HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Weather forecasting (was: Re: Dateline : NBC)
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:32:02 GMT
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In article <1992Apr14.153734.28349@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> stumpf@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Greg Stumpf) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.001512.25843@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu> witt@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Arthur Witt) writes:
>>
>>The letter does make one valid point, pertaining to the wildly 
>>
>>   [much text deleted  --SJB]
>
>At the range the storms were from that weatherperson's Doppler, the beam width
>would be so large, the high velocities associated with the TVS would be
>smeared out.  Another interesting note was that he said his radar measured
>winds of 112 mph, which *just so happens* to be the cutoff wind speed between
>F1 and F2 on the Fujita damage intensity scale!
>
>In other words, HE WAS LYING THROUGH HE TEETH!!!
>
>(if he does it again, he no longer remains anonymous on this list!!)
>
     Why should he remain anonymous *now*?  That sort of behavior really
is the kind of professional malfeasance that should be reported to the
AMS and to any professional societies in journalism and broadcasting.
I understand the AMS tends to take a rather dim view of these things.
If the broadcaster in question happens to be an AMS member, then the AMS
deserves to be informed.  The AMS could then decide whether what occurred
was in fact what you say or rather was due to ignorance (remediable by
a prescribed course of study) on the part of the broadcaster.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
                                  Systems Programming
                                  Computer Center
                                  Northern Illinois University
                                  DeKalb, Illinois 60115
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett@cs.niu.edu                                 *
* BITNET:         A01SJB1@NIU                                        *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  "If it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need them."               *
**********************************************************************
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Name that plane
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:23:36 GMT
Distribution: usa

JOSEPH T CHEW writes
+ Just saw a real oddball fly over the Berkeley hills, pretty high
+ (several thousand feet AGL). It had almost enough wingspan for a 
+ powered sailplane and the mother of all pitot tubes or sampling 
+ tubes protruding from the port wing.  Any ideas about whose it is
+ and what they're looking for?

Could be a U-2...errr...TR-1 out of Nasa/Dryden. Did ya ask in 
sci.military??

James
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: skaggs@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Gary Skaggs)
Subject: Re: Weather forecasting (was: Re: Dateline : NBC)
Keywords: Beamwidth 
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:53:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.140520.28797@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu> hondl@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Kurt Hondl) writes:
>>>>
>>Are you sure he was specifically talking about a TVS?  At that range,
>>about 130 miles, he would obviously be looking high up into the storm.
>>He could still see velocities, but not on a scale small enough to see
>>a TVS.  He was probably seeing somewhere from 25000 to 30000 feet up 
>>into the storm.  The question is, would there be 112 mph horizontal
>>winds this high up into the storm?  I've seen the WSR-88D show doppler
>>velocities for a storm over my hometown of Buffalo, Ok, which is 33
>>miles NW of Woodward, but not of that magnitude.  I do believe,     
>>however, that this weatherperson's radar has a smaller beamwidth
>>than the 88D due to the large dish. 
>
>LARGER DISH = SMALLER BEAMWIDTH
>
>beamwidth =~ 140 * wavelength / Diameter of dish
>

Correct me if I'm wrong, Kurt.  Here are some rough figures for the various
radars in the OKC Metro area...

KOUN - WSR88-D -- 10 meter dish, 10 cm wavelength = 1.4 deg beamwidth
KWTV - Enterprise 9000 (whatever) -- ~4 m dish, 5 cm wvl = 1.75 deg beamwidth
KOCO - Enterprise whatever -- ~3 m dish, 5cm wvl = 2.3 deg beamwidth
KFOR - Ummmmmm.  Not sure of size, but it is a 5cm radar

For comparison, a WSR74-C (5cm) would be 140*.05m/10m= 0.7 deg beamwidth

However, the penetration capabilities offset the wider beamwidth of the 
10 cm government radar.  And besides, the VAST majority of 5cm radars 
were installed with a smaller dish to save cost on the radar pedestal.
Doppler was not an issue when these were installed.
______________________________________________________________________________
Gary Skaggs - WB5ULK	skaggs@nssl.nssl.uoknor.edu	DOC/NOAA/ERL/NSSL
    "Historically we did chase tornados.  Presently we chase funding."
        	"Opinion? call NOAA Public Affairs"
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: gmcmanus@reepicheep.gcn.uoknor.edu (Gary McManus)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Dateline : NBC
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:00:50 GMT
Organization: CIMMS/The University of Oklahoma, Norman

