Talking about tides
Michael McNeil
One of my resources was the BBC shipping bulletin. (In a blinding
example of British managerial dysfunction they put that out on long
wave only these days. Perhaps someone aught to tell them that no-one
sells radios with long wave recievers any more?)
Anyway, as part of the "service" (Ha!) they include reports from a
selection of coastal stations (the bits they don't include online.) On
the reports they give the barometer readin and here is a recent
example from 30th Nov.:
Tiree 1012mb; Lerwick 1015; Fyfe Ness 1017; Bridlington 1019; Sandetty
Light-vessel 1021; Greenwich Light-vessel 1021; Jersey 1023; Channel
Light-vessel 1023; Scilly 1022; Valencia 1015; Ronaldsway 1018; Malin
Head 1013;
They used to do 13 stations. (Bring back Bill Giles, I say!) Now then:
These stations give an overall picture of the air pressure around
Britain. When they run in sequence from north to south and then back
up, they indicate in Rhyl, North Wales; there will be no
precipitation. Where the run is broken the degee of stepping indicates
what sort and how much precipitation to be expected. Little breaking,
as in this instance (Ronalsway being out of step) it would indicate
some mist or drizzle.
Bristol, Not Wales; the outlook is quite the reverse. Interesting the
tidal pulse that gives the UK 3 high tides and 3 low ones concurrently
puts those two river mouths at the opposite end of the spectrum.
I suppose it would be asking too much for any of you monkeys that live
near river-mouths to try it? The time for the broadcast are:
05:36; 12:01; 17:54; 00:48.
Jonathan Stott
"Michael McNeil" <Weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:290b5eaf.02121...@posting.google.com...
> When I first got interested in earth sciences I tried teaching myself.
> One of my resources was the BBC shipping bulletin. (In a blinding
> example of British managerial dysfunction they put that out on long
> wave only these days. Perhaps someone aught to tell them that no-one
> sells radios with long wave recievers any more?)
Th 0536 and 0048 forecasts on FM still include coastal station reports as
well as the usual area forecasts and inshore waters forecasts. Don't know
about the other forecast times though.
Jonathan
John Hall
Michael McNeil <Weathe...@hotmail.com> writes:
>When I first got interested in earth sciences I tried teaching myself.
>One of my resources was the BBC shipping bulletin. (In a blinding
>example of British managerial dysfunction they put that out on long
>wave only these days. Perhaps someone aught to tell them that no-one
>sells radios with long wave recievers any more?)
I believe there's a perfectly good reason why the shipping forecast goes
out on long wave. VHF, or even medium wave, broadcasts aren't going to
reach far-away areas like SE Iceland reliably. Don't forget that whilst
the forecast is of great interest to us land-lubbers, we aren't its
target audience.
--
John Hall
"Sir, I have found you an argument;
but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
Peter Thomas
<news_...@jhall.co.uk> writes
>In article <290b5eaf.02121...@posting.google.com>,
> Michael McNeil <Weathe...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>When I first got interested in earth sciences I tried teaching myself.
>>One of my resources was the BBC shipping bulletin. (In a blinding
>>example of British managerial dysfunction they put that out on long
>>wave only these days. Perhaps someone aught to tell them that no-one
>>sells radios with long wave recievers any more?)
>
>I believe there's a perfectly good reason why the shipping forecast goes
>out on long wave. VHF, or even medium wave, broadcasts aren't going to
>reach far-away areas like SE Iceland reliably. Don't forget that whilst
>the forecast is of great interest to us land-lubbers, we aren't its
>target audience.
And you can still get radios with long wave. On both sets in our
recent-ish cars, plus a very good Roberts micro-radio from a couple of
years back. It's for the cricket, you know.
--
Peter Thomas
Jonathan Stott
"Peter Thomas" <pe...@godthoms.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:A378M1Pk...@godthoms.demon.co.uk...
My nice modern-looking Sony cube thingy has longwave. I should hope so for
the price I paid for it!
I don't know, 21st century and you have to pay more for last year's thing.
Jonathan
TudorHgh
>near river-mouths to try it?
Try what? We're monkeys. We know f*** all, except perhaps the times of the
Shipping forecast.
TH.
Michael McNeil
> I believe there's a perfectly good reason why the shipping forecast goes
> out on long wave. VHF, or even medium wave, broadcasts aren't going to
> reach far-away areas like SE Iceland reliably. Don't forget that whilst
> the forecast is of great interest to us land-lubbers, we aren't its
> target audience.
VHF can't reach that far? Why did the RAF use it in WWII then?
And why insist that the broadcasts in the middle of the night have it
on all frequencies?
My point is that the BBC is providing a disservice (and hanging is too
good for them.) One would have thought that the idea of the service
was to warn people to stay in bed not tell them when they get to
Iceland what sort of weather they are having.
Alan White
McNeil) wrote:
>
>VHF can't reach that far? Why did the RAF use it in WWII then?
>
I don't think that the VHF that the RAF used was all that VH and the
RAF tend to be many thousands of feet above ground level rather than
at it. As VHF tends to be 'line of sight' that made it viable.
--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow.
Overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
http://www.alan.lesley.ukgateway.net
John
wrote:
> In article <290b5eaf.02121...@posting.google.com>,
> Michael McNeil <Weathe...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >When I first got interested in earth sciences I tried teaching myself.
> >One of my resources was the BBC shipping bulletin. (In a blinding
> >example of British managerial dysfunction they put that out on long
> >wave only these days. Perhaps someone aught to tell them that no-one
> >sells radios with long wave recievers any more?)
