sensational, for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING
> > INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was
> > "THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY
> > THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED."
> > Shouldn't it be "HARDIEST"?
> >
> > I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
>
> NBC News anchor Brian Williams thought it might be a prank too, but
> according to his blog, he and his staff verified it...
And Google still has the cache:
http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.srh.noaa.gov/data/LIX/NPWLIX.0508291706
As for the "hearty" eggcorn, I've appended the bulletin to the
appropriate entry in the Eggcorn Database:
Philip Eden
"Ben Zimmer" <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:432842E5...@midway.uchicago.edu...
> Ben Zimmer wrote:
>>
> And Google still has the cache:
>
> http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.srh.noaa.gov/data/LIX/NPWLIX.0508291706
>
Warning Center but by the (comparatively) small local weather
office in Mobile who have very different requirements. Still
NOAA, though.
Philip Eden
Rick Wotnaz
> Ben Zimmer wrote:
>>
>> John Seal wrote:
>> >
>> > http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bu
>> > lletin purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued
>> > before hurricane Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd
>> > to me. It's very sensational, for example: "WATER SHORTAGES
>> > WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS."
>> > What caught my eye, though, was "THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE
>> > TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY THE HEARTIEST WILL
>> > REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED." Shouldn't it be
>> > "HARDIEST"?
>> >
>> > I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
>>
>> NBC News anchor Brian Williams thought it might be a prank too,
>> but according to his blog, he and his staff verified it...
>
> And Google still has the cache:
>
> http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.srh.noaa.gov/data/LIX/NPWLIX
> .0508291706
>
> As for the "hearty" eggcorn, I've appended the bulletin to the
> appropriate entry in the Eggcorn Database:
>
> http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/560/hearty/
>
Is it truly an eggcorn, I wonder? My RHUD shows:
heart·y (härÆt"), adj., heart·i·er, heart·i·est, n., pl. heart·
ies.
–adj.
6. physically vigorous; strong and well: hale and hearty.
... which seems reasonably fitting for the quote. It's not talking
about the ability of species to survive climatic changes, but of
individual trees -- the healthiest, presumably -- to withstand the
buffeting of the wind.
--
rzed
Ben Zimmer
>
> Ben Zimmer <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in
> news:432842E5...@midway.uchicago.edu:
>
> > appropriate entry in the Eggcorn Database:
> >
> > http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/560/hearty/
> >
>
> Is it truly an eggcorn, I wonder? My RHUD shows:
> heart·y (härÆt"), adj., heart·i·er, heart·i·est, n., pl. heart·
> ies. –adj.
>
> 6. physically vigorous; strong and well: hale and hearty.
>
> ... which seems reasonably fitting for the quote. It's not talking
> about the ability of species to survive climatic changes, but of
> individual trees -- the healthiest, presumably -- to withstand the
> buffeting of the wind.
"Hardy" and "hearty" are indeed quite close semantically, allowing for
slippage between the two-- compare "party hearty/hardy":
http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/134/hardy/
But AFAIK the 'healthy' sense of "hearty" is used chiefly for humans,
while "hardy" has a specific sense relating to the durability of plants
in rough conditions (not just "climatic changes")...
AHD <http://www.bartleby.com/61/36/H0063600.html>:
Capable of surviving unfavorable conditions, such as cold weather or
lack of moisture. Used especially of cultivated plants.
Rick Wotnaz
[...]
> "Hardy" and "hearty" are indeed quite close semantically,
> allowing for slippage between the two-- compare "party
> hearty/hardy":
>
> http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/134/hardy/
>
> But AFAIK the 'healthy' sense of "hearty" is used chiefly for
> humans, while "hardy" has a specific sense relating to the
> durability of plants in rough conditions (not just "climatic
> changes")...
>
> AHD <http://www.bartleby.com/61/36/H0063600.html>:
> Capable of surviving unfavorable conditions, such as cold
> weather or lack of moisture. Used especially of cultivated
> plants.
>
I suppose it makes sense to use "hearty" only in reference to
something with a beating heart. But still, though I certainly can
be wrong, I think of "hardy" as something referring more to a type
or species than to an individual. Pine may be a hardy type of tree,
but would one particular pine be more hardy than another? I
wouldn't describe them in those terms. Maybe the weather guy
wouldn't have, either.
Of course, then he and I would be stuck when it came to describing
individual instances in better health, and the "hale and hearty"
sense may have come to mind for him more readily than extending
"hardy" to individual cases. And it could be that I'm
misinterpreting what he wrote -- that he really meant only the
hardiest species would survive -- so it would be an eggcorn, as you
say.
--
rzed
Evan Kirshenbaum
> John Seal wrote:
>>
>> http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bulletin
>> purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane
>> Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very
>> sensational, for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING
>> INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was "THE
>> VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY
>> THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED."
