SOT: past storms

Post by Scott
As I watched the news about Storm Éowyn, I wondered if all the trains
would have been cancelled had this event taken place in 1964. I know
steam locomotives were heavier and there was less of a health and
safety culture, so I wonder if more services would have run.

I suspect so.

There was also much less trackside vegetation to land on the tracks, and
much less OHLE to blow down or simply lose power. Perhaps many more of the
railway staff lived within walking/cycling distance of their work, too?
Now, they drive much longer distances to work, on roads more likely to be
shut.

Scott

2025-01-24 15:23:10 UTC

I suspect so.
There was also much less trackside vegetation to land on the tracks, and
much less OHLE to blow down or simply lose power. Perhaps many more of the
railway staff lived within walking/cycling distance of their work, too?
Now, they drive much longer distances to work, on roads more likely to be
shut.

Interesting point about the OHLE. I assume this will affect most of
the principal routes. Have you seen the videos about clearing snow
1963 style?

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-01-24 15:30:52 UTC

I suspect so.
There was also much less trackside vegetation to land on the tracks, and
much less OHLE to blow down or simply lose power. Perhaps many more of the
railway staff lived within walking/cycling distance of their work, too?
Now, they drive much longer distances to work, on roads more likely to be
shut.

Interesting point about the OHLE. I assume this will affect most of
the principal routes.

No heavy rail OHLE in Ireland but lines closed.

Not sure about NI.

ColinR

2025-01-24 17:43:12 UTC

I suspect so.
There was also much less trackside vegetation to land on the tracks, and
much less OHLE to blow down or simply lose power. Perhaps many more of the
railway staff lived within walking/cycling distance of their work, too?
Now, they drive much longer distances to work, on roads more likely to be
shut.

Interesting point about the OHLE. I assume this will affect most of
the principal routes.

No heavy rail OHLE in Ireland but lines closed.
Not sure about NI.

Totally irrelevant to 1964 - stop posting rubbish comments.

--
Colin

Scott

2025-01-24 17:59:52 UTC

On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:43:12 +0000, ColinR

I suspect so.
There was also much less trackside vegetation to land on the tracks, and
much less OHLE to blow down or simply lose power. Perhaps many more of the
railway staff lived within walking/cycling distance of their work, too?
Now, they drive much longer distances to work, on roads more likely to be
shut.

Interesting point about the OHLE. I assume this will affect most of
the principal routes.

No heavy rail OHLE in Ireland but lines closed.
Not sure about NI.

Totally irrelevant to 1964 - stop posting rubbish comments.

To be fair, I think Ulf is saying that if presence of OHLE is a major
contributory factor, you would expect non-electrified lines (using NI
as an example) to be affected to a lesser degree.

Graeme Wall

2025-01-24 21:45:47 UTC

Post by Scott
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 17:43:12 +0000, ColinR

I suspect so.
There was also much less trackside vegetation to land on the tracks, and
much less OHLE to blow down or simply lose power. Perhaps many more of the
railway staff lived within walking/cycling distance of their work, too?
Now, they drive much longer distances to work, on roads more likely to be
shut.

Interesting point about the OHLE. I assume this will affect most of
the principal routes.

No heavy rail OHLE in Ireland but lines closed.
Not sure about NI.

Totally irrelevant to 1964 - stop posting rubbish comments.

To be fair, I think Ulf is saying that if presence of OHLE is a major
contributory factor, you would expect non-electrified lines (using NI
as an example) to be affected to a lesser degree.

Wind speeds were, on average, a lot lower back in the 1960s so the
threat to OHLE etc was much less.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Bob

2025-01-25 09:47:25 UTC

I suspect so.
There was also much less trackside vegetation to land on the tracks, and
much less OHLE to blow down or simply lose power. Perhaps many more of the
railway staff lived within walking/cycling distance of their work, too?
Now, they drive much longer distances to work, on roads more likely to be
shut.

Interesting point about the OHLE. I assume this will affect most of
the principal routes.

No heavy rail OHLE in Ireland but lines closed.

DART is electrified at 1500 V DC overhead.

Robin

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-01-24 15:33:35 UTC

I suspect so.
There was also much less trackside vegetation to land on the tracks, and
much less OHLE to blow down or simply lose power. Perhaps many more of the
railway staff lived within walking/cycling distance of their work, too?
Now, they drive much longer distances to work, on roads more likely to be
shut.

Interesting point about the OHLE. I assume this will affect most of
the principal routes.