I feel you've hit the nail right on the head.  The WSR-88D information
was basically a lot of half truths and inuendo's.  First, the 88D has
been tested 5 times by semi-independent teams, flunking the first two.
This isn't saying the radar  performed poorly, since the standards were
set incredibly high.  On the other tests, it performed fine.  In
operation, it gave warnings for the tornadoes in Oklahoma on April 26
last year up to 30 minutes in advance.  Secondly, the NWSFO in Norman
has the Fredrick, Ok radar available to it's severe weather forecaster,
and has performed quite well.  Third, the interviewer didn't delve into
the current administration  and the previous one, Bush's and Reagan's
respectively, responsibility for the current delays.  And let's not 
forget the administration of the NWS in the 80's brainstorm of 
converting all the WSR-57's to doppler, instead of going ahead with
88D.

	 I just wish  the program would have searched for more facts, and
	 less ratings.

	 Gary McManus
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: blanchard@nsslc.gcn.uoknor.edu (DAVID)
Subject: Re: "Exact"-ness
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:57:00 GMT

In article <8169@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes...

> And now, as a cost cutting measure, NWS is proposing once per day
>soundings. And so it goes.
> 
>James

I have heard that the NWS has dropped the idea of once per day soundings.  

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|David O. Blanchard   Boulder, Colorado  dob@fsl.noaa.gov                  |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: aoad354@chpc.utexas.edu (Jim Xu)
Subject: Wind color display software wanted
Organization: The University of Texas System - CHPC
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 22:49:29 GMT

We are currently working on a project of surface wind. I want to 
know if there are some software to colorfully display the wind vector (both
magnitude and direction) vs ftp. Any system is ok.

Thanks in advanc.

Jim
Center for Space Research
The University of Texas at Austin
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: phil@oetl1.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com
Subject: LOWEST RECORDED PRESS. AT SEA LEVEL
Summary: WHAT IS THE LOWEST RECORDED SEA LEVEL PRESS.
Keywords: SEA LEVEL PRESSURE
Organization: LMSC Santa Cruz, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 15:16:30 GMT

	I am working on a program sensitive to barometric pressures at sea 
level. I need to know the historical values of:
				
		1: MOST EXTREME BAROMETRIC DEPRESSION.
		2: RANGE OF LOW PRESSURES AS MIGHT BE EXPECTED
		   DURRING AND AVERAGE SEASONAL YEAR.
		3: ITEM 2 IN RELATION TO THE CALIFORNIA COAST
		   LATITUDE 37 DEG.
		4: DOCUMENTATION SOURCE IF AVAILABLE.
From: korins-russ@CS.YALE.EDU (Russ Korins)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Dateline : NBC
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:07:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr9.230756.21344
Distribution: usa
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158

It seems like at least several people have objected to NBC's coverage
of the National Weather Service.

While I did not see the documentary myself, my guess is that the
producer/reporter began the story with only criticism in mind.  The
general public loves to make fun of government inefficiency, and 
unfortunately many people see the NWS as an agent of that inefficiency.
(I would like to make it clear that I do not.)

What the popular press and the general public need to realize is that,
as one person asserted, meteorology is not an exact science.  And
despite that inherent challenge, the NWS--as well as private
meteorologists--have come a long way in improving forecasting.  One
need only read "Chaos" by James Gleick--or some similar literature--
to realize just how fickle the atmosphere is, and then wonder how,
when it all comes down to it, the NWS happens to do pretty well.

If anybody objected to NBC's coverage, I hope they tell NBC.  Only
by writing to NBC can we begin to eradicate the myth of incompetent
weather forecasting.  It won't change peoples' opinions overnight,
but it can be a first step.  I'm not sure who the producer was of
"Dateline," but maybe people could write to the reporter.

I'm not a meteorologist and I don't work for the NWS, but I can understand
how it feels for an uninformed press to just transform all your hard
work into a bunch of half-truths and inaccuracies.  People have to
start looking at the NWS, not as just another government bureaucracy,
but as a real life  protector in the most literal sense.  Unfortunately,
our government has unleashed a crusade to trim government but has not
paid close enough attention to the valuable role of the NWS.  If
Ronald Reagan didn't have a semi-intelligent Congress to curb him,
he probably would have flat-out eliminated the NWS.

So, I hope people who objected to NBC tells NBC that they did object
and, more importantly, why.  In the meantime, NBC has lost a lot
of respect, but that will be useless if they don't know about it.

-- 
Russ Korins                        1)   korins-russ@yale.edu
PO Box 520 Yale Station            2)   korrusj@yalevm.bitnet
New Haven CT  06520-0520           3)   korrusj@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
                                      
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh)
Subject: Re: THUNDER
Organization: Solbourne, User Interface Group
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:39:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.144013.17884@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ritley@uiucmrl.bitnet () writes:
>Is thunder a serious topic of research in meteorology?  Was it ever?

I know that at least one research lab that did lightning experiments
also recorded the sound of the thunder.  They used the data to plot
where the lightning channel was over time.  I don't know if they did
other research on the topic or not, since I just launched rockets from
the Kivas.  I don't know if this is a 'serious topic of research' or
not, since I never did see the papers that came from the raw data I
helped to collect.

Warner

-- 
Warner Losh		imp@Solbourne.COM
"You're the woman that I've always dreamed of.  Well, not really, but you are
 good enough for now."
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: gmcmanus@reepicheep.gcn.uoknor.edu (Gary McManus)
Subject: Re: Weather forecasting (was: Re: Dateline : NBC)
Organization: CIMMS/The University of Oklahoma, Norman
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:15:26 GMT

>In article <1992Apr14.153734.28349@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> stumpf@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Greg Stumpf) writes:
>>
>>At the range the storms were from that weatherperson's Doppler, the beam width
>>would be so large, the high velocities associated with the TVS would be
>>smeared out.  Another interesting note was that he said his radar measured
>>winds of 112 mph, which *just so happens* to be the cutoff wind speed between
>>F1 and F2 on the Fujita damage intensity scale!
>>
>>In other words, HE WAS LYING THROUGH HE TEETH!!!
>>
>>(if he does it again, he no longer remains anonymous on this list!!)
>>
Are you sure he was specifically talking about a TVS?  At that range,
about 130 miles, he would obviously be looking high up into the storm.
He could still see velocities, but not on a scale small enough to see
a TVS.  He was probably seeing somewhere from 25000 to 30000 feet up 
into the storm.  The question is, would there be 112 mph horizontal
winds this high up into the storm?  I've seen the WSR-88D show doppler
velocities for a storm over my hometown of Buffalo, Ok, which is 33
miles NW of Woodward, but not of that magnitude.  I do believe,     
however, that this weatherperson's radar has a smaller beamwidth
than the 88D due to the large dish.  I'm not trying to defend him,
but I've had a lot of my friends ask me about this, and I was 
trying to puzzle it out.  I especially liked when another Ok. City
weatherperson(who shall remain anonymous, but did flunk out of OU
before he began earning his 6-figure salary) called him a liar.


Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: cahalan@clouds.gsfc.nasa.gov (Robert F. Cahalan)
Subject: Re: Graph paper clouds....weird!
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:46:41 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.043148.20739@athena.mit.edu> cht@athena.mit.edu  
(Chester Liu) writes:
> 
> I was flying from LA to Boston yesterday (April 5) and somewhere
> over New York state I noticed that a layer of clouds (10-15,000 feet)
> looked like graph paper, i.e:
> 
>   |  |  |  |  |
> --+--+--+--+--+--
>   |  |  |  |  |
> --+--+--+--+--+--
>   |  |  |  |  |
> --+--+--+--+--+--
>   |  |  |  |  |
> 
> The rows intersected each other, i.e. they were all in the same
> layer.  I know that rows of clouds are caused by periodic, wave-like
> motion in a layer of air, but how does one get intersecting
> rows in the same layer?  I find it hard to believe that it is
> possible to generate waves in perpendicular directions in the
> atmosphere but I guess if the ocean can di it, air can do it.
> 
> Any further insights into this would be appreciated!
> 
> Chester Liu
> cht@athena.MIT.edu
> --
> His Royal Highness <cht@athena.mit.edu>

You've finally found them!  We've been searching for such orderly  
well-behaved clouds for years.  Now if we could just get the rest of the  
clouds systems to organize themselves as neatly, it would become fairly  
straightforward to treat clouds properly in climate models!

Seriously, streets and rolls can occur together if the wind speed is tuned  
carefully, but it is more common to see one or the other, and even more  
common to see a broad spectrum of size and shape mixed together.  To  
educate yourself on the interpretation of cloud structure, check out  
Scorer's classic book, and order NOAA's "Cloud Code Chart".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.Dr. Robert F. Cahalan (Bob)...#..Laboratory for Atmospheres......
.cahalan@clouds.gsfc.nasa.gov..#..NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center
.*** NeXTMail accepted ***.....#..Greenbelt, MD 20771.............
.FAX: (301) 286-1627...........#..voice: (301) 286-4276...........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: zzz@erg.sri.com (Michael J. Konopik)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: chaos tornado
Keywords: chaos, tornado
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:38:37 GMT
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA

In article <1346@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> pfgarvey@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Patrick F. Garvey) writes:
>1- do buildings implode due to the pressure changes incurred during a
                 ^^^^^^^
>tornado, or is it due to the shear forces of the wind. also, should one
>close their windows during a tornado?

Hi.  I'm not an expert, either - but I've always been fascinated by tornadoes,
and I remember reading an article in some science magazine a few years back
about this very issue.  (sorry for the vague reference, but it was awhile ago!)

The article explained the old model:  That extreme drops in pressure that
   accompany a twister can cause the ambient air pressure within a closed
   building to EXplode the building.

and the 'new' model:  That the pressure gradient between the windward and
   leeward sides of a building under the high winds of a twister can cause
   the building to blow right over.

It went on to say that by opening the windows (IF ample time exists!!!) one
can reduce this pressure gradient and possibly save a house from this fate.
The concept is the same as that used for those large banners you often see
at a fair - by cutting holes in various places, the wind is allowed to blow
right through the banner instead of grabbing it and blowing it away.

				   -Mike

Profuse apologies if this is wrong - but I'm just relaying what I'd read...
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Meteorological Software Needed
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:13:52 GMT
Distribution: na

Kenneth W Durham writes
+ 
+  I'm heading to Florida State University in a few weeks, majoring in
+ Meteorology.
+ 
+ I'd like to know if there are any Weather/Meteorological software
+ available via FTP, or snailmail, that I might obtain.

For what platform, OS, and particular use?

+ Thanks in advance.

Sure. Look me up. I'm in the basement: 008C Love Bldg

James
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: anash@ua.soest.hawaii.edu (Andrew Nash)
Subject: Re: Upper level high for hurricances?
Organization: School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:12:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.044707.24268@cs.yale.edu> korins-russ@CS.YALE.EDU (Russ Korins) writes:
>Is it true that you need an upper level high for hurricane formation because
>it provides "good outflow?"  I had always thought that was the case, but
>someone told me it wasn't.
>
>Maybe someone could explain in a few sentences why?  Thanks very much.
>
Well, I'll give it a shot.........