>> Shouldn't it be "HARDIEST"?
>>
>> I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
>
> NBC News anchor Brian Williams thought it might be a prank too, but
> according to his blog, he and his staff verified it...
[snip, but still quoting]
> We talked about the document en route to New Orleans. It turned out to
> be an advance copy of the script for this storm, predicting in
> unbelievable detail the level of destruction that was by now less than
> 24 hours away.
I've heard several people claim this, but I still can't see it.
Reading through the release again, I'm still struck by the fact that
nowhere does it mention "flooding", "levee breaches", or "water
damage". It says that all wood-framed low-rise apartment buildings
would be destroyed. In New Orleans, that didn't happen. It said that
all high-rise windows would blow out. In New Orleans, that didn't
happen. It warned of a storm that would "rival" the intensity of
Camille. Many people, whose houses survived Camille, didn't evacuate,
citing that expectation as their reason.
All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi and
Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what would
happen in New Orleans. And, indeed, had the storm described hit and
the levees in New Orleans not broken, the actions taken beforehand (by
the government and by most individuals) would seem to have been pretty
much appropriate.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God.
| Thomas Jefferson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Philip Eden
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:k6hjk2...@hpl.hp.com...
... AFTER landfall.
Philip Eden
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Ben Zimmer <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in
>news:43284CFE...@midway.uchicago.edu:
>
>[...]
>> "Hardy" and "hearty" are indeed quite close semantically,
>> allowing for slippage between the two-- compare "party
>> hearty/hardy":
>>
>> http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/134/hardy/
>>
>> But AFAIK the 'healthy' sense of "hearty" is used chiefly for
>> humans, while "hardy" has a specific sense relating to the
>> durability of plants in rough conditions (not just "climatic
>> changes")...
>>
>> AHD <http://www.bartleby.com/61/36/H0063600.html>:
>> Capable of surviving unfavorable conditions, such as cold
>> weather or lack of moisture. Used especially of cultivated
>> plants.
>>
>
>I suppose it makes sense to use "hearty" only in reference to
>something with a beating heart.
There is a beating heart in my soup?
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Ted Schuerzinger
wrote in news:43283b5e$0$21931$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk:
> The latter. Not only is the language wrong, most of the subject
> matter is outwith their purview.
'Outwith'? Is that a British usage?
--
Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
Oh Marge, anyone can miss Canada, all tucked away down there....
--Homer Simpson
Philip Eden
"Ted Schuerzinger" <fe...@bestweb.spam> wrote in message
news:Xns96D174DACBDAE8j...@ID-121946.user.dfncis.de...
> Somebody claiming to be "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom>
> wrote in news:43283b5e$0$21931$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk:
>
>> The latter. Not only is the language wrong, most of the subject
>> matter is outwith their purview.
>
> 'Outwith'? Is that a British usage?
>
Scottish until recently but it has filtered into mainstream BrE
now. It's usually regarded as slightly pompous, as is "purview".
I used both for fun.
Philip Eden
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> I've heard several people claim this, but I still can't see it.
> Reading through the release again, I'm still struck by the fact that
> nowhere does it mention "flooding", "levee breaches", or "water
> damage". It says that all wood-framed low-rise apartment buildings
> would be destroyed. In New Orleans, that didn't happen. It said that
> all high-rise windows would blow out. In New Orleans, that didn't
> happen. It warned of a storm that would "rival" the intensity of
> Camille. Many people, whose houses survived Camille, didn't evacuate,
> citing that expectation as their reason.
>
Were their houses hit directly in Camille? The level of complete
stupidity of some people is almost unimaginable. New Orleans had a cat 5
hurricane heading right for it but was only hit obliquely with the weak
side of a strong cat 3. Had it been the direct hit that was indeed very
possible, the loss of life would've been on a scale of the Indian Basin
tsunami and with days of warning.
> All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi and
> Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what would
> happen in New Orleans.
>
They don't know where exactly land fall will be.
> And, indeed, had the storm described hit and
> the levees in New Orleans not broken, the actions taken beforehand (by
> the government and by most individuals) would seem to have been pretty
> much appropriate.
>
You mean not evacuating and not providing people who couldn't evacuate
with sufficient transport at least to the Superdome? Just because the
worst doesn't happen, doesn't mean you were a fool to act cautiously and
prepare for the worst. It might even mean that people who didn't act
under the mandatory evacuation order who could've acted and then needed
rescue cost the lives of those who otherwise might have been saved had
those imprudent not so behaved.