>
> I believe there's a perfectly good reason why the shipping forecast goes
> out on long wave. VHF, or even medium wave, broadcasts aren't going to
> reach far-away areas like SE Iceland reliably. Don't forget that whilst
> the forecast is of great interest to us land-lubbers, we aren't its
> target audience.
Long wave has better propogation characteristics through moisture than
signals higher up the EM band. I think this is the primary reason for
it being preferred for shipping.
cheers
--
John - http://www.reiteration.net/~jfm
Hitting 'reply' sends your email to the bit-bucket. To reply via email
please decode the following: jfm (at) reiteration (dot) net
PGP / GPG public keys available on website
John Hall
>
>> I believe there's a perfectly good reason why the shipping forecast goes
>> out on long wave. VHF, or even medium wave, broadcasts aren't going to
>> reach far-away areas like SE Iceland reliably. Don't forget that whilst
>> the forecast is of great interest to us land-lubbers, we aren't its
>> target audience.
>
>VHF can't reach that far? Why did the RAF use it in WWII then?
It can't reach that far to a ship on the surface, because VHF is line of
sight (near enough, though refraction makes it go a little further), So
if you were in a plane at 30,000ft above Iceland you might receive it.
If you've ever listened to a particular local radio station during a car
journey, you'll know that you can only receive it over a distance of a
few tens of miles.
>
>And why insist that the broadcasts in the middle of the night have it
>on all frequencies?
>
>My point is that the BBC is providing a disservice (and hanging is too
>good for them.) One would have thought that the idea of the service
>was to warn people to stay in bed not tell them when they get to
>Iceland what sort of weather they are having.
That's what the In-shore Waters forecast is for, but the shipping
forecast is largely aimed at fishing vessels and merchant ships, who
have little choice but to be far from home whatever the weather.
--
John Hall
"Distrust any enterprise that requires new clothes."
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Rodney Blackall
Michael McNeil <Weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When I first got interested in earth sciences I tried teaching myself.
> One of my resources was the BBC shipping bulletin. (In a blinding
> example of British managerial dysfunction they put that out on long
> wave only these days. Perhaps someone aught to tell them that no-one
> sells radios with long wave recievers any more?)
> Anyway, as part of the "service" (Ha!) they include reports from a
> selection of coastal stations (the bits they don't include online.) On
> the reports they give the barometer readin and here is a recent
> example from 30th Nov.:
[Snip]
This posting has many of the indicators of trolling. Please be very
careful not to be provoked by Mr McNeil.
--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
London, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 2.04e
Col
"Rodney Blackall" <rbla...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4ba7df36b...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk...
>
> This posting has many of the indicators of trolling. Please be very
> careful not to be provoked by Mr McNeil.
>
I don't think that he is a troll.
After initially thinking that he was having a laugh, I think that he genuinely
believes the theories that he talks about.
Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
Michael McNeil
> That's what the In-shore Waters forecast is for, but the shipping
> forecast is largely aimed at fishing vessels and merchant ships, who
> have little choice but to be far from home whatever the weather
> >My point is that the BBC is providing a disservice (and hanging is too
> >good for them.) One would have thought that the idea of the service
> >was to warn people to stay in bed not tell them when they get to
> >Iceland what sort of weather they are having.
I would like to be able to continue this conversation but fail to see
the point. The fact is that a series of local reports can be produced
by any listener on the British Isles including one for earthquakes.
Mind you you can do those from the Atlantic charts that appear in the
quality papers and from the weather forecasts on the TV.
From the general synopsis you can tell the likely weather for your
area if (for example) a Low is slated for SE Iceland you know we in
the UK are in for a spell of nice weather. (Well apart from N.
Scotland and nobody lives there.)
If it's an High situated in the NW, the situation is quite the
reverse.
(Mind you I couldn't stand the w*nkers who used to read it. So it's
got it's compensations.)
The fact is that the Shipping Broadcast is not available, even the
snippet they put online is crap. And that is it. I'm not going to car
boots looking for old tape radio sets. (One needs to tape the item if
you wish to study it.) I know what it does and what it could do. Why
no-one else has ever noticed is beyond me.
You now have the information. If you wish to use it, you know what to
do. If you don't then you are in the same frame of mind as I.
I wanted to compare the latest bulletins with the stuff I used in the
past to see if the changes invalidated it in any way. (They use the
same system more or less. A few changes have been made.)
The most interesting difference I found is that the coastal stations
weather reports suggest that the weather is very much affected by
location due to the tides. And that was the intention of the post.
Michael McNeil
> "Rodney Blackall" <rbla...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4ba7df36b...@rodsrisc.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > This posting has many of the indicators of trolling. Please be very
> > careful not to be provoked by Mr McNeil.
> >
>
> I don't think that he is a troll.
> After initially thinking that he was having a laugh, I think that he genuinely
> believes the theories that he talks about.
>
> Col
Thanks Col.
I did use to troll science groups at one time. Sad was I not? Have you
ever read what the Encyclopeadia Britannica doesn't quite say about
the sun's part in warming the earth?
George Darwin was revered at one time for his work on tides. Although
he was on a loser with that one, the substance of the theories he
espoused are still extant. After reading up on acoustics in the same
illustrious tome, above, I am beginning to think the earth acts as
some sort of a cross between an Helmholtz resonator and a flute.
The planet seems to have been designed to muffle seismic waves at the
same time as using them. Apart from the havaoc they can cause in
modern civilisations, they seem to work wonders as land builders. Not
unnaturally they can cause heating above ground as well as underneath
it.
That is the only link I'm sure of between the four elements.