HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu (Scott Bennett)
Subject: Re: Dateline : NBC
Keywords: television cult tabloids, socialized weather service
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:45:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.230756.21344@cs.yale.edu> korins-russ@CS.YALE.EDU (Russ Korins) writes:
>It seems like at least several people have objected to NBC's coverage
>of the National Weather Service.
>
>  [text deleted  --SJB]
>
>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.

     Somehow I doubt that writing to NBC will have the desired effect.
On the contrary, NBC will likely interpret the count of letters received
as suggestive of higher Nielsen ratings, which view they will also wave
at their advertising clients.  There probably isn't really very much we
can do, other than to refuse *ever* to watch Dateline again.  If more
people made such decisions, programs like Dateline, 60 Minutes, 20-20,
and other television equivalents of _The_National_Enquirer_ might get
replaced with programs that didn't stoop to such slimy practices.
>
>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.
>
     The fact remains, however, that we will never understand clearly
what level of weather service the public is willing to pay for as long
as weather service is socialized.  All we can know is how much of our
money our rulers are willing to pay for weather service, basically the
same situation as existed in the *now defunct* Soviet Union.


                                  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."               *
**********************************************************************
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 00:20:59 GMT

Meteorology is NOT an exact science.

But maybe the person who claimed it was meant to say that, on the grand
scale of sciences, meteorology is no more INexact than other sciences.

In terms of Dateline NBC though, the crucial difference for meteorology
is its relevance to the general public.  While we might not know exactly
when the next sunspot activity upsurge (or whatever) will be, as a general
rule we don't really care.

On the other hand, we DO care if we hear that it's going to be sunny and
75 and it's actually raining and 50.  And we DO care if we hear that there
is a chance of thunderstorms, and then a violent tornado demolishes our home.

The issue is not which science is the most inexact or exact.  The issue is
making sure the public understands the limitations of meteorologists, and
trying to minimize the effect of those limitations in preserving life and
property.

 
-- 
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: stumpf@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Greg Stumpf)
Subject: Re: Weather forecasting (was: Re: Dateline : NBC)
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:37:34 GMT

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 
>sensationalizing nature of TV weather in the Oklahoma City area,
>which, unfortunately, only adds to the public's negative view 
>about weather forecasting (e.g., one TV station recently claimed to 
>be measuring winds of 115 mph with their Doppler radar on a storm 
>100 miles away!).

(about the last parenthesis)

I'd like to clarify a little bit about that TV weatherperson's claim of
measuring the winds of the tornadoes in the vicinity of Woodward last
Thursday, April 9.  Those of you who haven't been WX-TALK should know that the
tornadoes experienced in Woodward and Ellis Counties that day were non-
supercell tornadoes, or more commonly referred to as "landspouts" (Bluestein,
1985, Preprints, 14th Conf. on Severe Local Storms).  These types of 
tornadoes are caused by the stretching of boundary-layer vorticity by a
strong updraft, and are NOT associated with mesocyclones.  In other words,
there is no rotating updraft with a landspout.  If you are close enough to
one with a Doppler radar, you can detected the "misocyclone" or Tornado
Vortex Signature (TVS) associated with a landspout.  Normally, NSSL's
research (Vasiloff in particular) has shown that TVSs are rarely detectable
beyond 45 km with a Doppler radar using a 1-degree beam width.

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!!)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stumpf - KB5LMU          \  /   Internet: greg@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu
Forecast Applications Research ||       Phone: (405) 366-0477 FAX: 366-0472
National Severe Storms Lab     ||  Disclaimer: I chase to learn, but it's fun!
1313 Halley Circle             ||       "Everyone get good pictures!"
Norman, OK 73069              /  \      "NSSL wants your video!"
"OK, let's check it!  Friday night in the big town!  Those Terrible Twisters
coming to your neck of the woods.  All right!"


Xref: sparky sci.geo.meteorology:1838 sci.geo.fluids:186
From: miller@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology,sci.geo.fluids
Subject: Re: Graph paper clouds....weird!
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:14:33 -0500
Distribution: na,world

balaji@nexus.yorku.ca (V. Balaji) writes:

[in reply to an article describing nearly orthogonal cloud patterns]

> We offered a reasonably simple explanation in some papers a few years
> ago. You start with cloud streets in shear, which kicks off gravity
> waves above, which in turn modulate the scale selection in the boundary
> layer. Cloud streets usually align *along* low-level shear, gravity
> wave fronts are *transverse* to shear at cloud top. If you have speed
> shear spanning the cloud layer, you get the chequerboard pattern. If
> you have an Ekmanesque turning wind profile (which is more common) the
> waves and roll vortices can become parallel (if the total directional
> shear is about 90). The GW wavelength and vortex dimension can of
> course be different leading to interesting variations in cloud street
> spacing.
> 
> Unabashed plug: see Balaji & Clark, JAS 1988.