--
"How vain and foolish, then, thought I, for timid untravelled man to try
to comprehend aright this wondrous whale, by merely pouring over his
dead attenuated skeleton, stretched in this peaceful wood. No. Only in
the heart of quickest perils; only when within the eddyings of his angry
flukes; only on the profound unbounded sea, can the fully invested whale
be truly and livingly found out." -+Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
CDB
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:98ogi1dc1be1f3dp8...@4ax.com...
"Any food can cause Bad Breath, even the rectal tissue of cows, or
'bologna', as you know it."
Jess Askin
> "Ted Schuerzinger" <fe...@bestweb.spam> wrote in message
> news:Xns96D174DACBDAE8j...@ID-121946.user.dfncis.de...
>> Somebody claiming to be "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom>
>> wrote in news:43283b5e$0$21931$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk:
>>
>>> The latter. Not only is the language wrong, most of the subject
>>> matter is outwith their purview.
>>
>> 'Outwith'? Is that a British usage?
>>
> There was a thread on this last month, I think ...
Does that mean this is a rethread?
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
>> All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi and
>> Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what would
>> happen in New Orleans. And, indeed, had the storm described hit and
>> the levees in New Orleans not broken, the actions taken beforehand (by
>> the government and by most individuals) would seem to have been pretty
>> much appropriate.
>>
> Because it was issued by the NWS office in Mobile, Alabama
> ... AFTER landfall.
Really? It purports to have been issued by the NWS office in New
Orleans, Louisiana on Sunday morning.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Now every hacker knows
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | That the secret to survivin'
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is knowin' when the time is free
| And what's the load and queue
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |'Cause everyone's a cruncher
(650)857-7572 | And everyone's a user
|And the best that you can hope for
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Is a crash when you're through
Philip Eden
> "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> writes:
>
>> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
>>> All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi and
>>> Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what would
>>> happen in New Orleans. And, indeed, had the storm described hit and
>>> the levees in New Orleans not broken, the actions taken beforehand (by
>>> the government and by most individuals) would seem to have been pretty
>>> much appropriate.
>>>
>> Because it was issued by the NWS office in Mobile, Alabama
>> ... AFTER landfall.
>
> Really? It purports to have been issued by the NWS office in New
> Orleans, Louisiana on Sunday morning.
>
http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.srh.noaa.gov/data/LIX/NPWLIX.0508291706
pe
Ben Zimmer
That was the link I gave, but other cached versions are dated Sunday
morning, e.g.:
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
> news:k6hj47...@hpl.hp.com...
>> "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> writes:
>>
>>> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
>>>> All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi
>>>> and Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what
>>>> would happen in New Orleans. And, indeed, had the storm
>>>> described hit and the levees in New Orleans not broken, the
>>>> actions taken beforehand (by the government and by most
>>>> individuals) would seem to have been pretty much appropriate.
>>>>
>>> Because it was issued by the NWS office in Mobile, Alabama
>>> ... AFTER landfall.
>>
>> Really? It purports to have been issued by the NWS office in New
>> Orleans, Louisiana on Sunday morning.
>>
> See
> http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.srh.noaa.gov/data/LIX/NPWLIX.0508291706
I think I can trump that. Searching on "NPWLIX", the first posting of
this to Usenet was on Sunday, August 28th (before landfall).
http://tinyurl.com/aknf2
<URL:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/
msg/3a67cc65559dce95>
It doesn't mention Mobile, and it does list a whole bunch of Louisiana
parishes.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Voting in the House of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Representatives is done by means of a
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |little plastic card with a magnetic
|strip on the back--like a VISA card,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |but with no, that is, absolutely
(650)857-7572 |*no*, spending limit.
| P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robert Bannister
> As for the "hearty" eggcorn, I've appended the bulletin to the
> appropriate entry in the Eggcorn Database:
Re. egghorns: I thought I'd found a real goody yesterday, but to be
fair, it was a computer gaming bulletin board and the writer spoiled it
by editing a few minutes later. Still, I did like the way she wanted to
place an object "flesh against the wall". I thought this could be a
metaphor with a future.
--
Rob Bannister
Philip Eden
> "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> writes:
>
>> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
>> news:k6hj47...@hpl.hp.com...
>>> "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
>>>>> All told, it decently predicted what would happen in Mississippi
>>>>> and Alabama. To my mind, it completely missed the mark on what
>>>>> would happen in New Orleans. And, indeed, had the storm
>>>>> described hit and the levees in New Orleans not broken, the
>>>>> actions taken beforehand (by the government and by most
>>>>> individuals) would seem to have been pretty much appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>> Because it was issued by the NWS office in Mobile, Alabama
>>>> ... AFTER landfall.
>>>
>>> Really? It purports to have been issued by the NWS office in New
>>> Orleans, Louisiana on Sunday morning.
>>>
>> See
>> http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.srh.noaa.gov/data/LIX/NPWLIX.0508291706
>
> I think I can trump that. Searching on "NPWLIX", the first posting of
> this to Usenet was on Sunday, August 28th (before landfall).
