HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: system@convax.iar.nrc.ca (Jim.Jordan)
Subject: Info on DOMSAT supplied WX Info
Reply-To: system@convax.iar.nrc.ca (Jim.Jordan)
Organization: National Research Council,Ottawa,Canada
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 08:55:02 EDT

Meteorology NewsGroup:				Apr-7-92

	Can anyone tell me about distribution of weather satellite images and
forecast information over domestic satellite channels. I am aware of the 
direct reception of WX images from GOES/NOAA etc; however, I am wondering
if there would be additional information available if one set up a dish
antenna system ? The application is aeronautical research and associated 
flight operations. Surface analysis and upper atmosphere maps would be 
useful. Public domain information would be most interesting but we might
be able to pay for data on our modest research budget which now includes
data distributed by telephone modem for a monthly charge.

	I have seen reference to an ICAO World Weather Meteological Service 
out of Washington (also Europe). I also believe that the Canadian Atmospheric
Environment Service (AES) and presumably the US Weather Srevice have internal
weather distribution channels based on domestic satellite dishes. How about
commercial distribution ?

							---Jim---

________________________________________________________________________________
Jim Jordan,				Internet: jordan@convax.iar.nrc.ca
Rm.233, Bldg. U-61, FRL			Phone: (613) 998-4809
Institute for Aerospace Research,	Fax:   (613) 952-1704
National Research Council,	
Ottawa, CANADA  K1A 0R6
________________________________________________________________________________
From: 00bndaniels@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: <None>
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:15:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-ucs.1992Apr14.201514.6397

I am intersted in meterology, and like to learn more about it.  Do
you know of any recent books that have been published on this topic?
I also enjoy watching tapes and films too.  I have also given thought
on pursuing a career in meterology, do you have any information in 
this topic?  
Thanks for your time,
Barron Daniels
From: Claire Gilbert <cgilbert@igc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Date: 06 Apr 92 03:02 PDT
Subject: Re: atmospheric haze
Nf-ID: #R:92093.211639IA20020@maine.maine.:1324803126:cdp:1466900240:000:1793
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cgilbert    Apr  6 03:02:00 1992


IA20020 (at MAINE.MAINE.EDU)  (From News system)

Says:

     For the past 3 months, during incursions of the
     continental arctic airmass, I have noticed, during mainly
     the twilight hours, a recurring white haze.  The haze has
     almost exclusively appeared in bands oriented SW to NE
     and seems to be present at an alitude considerably
     greater thancirroform clouds.  I have considered several
     possible origins for the phenomena but the most plausible
     explaination seems to lie in ejected particulate matter
     from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philipines.  I
     am curious to see whether anyone has explained
     definitively the source the haze.  Reply by email is
     preferred.  Thanks for your help.

I had a conversation last Monday with Larry L. Stowe from
NOAA/NESDIS who is studying back-scattered sunlight.  He mentioned
that the band of haze around the equatorial region which he
*believes* is from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo is now spreading
further north and south.

I am soon publishing a commentary in _Blazing Tattles_ concerning
how scientists "know" the observed haze is from the eruption of Mt.
Pinatubo.  To make sure you get a copy, send me an email request.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        /|           Claire W. Gilbert         Phone:(305)429-9469
       (  \     ^    EcoNet:cgilbert            FAX:(305)428-1148,
    ^  /   \   / /   Internet:cgilbert@igc.org      Attn:C.Gilbert
  ( \  |   )__( )    UUCP:uunet!pyramid!cdp!cgilbert   
  | \ )          )   Bitnet:cgilbert%igc.org@stanford    
   \      _ _ /      
     | /             B L A Z I N G   T A T T L E S 
     ___             
    / | \            
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: 2me@mace.cc.purdue.edu (M Bosilovich)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: modeling (was: "Exact"-ness)
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:05:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue Mesoscale Modeling Group