Wrote about RoI but should have mentioned DART
equipped with OHLE.

Sorry for this.

Recliner

2025-01-24 15:41:44 UTC

I suspect so.
There was also much less trackside vegetation to land on the tracks, and
much less OHLE to blow down or simply lose power. Perhaps many more of the
railway staff lived within walking/cycling distance of their work, too?
Now, they drive much longer distances to work, on roads more likely to be
shut.

Interesting point about the OHLE. I assume this will affect most of
the principal routes.

Wrote about RoI but should have mentioned DART
equipped with OHLE.

DART is heavy rail, of course. It shares track with other heavy rail services, so if a DART train is stopped, that
blocks the line. And the risk of the OHLE unravelling may make it safest to shut the line to all trains.

Tweed

2025-01-24 15:59:28 UTC

I suspect so.
There was also much less trackside vegetation to land on the tracks, and
much less OHLE to blow down or simply lose power. Perhaps many more of the
railway staff lived within walking/cycling distance of their work, too?
Now, they drive much longer distances to work, on roads more likely to be
shut.

Interesting point about the OHLE. I assume this will affect most of
the principal routes.

Wrote about RoI but should have mentioned DART
equipped with OHLE.

DART is heavy rail, of course. It shares track with other heavy rail
services, so if a DART train is stopped, that
blocks the line. And the risk of the OHLE unravelling may make it safest
to shut the line to all trains.

Security of electricity supply to line side equipment must also be an
issue. Not so much electrically powered equipment in the 1960s.

Recliner

2025-01-24 16:02:51 UTC

Post by Tweed

I suspect so.
There was also much less trackside vegetation to land on the tracks, and
much less OHLE to blow down or simply lose power. Perhaps many more of the
railway staff lived within walking/cycling distance of their work, too?
Now, they drive much longer distances to work, on roads more likely to be
shut.

Interesting point about the OHLE. I assume this will affect most of
the principal routes.

Wrote about RoI but should have mentioned DART
equipped with OHLE.

DART is heavy rail, of course. It shares track with other heavy rail
services, so if a DART train is stopped, that
blocks the line. And the risk of the OHLE unravelling may make it safest
to shut the line to all trains.

Security of electricity supply to line side equipment must also be an
issue. Not so much electrically powered equipment in the 1960s.

Yes, I was wondering if modern signalling systems are more vulnerable?

Mark Goodge

2025-01-24 16:24:37 UTC

I suspect so.

Not storms, but equally inclement weather...

Mark

Graeme Wall

2025-01-24 16:44:45 UTC

Less OHLE to be blown down.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Marland

2025-01-24 16:56:45 UTC

Less OHLE to be blown down.

Less centralisation of signalling, with a box every few mile and lots of
local staff to attend to things that were in a walkable distance .
Now things are controlled from distant places and maintenance teams are
dependent on a clear road network to reach trouble points.

GH

Recliner

2025-01-24 17:24:17 UTC

Less OHLE to be blown down.

It also occurs to me that even when signals were electric in 1964, they
were simple analogue systems. Modern digital systems are probably much more
likely to shut down automatically if the voltage fluctuates or there are
glitches in the supply.

But are semaphores more vulnerable to very strong winds?

ColinR

2025-01-24 17:42:02 UTC

Less OHLE to be blown down.

It also occurs to me that even when signals were electric in 1964, they
were simple analogue systems. Modern digital systems are probably much more
likely to shut down automatically if the voltage fluctuates or there are
glitches in the supply.
But are semaphores more vulnerable to very strong winds?

Not sure, but certainly vulnerable to snow and ice.

Seen many pictures of steam locos going through water well above the
rails - suspect modern trains (diseasel or lecky) will have vulnerable
to water stuff under the floors.

--
Colin

ColinR

2025-01-25 16:10:59 UTC

Less OHLE to be blown down.

It also occurs to me that even when signals were electric in 1964, they
were simple analogue systems. Modern digital systems are probably much more
likely to shut down automatically if the voltage fluctuates or there are
glitches in the supply.
But are semaphores more vulnerable to very strong winds?

Not sure, but certainly vulnerable to snow and ice.
Seen many pictures of steam locos going through water well above the
rails - suspect modern trains (diseasel or lecky) will have vulnerable
to water stuff under the floors.

Loading Image...

--
Colin

Marland

2025-01-25 17:29:58 UTC

Less OHLE to be blown down.