>
> http://tinyurl.com/aknf2
> <URL:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/
> msg/3a67cc65559dce95>
>
> It doesn't mention Mobile, and it does list a whole bunch of Louisiana
> parishes.
>
URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA
ISSUED BY NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MOBILE AL
1205 PM CDT MON AUG 29 2005
<end quote>
I'm quite happy to admit I'm wrong about the first issuance
of this message, but not about this particular point.
For what it's worth, from a professional point of view I
would find it hard to justify the content or the language.
The amount of real meteorological information is minimal.
Severe weather warnings in the UK are factual and to
the point. I quite understand that there may be a
different culture in respect of these things in the US.
Philip Eden
Ben Zimmer
Ben Zimmer
>
> Re. egghorns: I thought I'd found a real goody yesterday [...]
By the way, "egghorn" has cropped up before in the annals of
eggcornology. Mark Liberman calls it a meta-eggcorn...
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001430.html
No Spam
news:HFWVe.1$i9...@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com...
> purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane
> Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very sensational,
> for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING
> INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was "THE
> VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY
> THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED." Shouldn't
> it be "HARDIEST"?
>
> I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
YES NOAA WRITES LIKE THAT...AND IN ALL CAPS...AND
THE ONLY PUNCTUATION THEY USE IS ONE DOT...OR THREE.
ITS ANNOYING... DIFFICULT TO READ...AND ILLITERATE.
Jess Askin
They probably started out in the days of the teletype and never changed.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
>> I think I can trump that. Searching on "NPWLIX", the first posting of
>> this to Usenet was on Sunday, August 28th (before landfall).
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/aknf2
>> <URL:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/
>> msg/3a67cc65559dce95>
>>
>> It doesn't mention Mobile, and it does list a whole bunch of Louisiana
>> parishes.
>>
> <quote>
> URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE
> NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA
> ISSUED BY NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MOBILE AL
> 1205 PM CDT MON AUG 29 2005
> <end quote>
>
> I'm quite happy to admit I'm wrong about the first issuance
> of this message, but not about this particular point.
But if you quote from the first posting of it, it doesn't say that.
It says
URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA
1011 AM CDT SUN AUG 28 2005
It goes on to say something whose equivalent appears to be missing
from the version that claimes to be from Mobile:
LAZ038-040-050-056>070-282100-
ASSUMPTION-LIVINGSTON-LOWER JEFFERSON-LOWER LAFOURCHE-
LOWER PLAQUEMINES-LOWER ST. BERNARD-LOWER TERREBONNE-ORLEANS-
ST. CHARLES-ST. JAMES-ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST-ST. TAMMANY-TANGIPAHOA-
UPPER JEFFERSON-UPPER LAFOURCHE-UPPER PLAQUEMINES-UPPER ST. BERNARD-
UPPER TERREBONNE-
1011 AM CDT SUN AUG 28 2005
listing the affected areas. This is, I believe, standard in such
warnings. (These are (parts of) parishes in Louisiana. In the rest
of the country they would list counties.) (Except in Alaska. I
forget what they have there.)
In any case, what would
> NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW ORLEANS LA
> ISSUED BY NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MOBILE AL
mean? That has the hallmarks of something added later.
> For what it's worth, from a professional point of view I
> would find it hard to justify the content or the language.
> The amount of real meteorological information is minimal.
> Severe weather warnings in the UK are factual and to
> the point. I quite understand that there may be a
> different culture in respect of these things in the US.
No. Several people have noted (not necessarily in this group) that
this was quite unusual for such warnings. The guy who wrote it was
clearly trying to get across an exceptional amount of urgency. And
rightly so, even if he missed predicting what the actual problems
would be.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take
|something and not pay for it.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
Steve Hayes
<philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> wrote:
>
>"John Seal" <se...@indy.raytheon.com> wrote in message
>news:HFWVe.1$i9...@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com...
>> http://wikisource.org/wiki/August_28_2005_10:11_AM_CDT_NOAA_Bulletin
>> purports to be the text of the NOAA bulletin issued before hurricane
>> Katrina, but the language and tone seem odd to me. It's very sensational,
>> for example: "WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING
>> INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS." What caught my eye, though, was "THE
>> VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY
>> THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED." Shouldn't
>> it be "HARDIEST"?
>>
>> I wonder if that page is genuine, or some kind of prank.
>
>The latter. Not only is the language wrong, most of the subject matter is
>outwith their
>purview.
Shouldn't that be "remit"?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Robert Bannister
I didn't even realise I'd done that. Perhaps it's because "egghorn" is
slightly easier to say than "eggcorn", although "eggorn" would be even
better.
--
Rob Bannister