In article <8177@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Harold_Brooks writes
>+ In article <8169@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char  
>Aznabul) writes:
>+ >Well, maybe it's not the model's fault. A (to me) famous question that
>+ >one should ask is "Why did Richardson fail?". Who was Richardson? He tried
>+ >One of the reasons is poor data quality and relative lack of 
>+ >data.
>+ 
>+ The big thing that hurt Richardson was that the numerical scheme he used was 
>+ unstable.  Even with 'perfect' data, his model would have blown up.
>
>Anyone taking a 12 hour time step is asking for trouble... :)
>1) too large a time step
>2) errors in the intitial data
>3) numerical errors (round off, computational - it was done by hand)
>
>What else? Refresh my memory!
>
While I believe all af the above are valid points, there is one
more problem with Richardson's numerical prediction, which has not
been mentioned yet. He used very detailed equations to make his
prediction. He included atmospheric waves as well as acoustic waves.
The acoustic waves are the real problem. Also, Richardson had no
knowledge of CFL criterion. Since the wave speed of acoustic waves
is very large (order speed of sound), CFL implies very small time
steps, which he did not have as previously mentioned. Richardson's
CFL was much greater than 1, simple computer experiments will show
that if this is the case numerical instability will occur very
rapidly.

Today's NWP neglects acoustic waves and other waves that are less
than 2 delta X, on synoptic scales. 

>James

Mike B.
2me@mace.cc.purdue.edu
From: Tero Siili
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Common Data Format (CDF)
Keywords: Common data formats
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:04:32 GMT
Reply-To: Tero.Siili@fmi.fi
Organization: Finnish Meteorological Institute

In article <1992Apr2.114447.12168@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu>
miller@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu writes:
>Can anyone help me out? If you are a numerical modeller and are making good
use
>of netCDF (or any of the others), I like to hear about your applications. As a
>point of reference, my present scheme is to use unformatted reads and writes
to
>create/access my model output archives. Selection of data in the archive is
>then done simply through array indexing - not elegent but it works.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Jerry L. Miller         Division of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography
>                        Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
>                        University of Miami
>                        4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
>                        Miami, FL 33149  USA
>Phone: (305) 361-4040   INTERNET:  miller@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
>
I work on mesoscale modelling of the Martian meteorology and I have used the
NCSA
Hierarchical Data Format (HDF) for some time.  The fundamental reason for doing
so was to increase packing density and thus be able to save more data (ASCII is
inherently more space consuming, since HDF only takes 4 bytes per real number).
Other reasons were:
- portability across machines and operating systems (unix, VMS, PC, Mac)
- good availability of visualization (including animation) software for the
  format for both Mac and X11
- fairly well documented format and thus self-documenting data files
- ability to write my own tools for data postprocessing based on the HDF
library

I typically run the model on a Cray or SGi workstation, postprocess the results
on a SGi but typically run animations and other visualization on a Mac. 
Portability
allows me to do that.

I considered using binary/unformatted writes, but especially across Cray/SGi
and
SGi/Mac I would have needed some elaborate converters - the HDF libraries
isolate
me from that.

Some drawbacks exist (I use version 3.1 of the library):
- HDF only knows reals for the time being
- the library is written in C, thus on some platforms (e.g. Mac) one needs to
get
  acquainted with multiple language programming a bit
- the basic HDF tools require 2D or 3D gridded data, polygon/scattered data is
  more difficult (they have another library called Vset which addresses this
  problem somewhat; I have not used it, though)

I know about NetCDF but have not adopted it, primarily because I have not heard
of
as good manipulation/visualization tools for both Macs and workstations.

Hope this is of some help

Tero Siili
Finnish Meteorological Institute
Dep. of Geophysics
Tero.Siili@fmi.fi
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: stumpf@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Greg Stumpf)
Subject: Re: Weather forecasting (was: Re: Dateline : NBC)
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:30:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.223202.4043@mp.cs.niu.edu> bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett) writes:
>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!!)
>>
>     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.

