Everyone OK in the storms?

[Bluffer]

I read the internal government advice issued to emergency services prior to the storm, it was very much in context and was not embellished in any way and in many ways it was quite a sobering read. I was on the south coast as the storm began. In my opinion, I think the media coverage was entirely in context and appropriate.

 

[g4ghb]

Yay! - power (and thus internet) back

 

[stuey]

I read the internal government advice issued to emergency services prior to the storm, it was very much in context and was not embellished in any way and in many ways it was quite a sobering read. I was on the south coast as the storm began. In my opinion, I think the media coverage was entirely in context and appropriate.

+1

I too was privy to similar information and had various in depth discussions with Civil Contingencies during the lead-up resulting in a multitude of protocols and plans being put into action.

Thankfully Bristol escaped with very little damage whilst neighbouring counties suffered.

It is clear that the storm was unpredictable in its path and was, in parts, very narrow in its coverage.

In todays litigious world it has, unfortunately, become vital for individuals, companies and organisations to cover their backs. This resulted in the metoffice warnings system amongst other things. It seems this warning system and media warning is still not acceptable to many and gets referred to as hype. I would like to wager that the same folks who are making a fuss about it being hype weren't in the final path of the storm and would have made an even bigger fuss had they been affected and not been warned.

I am saddened by the attitude of some folk (not just here) who seem intent to downgrade and belittle what happened because it wasn't windy where they were or because it is "normal" for them.

What seems to be forgotten is that lives have been lost both in the UK and in the Netherlands as a direct result of the high winds.

Whatever anyone says it was a significant and unusual weather event in the South of England. It was not "normal" for this part of the country. It hit urban areas with incredibly high population levels resulting in a higher risk of harm to people.

Yes, Scotland get high winds. I have experienced some of them first hand. Yes, some of them are pre-warned. Yes we get the media coverage about thousands of homes without power for 10 days down here. And yes, we feel sympathy for those people affected.
Wind speeds are relative surely?

115mph on top of Cairngorm is to be expected.. It is high up and very exposed like much of the Scottish highlands. It still isn't normal though. It is the record. Thankfully population density is incredibly low so risk of harm is also reduced.
100 mph on the Isle of Wight is not normal just a few metres above sea level. Population density is higher so risk of harm immediately increases.

Maybe social networking in all its forms results in people's opinions (wanted or not and I include my own post here in that statement) being heard by the general population. Years ago we would have been none the wiser about what Indignant Bill from Birmingham thought about spending half an hour heeding the weather warnings and putting his garden furniture away only to be let down by not experiencing damage to his property.

Its a funny old world which seems to be getting funnier year on year.

I personally hope that those who were affected by the high winds/storm, call it what you will, are beginning to process their losses and repair and rebuild.


Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

 

[British Red]

I am saddened by the attitude of some folk (not just here) who seem intent to downgrade and belittle what happened because it wasn't windy where they were or because it is "normal" for them.

What seems to be forgotten is that lives have been lost both in the UK and in the Netherlands as a direct result of the high winds.

Whatever anyone says it was a significant and unusual weather event in the South of England. It was not "normal" for this part of the country. It hit urban areas with incredibly high population levels resulting in a higher risk of harm to people.

Well said sir.

The met office did a great job, they showed the track and timeline of the storm cutting from the South West peninsula to the East Midlands for the "eye" of the storm. Weather forecasting is not an exact science but on this occasion they did all the right things and the warning were sufficient to allow people to make sensible preparations )which I did in terms of putting away loose items in the garden etc.)

They are to be commended not criticised.

If people aren't happy with the way the media handled it, well that probably says more about their choice of media than it does about the forecast - if you choose to consume sensationalist media, you reap what you sow.

 

[Toddy]

Ehm, no.

Scottish media that I read was very low key; it wasn't expected to be a big problem here and it wasn't. But screaming banner headlines about the "ENTIRE COUNTRY ON RED ALERT!!!!!", was commonplace on other sites.

The Guardian said that, "Winds of more than 80mph could leave a trail of destruction across large parts of the UK, knocking down trees and causing major structural damage and power cuts."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/27/britain-storm-rain-winds-flooding

The Telegraph was a little more balanced, "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10403009/Storm-warning-Hurricane-strength-winds-to-arrive-on-Monday.html"

while the tabloids did the headless chicken dance

Wikipedia's report on the storm says, "The forthcoming storm was widely reported in the British press on 25 October, with comparisons being made to the Great Storm of 1987 and the Burns' Day Storm of 1990.[22][23] A Met Office spokeswoman said the 1990 storm, when damaging winds affected a larger area of the UK, was a better comparison than the 1987 storm, when much of the strongest windfield affected the English Channel.[24] "


It's the Cry Wolf!, bit of all this that concerns me now that it's past. Folks just aren't going to pay heed if the hyperbole is a constant drivel.

Anyway, I am pleased that it wasn't any more severe, and that things are getting back to normal for those who were affected by the storm.

M

 

[santaman2000]

.....The Guardian said that, "Winds of more than 80mph could leave a trail of destruction across large parts of the UK, knocking down trees and causing major structural damage and power cuts."....

In fairness that quote says, "could leave....." not, "will leave."


That said, here's an excerpt from the national weather service on what to expect from a category 1 hurricane (and 80MPH winds fall into that category)

Types of Damage Due to Hurricane Winds
	74-95 MPH 64-82 kt 119-153 km/h	Very dangerous winds will produce some damage: Well-constructed frame homes could have damage to roof, shingles, vinyl siding and gutters. Large branches of trees will snap and shallowly rooted trees may be toppled. Extensive damage to power lines and poles likely will result in power outages that could last a few to several days.

 

[British Red]

The Guardian is an example of the type of "bad media" I was referring to Mary - awful newspaper.

I got my weather from the Met office website which clearly delineated the warnings - Amber warnings for the South West in a line North and East to Lincolnshire. A Yellow Warning in a band above that (which just means "be aware") which stopped well inside England South of Liverpool. There were no "Red" warnings at all for the storm. So the information was correct and proportional. Beyond that, well if you read trashy media, the solution is to read better quality reporting.

 

[Toddy]

I read the Met office after I heard the warnings....the hype that we're complaining about.
So basically you're agreeing with me

M

 

[British Red]

I read the Met office after I heard the warnings....the hype that we're complaining about.
So basically you're agreeing with me

M

I guess I'm saying "If you lie down with dogs you get fleas"

If you read poor quality sensationalist media, there isn't much point in complaining about the poor quality sensationalist reporting

 

[stuey]

It may be construed as pedantry but some of the media haven't helped themselves by describing the winds as a hurricane.

The winds were predicted to (and did in parts) GUST to 80-90 mph not sustain a speed of 80-90mph.

By definition, wind speeds need to sustain 80-90mph to be termed a hurricane.


Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

 

[Toddy]

I guess I'm saying "If you lie down with dogs you get fleas"

If you read poor quality sensationalist media, there isn't much point in complaining about the poor quality sensationalist reporting

Oh harsh ......what you are actually agreeing to is that the "Medjia" blew it out of proportion .....see what I did there ? admittedly an unwitty pun.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing; but it's not that long ago that the very site that has your approval got it very wrong too.


M

 

[stuey]

Weather forecasts are just that... A forecast, a prediction, a best guess based on science, knowledge and computer modelling.

Sometimes they get it wrong.

Its just a shame that they get vilified when they do.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

 

[dave53]

another wrong forecast by the weathermen there c@@p regards dave

 

[British Red]

Oh harsh ......what you are actually agreeing to is that the "Medjia" blew it out of proportion .....see what I did there ? admittedly an unwitty pun.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing; but it's not that long ago that the very site that has your approval got it very wrong too.


M

I'm saying the lowbrow media get most things out of proportion - so don't read it for a balanced view - actually - just don't read it at all unless you find it entertaining or like looking at the pictures

And sure, the Met office gets its forecasts wrong sometimes - that's rather a different thing to misreporting a forecast.

 

[stuey]

another wrong forecast by the weathermen there c@@p regards dave

How was it wrong Dave, apart from its track which I would defy anyone and I mean anyone to accurately forecast.

The forecasted track followed the models if you took the time to look at them during the lead-up.

The actual track was governed by nature.

Its precisely the accusational nature of your post that saddens me!

Ask yourself, could you forecast the weather any better? If you can then step up and give the world better forecasts.

Why is so difficult for the general populus to give people some respect and credit for doing an almost impossible job to the best of their abilities?!

Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

 

[santaman2000]

It may be construed as pedantry but some of the media haven't helped themselves by describing the winds as a hurricane.

The winds were predicted to (and did in parts) GUST to 80-90 mph not sustain a speed of 80-90mph.

By definition, wind speeds need to sustain 80-90mph to be termed a hurricane.


Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

No. It needs sustained speeds over 74MPH to be hurricane force; but to properly be a hurricane it also needs circular motion.

 

[Toddy]

I think the Met office reported things as best they could; storms are volatile and subject to a tremendous number of variables, but the media didn't report that, they just looked for the worst outlook and stirred.

It does rather sound as though, bad as it was on the south coast, that it hit Denmark and Germany hard.

M

 

[stuey]

No. It needs sustained speeds over 74MPH to be hurricane force; but to properly be a hurricane it also needs circular motion.

Ah noted thanks

Either way as far as I am aware the winds did not sustain 74mph.

Cheers, Stu


Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk