This is good

https://www.met.ie/forecasts/atlantic-charts/precipitation-pressure

On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 10:32:21 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The BBC have introduced a new, improved style of presenting the weather.
>
> On their website, there no longer appears to be a proper 'Jack Scott'
> weather map (Surface Pressure Chart), as per
> <https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/surface-pressure/#?tab=surfa
> cePressureColour&fcTime=1517918400>
>
> Is it there somewhere, and I can't find it - or do the BBC feel that
> nobody was interested?
> --
> Ian

On Mon 21/02/2022 08:57, Mike Cooper wrote:
> This is good
>
> https://www.met.ie/forecasts/atlantic-charts/precipitation-pressure
>
>
> On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 10:32:21 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> The BBC have introduced a new, improved style of presenting the weather.
>>
>> On their website, there no longer appears to be a proper 'Jack Scott'
>> weather map (Surface Pressure Chart), as per
>> <https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/surface-pressure/#?tab=surfa
>> cePressureColour&fcTime=1517918400>
>>
>> Is it there somewhere, and I can't find it - or do the BBC feel that
>> nobody was interested?
>> --

Probably because the average <50 (or maybe less!) viewer of today hasn't
got a clue what its about.

Has anyone else noticed that organisations such as XCWeather,
Weatherwatch, and the Irish Weather Service (link above) are quite happy
to forecast 7 days ahead but the good old BBC (and for TV purposes the
Met Office) only ever do three?

On 21/02/2022 09:59, Woody wrote:
> Probably because the average <50 (or maybe less!) viewer of today hasn't
> got a clue what its about.
>
> Has anyone else noticed that organisations such as XCWeather,
> Weatherwatch, and the Irish Weather Service (link above) are quite happy
> to forecast 7 days ahead but the good old BBC (and for TV purposes the
> Met Office) only ever do three?

I presume they can tell what pages people are looking at and decided
that the average viewer does not want the synoptic chart and might be
confused by it.

They can easily be viewed on the Met Office site.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/surface-pressure

I am sure you can download the raw data if you wish to do your own
forecasting. :-)

Woody wrote:

> Has anyone else noticed that organisations such as XCWeather, Weatherwatch, and
> the Irish Weather Service (link above) are quite happy to forecast 7 days ahead
> but the good old BBC (and for TV purposes the Met Office) only ever do three?

On the contrary, the BBC weather app forecasts in 1 hour slots for 14 days
ahead, which strikes me as an utterly pointless level of detail.

>On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 10:32:21 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> The BBC have introduced a new, improved style of presenting the weather.
>>
>> On their website, there no longer appears to be a proper 'Jack Scott'
>> weather map (Surface Pressure Chart), as per
>> <https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/surface-pressure/#?tab=surfa
>> cePressureColour&fcTime=1517918400>
>>
>> Is it there somewhere, and I can't find it - or do the BBC feel that
>> nobody was interested?

I've only just spotted this. The obvious comment is that that's the Met
Office's website, and nothing to do with the BBC (who don't even use the
Met Office's forecasts any more, but get them from an outfit called
Meteogroup). (Dis)credit where it's due.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On 21/02/2022 10:17, Andy Burns wrote:
> On the contrary, the BBC weather app forecasts in 1 hour slots for 14 days
> ahead, which strikes me as an utterly pointless level of detail.

The BBC do a "monthly outlook" but they learnt long ago that long
distance forecasts are not accurate and always have warnings with them
but they still get complaints if not absolutely accurate.

The Today programme earlier was talking to someone whose electricity
supply with be off until Wednesday at least, being a country person he
was quite understanding and not moaning as so often happens. I think he
was the same person who was saying how accurate the forecasts of the
storms had been.

Usually the moaners have listened to a two minute summary forecast for
the whole UK then wondered why it was not right for their home!