It just so happens that he does not have an AMS Broadcasting Seal of
Approval (he doesn't deserve one either).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stumpf - KB5LMU          \  /  Internet: greg@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu
Forecast Applications Research ||      Phone: (405) 366-0477 FAX: 366-0472
Room 244, National Severe      ||   Disclaimer: I chase to learn, but it's fun!
          Storms Laboratory    ||       "Be Landspouty!"
1313 Halley Circle             ||       "Everyone get good pictures!"
Norman, OK 73069              /  \      "NSSL wants your video!"
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: tinov@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: EPA DISPERION MODELLING
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:29:01 GMT

Hello,
	I am a grad student at Florida State University who is doing a research
project involving the EPA dispersion model ISCLT.  I was wondering if there was
anybody out there from Research Triangle Park who could send me some files via
internet as I am unable to find an adequate modem with which to do the job.
	I am looking for the following:

	ISC - Industrial Source Complex (ST & LT; New Version)
		- Code
		- Example cases
		- UNABRIDGED user's guide (I also need the Technical 
			description part)

	PCRAMMET - Met data preprocessor
		- Code
		- User info

	PBLP - Postprocessor for BLP models
		- Code
		- User info

	I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could help me in this.  Please
reply to me at the following address.

		Vincent Tino
		Dept. of Meteorology
		Florida State University
		Tallahassee, FL 32306-3034
		(904) 644-6205
		tino@ray.met.fsu.edu


	Thank you
	Vincent Tino


Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: tinov@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: <None>
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:49:17 GMT


Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: korins-russ@CS.YALE.EDU (Russ Korins)
Subject: Re: Dateline : NBC
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 22:08:23 GMT

I think Char and I are basically saying the same thing but maybe I have
not expressed myself very well.

When Char says that making accurate predictions is very difficult, I could
not agree more.

When Char says that only true meteorologists possess the training,
knowledge and legitimacy to make meaningful predictions, I agree.  His
example of the three-month prediction for Florida was perfect.  A moron
could predict highs in the 80's, but may not understand why.   

When I said that people need to be aware of meteorologists' limitations,
I did not mean to imply that they do a bad job at all.  My criticism is
not of meteorologists but of the public, who simply has unreasonable
expectations of meteorologists.

Does that mean that weather forecasting does not have room for improvement?
No.  But does it mean forecasters do a bad job?  No.

Remember, I started this discussion because I believed that NBC did not
pay enough attention to the achievements of forecasters
and only focused on their failures.  I thought that was unreasonable.

It's like expecting an economist to predict the exact day when the stock
market will crash.  It's just unreasonable.  It's unfair.  It's even more
unfair to then attack the economist (or meteorologist) when his or her
prediction isn't totally accurate.

My argument has been that weather's broad appeal and application to the
public-- it affects us every day, all the time -- has made the public
super-sensitive to the relatively few inaccuracies in forecasts.  When
an economist says the Dow Jones average will go up and it goes down, no
one cares.  But when a meteorologist predicts 3" of snow and it snows 12",
peoples' lives are affected and meteorologists get the bad rap for it.

It's as if meteorologists are the only people to be brave enough to go
out on a limb and make such predictions, and then we attack and mock them
if they're wrong.

Shows like Dateline only create the impression that they're wrong more
often than they actually are, and only increase the public's cynicism
when it comes to weather forecasters.  That is why I urged people to 
express their objection to NBC, because that cynicism is undue and unfair.

  
-- 
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
From: dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Graph paper clouds....weird!
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:43:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences

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:
>
>  |  |  |  |  |
>--+--+--+--+--+--
>  |  |  |  |  |
>--+--+--+--+--+--
>  |  |  |  |  |
>--+--+--+--+--+--
>  |  |  |  |  |
>

If you're HEAVILY into math, you can look at 

Sun, WY, 1978:  Stability analyses of deep cloud streets, J. Atmos. Sci,
35, 466-483.

It was required reading in my mesoscale class, because it was by the
professor, and he showed up his professor (H. L. Kuo) in writing it.
I wonder though:  might it have been an orographic effect?
-- 
Perry G. Ramsey         Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu  Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN USA
perryr@purccvm          This signature gives you specific legal rights.  You
N9LFF                   might have other rights that vary from state to state.
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: korins-russ@CS.YALE.EDU (Russ Korins)
Subject: Re: Dateline : NBC
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 19:41:24 GMT

I think "exact science" is, ironically, being used  rather inexact, colloquial
way... I think when people say "meteorology is not an exact science," it means
that we're not as close as we'd like to be.