During the formative stages (eg. tropical disturbance & tropical depression)
it is best for the atmosphere to have little shear with height.  That is
the wind speeds and wind directions are nearly the same at all levels. It
also helps if the wind speeds are relatively light.  It turns out that 
these conditions can be associated with an upper level high, or ridge
but this is not always the case.  As the convection continues and remains   
near the center of the low level circulation, the storm can continue to
organize and strengthen.  With the convection, there is increased upper level
outflow which sustains the storms growth.  With the strongest storms, there
is a tendency for it to build its own upper level high and thus keep the
shear to a minimum and the storm continues to survive.  In other cases,
interaction with upper-level TUTT lows can increase the storms outflow,
and cause it to deepen rapidly.  The complete dynamics of the situation
are still not fully known, but as is the rest of the "real world", its
more complicated than just having an upper-level high to be involved. 
I'm sure I've helped to confuse the situation for you... I tend to do     
that --- just ask my lab students  :)  :)  :)

Andy Nash   (anash@ua.soest.hawaii.edu)

A meteorology grad student who is up to day #385 in a row without hearing
thunder.... and he CAN'T stand it.
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors)
Subject: Re: Big BOOMS over east coast in 1970's - what were they?
Reply-To: martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:20:05 GMT

In article <rballard.7@fox.nstn.ns.ca> rballard@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Rick Ballard)  
writes:
>  I still heard booms on the eastern shore of Nova Scotia as late as last 
> fall.Sometimes they occur as groups of 3 or 4 double booms, repeated again 
> up to a half an hour later.
> Is there anyone out there who has access to journals from the 
> 1890s, and could verify Corliss's referances ?
Further references which you may be able to get (from Jearl Walker's Flying  
CIrcus of Physics)
Physics of the Air, W J Humphreys, Dover, NY 1964 (p.442)
'...Unidentified Sounds of the Air", J A Businger, Weather v 23 p 497 (1968)

Martin Connors
Space Research
University of Alberta
From: rdale@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert Dale)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Dateline : NBC
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:24:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.44380
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center


Wow.  What can you say, except how long will it take for Geraldo to
cover it on "NOW: It Can Be Told."

I was a little worried when the intro discussed the Andover tornado.
She mentioned that 20 people died, and insinuated that they weren't
warned.  Right.  They only got a 1/2hour warning and ignored it, but
that wasn't brought up.

Then we see the Plainfield tornado, which I'll agree was not 
handled well by the weather service, but the FAA and local police
agencies (and a storm-chaser) had tracked the tornado, forgetting to
advise the weather service.

And next is the Shadyside OH flash flood.  I got the disaster report
on this one as I'll be forecasting down there next year and wanted to
see what's up.  Radar showed no stronger than level 2 echoes in the
area, obviously nothing to worry about.  They were under a flash
flood watch but local police were not informed (they receive 
NWS radio via radio scanner, the channel was locked out.)  Residents
stated that since the creek was a very small one in the first place,
had they been warned they would've ignored it.  And then the
statement was made that if a $4,000 rain gauge been purchased the
whole town would've been evacuated.  Possibly if the rain gauge was
placed in the exact spot of the rain max, but normally you would
install a network of rain gauges, costing much more (not stated).

Now we move to NEXRAD.  First, the reporter states that NEXRAD
has failed its only independent test, and that it will take
four years to replace the -57s.  No mention of the excellent 
results from Norman, OK and the fact that radar units are
operating quite well in Washington and Melbourne, FL.

Then as the story ends and we go back to the hosts, the reporter
is asked about the wx-satellite situation.  She states that
we're down to one satellite (apparently ignoring the polar sats)
that may fail at any time, leaving us without coverage.  Also
ignoring the fact that the weather service has worked out a
deal with the Europeans to use their satellite for eastern
coverage.

All in all the conculsion is that the weather service is loaded
with funding but unwilling to spend money for simple items that would
improve the warning process (I'm ignoring the part where a congressman
is accused of helping to select Unisys because he was a stockholder.)

We never hear the fact that funding is never enough, that the public
ignores warnings, and most importantly that METEOROLOGY IS NOT AN
EXACT SCIENCE.  This is the type of story I'd expect in the
morning talk shows, not on NBC.

Rob
--
Robert P. Dale                          <>      rdale@attserv.atms.purdue.edu
Purdue University Atmospheric Sciences  <>      74010.302@compuserve.com
West Lafayette, Indiana                 <>      N8GSK@K9IU.IN.USA.NOAM
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology