 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009Weather Forecast Percentages
The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain this evening." It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually mean?  Signature"Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything." - Ivana Trump > The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain > this evening." > > It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually > mean? Odds are good that you will get wet if you go out walking this evening. Probably the meteorologists are looking at the barometer (to see if the mercury is falling), the temperature, the humidity, and the huge swirling masses of highs, lows, and hot and cold waves coming into your area. After considering those factors, they look at the history of the past nn years to see how often it has rained in the afternoon/evening of the same day in those years. That helps with figuring the odds. Then they close their eyes and "guess". Well, they also count the clouds coming in and figure: if the clouds are scattered, but come in ranks that pretty well cover your area, you might still get missed. Otherwise, if it looks to become overcast, they allow for a slight dip in temps to cause precipitation. OK? >> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >> this evening." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > become overcast, they allow for a slight dip in temps to cause > precipitation. A fascinating insight. Philip Eden >>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >>> this evening." [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >A fascinating insight. I feel a Winnie-the-Pooh moment coming on. SignatureIan >>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >>> this evening." [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> > A fascinating insight. There really ought to be an emoticon for that. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > A fascinating insight. > > There really ought to be an emoticon for that. :( -- VB >>> A fascinating insight. >> There really ought to be an emoticon for that. > > :( No, I think it needs a hint of a superior eyebrow lift to really hit the button in this instance. (I assume that the OP doesn't know what Philip does in RL.) SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > >> There really ought to be an emoticon for that. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > button in this instance. (I assume that the OP doesn't know what Philip > does in RL.) ;:^| ? -- VB >> >> There really ought to be an emoticon for that. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >;:^| ? Philip Eden's website: http://www.climate-uk.com/ He knows stuff about the weather and makes forecasts. He also writes books: http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/philip-eden/By-Philip-Eden.htm http://www.whsmith.co.uk/CatalogAndSearch/ProductDetails-Great+British+Weather+D isasters+-9780826476210.html SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>>> There really ought to be an emoticon for that. >>> :( [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > VB Good try but that doesn't look a bit like Philip's picture on Facebook... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > >> No, I think it needs a hint of a superior eyebrow lift to really hit the > >> button in this instance. (I assume that the OP doesn't know what Philip > >> does in RL.) > > > ;:^| ? > Good try but that doesn't look a bit like Philip's picture on Facebook... ;:v| ? -- VB >>>> A fascinating insight. >>> There really ought to be an emoticon for that. >> :( > No, I think it needs a hint of a superior eyebrow lift to really > hit the button in this instance. (I assume that the OP doesn't know > what Philip does in RL.) 0.õ ~ > >>>> A fascinating insight. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 0.õ > ~ In a proper eyebrow lift nothing on the face moves but the one eyebrow. Therefore: õ.Ó (Assuming that everyone has the same font I do.) - SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>>>>> A fascinating insight. >>>>> There really ought to be an emoticon for that. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > õ.Ó (Assuming that everyone has the same font I do.) > - Excellent! And uncannily like Philip's photo... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) "LFS" <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote : >> In a proper eyebrow lift nothing on the face moves but the one eyebrow. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Excellent! And uncannily like Philip's photo... ¦ : - # pe > "LFS" <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote : >>> In a proper eyebrow lift nothing on the face moves but the one eyebrow. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > pe Ah, you've grown a moustache.. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > >>>>>> A fascinating insight. > >>>>> There really ought to be an emoticon for that. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Excellent! And uncannily like Philip's photo... On my screen, both in my original email and above in this response, both o's are lowercase. In Laura's response, which is quoted above, the eye with the raised eyebrow appears in uppercase. Repeating: when it's in her message, it's uppercase, when I quote her message, it's lowercase. Weird. My intention was to show ONLY the eyebrow moving. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > After considering those factors, they look at the history of the past nn > years to see how often it has rained in the afternoon/evening of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it looks to become overcast, they allow for a slight dip in temps to > cause precipitation. Reminds me of a cartoon (by Kliban, I think): A TV news anchor intros a weatherman. "And now here's the weather with our weather a.shole." Signature"Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything." - Ivana Trump >> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >> this evening." [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >it looks to become overcast, they allow for a slight dip in temps to >cause precipitation. That and seaweed. Oh, and supercomputers, of course. Weather is, in mathematical terms, a chaotic system - which means that *any* error in the input can, in a worst case, produce massive differences in ouput. The input that the met guys have, though, is neither exact nor complete, so they test the stablity/reliability of the results that their prediction software is giving them by running repeated variations with small peturbations in the input data. If lots of their scenarios produce similar results, they'll give their predictions a much higher level of confidence than if they have multiple different patterns emerging. Cheers - Ian (BrE: Yorks., Hants.) >The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >this evening." > >It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually mean? It's a bit ambiguous. Seventy percent for which listener, since the tv signal probably covers hundreds of square miles? How much rain qualifies to say it actually rained, a bit of drizzle or a few millimeters? What exact time limits are defined by "this evening"? And they have to sum up all those continuously varying things in a single number, or nobody would listen to them. Still, it may be good enough to decide whether to go to the ball game at all, or whether to carry an umbrella for the evening walk, as long as you know that there's no certainty. SignatureJohn >The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >this evening." Let me make it a little harder. "There's a 50 per cent chance of scattered showers today." Does that mean there is a 50% chance of no showers, and if the alternative happens, if there are scattered showers they will be scatter and only affect part of the area? So actually no specific place has a 50% chance of showers, but a lower one. Or does it mean every part of the whole area has a 50% chance of showers, but obviously, since 50% will have no showers, the showers will be scattered? >It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually mean? SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > >The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain > >this evening." > > > >It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually mean? It means, roughly, that if you are in the area for which the prediction is valid, and you stand outside for the entire time for which the prediction is valid, you have a 70% chance of getting rained on. More precisely, you could send thousands of people outside and have them stand in locations all over the area: then there is a 70% chance that at least one of them will get wet during the period in question. This is the official line: try googling "probablility of precipitation". > Let me make it a little harder. "There's a 50 per cent chance of > scattered showers today." Does that mean there is a 50% chance of no > showers, and if the alternative happens, if there are scattered > showers they will be scatter and only affect part of the area? So > actually no specific place has a 50% chance of showers, but a lower > one. This is just giving a bit of extra - and useful - information. There is a 50% chance of rain *somewhere* within the area, just as above. Since the rain is going to be "scattered", however, there is a lower chance at any particular location. If thousands of people stand outside throughout the area for the period of the prediction, there is a 50% chance that at least one of them will get wet, just as before, but the chance for any particular one of them getting wet is less than 50%, which is not necessarily true for widespread showers. Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "I meant it kept the rain off the face , which umberallas dont do very well because mainly the rain in the Northern Hemisphere falls at greater angles the further north you go" -- Habshi, on sci.physics In article <2ac9ff1d-25fb-4abc-b3f8-0be4ed63422a@m18g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, > It means, roughly, that if you are in the area for which the > prediction is valid, and you stand outside for the entire time for > which the prediction is valid, you have a 70% chance of getting rained > on. Okay, I'm spacing here. What does that *mean*? Signature"Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything." - Ivana Trump > In article > <2ac9ff1d-25fb-4abc-b3f8-0be4ed63422a@m18g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Okay, I'm spacing here. What does that *mean*? Look, if you're trolling to start a frequentist vs. Bayesian religious war here, I would hope that people here are too smart to bite. There are two parts to the question "What does it mean for it to rain?" and "What does it mean for an event to have a 70% chance of occurring?" I'm not sure which you're questioning. For the first, it typically means that more than, say 1mm of rain will be collected at some specific weather station in the area the prediction covers. If the prediction is over a wider area, there may be other requirements about how many of the weather stations have to see rain for it to count. For the second, there are typically two ways to look at it. The way such predictions are judged boils down to something like "If over a year you say there's a 70% chance of rain 30 times, then for you to have been accurate, on 21 of those days it should have rained and on 9 of them it should not have." The second way to look at it is that if someone predicts a 70% chance of rain, they should be willing to put up $700 against you betting $300 that it will rain *or* to put up $300 against you betting $700 that it won't rain. The notion being that if they were to make the offer every day, then if they predict accurately, they should expect to break even. In layman's terms, it means that it's quite likely to rain, but it won't be too surprising if it doesn't. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |...as a mobile phone is analogous 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you stick in your ear, but there |all resemblance ends. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Ross Howard (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> >The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >> >this evening." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >them stand in locations all over the area: then there is a 70% chance >that at least one of them will get wet during the period in question. This is not a more precise rendition of the first paragraph. This is quite different. >This is the official line: try googling "probablility of >precipitation". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Since the rain is going to be "scattered", however, there is a lower >chance at any particular location. This, C, sounds right, except I thought it a likely choice when I first posted. And since you think B is a more precise version of A above, I am sorry to say I can't depend on you that C is right. >If thousands of people stand outside throughout the area for the >period of the prediction, there is a 50% chance that at least one of >them will get wet, Like B to A, this, D, is not the same as C. This would describe, I thihk, isolated showers or an isolated shower, in meteorologicalese. > just as before, but the chance for any particular >one of them getting wet is less than 50%, which is not necessarily >true for widespread showers. > >Jim Deutch (JimboCat) SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:56:42 -0700 (PDT), JimboCat > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > This is not a more precise rendition of the first paragraph. This is > quite different. The difference only makes a difference if the rain is localized, rather than widespread. That's what we get into later in the post when discussing "scattered showers". Alas, I seem to have gotten it wrong. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ffc/html/pop.shtml This seemingly-definitive web page tells us that the widespread vs. scattered nature of the predicted showers is actually factored in to the PoP (Probability of Precipitation). If there is a 50% chance that it will rain in the area, and it is certain that it will rain (if it does rain at all) /throughout/ the area, the PoP is 50%. OTOH, if there is a 50% change that it will rain in the area, and it will rain (if it does at all) over only 50% of the area, then the PoP is given as 25%. Sorry for the confusion. I should've looked it up before posting. Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "Prediction is really difficult. Especially about the future." > Alas, I seem to have gotten it wrong. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and it will rain (if it does at all) over only 50% of the area, then > the PoP is given as 25%. That makes sense. There's a 25% probability that if you pick a weather station at random (biased by the distribution of weather station), that weather station will see measurable rain. That doesn't really generalize to an explicit statement of the probability of scattered showers, which would seem to rather be an expression of the probability of a particular distribution of events over the entire area. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Politicians are like compost--they 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |should be turned often or they start Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to smell bad. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ffc/html/pop.shtml > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >(if it does at all) over only 50% of the area, then the PoP is given >as 25%. That is fantastic. That is so good to know. >Sorry for the confusion. I should've looked it up before posting. Maybe I should have looked it up before asking (but I didn't know how. Now it occurs to me that I do know how. My usual method would work, just some times it seems like it won't. >Jim Deutch (JimboCat) SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years I will have to pay more attention to what the weather reports say, if they say a 25% probabability of precipitation. Or if they say a 25% chance of scattered showers. I don't know if they use this phrase, but I think if they do, it would be less than a 25% chance of preciptation. >http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ffc/html/pop.shtml > >This seemingly-definitive web page tells us that the widespread vs. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > > >The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain > > >this evening." [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > one of them getting wet is less than 50%, which is not necessarily > true for widespread showers. Oh, sod it! I'll just look out the window before I leave home and if it looks dubious I'll take the brolly. > Oh, sod it! I'll just look out the window before I leave home and if > it looks dubious I'll take the brolly. Our weather forecasts have improved immeasurably since the weather people moved to a building that has a window. Before, you would hear them say things like "Fine and sunny" when it was pouring outside. SignatureRob Bannister >> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >> this evening." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > showers, but obviously, since 50% will have no showers, the showers > will be scattered? As I understand it, the forecast is for a region. Last I knew, the regions in the US were 60 square miles. So the forecast means that there's a 50 percent chance of showers somewhere in that 60 square mile region but the whole region won't get rain at once. --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire >>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of >>> rain this evening." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > As I understand it, the forecast is for a region. Last I knew, the > regions in the US were 60 square miles. I have never heard of that. Could you be referring to the Tornado and other Severe Storm stations? In that case, we are 120 miles east of one, and 80 miles west of another. One of our TV weather programs advertises as "backyard weather", and another announces weather for "our listening area". On one channel, the station is on the opposite side of town (about 10 mi away), but that channel also announces the "airport" weather. The airport is about 2 miles away. I appreciate that those same programs have updates available online with very area-specific announcements. My ATT hookup has a "city"-specific page that is only 2 miles away. Of course smaller and more remote communities may have local airports and weather stations that provide news through radio broadcasts. I invested in a weather channels radio and found the US Weather announcements for my city (Madison) provide terrible reception, while Green Bay's announcements come in clearly. I think there are something like 9 such stations in Wisconsin. This system used to be called "Weatherradio", I think. > So the forecast means that > there's a 50 percent chance of showers somewhere in that 60 square > mile > region but the whole region won't get rain at once. >>The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of >>rain this evening." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > showers, but obviously, since 50% will have no showers, the showers > will be scattered? As near as I can tell from looking at the AMS glossary http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary "showers" means falling in an area no more than about 10 km wide and for a time period of less than about one-half hour "scattered" appears to mean "covering at least an eighth but no more than half the area", at least when it comes to cloud cover, and I'd expect it to mean something similar for precipitation. So my reading would be that if there are, say, 20 weather stations roughly uniformly covering the area, there's a 50% chance of between 3 and 10 of them registering rain but none registering steady rain for more than half an hour at a time. The event being given a 50% likelihood of occurrence would presumably be judged to not have happened if fewer than 3 (not enough for "scattered") or more than 10 (to much for "scattered") of the stations reported rain or if any reported steady rain for more than half an hour (not "showers"). This, of course, includes it not raining. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The Society for the Preservation of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Tithesis commends your ebriated and Palo Alto, CA 94304 |scrutable use of delible and |defatigable, which are gainly, sipid kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and couth. We are gruntled and (650)857-7572 |consolate that you have the ertia and |eptitude to choose such putably http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |pensible tithesis, which we parage. >>The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >>this evening." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > showers, but obviously, since 50% will have no showers, the showers > will be scattered? Meteorologists could forecast a 50% chance of rain under a variety of conditions:- 1. A continuous bank of cloud is approaching the forecast area, but the meteorologists cannot determine the temperature (and the degree of mixing of warm and cold air) in the cloud with sufficient accuracy to say with certainty that rain will come from these clouds. This is a 50% probability of occasion. 2. A patchwork of small rain-bearing clouds, interspersed with cloud-free areas and with other types of cloud not expected to produce rain, is approaching the forecast area. Some areas will have rain, other nearby areas will not. Due to the nature of clouds, they cannot state the situation with any greater accuracy than to say that 50% of the users of the forecast will have rain, and 50% will not. This is a 50% probability by sub-area, within the forecast area. 3. An area of weather is approaching in which cloud is continuously bubbling up in some places, and evaporating in other places, within the forecast area. If it bubbles up in your area, you will have rain. Other areas, maybe no more than a couple of kilometres away, may have no rain. This is a 50% probability by intrinsic randomness. I presume that the utterances of weather forecasters are audited. All that really matters to the customer of the weather forecast is the audited answer to the following question:- "If we take all the occasions in the last year on which the forecast has predicted a 50% probability, have (approximately) 50% of these forecasts been followed by rain, and 50% by no rain?" If the answer is "Yes", the meteorologists are providing the best service they can, taking into account the nature of weather. If the answer is "No", they need to improve their technique. They need to improve their technique anyway. It would be nice to replace some of these predictions of 50% probability by a more explicit forecast, either "rain" or "no rain". But the nature of some weather systems (as described in items 1-3 above) make this a tall order. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. >>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of >>> rain this evening." [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > weather systems (as described in items 1-3 above) make this a tall > order. I'll dare a prediction with 100% certainty: It will either rain, or it won't. For sure. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > I'll dare a prediction with 100% certainty: > It will either rain, or it won't. For sure. During my 3 weeks in Singapore, I got to love the local radio weather forecasts. Every day, it went "It will be fine until 12 noon". They were always right. In the afternoon, it would stay fine, but muggy, or it would cloud over and get slightly cooler, or it would pour down like a waterfall, but the forecast was never wrong. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >> I'll dare a prediction with 100% certainty: >> It will either rain, or it won't. For sure. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >and get slightly cooler, or it would pour down like a waterfall, but the >forecast was never wrong. Yet another way of interpreting a "fifty percent" report: they tell you with absolute certainty what the weather will be for exactly half of the day and leave the rest unstated....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? [snip] > I'll dare a prediction with 100% certainty: > It will either rain, or it won't. For sure. Joke ye not! The UK Met Office's long-range forecast for the winter of 2006/2007 was "There is an equal chance that the winter will be either warmer or colder than average". With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Attending Anesthesiologist) Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 2006/2007 was "There is an equal chance that the winter will be either > warmer or colder than average". That's a very different type of prediction. I would guess that normally the chances wouldn't be equal, but Skitt invokes the Law of the Excluded Middle to make his prediction. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When correctly viewed, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Everything is lewd. Palo Alto, CA 94304 |I could tell you things | about Peter Pan, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and the Wizard of Oz-- (650)857-7572 | there's a dirty old man! | Tom Lehrer http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >normally the chances wouldn't be equal, but Skitt invokes the Law of >the Excluded Middle to make his prediction. Using that law, Skitt's prediction is unassailable. As you said, the other one is not. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > I wrote: >> They need to improve their technique anyway. It would be nice to >> replace some of these predictions of 50% probability by a more >> explicit forecast, either "rain" or "no rain". > I'll dare a prediction with 100% certainty: > It will either rain, or it won't. For sure. ------------------------------- You have detected a case of loose wording. What I should have written is:- They need to improve their technique anyway. It would be nice to replace some of these predictions of 50% probability by a more explicit forecast:- either one that explicitly states "rain", or one that explicitly states "no rain". Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > They need to improve their technique anyway. It would be nice to replace > some of these predictions of 50% probability by a more explicit forecast, > either "rain" or "no rain". But the nature of some weather systems (as > described in items 1-3 above) make this a tall order. Even when they are more certain about the approaching weather system, local topography still makes forecasting a bit chancy. Perth, where I live, has no large hills, but the weather is still patchy unless there is a really huge cold front - if it's following the usual path from the SW, the rain falls mainly on the coast and along the course of the river, while other areas often miss out completely. My own house is in a valley between two steep ridges and is a lot drier than surrounding areas. SignatureRob Bannister > The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain > this evening." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything." > - Ivana Trump Several years ago, a local TV weather forecaster was asked that question -- and answered it! "A 70% chance of rain" means that it will rain in 70% of the area the broadcast reaches. >> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of >> rain this evening." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > question -- and answered it! "A 70% chance of rain" means that it > will rain in 70% of the area the broadcast reaches. Wow. Was this somebody who just read the weather or somebody who actually claimed to be a meteorologist? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The plural of "anecdote" 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is not "data" Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of >>> rain this evening." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Wow. Was this somebody who just read the weather or somebody who >actually claimed to be a meteorologist? I've heard that given as one of the *wrong* answers on a multiple-choice test about weather reports...the "right" answer is the one that comes closest to saying "it has rained seven out of every ten times in the past that the conditions in the area were the same as what they are right now".... Around here though, when they say what MC quotes above, it means "four inches of rain have already fallen here in the last hour"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? R H Draney filted: >>>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of >>>> rain this evening." > >Around here though, when they say what MC quotes above, it means "four inches of >rain have already fallen here in the last hour"....r ObAfterthought: it also means you can't hear him say it, because the electricity went out about twenty minutes ago....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Around here though, when they say what MC quotes above, it means "four > inches of rain have already fallen here in the last hour"....r My parents had a habit of saying things in (poor attempts at) the appropriate local accent whenever they told us "it's raining in Wales" or "apart from thunderstorms in Scotland it's been sunny everywhere" as we sat under a downpour. It never gives you a lot of confidence in their ability to predict the future, when they apparently don't know what it's doing now. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu On Jul 1, 7:35 am, MC <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote: > The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain > this evening." > > It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually > mean? Cece: Several years ago, a local TV weather forecaster was asked that question -- and answered it! "A 70% chance of rain" means that it will rain in 70% of the area the broadcast reaches. Pat: I wonder if that guy is still employed there! > The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain > this evening." > > It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually mean? It is quite likely you will get wet if you go out without your Mac or Unbrella SignatureThe Canadian Curmudgeon (in Calgary) Save our precious CO2 - plant many trees >> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >> this evening." >> >> It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually mean? > > It is quite likely you will get wet if you go out without your Mac or Unbrella Umbrella - damned cat ! SignatureThe Canadian Curmudgeon (in Calgary) Save our precious CO2 - plant many trees >>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >>> this evening." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Umbrella - damned cat ! It wasn't that the puzzled me, but the capital M. Why would you take a nasty hamburger with you instead of a mac? SignatureRob Bannister >>>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of >>>> rain this evening." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It wasn't that the puzzled me, but the capital M. Why would you take a > nasty hamburger with you instead of a mac? LOL > >>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain > >>> this evening." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It wasn't that the puzzled me, but the capital M. Why would you take a > nasty hamburger with you instead of a mac? MAC - Portable computer. Open halfway and hold over head. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada >> >>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >> >>> this evening." [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada Watch those caps! MAC = Media Access Control (as in MAC address). Mac = Macintosh computer (not necessarily portable). SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) > >>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain > >>> this evening." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It wasn't that the puzzled me, but the capital M. Why would you take a > nasty hamburger with you instead of a mac? He's not taking a hamburger, he's taking an Apple laptop computer. When it starts to rain he will hold the computer over his head. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >>>> this evening." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It wasn't that the puzzled me, but the capital M. Why would you take a > nasty hamburger with you instead of a mac? That would be silly. You're meant to take your computer. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) > > The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain > > this evening." > > > > It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually mean? > > It is quite likely you will get wet if you go out without your Mac or Unbrella But where does the *percentage* come into play? Signature"Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything." - Ivana Trump >>> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of >>> rain this evening." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But where does the *percentage* come into play? An unpredictably-defined portion constituting 30% of the area for which the "prediction" is predicted will not get rained upon. SignatureFrank ess > The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain > this evening." > > It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually mean? It's one of those mysteries of life. Some 30 years ago when the Weather Bureau (I think it was still called the Weather Bureau at that time) first started giving those percentages, I asked a cow orker who had a degree in meteorology what that meant. He hadn't actually worked as a meteorologist for at least a decade, so he didn't know, but supposed that if a forecaster had ten indicators that suggest rain, and four of the indicators say "yes" and six of them say "no", then the probability of rain would be 40%. Now of course they have satellites and ground Doppler weather radars and know all about El Nino and everything and they still can't forecast 8 hours in advance. Sometimes you can look out the window and see that the forecast is already wrong. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > Now of course they have satellites and ground Doppler weather radars > and know all about El Nino and everything and they still can't > forecast 8 hours in advance. Sometimes you can look out the window > and see that the forecast is already wrong. I like it when the forecaster tells us he can see several thunderstorms on his radar screen when we have clear skies. When the rain never reaches our shores, however, they never explain why. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >> Now of course they have satellites and ground Doppler weather radars >> and know all about El Nino and everything and they still can't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >on his radar screen when we have clear skies. When the rain never >reaches our shores, however, they never explain why. You mean you don't have a permanent "heat island" keeping the wet at bay?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Robert Bannister filted: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You mean you don't have a permanent "heat island" keeping the wet at bay?...r Except when you have four inches in an hour? This reminds me that I recently talked with a woman who had just moved from Arizona to Santa Fe. She said she used to get depressed in spring because summer was coming. Now she'd be cheering up, I suppose, with the "monsoon" coming, except that we've had a weird year. Monsoon in June is crooned to the same tune. -- Jerry Friedman I just remembered a classic bit of weather jargon I heard on the radio: "We're in a liquid precipitation situation." Signature"Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything." - Ivana Trump > I just remembered a classic bit of weather jargon I heard on the > radio: > > "We're in a liquid precipitation situation." Presumably as opposed to solid precipitation, such as hail, sleet, snow, or animals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raining_animals SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Sorry, captain. Convenient 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |technobabble levels are dangerously Palo Alto, CA 94304 |low. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > I just remembered a classic bit of weather jargon I heard on the > > radio: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raining_animals The local English service of CBC radio had a francophone weather man fill in for the regular guy. What he lacked in English skills he more than made up for in enthusiasm. (Without a trace of humour or irony) "It's going to be very hot and humid throughout the day. I will probably be sweating in bed tonight and I know I won't be alone." Signature"Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything." - Ivana Trump > In article <ab3nboey....@hpl.hp.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > humid throughout the day. I will probably be sweating in bed tonight and > I know I won't be alone." Jean Chretien is starting a second career? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada >> I just remembered a classic bit of weather jargon I heard on the >> radio: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raining_animals One very recent example of that: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/22/2604222.htm SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > >> I just remembered a classic bit of weather jargon I heard on the > >> radio: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > One very recent example of that: > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/22/2604222.htm Evidently no one has actually seen the animals falling from the sky. What has happened is that fish and tadpoles have been observed in unexpected places. I'm suspecting hoaxers a la the crop circles. Speaking of crop circles, I haven't heard anything about them for quite a while. Did all of the pranksters get tired of the joke? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > Evidently no one has actually seen the animals falling from the sky. > What has happened is that fish and tadpoles have been observed in > unexpected places. Well, nobody's photographed it, but people have claimed to see it: At all events, Phænias, in the second book of his Eresian Magistrates, says that in the Cersonesus it once rained fish uninterruptedly for three days; and Phylarchus, in his fourth book, says that people had often seen it raining fish, and often also raining wheat, and that the same thing has happened with respect to frogs. Athenæus, _The Deipnosophists_, C.D. Yonge [tr], 1854 SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >Well, nobody's photographed it, but people have claimed to see it: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Athenæus, _The Deipnosophists_, C.D. Yonge [tr], > 1854 "Raining violets? Well, that's better than hailing taxicabs." - Doodles Weaver ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > > Evidently no one has actually seen the animals falling from the sky. > > What has happened is that fish and tadpoles have been observed in > > unexpected places. > > Well, nobody's photographed it, but people have claimed to see it: I was making specific reference to the incidents in Japan. > At all events, Phænias, in the second book of his Eresian > Magistrates, says that in the Cersonesus it once rained fish [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Athenæus, _The Deipnosophists_, C.D. Yonge [tr], > 1854 Well, those ancient guys were always seeing signs and portents. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>>> I just remembered a classic bit of weather jargon I heard on the >>>> radio: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > circles, I haven't heard anything about them for quite a while. Did > all of the pranksters get tired of the joke? This recent one was fairly spectacular: http://io9.com/5306026/did-this-jellyfish-crop-circle-accurately-predict-a-solar -storm SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > This recent one was fairly spectacular: > > http://io9.com/5306026/did-this-jellyfish-crop-circle-accurately-predict-a-solar -storm Crop circles make me feel great, too. I'm glad to see that they are not only continuing but improving. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email John Varela wrote, in <dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-fbt3DpkwUvzW@localhost> on 2 Jul 2009 23:34:58 GMT: > > >> I just remembered a classic bit of weather jargon I heard on the > > >> radio: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > What has happened is that fish and tadpoles have been observed in > unexpected places. I picked up a starfish on my back patio during a severe south-westerly gale about forty years ago. Dublin Bay is about 500 yards away in that direction. > I'm suspecting hoaxers a la the crop circles. Speaking of crop > circles, I haven't heard anything about them for quite a while. Did > all of the pranksters get tired of the joke? SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE > > I just remembered a classic bit of weather jargon I heard on the > > radio: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Presumably as opposed to solid precipitation, such as hail, sleet, > snow, or animals. Aren't animals, like people, mostly liquid? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> > I just remembered a classic bit of weather jargon I heard on the >> > radio: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Aren't animals, like people, mostly liquid? I think that when it comes to things falling, it doesn't matter a whole lot what the filling is as long as the boundary doesn't rupture (and often not even then). I'd consider, say, a metal ball filled with water to be a solid object even if the water significantly outweighed the metal. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The Society for the Preservation of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Tithesis commends your ebriated and Palo Alto, CA 94304 |scrutable use of delible and |defatigable, which are gainly, sipid kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and couth. We are gruntled and (650)857-7572 |consolate that you have the ertia and |eptitude to choose such putably http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |pensible tithesis, which we parage. Jerry Friedman filted: >> You mean you don't have a permanent "heat island" keeping the wet at bay?= >...r > >Except when you have four inches in an hour? That doesn't count because it comes in sideways.... Which reminds me...how come we never heard about "microbursts" until about ten years ago?... >This reminds me that I recently talked with a woman who had just moved >from Arizona to Santa Fe. She said she used to get depressed in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that we've had a weird year. Monsoon in June is crooned to the same >tune. As of 2008, the monsoon begins on June 15th...every year...regardless of the weather....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Which reminds me...how come we never heard about "microbursts" until about ten > years ago?... A good deal longer than ten years ago. The term became common in the aftermath of the crash of Eastern Airlines Flight 66 at JFK in June 1975. http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100485&org=ATM Well, maybe not common. I became aware of it at that time, but I was working in the air traffic control business. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of > rain this evening." > > It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually > mean? On average, in the evenings of 70% of the days for which such a prediction is made, there will be measurable rain collected at a particular measurement station. At least that's what it means to accurately consistently make such predictions. For a single prediction, it means that the person making the prediction thinks that it's considerably more likely than not, but not certain to rain and should be willing to take either side of a 7:3 bet on it raining. There are established ways of formally measuring the accuracy of such meterological predictions over time (involving things like Brier scores), although I don't know that anybody actually publishes how well the various people and agencies who make predictions do. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Now and then an innocent man is sent 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to the legislature. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Kim Hubbard kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of >> rain this evening." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >scores), although I don't know that anybody actually publishes how >well the various people and agencies who make predictions do. Okay, there are some definitions. I think it has been decades since I heard a weatherman be so careless, but we have had some proud weather professionals working out of Pittsburgh. If they expect that "70% of the region is going to get some rain this evening," that is what they will say. And i've heard them say that there is a good chance that a front will pass south of the city, and if that happens, the rain/ snow is only expected in these (waving at the map) counties. SignatureRich Ulrich I have to get a beef out here. My local tv station insists on reading the local temperatures, droning for about a minute, "78 in Anytown, 76 in Barftown, etc." Why can't they just say that the local temps are in the high seventies. Grrr.. Do they have that much air time to waste? In article <c013d487-17e6-447c-8ebb-6b9cb55df763@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > I have to get a beef out here. My local tv station insists on reading > the local temperatures, droning for about a minute, "78 in Anytown, > 76 in Barftown, etc." Why can't they just say that the local temps > are in the high seventies. Grrr.. Do they have that much air time to > waste? My pet beef is the amount of time they spend on where the weather was and what the weather was *yesterday* Signature"Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything." - Ivana Trump > > I have to get a beef out here. My local tv station insists on reading > > the local temperatures, droning for about a minute, "78 in Anytown, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > My pet beef is the amount of time they spend on where the weather was > and what the weather was *yesterday* My pet beef is that they are so excited by DEM fancy maps that they are forever panning across them and never keep them still enough for anyone seriously interested in the weather to have any idea what's expected. Bring back magnetboards, sez I! And moustaches. And brown suits and kipper ties. And cups of tea with chocolate digestives. And bicycling cricket-mad vicars. And so on. And who gives a sh.t about what's happening in Madagascar? You've only got a minute. Keep it simple, folks. And another thing ... -- VB Q for PE: Is your latest out in paperback yet? I'm too cheap to buy hardbacks. > > > I have to get a beef out here. My local tv station insists on reading > > > the local temperatures, droning for about a minute, "78 in Anytown, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > And another thing ... is that on a temperature-forecast per person basis, the people of Enniskillen have the rest of the United Kingdom beat hands down. It has only between 13 and 14 thousand inhabitants but gets a municipal forecast alongside those for London and Birmingham in national weather forecasting. I wonder what it costs them on the rates. -- franzi > And another thing ... >is that on a temperature-forecast per person basis, the people of >Enniskillen have the rest of the United Kingdom beat hands down. It >has only between 13 and 14 thousand inhabitants but gets a municipal >forecast alongside those for London and Birmingham in national weather >forecasting. I wonder what it costs them on the rates. Zero. Those public weather forecasts are paid for centrally. In any case the weather forecast may be of more value to the inhabitants of the area surounding Enniskillen than it is to those in urban areas. Weather is of immediate practical importance to farmers in a way that it isn't to most dwellers in urban areas. Having written that, I'm wondering whether the tennis championships at Wimbledon should be classified as agriculutural in view of the importance of weather forecasts to their administrators. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>> I have to get a beef out here. My local tv station insists on >>> reading the local temperatures, droning for about a minute, "78 in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > And another thing ... Yes? Oh, I forgot to mention, the wise forecaster also hedges his bets by having recourse to the Farmer's Almanack. Ack! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers'_Almanac (actually, I got 772,000 hits for the "-ack" ending, and 446,000 for the "-ac" ending.) >In article ><c013d487-17e6-447c-8ebb-6b9cb55df763@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >My pet beef is the amount of time they spend on where the weather was >and what the weather was *yesterday* My pet beef is the dumbed-down "high" and "low", which are invariably used when they really mean "maximum" and "minimum" (temperatures). We, in Britain, imported this from the USA some 20 years ago, and it still grates. SignatureIan > >In article > ><c013d487-17e6-447c-8ebb-6b9cb55df763@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > in Britain, imported this from the USA some 20 years ago, and it still > grates. The terms "high" and "low" don't bother me, but I have always been bothered when they tell me the "normal high and low" for a given date. If 50 is the "normal low" for tomorrow, then anything but 50 is abnormal for that date. I have actually convinced one of our local weather people that it's the "average low" and "average high" that he is reporting, and he now states it that way. Bill in Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address > The terms "high" and "low" don't bother me, but I have always been > bothered when they tell me the "normal high and low" for a given [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the "average low" and "average high" that he is reporting, and he now > states it that way. Can you get him to state what sort of "average" he uses and what it's averaged over? One web page http://cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/Normals/normal.html says that the (US) National Weather Service and National Climate Data Center average over the most recent four whole or partial decades starting on a year ending in 1. That is, currently, averages are over 1971-2009, but in 2011, it will switch to 1981-2011 and temperatures from 1971-1980 will be dropped. I had not known that. Of course, "average temperature" can be quite misleading, too. A desert region in which it's 105° during the day and 55° at night might have an average temperature of about 75°. But only for a few minutes a day. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem |to see the obvious. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > The terms "high" and "low" don't bother me, but I have always been > > bothered when they tell me the "normal high and low" for a given [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 1971-2009, but in 2011, it will switch to 1981-2011 and temperatures > from 1971-1980 will be dropped. I had not known that. I hadn't known that either. Thanks for the information. I have been assuming that it was the average over the time records were being kept. > Of course, "average temperature" can be quite misleading, too. A > desert region in which it's 105° during the day and 55° at night might > have an average temperature of about 75°. But only for a few minutes > a day. Well, for a day there're the high, the low, and the average. For a date, a week, a month, a year, or any given period of time, there are an average high, an average low, and an average average. Now I'm wondering if the average temperature given for a day is the average of the high and low, the average of readings taken every hour, the average for readings taken at another interval, or a continuous average. The last is the real average. The others are approximations that are easier to get. Bill in Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address >>> In article >>> <c013d487-17e6-447c-8ebb-6b9cb55df763@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the "average low" and "average high" that he is reporting, and he now > states it that way. That's mean, if you ask me. SignatureMarshall Price of Miami marshallprice@att.net http://marshallprice.wordpress.com > > The terms "high" and "low" don't bother me, but I have always been > > bothered when they tell me the "normal high and low" for a given date. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's mean, if you ask me. Excellent. Bill in Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse parts of the user name and ISP name for my e-address > My pet beef is the dumbed-down "high" and "low", which are invariably > used when they really mean "maximum" and "minimum" (temperatures). We, > in Britain, imported this from the USA some 20 years ago, and it still > grates. That's been established here for (at least) nearly a hundred years. It would never occur to me to think of it as strange. The OED doesn't appear to have this sense. It has a sense of "a record, a high level exceeding that previously attained", cited to 1926, but this is more "the maximum value within some time interval". So, [Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED missing sense] Mr. Farrell. I know that from time to time during the day we published it. Here it is: International Mercantile Marine; common 2,100 shares were dealt in; opened at $6 a share. The high was $6; the low was $5.50; the close was $6. Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, US Senate, Thursday, May 9, 1912 If that approximate date and "International Mercantile Marine" don't ring any bells, that's the company that owned the _Titanic_, which had just sunk. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Code should be designed to make it 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |easy to get it right, not to work Palo Alto, CA 94304 |if you get it right. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> My pet beef is the dumbed-down "high" and "low", which are invariably >> used when they really mean "maximum" and "minimum" (temperatures). We, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >ring any bells, that's the company that owned the _Titanic_, which had >just sunk. I'm sitting just a few miles, as the albatross flies, from where the Titanic was built. In these here parts it is well known that the Titanic was built for, owned and operated by the White Star Line. <Googles and Wikis a bit.> OK. The White Star Line was owned by IMM. J. Bruce Ismay of the White Star Line was one of the founders of IMM. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) Peter Duncanson: > I'm sitting just a few miles, as the albatross flies, from where the > Titanic was built. This reminds me of one of the TV documentaries shown on A&E around 1997 when the movie "Titanic" was piquing interest in the ship. They said that the Titanic was "the pride of Belfast, Northern Ireland". > In these here parts it is well known that the Titanic was built for, > owned and operated by the White Star Line. > > <Googles and Wikis a bit.> > > OK. The White Star Line was owned by IMM. ... Uh-huh. British line, American owners. SignatureMark Brader "The world little knows or cares the storm through Toronto which you have had to pass. It asks only if you msb@vex.net brought the ship safely to port." -- Joseph Conrad My text in this article is in the public domain. > Peter Duncanson: >> I'm sitting just a few miles, as the albatross flies, from where the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1997 when the movie "Titanic" was piquing interest in the ship. > They said that the Titanic was "the pride of Belfast, Northern Ireland". I'm guessing "Arts and Entertainment". But A&E ("Accident and Emergency", the British for "ER" - which we use for Her Majesty, of course!) would be a perfect name for a channel, since all we seem to get is car-crash television these days. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu Mark Brader: >> This reminds me of one of the TV documentaries shown on A&E around >> 1997 when the movie "Titanic" was piquing interest in the ship. Nick Atty: > I'm guessing "Arts and Entertainment". Etymologically correct, anyway. I think it's just A&E these days. A sealed acronym, as Al Kriman calls them over at SBF. > But A&E ("Accident and Emergency", the British for "ER" - which > we use for Her Majesty, of course!) would be a perfect name for a > channel, since all we seem to get is car-crash television these days. Hah, good point! And for that matter, that expansion would certainly fit with documentaries about the Titanic... SignatureMark Brader "MSB is an accepted explanation for men's Toronto misbehaviors. ... Just blame it on MSB msb@vex.net and everyone nods their heads." -- "TJ" My text in this article is in the public domain. On 02 Jul 2009, Mark Brader wrote > Mark Brader: >>> This reminds me of one of the TV documentaries shown on A&E [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Etymologically correct, anyway. I think it's just A&E these > days. A sealed acronym, as Al Kriman calls them over at SBF. ESPN - Entertainment & Sports Programming Network -- is probably another "sealed acronym"; I had to google to make sure I had it right. Not sure about the other networks -- HBO/CBS/NBC/ABC, etc. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 02 Jul 2009, Mark Brader wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > another "sealed acronym"; I had to google to make sure I had it > right. Not sure about the other networks -- HBO/CBS/NBC/ABC, etc. The copyright notice on HBO pages calls it "Home Box Office, Inc." CBS appears to be just "CBS Corporation". NBC is owned by "NBC Universal, Inc.", and their corporate pages just talk about "the NBC Television Network". ABC seems to be "ABC, Inc. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If to "man" a phone implies handing 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it over to a person of the male Palo Alto, CA 94304 |gender, then to "monitor" it |suggests handing it over to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |lizard. (650)857-7572 | Rohan Oberoi http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > The copyright notice on HBO pages calls it "Home Box Office, Inc." > CBS appears to be just "CBS Corporation". NBC is owned by "NBC > Universal, Inc.", and their corporate pages just talk about "the NBC > Television Network". ABC seems to be "ABC, Inc. Once upon a time CBS stood for "Columbia Broadcasting System", NBC for "National Broadcasting Company", and ABC stood for "American Broadcasting Company". At one time NBC had two networks, the Red and the Blue. The Blue Network was spun off as ABC in the early 1940s when the FCC limited networks to one station per city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Network SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >Peter Duncanson: >> I'm sitting just a few miles, as the albatross flies, from where the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >1997 when the movie "Titanic" was piquing interest in the ship. >They said that the Titanic was "the pride of Belfast, Northern Ireland". It was, and still is. It was not the fault of the makers that some fool captain drove the ship straight at an iceberg, Some years ago (1980s? 1990s?) engineering drawings of the Titanic were found which clearly included many more lifeboats than were eventually supplied. It seems that the designers had proposed enough capacity for all passengers and crew but that this proposal had been rejected by the UK regulatory authority, the Board of Trade. The "Titanic" name is currently being used in Belfast for tourist attractions and other purposes. The area within which the ship was built is being developed for both modern and heritage purposes: http://www.titanic-quarter.com/index.php SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) Mark Brader: >> This reminds me of one of the TV documentaries shown on A&E around >> 1997 when the movie "Titanic" was piquing interest in the ship. >> They said that the Titanic was "the pride of Belfast, Northern Ireland". Peter Duncanson: > It was, and still is. No, it was the pride of Belfast, Ireland, UK. > It was not the fault of the makers that some fool captain drove the ship > straight at an iceberg, More precisely, straight at an icefield. It also wasn't their fault that on average the lifeboats departed from the ship only about 60% full. > Some years ago (1980s? 1990s?) engineering drawings of the Titanic were > found which clearly included many more lifeboats than were eventually > supplied. It seems that the designers had proposed enough capacity for > all passengers and crew but that this proposal had been rejected by the > UK regulatory authority, the Board of Trade. Not at all; it was rejected by White Star (or maybe by IMM), either on cost or esthetic grounds or both, I forget the details. The BOT only decreed a minimum number of lifeboats, which the Titanic in fact exceeded (by the four collapsible boats). SignatureMark Brader There are people on that train! Toronto Sure, they're Canadians, but they're still people! msb@vex.net -- Paul Gross, "Due South" My text in this article is in the public domain. >Mark Brader: >>> This reminds me of one of the TV documentaries shown on A&E around [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >No, it was the pride of Belfast, Ireland, UK. Oops! >> It was not the fault of the makers that some fool captain drove the ship >> straight at an iceberg, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >decreed a minimum number of lifeboats, which the Titanic in fact exceeded >(by the four collapsible boats). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >My pet beef is the dumbed-down "high" and "low", which are invariably >used when they really mean "maximum" and "minimum" (temperatures). We, >in Britain, imported this from the USA some 20 years ago, and it still >grates. My pet beef is that automatic equating of "good" with "hot and dry". When we're in the middle of a drought, banned from watering our gardens, and desperate for some rain, the forecasters still say "it'll be a really good day" when they mean it won't rain. Katy ke10@cam.ac.uk filted: >My pet beef is that automatic equating of "good" with "hot and dry". When >we're in the middle of a drought, banned from watering our gardens, and >desperate for some rain, the forecasters still say "it'll be a really good day" >when they mean it won't rain. If only Anthony could wish them into the cornfield....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >>My pet beef is the dumbed-down "high" and "low", which are invariably >>used when they really mean "maximum" and "minimum" (temperatures). We, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > desperate for some rain, the forecasters still say "it'll be a really good day" > when they mean it won't rain. My related one in the period from mid autumn to mid spring is, after telling us it's going to be absolutely horrible all day they say with a ghastly day-glo smile "but never mind, it's going to be lovely and warm". I don't want it to be yet another mild, wet and dreary day. I want it to be crisp and fresh and wintery. If that means it is cold, then I can put a bloody sweater on. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > I have to get a beef out here. My local tv station insists on reading > the local temperatures, droning for about a minute, "78 in Anytown, > 76 in Barftown, etc." Why can't they just say that the local temps > are in the high seventies. Grrr.. Do they have that much air time to > waste? Why don't they just show a map with each town's temperature? If you had said "radio station", I could have understood it. My complaint about our own TV forecasts is that they don't allow us enough time to find the town I might be travelling to as well as look at my own local area. SignatureRob Bannister > > I have to get a beef out here. My local tv station insists on reading > > the local temperatures, droning for about a minute, "78 in Anytown, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > own TV forecasts is that they don't allow us enough time to find the > town I might be travelling to as well as look at my own local area. These days I use the internet for weather forecasts and have bookmarked my most frequent destinations. Signature"Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything." - Ivana Trump >> > I have to get a beef out here. My local tv station insists on reading >> > the local temperatures, droning for about a minute, "78 in Anytown, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >These days I use the internet for weather forecasts and have bookmarked >my most frequent destinations. I use the window. I look out, and see if it's raining. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> > I have to get a beef out here. My local tv station insists on reading >>> > the local temperatures, droning for about a minute, "78 in Anytown, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I use the window. I look out, and see if it's raining. High bandwidth, but unfortunately also very high latency if you want to know if it will be raining tomorrow. This however, merely recapitulates the history of weather forecasting: it was a major milestone when computer models reached the point where they could produce a reasonably reliable seven-day forecast in less than seven days of running time. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) > The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain > this evening." > > It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually mean? Some people already answered; I'll try to do it in a more illustrative manner. It means it will rain on 70% of the area at any one moment. It can mean that the cloud cover (of rain clouds) covers 70% of the sky, and the other 30% is clear sky. Or it can mean that it is completely overcast, but only 70% of the clouds are heavy enough to produce rain. Both of these alternatives predict nothing about any specific point in the area. Depending on how the clouds move, any specific place - your house for example - may get no rain at all, or constant rain, or intermittent. The only certain thing is, that it will rain on about 70% of the area at any given moment, and if there are dry patches where it doesn't rain at all, they will be no more than 30% of the total. That's what the meteorologists mean when they make predictions of that kind. That is the meaning of NOAA's hourly weather graph percentages too. How well these predictions work out, is an entirely different matter. SignatureYou'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. >The TV weather forecaster says, "There's a 70 per cent chance of rain >this evening." > >It sounds authoritative and scientific, but what does it actually mean? Lots of info by googling for - percent chance of rain -. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.