On 21/02/2022 08:57, Mike Cooper wrote:
> This is good
>
> https://www.met.ie/forecasts/atlantic-charts/precipitation-pressure
>
>
> On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 10:32:21 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> The BBC have introduced a new, improved style of presenting the weather.
>>
>> On their website, there no longer appears to be a proper 'Jack Scott'
>> weather map (Surface Pressure Chart), as per
>> <https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/surface-pressure/#?tab=surfa
>> cePressureColour&fcTime=1517918400>
>>
>> Is it there somewhere, and I can't find it - or do the BBC feel that
>> nobody was interested?

If you're interested in just about every aspect of what the weather is
doing anywhere in the world, then the best website I've found is
https://earth.nullschool.net/. This url centres on the UK:
<https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/02/21/2000Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-6.04,53.98,3226>

If you click on "earth" at bottom left, you can change the parameters of
what you're looking at. It's worth a play, but you may find yourself
spending rather a lot of time on the site!

--

Jeff

MB wrote:

> The BBC do a "monthly outlook"

And I'm sure that sometimes the weather patterns are more locked-in than at
other times, and they can be a bit more hand-wavy if it's uncler which way it's
going to go.

> but they learnt long ago that long distance
> forecasts are not accurate and always have warnings with them

I think before they switched from met office to meteo's WaaS, the app used to
give 1 hour slots for e.g. the next 3 days, then half day slots for about 4-5
days and finally one slot per day for another 2-3 days.

Maybe renaming them to isohectopascals was too far for them to go?
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Mike Cooper" <lambjalfrezi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:da057885-be88-424b-939c-1e8b58a3c2d0n@googlegroups.com...
> This is good
>
> https://www.met.ie/forecasts/atlantic-charts/precipitation-pressure
>
>
> On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 10:32:21 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> The BBC have introduced a new, improved style of presenting the weather.
>>
>> On their website, there no longer appears to be a proper 'Jack Scott'
>> weather map (Surface Pressure Chart), as per
>> <https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/surface-pressure/#?tab=surfa
>> cePressureColour&fcTime=1517918400>
>>
>> Is it there somewhere, and I can't find it - or do the BBC feel that
>> nobody was interested?
>> --
>> Ian

Apparently you can get three for nothing but the further you go the more it
will cost you if you need it in detail.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:suvnps$b3m$1@dont-email.me...
> On Mon 21/02/2022 08:57, Mike Cooper wrote:
>> This is good
>>
>> https://www.met.ie/forecasts/atlantic-charts/precipitation-pressure
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 10:32:21 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> The BBC have introduced a new, improved style of presenting the weather.
>>>
>>> On their website, there no longer appears to be a proper 'Jack Scott'
>>> weather map (Surface Pressure Chart), as per
>>> <https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/surface-pressure/#?tab=surfa
>>> cePressureColour&fcTime=1517918400>
>>>
>>> Is it there somewhere, and I can't find it - or do the BBC feel that
>>> nobody was interested?
>>> --
>
> Probably because the average <50 (or maybe less!) viewer of today hasn't
> got a clue what its about.
>
> Has anyone else noticed that organisations such as XCWeather,
> Weatherwatch, and the Irish Weather Service (link above) are quite happy
> to forecast 7 days ahead but the good old BBC (and for TV purposes the Met
> Office) only ever do three?
>
>

I wonder if the change in pressures being signified by how close together
the lines run is actually explained any more? Surely its the simplest of
concepts to grasp that the closer together the more the wind blows as high
pressure is always trying to fill low.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:suvob9$eu5$1@dont-email.me...
> On 21/02/2022 09:59, Woody wrote:
>> Probably because the average <50 (or maybe less!) viewer of today hasn't
>> got a clue what its about.
>>
>> Has anyone else noticed that organisations such as XCWeather,
>> Weatherwatch, and the Irish Weather Service (link above) are quite happy
>> to forecast 7 days ahead but the good old BBC (and for TV purposes the
>> Met Office) only ever do three?
>
> I presume they can tell what pages people are looking at and decided that
> the average viewer does not want the synoptic chart and might be confused
> by it.
>
> They can easily be viewed on the Met Office site.
>
> https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/surface-pressure
>
> I am sure you can download the raw data if you wish to do your own
> forecasting. :-)
>
>
>

Is it also so complicated to realise that warm air contains more water
vapour if it is in the area, but cold air lets it rain out?
Is it also hard to see that this interface is called the dew point and
gthus ion the ground, if both are exactly the same, ie temperature and the
dew point then its foggy damp ad wet as clouds form at ground level but the
higher pressure stops all of that occurring.

I also wonder how much the public know about why weather systems spin
around? It is because the bits nearer the equator are moving faster and the
drag forces a rotation. Cyclones one way anticyclones the other and each is
reversed in the different hemispheres. Chaos reigns at the equator.

Weather even on these basic levels is interesting even before you invoke
the sun angle and the tilt of the earth, reflectivity of te ground and
gasses that hold onto radiation.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jeff Layman" <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:suvq20$po0$1@dont-email.me...
> On 21/02/2022 08:57, Mike Cooper wrote:
>> This is good
>>
>> https://www.met.ie/forecasts/atlantic-charts/precipitation-pressure
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 10:32:21 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> The BBC have introduced a new, improved style of presenting the weather.
>>>
>>> On their website, there no longer appears to be a proper 'Jack Scott'
>>> weather map (Surface Pressure Chart), as per
>>> <https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/surface-pressure/#?tab=surfa
>>> cePressureColour&fcTime=1517918400>
>>>
>>> Is it there somewhere, and I can't find it - or do the BBC feel that
>>> nobody was interested?
>
> If you're interested in just about every aspect of what the weather is
> doing anywhere in the world, then the best website I've found is
> https://earth.nullschool.net/. This url centres on the UK:
> <https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/02/21/2000Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-6.04,53.98,3226>
>
> If you click on "earth" at bottom left, you can change the parameters of
> what you're looking at. It's worth a play, but you may find yourself
> spending rather a lot of time on the site!
>
> --
>
> Jeff

On 21/02/2022 12:06, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> I wonder if the change in pressures being signified by how close together
> the lines run is actually explained any more? Surely its the simplest of
> concepts to grasp that the closer together the more the wind blows as high
> pressure is always trying to fill low.

Except that Coriolis forces mean the wind doesn't actually flow in the
right direction to fill the low pressure!

On 21/02/2022 14:01, David Woolley wrote:
> On 21/02/2022 12:06, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>> I wonder if the  change in pressures being signified by how close
>> together
>> the lines run is actually explained any more? Surely its the simplest of
>> concepts to grasp that the closer together the more the wind blows as
>> high
>> pressure is always trying to fill low.
>
> Except that Coriolis forces  mean the wind doesn't actually flow in the
> right direction to fill the low pressure!

<pedant>I'm not sure 'force' is the right word there!</pedant>

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Brian Gaff (Sofa)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:suvv85$g2$1@dont-email.me...
> I wonder if the change in pressures being signified by how close together
> the lines run is actually explained any more? Surely its the simplest of
> concepts to grasp that the closer together the more the wind blows as high
> pressure is always trying to fill low.

It's not entirely intuitive, the same as for contour lines on a map, but I'd
expect any children to be taught about contour lines (and probably isobar
lines) at school by the age of about 10.

But I wonder how many children of today have actually looked at an OS map,
as opposed to Google Map or Open Street Map) and have seen (and had
explained to them) contour lines.

Maps such as https://www.windy.com/?52.503,-2.648,6 take a different
approach and show the flow of wind (so their lines are roughly at 90 degrees
to isobar lines) which is easier to interpret in terms of speed and
direction.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:18:54 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

> On 21/02/2022 14:01, David Woolley wrote:
>> On 21/02/2022 12:06, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>> I wonder if the  change in pressures being signified by how close
>>> together the lines run is actually explained any more? Surely its the
>>> simplest of concepts to grasp that the closer together the more the
>>> wind blows as high pressure is always trying to fill low.
>>
>> Except that Coriolis forces  mean the wind doesn't actually flow in the
>> right direction to fill the low pressure!
>
> <pedant>I'm not sure 'force' is the right word there!</pedant>

Enough force to blow off unattached items.

