19 replies to this topic

[NorthantsSnow]

What are the most blatent untruths you've heard or read about this cold spell in the media so far?

For me it was a news presenter doing an extensive piece to camera claiming that the snow that was affecting Scotland and N England yesterday had moved south to affect southern England today.

Call me a pedant but that wasn't really what happened. That makes it sound like it was just a front sinking southwards across the whole of the UK when actually we had a channel low form. Nothing to do with what was going on up in Scotland.

Also there's been lots of "coldest spell of weather in x years" or "longest coldest spell since [insert cold winter year here]" with no real attempt at qualification. How can we possibly ascertain precisely how far we'd have to go back to find a similar cold spell in length when the cold spell is still going on?!

Edited by NorthantsSnow, 06 January 2010 - 16:51 .

[Nick L]

Using "cold snap" for a cold spell that has been going on for 3 weeks now.

[johnholmes]

NorthantsSnow, on 06 January 2010 - 16:50 , said:

What are the most blatent untruths you've heard or read about this cold spell in the media so far?

For me it was a news presenter doing an extensive piece to camera claiming that the snow that was affecting Scotland and N England yesterday had moved south to affect southern England today.

Call me a pedant but that wasn't really what happened. That makes it sound like it was just a front sinking southwards across the whole of the UK when actually we had a channel low form. Nothing to do with what was going on up in Scotland.

it was not a Channel low-if you read my blog and look at the charts I've described it formed, on the front moving south, over Lancs, spent some time over the Midlands, and then both moved and formed a low just north of the Channel.
It was NOT a Channel low so perhaps you need to look more closely at the data available.
Don't believe me, then look at the hourly charts on Meteorciel and see where the low was at 0800 and then follow it.

sorry but I do like fact rather than fiction be it from a poster on NW or the media.
I do agree the media hype things up-nothing new in that at all-we have to live with it.

[Spurry]

Daft bint on BBC news yesterday said " so we could get 6", upto 30cms thats over a foot of snow" correct me if i'm wrong but when i was at school and it was during the change to the metric system, 30cms was exactly a foot

[NorthantsSnow]

johnholmes, on 06 January 2010 - 16:56 , said:

it was not a Channel low-if you read my blog and look at the charts I've described it formed, on the front moving south, over Lancs, spent some time over the Midlands, and then both moved and formed a low just north of the Channel.
It was NOT a Channel low so perhaps you need to look more closely at the data available.
Don't believe me, then look at the hourly charts on Meteorciel and see where the low was at 0800 and then follow it.

sorry but I do like fact rather than fiction be it from a poster on NW or the media.
I do agree the media hype things up-nothing new in that at all-we have to live with it.

Forgive me. I'm as unreliable as the media it would appear with my incorrect labelling of this particular low pressure system causing some upset. However, the general point I was making was this was NOT the same system which gave snow to other areas. Channel low or not, it was a different feature!

[RAIN RAIN RAIN]

Apparently people woke up to a white Christmas on the 23rd of December!

[Nick L]

Spurry, on 06 January 2010 - 17:01 , said:

Daft bint on BBC news yesterday said " so we could get 6", upto 30cms thats over a foot of snow" correct me if i'm wrong but when i was at school and it was during the change to the metric system, 30cms was exactly a foot

That is the best/worst so far!

[johnholmes]

NorthantsSnow, on 06 January 2010 - 17:14 , said:

Forgive me. I'm as unreliable as the media it would appear with my incorrect labelling of this particular low pressure system causing some upset. However, the general point I was making was this was NOT the same system which gave snow to other areas. Channel low or not, it was a different feature!

still wrong N-S read the blog and/or look at the charts please-the low affecting the south started life over Lancs-I did try to ewxplain

[NorthantsSnow]

johnholmes, on 06 January 2010 - 17:56 , said:

still wrong N-S read the blog and/or look at the charts please-the low affecting the south started life over Lancs-I did try to ewxplain

Well if it started life over Lancs it didn't give snow to Scotland did it?

It would appear your blog is broken. I'm getting a system error.

[The watcher]

Spurry, on 06 January 2010 - 17:01 , said:

Daft bint on BBC news yesterday said " so we could get 6", upto 30cms thats over a foot of snow" correct me if i'm wrong but when i was at school and it was during the change to the metric system, 30cms was exactly a foot

Its not a foot of snow, nor is it over, its actually under is it not?

I thought an inch was around 2.54/2.56 cm's?

I could be wrong though, just somebody post up a god damn official metric site or something

[johnholmes]

NorthantsSnow, on 06 January 2010 - 18:07 , said:

Well if it started life over Lancs it didn't give snow to Scotland did it?

It would appear your blog is broken. I'm getting a system error.

seems ok to me, this link
http://forum.netweat...0
the low started, or appeared to start over Lancs but the front it was attached to started north of Scotland-lots of info on many of the pages of the model thread and regionals which were commenting on snow/sleet/rain etc working south behind this main cold front.
I have some charts on my pc if you wish to see a couple which I used as 'rough work' on my pc before posting into my blog.
Its perhaps not important for most on here-as a forecaster then it seems important to me to get a correct view on it.

Edited by johnholmes, 06 January 2010 - 19:06 .

[Terminal Moraine]

The watcher, on 06 January 2010 - 18:44 , said:

Its not a foot of snow, nor is it over, its actually under is it not?

I thought an inch was around 2.54/2.56 cm's?

I could be wrong though, just somebody post up a god damn official metric site or something

An inch is 2.54 cm and a foot is 30.48cm.

[johnholmes]

this is the first chart(06Z) I used for 'rough work' no frontal analysis done on it as the most important part was getting a 'handle' on the developing low and its expected track-that was the key to giving the correct guidance out.



the 09z




there are a couple of others if anyone wants to see what I used to issue the updates to the blog

[ian watts]

The headline in the Express last week of temperatures of minus 18 , when reading further they were actually talking about the wind chill factor !

[Spurry]

Terminal Moraine, on 06 January 2010 - 19:08 , said:

An inch is 2.54 cm and a foot is 30.48cm.

Well my school ruler was wrong then , and all this time i never knew

[Thundery wintry showers]

"This could be the coldest winter on record". I've heard that one a few times. (Well, technically, at some sites it has a good chance of being the coldest winter on record, but only because the sites' records started very late in the twentieth century).

Certainly I don't see this winter beating that of 1739/40!

[cheeky_monkey]

well i think the opening gambit of the thread is a little harsh...the general viewing public dont understand the technical details of the hows and why of where the snow came from..and in essence the reporting has been pretty robust compared to the usual rubbish we used to see in previous years..when the likes of gmtv would go on about the big freeze when a snow shower is forcast for the north york moors and temps are around 4c that really used to get my goat.

[Solar Sausage]

Spurry, on 06 January 2010 - 17:01 , said:

Daft bint on BBC news yesterday said " so we could get 6", upto 30cms thats over a foot of snow" correct me if i'm wrong but when i was at school and it was during the change to the metric system, 30cms was exactly a foot

I've always believed a foot to be 30.5cms...No wonder everyone's so confused...

Terminal Moraine, on 06 January 2010 - 19:08 , said:

An inch is 2.54 cm and a foot is 30.48cm.

Ah, thank you, TM!

[londonsnow]

drives me mad when the top story on the news announces record low temperatures. they're not

[paul tall]

Spurry, on 06 January 2010 - 19:48 , said:

Well my school ruler was wrong then , and all this time i never knew

If you look closely at a 30cm ruler, the 30cm length from start to finish does not tie up exactly with the 12inch length on the other side. Your school ruler was not wrong, just your memory of it.