An interesting situation today fits wonderfully into this whole discussion.
Here on the East Coast, a warm front (as I write, at 3:30 pm EDT) separates
very cold,  damp air to the north (Boston 38 and drizzle, New Haven 41 and
drizzle) to summer-like weather to the south (Washington DC 82 and sunny).

Yesterday, the New York City NWS forecast was predicting a high for today of
72 in Central Park.  Right now it's 40, and even if the warm front does make
it through NYC, temps probably won't get much past 55.

Now, on the face of it, to the general public, the NWS was 32 degrees off
for today.  To the general public, a prediction of "highs in the low 70's"
means that afternoon temps will be in the low 70's.  So now it's mid-after-
noon, and it's 40.

Of course, we know that the situation, or explanation, is more complex.  We
know that it is more accurate to say, NOT that the NWS was 20 or 30 degrees
off, but that the NWS was about a hundred miles off with its prediction
of the warm front position.  We know that especially in the spring time,
warm fronts are very obnoxious to forecasters by being extremely fickle.
Who would have predicted that, on March 13, 1990, the temperature at White
Plains NY would rise from 37 to 80 in 4.5 hours?

Who would have predicted that on April 26, 1990, at 3pm, it would be
50 at Bridgeport CT but 90 at Trenton NJ?  

The NYC forecaster in that case is in a tough situation.  What is he or
she supposed to do, say "highs from the low 50's to the low 90's?"  In
the eyes of the general public, he or she would lose all credibility.  It
most likely is a no-win situation.

With their prediction of "low 70's" for today, the NWS NYC office was not
so much predicting low 70's per se as banking on the passage of the warm
front.  Unfortunately, in the eyes of millions of New Yorkers today, it will
be just another reason for them to believe -- UNFAIRLY -- that forecasters
are "always wrong."

  
-- 
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: bh419@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ted B Samsel)
Subject: Re: Weather forecasting (was: Re: Dateline : NBC)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 12:12:46 GMT


Back in Austin, Texas there was an actually informative
weather caster named James C. Fidler who would sketch his
meteorological interpretation of the current weather system in
the area. Alas, he retired and all they seem to have now is
weather bimbos of both genders. (Seemingly those without the
attention span of a sportscaster.
-- 
Ted....
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: chaos tornado
Date: 17 Apr 92 11:42:45 GMT
Distribution: na

Michael J. Konopik writes

+ 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.

I dunno about this...I can understand the force *due* to the wind itself,
but I think the time/distance for such gradients would be difficult at
best to generate.

+ 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.

Why wouldn't the pressure difference just blow the windows out first? Unless
you fancy a glass diet, you're better off trying to save your own hide. 

James
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Dateline : NBC
Date: 11 Apr 92 19:27:36 GMT
Distribution: usa

Russ Korins writes
+ It seemed to me that Char was implying that there are NO limitations to what
+ meteorologists can do.  Well, you don't have to be a meteorologist to know  
that
+ that attitude is naive at best.

Not really. I've blown forecasts horribly. But I would like some 
acknowledgement that we do the best that we can with what we have, both in
instrumentation and in understanding of the processes. 

+ The point of this discussion is not to challenge non-meteorologists into
+ predicting a bunch of temperatures and rainfall amounts.  An attitude of
+ "fine, let's see what YOU can do" will not be constructive.

No, the point of the exercise is to show just how difficult it *is* to
make an accurate forcast! I'm in Florida, and we're coming into summer.
I could make a 3 month prediction that would hold fairly well, but there 
would be no skill in the forecast. 

+ One need not be a meteorologist to be able to think about these issues and
+ discuss them.  When I said that meteorologists face limitations, I should

ahhh...acknowledgement....thanx...

+ not have been attacked by a meteorologist because I am not one.  As long
+ as meteorologists like Char take the attitude that only meteorologists are
+ high and mighty enough to discuss the communicational aspects of weather 
+ forecasting and reporting, we will never be able to have a constructive
+ discussion and/or debate from which people can learn and broaden their
+ perspectives.  Isn't that what this newsgroup is all about?

Ok, then what would you like to discuss next? I perhaps have gone overboard,
but I still stand by my challenge. Try it as an experiment. 

James