Saturday's gales

[xmetman]

The BBC forecasters think there'll be gust to 60 mph on Saturday, which obviously is not high enough to trigger a yellow warning for strong winds from the Met Office. 

The ICON model looks like it's captured westerly mean wind speeds of force 8 or 9 well.

I would have thought at least for the northern Isles gusts to 60 mph:-

Low impact + medium to high likelihood =   Yellow warning 

[Freddie]

On Friday, 13 September 2019 16:01:09 UTC+1, xmetman wrote:

I would have thought at least for the northern Isles gusts to 60 mph:-

Low impact + medium to high likelihood =   Yellow warning 

So I guess the Met Office thinks it will be very low impact rather than low impact.  If you get 60 mph gusts a fair few days per year then it will not be as impactful as places which don't - for example, no trees, wheelie bins with lead bottoms...

I'm just guessing....

--
Freddie
Dorrington
Shropshire
115m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
Stats for the month so far: https://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/statistics/latest.xlsx

[xmetman]

I realise that you're only guessing but surely the criteria should be more objective than what you're suggesting?

A similar "much of the country - forget the periphery" kind of thinking is evident in the headlines the Met Office and BBC dream up.

[Graham Easterling]

 If you get 60 mph gusts a fair few days per year then it will not be as impactful as places which don't - for example, no trees, wheelie bins with lead bottoms...

I think that's the case. There are certainly several days a year that Gwennap Head records 60mph with no warning in place, and certainly a 60mph gust at Gwennap Head wouldn't matter (unless you were filming Poldark!)

When I lived out on the cliff top at Sennen we had storm board we pt across the front door to stop the rain forcing it's way in. A SW gale makes itself felt. Once I opened the front door during a gale and the trap hatch took off and hit the tiles. During severe gales the damage tended to be on the lee side, where tiles got sucked off.

Still I'm reminiscing now!

Graham

Penzance

[Freddie]

On Friday, 13 September 2019 17:36:02 UTC+1, xmetman wrote:

I realise that you're only guessing but surely the criteria should be more objective than what you're suggesting?

I think it probably would be objective.  Something along the lines of the return period of the gusts.

[Julian Mayes]

 

I think it probably would be objective.  Something along the lines of the return period of the gusts.

--
Freddie
 

For the same reason, the thresholds for strong wind warnings issued to the electricity supply company covering the Northern Isles are higher than for mainland Scotland. As far as I can remember, the client concerned was insistent that the higher threshold was adhered to in order to minimise 'false alarms'. Shorter return periods --> greater system robustness. 

Julian   

  

[xmetman]

Logic dictates that a 10 minute mean wind speed of 34 knots or more (or gusts in excess of 47 knots) will have exactly the same effect on a chimney, high sided vehicle, tree, roof, wall, garage, garden shed, telephone pole, electric pylon, trampoline in the north of Scotland as it does anywhere else in the UK.

It's true that the locals up here are more used to gales than people in places further south, and make very little fuss about it either, but the effects are just the same.

Now that thunder and lightning warnings have been added to the NSWW system, strong winds should be treated just as seriously.

The Met Office make a big song and dance about the "issuing" of a warning, when all they need is a GIS map of the UK split into regions that indicate where a yellow/amber/red warning is in force - an old fashion warnings board if you like - rather than maps which look like blobs of custard have been dropped on them. A lot of countries around the world use a warning board like this.

The map itself could be fully automated by linking it to the latest mesoscale run and would require very little forecaster intervention.

[Graham Easterling]

Logic dictates that a 10 minute mean wind speed of 34 knots or more (or gusts in excess of 47 knots) will have exactly the same effect on a chimney, high sided vehicle, tree, roof, wall, garage, garden shed, telephone pole, electric pylon, trampoline in the north of Scotland as it does anywhere else in the UK.

My experience is that is not always the case.

During my 8 years of living in Wootton Bassett (they made it Royal once I'd left) There were 3 occasions when I had to get builders to replace tiles on the roof, one gale was bad, the other 2 weren't even gales. Since returning to Cornwall in 1991, I've never had to call a builder out. 

There are a couple of reasons. Building standards are different. Slates are attached differently in high wind areas,, often nailed in, and as the nails rust, cement washed etc. Also people are more concious of weather risks, so are less likely to let ,say a chimney, get in a bad state.

My garden shed is tucked in a corner behind 2 solid walls, nobody would be stupid enough to put a shed in an exposed spot at say Pendeen. Garden fences are a rarity, almost a complete absence anywhere near the sea. The new Lidl store put up a fence, and bits were damaged within a month. A Cornish hedge (wall to the English!) is the answer

Trees are able to become weak in sheltered areas, in exposed spots they are stunted, if indeed they exist at all.

In otherwords humans adapt behavious, & the natural environment adapts itself.

Graham

Penzance

[xmetman]

I can't disagree with what you have said. But I still maintain a warning of any type should use the same criteria country wide.

[xmetman]

This tweet is a classic illustration of the mismatch between the media team and the old forecaster brigade down in Exeter.

I forgot to add that it won't be just "very gusty" in the northern Isles later today but their is the distinct possibility of a full westerly gale.

[Freddie]

On Saturday, 14 September 2019 09:49:52 UTC+1, xmetman wrote:

Logic dictates that a 10 minute mean wind speed of 34 knots or more (or gusts in excess of 47 knots) will have exactly the same effect on a chimney, high sided vehicle, tree, roof, wall, garage, garden shed, telephone pole, electric pylon, trampoline in the north of Scotland as it does anywhere else in the UK.

It's true that the locals up here are more used to gales than people in places further south, and make very little fuss about it either, but the effects are just the same.

Fair point - but over time things such as building practice, trampoline placement, etc., have evolved to the local weather.  So a common threshold wouldn't be as much use.

Note that the Met Office themselves don't decide the thresholds.  They just issue warnings to the criteria supplied to them - whether that's on a regional or national basis.  They issue them "with a fanfare" because it makes people sit up and listen more than if they were just broadcast as part of a routine.

Remember that common thresholds used to be used - and the Met Office were continually berated for "crying wolf".  So the current system was created as a result of listening to users and acting on that feedback.  No doubt there will be further tweaks in the future if the system isn't preceived by the users to be working as it should.

[xmetman]

I see the New Zealand Met service specify the criteria they use for people to see for their severe weather warnings.

It's a bit like having a written constitution another thing that we aren't good at in this country...

[xmetman]

The MeteoAlarm site illustrates my point about today's strong winds around Ignaz across the NW of Scotland.

The Irish have a warning in force for coastal gales, so too have the Norwegian and the Swedes.

Of course the Met Office arrogantly refuse to play along, which in my opinion, goes to show just how out of step we are with the rest of Europe not just in politics but weather forecasting.

That doesn't of course prevent them from having a triple warm sector and upper warm front in their 06 UTC analysis.

[xmetman]

[xmetman]

A chart of maximum gale force gusts for the last 24 hours.

You could sum it up as a force 6 or 7 on land and over Orkney and Shetland a gale force 8 or 9.

I reckon gusts of 60 mph or more require a yellow warning - the model told them to expect just that but they blatantly disregarded that guidance - and we ended up with gusts of 62 mph at Kirkwall and 68 mph at Lerwick.

I've seen a lot of named storms not produce gusts as high as that, the question we now face - have the northern Isles been annexed to Norway - it seems the Met Office don't believe it's a part of the UK anymore.

[Graham Easterling]

it seems the Met Office don't believe it's a part of the UK anymore.

Well, given the majority in NI now want to become part of Ireland, the SNP might get their 2nd referendum, and Boris is doing his best, there might soon not be a UK anymore! The MetO may be ahead of the times.

Still, Boris has pledged £16m to protect what's left the Amazon rainforests (that's a about 3 miles of CO2 emitting HS2 development - cement production is now a major producer of CO2), we know we're in good hands.

Graham

Penzance

[Freddie]

These links may (or may not) interest you:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/warnings-and-advice/uk-weather-warnings/met-office-weather-warnings

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/what/pws/pwscg/consultation

[xmetman]

Thanks for the links - I know about the history because I attended a couple of planning meetings for their current system. I remember I did speak up and say that they should use ESRI GIS to select the areas, but look where that got me.

As you know I don't like the impact based warnings system and much prefer the old fashioned fixed criteria approach of Met Eireann which makes verification of warnings much easier. The Met Office are a slippery customer when it comes to verification, and I'm sure they prefer the impact based approach they use, because it's almost impossible to verify especially with regards to strong wind and heavy rain.  Take yesterday's gales as a prime example, I'm sure that they don't even consider that as a miss.

Here's the Irish criteria.

This way of doing things clashes with the Met Office approach and why the Irish name storms that end up being pretty feeble affairs. Liam Dutton has a lot to say about that - and I agree in part with him when he says we should only name memorable storms that might only happens every few years.

[xmetman]

And talking of GIS, weather warnings and web interfaces, here's a side-by-side comparison of the convoluted approach of the UKMO and that of the SMHI in Sweden:-

[Len]

Looks like we are heading for a Jockstop.

Len

[Jack Frost]

Has something happened over the past few months that I've missed? I used to enjoy reading this group, but now you just seem to post a constant stream of complaints about the Met Office or BBC weather. It's all getting rather tedious. Thanks goodness for Freddie, Julian, Smartie and others, who continue to post interesting and insightful stuff. I may continue to look on here now and again to see their comments, but for the time being I'm tapping out.

I hope you all get a nice cold and snowy winter! I fear there is little chance of that out here. :(  Has Will started chopping logs yet?

Liam

Pasadena, CA

[Jack Harrison]

Bruce wrote

have the northern Isles been annexed to Norway?