On 21/02/2022 12:14, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Is it also so complicated to realise that warm air contains more water
> vapour if it is in the area, but cold air lets it rain out?
> Is it also hard to see that this interface is called the dew point and
> gthus ion the ground, if both are exactly the same, ie temperature and the
> dew point then its foggy damp ad wet as clouds form at ground level but the
> higher pressure stops all of that occurring.
>
>
> I also wonder how much the public know about why weather systems spin
> around? It is because the bits nearer the equator are moving faster and the
> drag forces a rotation. Cyclones one way anticyclones the other and each is
> reversed in the different hemispheres. Chaos reigns at the equator.
>
> Weather even on these basic levels is interesting even before you invoke
> the sun angle and the tilt of the earth, reflectivity of te ground and
> gasses that hold onto radiation.
> Brian
>
Mr Coriolis has a lot to answer for

On 10:37 21 Feb 2022, Jeff Layman said:

> On 21/02/2022 08:57, Mike Cooper wrote:
>> This is good
>>
>> https://www.met.ie/forecasts/atlantic-charts/precipitation-pressure
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 10:32:21 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> The BBC have introduced a new, improved style of presenting the
>>> weather.
>>>
>>> On their website, there no longer appears to be a proper 'Jack
>>> Scott' weather map (Surface Pressure Chart), as per
>>> <https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/surface-pressure/#?tab=
>>> surfa cePressureColour&fcTime=1517918400>
>>>
>>> Is it there somewhere, and I can't find it - or do the BBC feel
>>> that nobody was interested?
>
> If you're interested in just about every aspect of what the weather
> is doing anywhere in the world, then the best website I've found is
> https://earth.nullschool.net/. This url centres on the UK:
> <https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/02/21/2000Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/
> orthographic=-6.04,53.98,3226>
>
> If you click on "earth" at bottom left, you can change the parameters
> of what you're looking at. It's worth a play, but you may find
> yourself spending rather a lot of time on the site!

Lovely graphics. No forecast?

On 21/02/2022 14:18, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/02/2022 14:01, David Woolley wrote:
>> On 21/02/2022 12:06, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>> I wonder if the  change in pressures being signified by how close
>>> together
>>> the lines run is actually explained any more? Surely its the simplest of
>>> concepts to grasp that the closer together the more the wind blows as
>>> high
>>> pressure is always trying to fill low.
>>
>> Except that Coriolis forces  mean the wind doesn't actually flow in
>> the right direction to fill the low pressure!
>
> <pedant>I'm not sure 'force' is the right word there!</pedant>
>

When I dabbled in physics many years ago "Coriolis force" was by
definition a fictional force so - unless the meaning has changed - it
seems an acceptable term in that context.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 21/02/2022 14:55, jon wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:18:54 +0000, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2022 14:01, David Woolley wrote:
>>> On 21/02/2022 12:06, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>>> I wonder if the  change in pressures being signified by how close
>>>> together the lines run is actually explained any more? Surely its the
>>>> simplest of concepts to grasp that the closer together the more the
>>>> wind blows as high pressure is always trying to fill low.
>>>
>>> Except that Coriolis forces  mean the wind doesn't actually flow in the
>>> right direction to fill the low pressure!
>>
>> <pedant>I'm not sure 'force' is the right word there!</pedant>
>
> Enough force to blow off unattached items.

Yeah, sure, :-), but, still being pedantic, that's not why storms spin,
which Brian has had a go at explaining elsewhere. AIUI, it should be
called 'the Coriolis effect', because AFAIAA there are no actual forces
involved, just differences in linear velocity at different latitudes on
a rotating object such as the earth. The rotational velocity is the
same everywhere on earth, 1 rpd, but linear velocity near the pole is
almost stationary, while linear velocity near the equator is almost
1,670 km/hr, thus air moving from the poles into an area of low pressure
at mid-latitudes tends to fall behind it, while air from the equator
tends to overtake it. The opposite is true of areas of high pressure,
and also the directions of spin for each of those are opposite in the
two hemispheres. That's why air circulates around low and high pressure
areas, and AFAIAA it's called the Coriolis effect not the Coriolis force
(or more strictly still '*a* Coriolis effect' because there are others,
such as dropping a rock from a high enough tower causes it to land
slightly ahead of directly under the point where it was dropped, because
initially it was travelling slightly faster through space and therefore
overtakes that point).