It also occurs to me that even when signals were electric in 1964, they
were simple analogue systems. Modern digital systems are probably much more
likely to shut down automatically if the voltage fluctuates or there are
glitches in the supply.
But are semaphores more vulnerable to very strong winds?

Not sure, but certainly vulnerable to snow and ice.
Seen many pictures of steam locos going through water well above the
rails - suspect modern trains (diseasel or lecky) will have vulnerable
to water stuff under the floors.

Third rail can be surprisingly robust but gawd knows what damage was being
done when this shot was taken.
<Loading Image...

>

GH

ColinR

2025-01-26 11:22:24 UTC

Less OHLE to be blown down.

It also occurs to me that even when signals were electric in 1964, they
were simple analogue systems. Modern digital systems are probably much more
likely to shut down automatically if the voltage fluctuates or there are
glitches in the supply.
But are semaphores more vulnerable to very strong winds?

Not sure, but certainly vulnerable to snow and ice.
Seen many pictures of steam locos going through water well above the
rails - suspect modern trains (diseasel or lecky) will have vulnerable
to water stuff under the floors.

Third rail can be surprisingly robust but gawd knows what damage was being
done when this shot was taken.
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flooding_on_the_Southern_Railway_(CJ_Allen,_Steel_Highway,_1928).jpg>
GH

Excellent picture, thanks

--
Colin

Alan Lee

2025-01-24 17:47:13 UTC

Post by Recliner
Modern digital systems are probably much more
likely to shut down automatically if the voltage fluctuates or there are
glitches in the supply.

Modern signalling is well designed, and protected against
voltage/frequency fluctuations,and they usually have a back up generator
on site at the signalling centre.
This doesnt mean all of that route is powered from the source, for
example, Rugby 'box' covers Stafford to Watford, so physically cannot
supply power to all signals, so some signals rely on local power
supplies with no generator back up.

Bob

2025-01-25 09:58:52 UTC

Less OHLE to be blown down.

It also occurs to me that even when signals were electric in 1964, they
were simple analogue systems. Modern digital systems are probably much more
likely to shut down automatically if the voltage fluctuates or there are
glitches in the supply.
But are semaphores more vulnerable to very strong winds?

Yes, because the system depended on telegraph connections on elevated
wires on poles, to communicate between signal boxes. If the telegraph
wires come down, signallers are unable to communicate things like "train
clear of section" or to offer a train to the next block. Single line
token machines are no longer able to communicate that the token is
deposited at one end so a token can be taken out at the other.

Robin

JMB99

2025-01-24 22:49:24 UTC

Post by Marland
Less centralisation of signalling, with a box every few mile and lots of
local staff to attend to things that were in a walkable distance .
Now things are controlled from distant places and maintenance teams are
dependent on a clear road network to reach trouble points.

Do the railways not move staff around in advance of storms like the
electricity industry does?

Marland

2025-01-25 00:10:41 UTC

Do the railways not move staff around in advance of storms like the
electricity industry does?

Do they have the staff to do so? I don’t know the answer and ICBW but I
would think there are more power line maintainers than there are railway
ones, and its not unheard of after a major event to even bring in staff
from either Ireland or the continent. After the great storm of 1987 it was
noticeable that the use of ABC overheads to properties became widely used
,it had been installed a little in the UK before but the teams from
overseas who brought cable and fittings with them demonstrated its
advantages and ease of installation. Additionally electricity
distribution though it may be using different shaped supports etc is still
likely to be a similar voltage and 3 phase as used all over Europe and the
UK so a linesman man from eg Portugal would fairly easily be able to help
in the UK.
Railway equipment especially on the signalling side will vary far more.

GH

Tweed

2025-01-25 07:33:31 UTC

Do the railways not move staff around in advance of storms like the
electricity industry does?

What’s an ABC overhead?

Marland

2025-01-25 08:41:57 UTC

Do the railways not move staff around in advance of storms like the
electricity industry does?

What’s an ABC overhead?

Aerial Bundled Cable used to distribute to electricity on the last leg from
a transformer to properties on poles . It is usually made from 3 or 4
insulated conductors bundled together and can just be hung on hooks , the
older method was bare single conductors each mounted on its own insulators
usually vertically above each other. That would need several insulators per
pole and then conductors mounted to them, the ABC just gets hung from a
hook per pole and is a lot quicker to install.