During last week's visit to Orkney, I noticed many Norwegian flags flying.  I don't recall seeing a Union Jack nor for that matter, many Scottish Saltires.

Jack

[xmetman]

Thanks Liam, and I love you too whoever you are.

I'm sorry that you don't like my constant criticism of the Met Office or Meteogroup, but as from today I've finished posting to the group I started, so stick around because I'm sure it'll become a lot more interesting from now on.

[Freddie]

On Sunday, 15 September 2019 13:01:23 UTC+1, xmetman wrote:

Thanks for the links - I know about the history because I attended a couple of planning meetings for their current system. I remember I did speak up and say that they should use ESRI GIS to select the areas, but look where that got me.

As you know I don't like the impact based warnings system and much prefer the old fashioned fixed criteria approach of Met Eireann which makes verification of warnings much easier. The Met Office are a slippery customer when it comes to verification, and I'm sure they prefer the impact based approach they use, because it's almost impossible to verify especially with regards to strong wind and heavy rain.  Take yesterday's gales as a prime example, I'm sure that they don't even consider that as a miss.

I realised that I didn't know how or where NSWWS warnings are verified, so had a quick Google and came up with this link on the WMO site:

https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/amp/pwsp/documents/1-4-1_MarkBEVAN_UK.pdf

It is an interesting read and filled in some holes in my knowledge.  Based on what I read, I think that had the winds occurred on a week day then a yellow warning may well have been issued.  In summary, verification is subjective and involves impacts (which you would anticipate from an impacts-based system), is conducted internally and audited externally.

[Freddie]

On Monday, 16 September 2019 10:34:43 UTC+1, xmetman wrote:

I'm sorry that you don't like my constant criticism of the Met Office or Meteogroup, but as from today I've finished posting to the group I started, so stick around because I'm sure it'll become a lot more interesting from now on.

I for one enjoy your posts to the group, Bruce.  It keeps me thinking about why things are done the way they are, and I always learn from this.  If your posts come across as complaining or negative then so be it - I just filter that out and focus on the facts.

It would be great if you would continue to contribute.

[Graham Easterling]

I agree.

I think the group's got a great variety of people with a lot of knowledge. It would be a shame to loose any of the current contributors, we've all got our pet subjects.

Graham

Penzance 

[Julian Mayes]

This group had a flying start - and gained its 89 members - through Bruce's (Xmetman) efforts and great visualisations; we owe you a great deal of thanks for that. It then went quiet when Bruce left for a time and I'm sure sure we've all been wishing the missing 80 members would trickle back. Liam, you would also be a loss as I've read your sensible contributions both here and to ukweatherworld. Unfortunately, I find that place is too full of shouty fine-weather fanatics - I'll excuse Will Hand from that stereotype!- who seem to expect it to be 25C every day and complain when it isn't. This place offers a good refuge for  reasonably informed debate. If we could gather together the sensible contributors from various sites we'd have an excellent forum. We have the two great advantages over uk.sci.weather of being moderated (and thus not swamped by global warming deniers or fanatics) and by being able to add images. 

I tried to poach one person from uk.sci.weather here but failed. I'm not sure if the missing contributors could be contacted to bring them back in the fold?  If everyone recruited another 2 contributors it would help a good deal. But above all, Bruce, please reconsider your threat to leave what you started. 

Julian   

[Julian Mayes]

Could this be the explanation?      https://britishcountyflags.com/2013/07/07/orkney-flag/

All you ever needed to know about the Orkney flag.   

Julian  

[Jack Harrison]

You are obviously correct Julian

 

Orkney on left, Norway on right. 
It might be thought that Orcadians would have shown a little more imagination in order to avoid the [understandable] confusion especially when the flag has faded.

Jack

[Metman2012]

Thanks Julian, I've never seen that site before. As you say, it's easy to misidentify it - the Orkney flag being fimbriated in gold (yellow) and the Norwegian one in silver (white). The blue looks slightly different as well.

Oi Bruce, I know you're like me, an old curmudgeon, but that's no reason to leave. Come back!

[Jack Harrison]

Bruce said:

... as from today I've finished posting to the group I started

Come on Bruce.  Surely you're not in the same league as certain religious people who get in a huff at the slightest hint of criticism?

Yes Bruce, you do sometimes go on a bit about MO and BBC but I like to think I am mature enough to read between the lines and can see where you are coming from.  I for one would miss your postings. 

Jack

[Len W]

I think that is a bit strong Bruce.

No need to leave just because ONE person who does n't usually post on here criticises your posts.

I disagree with Liam. He has also been AWOL. Shame.

You make many interesting and valid points about the peculiarity of the UKMO weather warnings system.

Your analyses of the weather in map form and rank lists are are unrivalled on most other forums I've looked at.

uk.sci.weather has no graphics so does not compete with this newsgroup.

I don't really understand you leaving just because of a criticism from one person.

You seem to have written support from more than one person.

So why leave?

Len

Wembury