Would that we had such nice clear "tracers" of similar phenomena in the ocean.
the work of Thorpe and others indicates that such waves should exist in the
sea but observing them is very difficult.

Any late-breaking news on this topic in the oceanographic community?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: balaji@nexus.yorku.ca (V. Balaji)
Subject: Re: Graph paper clouds....weird!
Organization: York University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:02:29 GMT

We offered a reasonably simple explanation in some papers a few years
ago. You start with cloud streets in shear, which kicks off gravity
waves above, which in turn modulate the scale selection in the boundary
layer. Cloud streets usually align *along* low-level shear, gravity
wave fronts are *transverse* to shear at cloud top. If you have speed
shear spanning the cloud layer, you get the chequerboard pattern. If
you have an Ekmanesque turning wind profile (which is more common) the
waves and roll vortices can become parallel (if the total directional
shear is about 90). The GW wavelength and vortex dimension can of
course be different leading to interesting variations in cloud street
spacing.

Unabashed plug: see Balaji & Clark, JAS 1988.
From: rdale@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Robert Dale)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: "Exact"-ness
Date: 10 Apr 92 04:02:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University, W Lafayette IN

I'm not much into the research side, but from what I do read I've
found that meteorologists do not have a complete understanding
of the atmosphere.  I just listened to a report this afternoon
from a student doing research about lightning frequencies
in two nearly identical storms from the June 2, 1990 Indiana
tornado outbreak, and the results were no where near similar.
Nobody knows why.  We can't even explain what the exact
causes of lightning are!  The fact that several different computer
models run daily can give dramatically different results tends
to show to me that we don't know the formulas that determine
what makes the atmosphere tick.

Hopefully some of the meterologists on the reasearch side could
add some input...

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
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 15:41:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.031526.27490@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> gmcmanus@reepicheep.gcn.uoknor.edu (Gary McManus) 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!!)
>>>
>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.

His presentation on the air was to lead you to believe that he measured
the 112 mph winds within the tornado.  It is possible that he twisted
the truth and really did measure a 112 mph speed somewhere else in the storm.

At those ranges, probably the most significant reason for not being
able to detect the TVSs is due to beam width smearing.  Also, at those
ranges, the height of the radar beam is higher (due to the curvature of
the earth and atmospheric refraction), however, mesocyclones *can* be
detected.  Occasionally mesocyclones have been observed to 9 or 10 km
AGL (above ground level) in supercell thunderstorms.  The point I was
trying to make is these storms were *not* supercells, and did not contain
any significant mesocyclonic rotation (certainly not 112 mph!). 

Therefore, he did *not* detect those tornadoes with his radar!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Dateline : NBC
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 21:13:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.173415.24859@Princeton.EDU>, karchang@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kar Man Chang) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.170732.5359@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu> kwthomas@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Kevin W. Thomas) writes:
>>Do you understand everything there is to know about thunderstorms and tornadoes?
>>Can you explain with 100% accuracy how they form, why they exist, and when
>>they will die.
>>
>>I thought not.  Until you do, you can't say "meteorology is an exact science".
>>
>
>Can someone please enlighten me what "exact science" mean?  As far as I
>know, in every branch of science, there are still a lot of things which
>we still do not understand, and meteorology does not seem to be unique
>in this sense.

As I've heard it applied, `exact science' means `field of engineering.'  The
term is, I believe, like `Acadamy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,' a
carryover from before the term `science' came to mean what it does today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Name that plane
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:43:10 GMT
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

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?

Just curious,
--Joe
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: snow@netcom.com (Tim Szeliga)
Subject: Dateline : NBC
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 17:20:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: LOWEST RECORDED PRESS. AT SEA LEVEL
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:22:02 GMT
Distribution: na

phil@oetl1.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com writes
+ 
+ 	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.

Typhoon Tip, 870 mb. If my memory serves...

James
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: korins-russ@CS.YALE.EDU (Russ Korins)
Subject: Upper level high for hurricances?
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 04:47:07 GMT

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.

-- 
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: tinov@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: ISC Met Data Inputs
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:27:41 GMT

	Is there anyone out there that can tell me how to calculate mixing 
heights as well as Pasquill stability category from standard surface hourlies.
I am planning on using the EPA dispersion model ISC but I can't use NCDC data 
because it is an overseas site.

	If anyone has an equation or fortran program to do this could you 
please contact me about this.  I would greatly appreciate it.

Send replies to: tino@ray.met.fsu.edu

thanks in advance,
Vin Tino
From: roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Weather forecasting (was: Re: Dateline : NBC)
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:49:49 GMT
Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York)

>> Only by weeding out the bad guys can we ever hope for weather to become a 
>> well-respected part of news broadcasts.

	This assumes, of course, that news broadcasts in general are well
respected.  When I want to know what's going on in the world, I read the NY
Times or watch MacNeil-Lehrer.  When I want to know what the weather is, I
listen to NWS on my Radio Shack Time Cube.  Not that I believe what NWS
says most of the time, but at least it's better than some network yahoo
telling me what NWS told him.
-- 
roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
From: newberry@astro.as.arizona.edu (Mike Newberry)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: weather data archives?
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:59:36 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

>Does anyone know of terrestrial weather data archives accessible via 
>anonymous ftp?

  [deleted stuff]

>a place that carries regional archives on variables such as
>surface temperature, barometric pressure, etc.  
>

I'd also be interested in the location of such an archive.  In particular,
I'm interested in info on cloud cover, precip, RH, etc., for the southwest.
I've been attempting to dig this out of old NOAA climatological summaries
(the monthly printed things from Asheville, NC).

Mike Newberry
newberry@astro.as.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: snow@netcom.com (Tim Szeliga)
Subject: Re: Dateline : NBC
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 17:29:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

Dr. Joe Friday sent a memorandum to all NWS employees in rebuttal to
the segment of Dateline NBC.  He pointed out "many half-truths and innuendoes
that are simply not supported by the facts."  "[I]n the introductory scenes from
the Andover, Kansas tornado, the Wichita office had good warnings out well 
in advance of the tornado."
 "The reporter indicated correctly that we predict two-thirds of
all severe storms, but,...,she did not include statistics that showed we
predicted only one-third of the storms a little over a decade ago."

He goes on to discuss the 88Ds operating in Norman, Melbourne and Sterling
and St Louis and Dodge City, and denies and impropriety in the NEXRAD 
procurement.

While I cannot post an internal memorandum, I do not want to be guilty 
of misleading by quoting out of context.  A transcript of the memo is
available via anonymous ftp to gator.netcom.com, in the directory pub/snow,
filename Friday.


Tim Szeliga	 Org:National Weather Service / Hydrologic Remote Sensing
UUCP:	apple!netcomsv!frost!tim		Internet: snow@netcom.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(Just because I mention a product in a post does not mean it is endorsed by
the United States Government.  You gotta be at least cabinet level before you
can do that.)
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Steve Jascourt)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: How can Universities get displays of NEXRAD data?
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:01:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

It would really be nice to be able to get NEXRAD doppler fields in real time
like we can of WSR-57 reflectivities with our Kavouris machine. The questions
are: is the data available, if so, how, in what format, how do we make (or
buy) a system that can handle it (we have people who may be interested in
trying to make such a system if they know how to get the data, its format, and
all the other stuff you need to know to make one), and anything else we may
need to know. One of you NSSL folks might know the answers or could put me
in touch with someone who does?? Anybody? 

Is anyone predicting an F3 or F4 tornado (undetermined location) for 
Saturday afternoon? (time is 01:40 UTC Friday as I write this). We have a
couple of people thinking of driving out to KS/S IA/ OK/ whereever/ to
go storm chasing-- a real exciting jet streak is coming in off the Pacific
and the Gulf is open.

Stephen Jascourt  stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
From: Cynedd@cup.portal.com (Kenneth W Durham)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Meteorological Software Needed
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 92 21:12:56 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

 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.

Thanks in advance.

Ken W. Durham      Cynedd@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: system@convax.iar.nrc.ca (Jim.Jordan)
Subject: Info on WX FAX by HF Radio
Reply-To: system@convax.iar.nrc.ca (Jim.Jordan)
Organization: National Research Council,Ottawa,Canada
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 08:30:49 EDT

Meteorology Newsgroup:				Apr-7-92

	I keep seeing references to weather fax equipment which will work
on HF radio (SSB). These are typically in sailing magazines - so I gather
it is fairly routine to get weather maps while at sea on long distance or
trans-oceanic cruises. 

	Can anyone give me some information on the HF stations which send this
information and the type of equipment required to receive this ? I believe I
have seen PC based imaging systems which would work in this mode.

							Thanks,
							---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
________________________________________________________________________________