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:sv0cfu$2l5$1@dont-email.me...
> (or more strictly still '*a* Coriolis effect' because there are others,
> such as dropping a rock from a high enough tower causes it to land
> slightly ahead of directly under the point where it was dropped, because
> initially it was travelling slightly faster through space and therefore
> overtakes that point).

Surely the lateral speed of the rock (relative to a stationary observer out
in space) remains the same as the earth's speed, no matter how much the rock
accelerates in a downward direction due to gravity and is decelerated by
speed-dependent slowing due to air resistance. Or to put it another way, the
rock remains stationary relative to the ground in a lateral direction.
That's assuming there's no wind - ie that the atmosphere is rotating at the
same speed as the earth and the tower.

Or am I about to learn something? Is the effect that you are describing one
that only exists because of the earth's atmosphere, or would it also be true
in a vacuum?

I imagine there *could* be "spinning cricket-ball" forces on the ball if it
rotates as it falls.

In article <j7h751Ffl09U1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Woody wrote:

> > Has anyone else noticed that organisations such as XCWeather,
> > Weatherwatch, and the Irish Weather Service (link above) are quite
> > happy to forecast 7 days ahead but the good old BBC (and for TV
> > purposes the Met Office) only ever do three?

> On the contrary, the BBC weather app forecasts in 1 hour slots for 14
> days ahead, which strikes me as an utterly pointless level of detail.

I find that very handy. It has been particularly useful for knowing what to
expect during the recent storms, and when the wind would be highest or the
temperature lowest. The level of detail specific to where we live is
welcome. Given that we are on the coast the details of what happens here
are often different from just a few miles inland. e.g. we get rain or dry
when a short way away they get snow!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Clearly there are a lot of people on this group that <do> understand
weather and isobaric charts and thus probably the Shipping Forecast?

Slightly off line then could I recommend to those with such
understanding a book called 'Attention All Shipping' by Charlie
Connelly. He visits every SF area or at least as near as he can get to
them. Fascinating reading but just slightly tongue in cheek.

In article <sv0cfu$2l5$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Yeah, sure, :-), but, still being pedantic, that's not why storms spin,
> which Brian has had a go at explaining elsewhere. AIUI, it should be
> called 'the Coriolis effect', because AFAIAA there are no actual forces
> involved, just differences in linear velocity at different latitudes on
> a rotating object such as the earth.

The use of 'fictional' for 'forces' is perhaps more of a lable indicating
"simplified explaination". After all Gravitation is a "fictional force"
when considering things in terms of GR. 8-]

Similarly for 'magnetic forces' which are because you're not in the rest
frame of electric chargest that 'cause' the "magnetic field".

Add in what QM does for 'distance' on top of what GR does for it, and the
result isn't what you get told in School. 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sv0d73$824$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:sv0cfu$2l5$1@dont-email.me...
> > (or more strictly still '*a* Coriolis effect' because there are
> > others, such as dropping a rock from a high enough tower causes it to
> > land slightly ahead of directly under the point where it was dropped,
> > because initially it was travelling slightly faster through space and
> > therefore overtakes that point).

> Surely the lateral speed of the rock (relative to a stationary observer
> out in space) remains the same as the earth's speed, no matter how much
> the rock accelerates in a downward direction due to gravity and is
> decelerated by speed-dependent slowing due to air resistance.

In the frame that rotates with the Earth the horizontal velocity may seem
the same. But in a non-rotating frame the further you are from the center
of the Earth, the larger the velocity perpendicular to the radial line
though the center of rotation. Thus the tops of tall buildings are moving
faster than the ground floor as the circumference they have to travel in a
day is longer.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html