GH

JMB99

2025-01-25 08:51:38 UTC

Post by Marland
Additionally electricity
distribution though it may be using different shaped supports etc is still
likely to be a similar voltage and 3 phase as used all over Europe and the
UK so a linesman man from eg Portugal would fairly easily be able to help
in the UK.

I get the impression that the electricity industry has planned ahead and
have standard procedures. They obviously need to be able to identify
circuits and have ways to confirm isolated correctly.

Marland

2025-01-25 09:03:55 UTC

I get the impression that the electricity industry has planned ahead and
have standard procedures. They obviously need to be able to identify
circuits and have ways to confirm isolated correctly.

And lets face it ,an overhead line for say 33Kv distribution is a fairly
simple affair a few brackets ,insulators and conductors that only need
enough tension to keep them off the ground in all temperatures which is
easily achieved , when a tree falling breaks one it isn’t that complicated
to replace.
Railway catenary is far more complicated with its tension devices and the
need for accurate alignment in both the vertical and horizontal planes.

GH

ColinR

2025-01-25 12:50:47 UTC

I get the impression that the electricity industry has planned ahead and
have standard procedures. They obviously need to be able to identify
circuits and have ways to confirm isolated correctly.

Agree in the case of wires - but power supplies are still vulnerable
when the poles collapse, as happened to many dozen in Dec 2022:
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-12-14/major-incident-declared-in-shetland-as-thousands-brave-cold-snap-without-power

--
Colin

Roger

2025-01-24 22:25:50 UTC

Less OHLE to be blown down.

Lots of telegraph wires to come down. How did mechanical boxes function when
comms links to neighbouring boxes went down?

Charles Ellson

2025-01-27 07:11:37 UTC

Post by Roger

Less OHLE to be blown down.

Lots of telegraph wires to come down. How did mechanical boxes function when
comms links to neighbouring boxes went down?

It was the poles rather than the wires which tended to fail, the
opposite of what usually happens with railway OHLE.

Coffee

2025-01-27 12:58:02 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Roger

Less OHLE to be blown down.

Lots of telegraph wires to come down. How did mechanical boxes function when
comms links to neighbouring boxes went down?

It was the poles rather than the wires which tended to fail, the
opposite of what usually happens with railway OHLE.

As a last resort they could resort to time interval signalling.

Recliner

2025-01-24 23:40:27 UTC

All the trains stopped running, but (some) flights kept flying.

These FR drivers earned their money at Edinburgh this afternoon, getting
their flight from Budapest safely down on the second attempt (and they’re
flying a 16-year-old 737-800, not a FBW Airbus):

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fr1018#38d8e931

Bob

2025-01-25 09:55:18 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better. In 1964,
more than likely trains would have been run, and would have been
damaged, got stranded, and ended up with dozens of trains up and down
the country, with passengers on board, stuck in the middle of nowhere
with broken trains, blocked lines etc, with people needing to head out
into abysmal weather conditions to attempt to rescue them, followed by
weeks of disruption to service as damaged trains are repaired. When you
know that the weather conditions are going to be so bad that running a
safe service is not possible, it is better to cancel the trains and
force people to stay in relative safety at home, rather than attempt
potentially dangerous journeys.

Robin

ColinR

2025-01-25 13:10:53 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.

Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.

Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.

Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.

Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

--
Colin

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-01-25 13:19:36 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

You forget about computers processing data
and, as I guess, not only about them.

ColinR

2025-01-25 13:33:09 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

You forget about computers processing data
and, as I guess, not only about them.

Errr, did you miss "Now they rely on satellites and computers."

--
Colin

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-01-26 07:24:23 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

You forget about computers processing data
and, as I guess, not only about them.

Errr, did you miss "Now they rely on satellites and computers."

Should have written, indeed:

There was some progress in computing since 1964.
ENIAC was used in 1950, don't know what they used
in 1964.

Sam Wilson

2025-01-27 18:23:27 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

You forget about computers processing data
and, as I guess, not only about them.

Errr, did you miss "Now they rely on satellites and computers."

There was some progress in computing since 1964.
ENIAC was used in 1950, don't know what they used
in 1964.

There’s also been progress in mathematical analysis and modelling. We now
know that weather is mathematically chaotic and also have the technology to
use that knowledge. (When I studied computer science briefly in 1974/75 it
was said that the Canadian weather forecasting service now had a
mathematical model that could predict the weather a week in advance;
unfortunately on the computers of the time the model took 2 weeks to run.
I have no idea if that was a joke; it was said seriously.)

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Graeme Wall

2025-01-27 21:19:49 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

You forget about computers processing data
and, as I guess, not only about them.

Errr, did you miss "Now they rely on satellites and computers."

There was some progress in computing since 1964.
ENIAC was used in 1950, don't know what they used
in 1964.

When the British met office got it's first Kray it could accurately
forecast the weather for 4 hours ahead but took 6 hours to compute it.
Allegedly.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Nobody

2025-01-27 22:16:16 UTC

On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 21:19:49 +0000, Graeme Wall

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

You forget about computers processing data
and, as I guess, not only about them.

Errr, did you miss "Now they rely on satellites and computers."

There was some progress in computing since 1964.
ENIAC was used in 1950, don't know what they used
in 1964.

Theres also been progress in mathematical analysis and modelling. We now
know that weather is mathematically chaotic and also have the technology to
use that knowledge. (When I studied computer science briefly in 1974/75 it
was said that the Canadian weather forecasting service now had a
mathematical model that could predict the weather a week in advance;
unfortunately on the computers of the time the model took 2 weeks to run.
I have no idea if that was a joke; it was said seriously.)

When the British met office got it's first Kray it could accurately
forecast the weather for 4 hours ahead but took 6 hours to compute it.
Allegedly.

Mebbe having Kray Twins would've speeded it up...

<ducks>

Marland

2025-01-27 22:25:20 UTC

Post by Nobody
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 21:19:49 +0000, Graeme Wall

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

You forget about computers processing data
and, as I guess, not only about them.

Errr, did you miss "Now they rely on satellites and computers."

There was some progress in computing since 1964.
ENIAC was used in 1950, don't know what they used
in 1964.

When the British met office got it's first Kray it could accurately
forecast the weather for 4 hours ahead but took 6 hours to compute it.
Allegedly.

Mebbe having Kray Twins would've speeded it up...
<ducks>

Only if you ganged them together.

GH

Recliner

2025-01-27 22:17:36 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

You forget about computers processing data
and, as I guess, not only about them.

Errr, did you miss "Now they rely on satellites and computers."

There was some progress in computing since 1964.
ENIAC was used in 1950, don't know what they used
in 1964.

When the British met office got it's first Kray it could accurately
forecast the weather for 4 hours ahead but took 6 hours to compute it.
Allegedly.

A modern desktop PC with a top-end GPU probably has vastly more power than
an early model Cray.

Sam Wilson

2025-01-27 22:39:32 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

You forget about computers processing data
and, as I guess, not only about them.

Errr, did you miss "Now they rely on satellites and computers."

There was some progress in computing since 1964.
ENIAC was used in 1950, don't know what they used
in 1964.

When the British met office got it's first Kray it could accurately
forecast the weather for 4 hours ahead but took 6 hours to compute it.
Allegedly.

A modern desktop PC with a top-end GPU probably has vastly more power than
an early model Cray.

The rule of thumb is that a modern phone is about 1000x as fast as a Cray
1.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Recliner

2025-01-27 22:57:06 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

You forget about computers processing data
and, as I guess, not only about them.

Errr, did you miss "Now they rely on satellites and computers."

There was some progress in computing since 1964.
ENIAC was used in 1950, don't know what they used
in 1964.

When the British met office got it's first Kray it could accurately
forecast the weather for 4 hours ahead but took 6 hours to compute it.
Allegedly.

A modern desktop PC with a top-end GPU probably has vastly more power than
an early model Cray.

The rule of thumb is that a modern phone is about 1000x as fast as a Cray
1.

Yes, I worked for a company that had multiple large machine rooms full of
mainframes in the 1970s and 80s. Someone subsequently estimated that an
iPhone 5 had much more of everything (CPU, RAM, storage) than all the
cumulative dozens of mainframes combined. Those weren’t Crays, but were
respectable machines of the day.

Over 50 years ago, London University acquired a CDC 7600, one of only three
in the country. They were keen to test it on big processing tasks, so I
volunteered my large finite elements model. It took about 20 minutes to
process (on the rare occasions when it didn’t crash!). I sometimes wonder
how long it would take on my current PC—a few seconds, I guess.

JMB99

2025-01-28 00:03:49 UTC

Post by Recliner
I sometimes wonder
how long it would take on my current PC—a few seconds, I guess.

When I got broadband I asked a friend in California what his broadband
speed was - it was much slower than I had.

Then a few years later he told me he had transferred the contents of
large USB memory stick to the 'Cloud'. I think he said it took a few
seconds but he has access to some seriously fast circuits at his work.

Recliner

2025-01-28 02:26:30 UTC

Post by Recliner
I sometimes wonder
how long it would take on my current PC—a few seconds, I guess.

When I got broadband I asked a friend in California what his broadband
speed was - it was much slower than I had.
Then a few years later he told me he had transferred the contents of
large USB memory stick to the 'Cloud'. I think he said it took a few
seconds but he has access to some seriously fast circuits at his work.

Yes, that’s another area where we’ve seen huge improvements. Dial-up used
to be typically 14.4kbps, and it tied up your phone line. Then always-on
broadband came along about 25 years ago, offering 0.5Mbps. Over the years,
it crept up to around 50Mbps. For the last few years, I’ve had 500Mbps
FTTP, both up and down, and I could instantly upgrade to 1000Mbps if I saw
any advantage in doing so. I’d still pay less than I once did for 0.5Mbps
if I did. And it’s rock solid reliable, with no speed variations.

If I wanted to upload a 64GB memory card, it would only take a couple of
minutes or so.

JMB99

2025-01-27 22:06:37 UTC

Post by Sam Wilson
There’s also been progress in mathematical analysis and modelling. We now
know that weather is mathematically chaotic and also have the technology to
use that knowledge. (When I studied computer science briefly in 1974/75 it
was said that the Canadian weather forecasting service now had a
mathematical model that could predict the weather a week in advance;
unfortunately on the computers of the time the model took 2 weeks to run.
I have no idea if that was a joke; it was said seriously.)

Nothing wrong with developing the software ready for when there were
computers powerful enough to take advantage of it.

Sam Wilson

2025-01-27 22:41:08 UTC

Nothing wrong with developing the software ready for when there were
computers powerful enough to take advantage of it.

Absolutely. I expect when the next generation of computers was installed
they already had finer grained models ready for the generation after that,
and so on.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Certes

2025-01-27 22:43:42 UTC

There’s also been progress in mathematical analysis and modelling. We
now
know that weather is mathematically chaotic and also have the
technology to
use that knowledge. (When I studied computer science briefly in
1974/75 it
was said that the Canadian weather forecasting service now had a
mathematical model that could predict the weather a week in advance;
unfortunately on the computers of the time the model took 2 weeks to run.
I have no idea if that was a joke; it was said seriously.)

Nothing wrong with developing the software ready for when there were
computers powerful enough to take advantage of it.

It could probably predict next week's weather roughly in a day, by using
a coarser grid or similar compromises, which might still be useful.

Sam Wilson

2025-01-27 22:51:32 UTC

Post by Certes

There’s also been progress in mathematical analysis and modelling. We
now
know that weather is mathematically chaotic and also have the technology to
use that knowledge. (When I studied computer science briefly in
1974/75 it
was said that the Canadian weather forecasting service now had a
mathematical model that could predict the weather a week in advance;
unfortunately on the computers of the time the model took 2 weeks to run.
I have no idea if that was a joke; it was said seriously.)

Nothing wrong with developing the software ready for when there were
computers powerful enough to take advantage of it.

It could probably predict next week's weather roughly in a day, by using
a coarser grid or similar compromises, which might still be useful.

It might do, but it would depend on how chaotic the conditions were - see
postings elsewhere about how the maths works.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Graeme Wall

2025-01-25 13:31:50 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

There haven't been weather ships for a very long time. As an aside my
father was a meteorologist on weatherships[1] when I was born! I believe
the major container ship companies carry automatic weather reporting
stations on their vessels. As they operate what were traditional liner
services they are more use than cruise liners which have more varied
itineries.

[1] OWS Weather Observer, ex HMS Zenobia.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner

2025-01-25 14:35:09 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

Are there not also weather buoys at sea, plus innumerable automatic weather stations on land? This will provide both
raw data for the models, and also provide a way of validating the forecasts.

Of course, the storms have damaged some of the buoys, such as this one:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162442

And there are a few unmanned offshore light vessel weather stations, such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandettie_Lightvessel

These are its hourly observations:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162304

Graeme Wall

2025-01-25 15:17:10 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

Are there not also weather buoys at sea, plus innumerable automatic weather stations on land? This will provide both
raw data for the models, and also provide a way of validating the forecasts.

One of Dad's last jobs before he retired was coordinating international
efforts to set up these automatic weather stations to cover blank spots
on the map.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

JMB99

2025-01-25 21:40:37 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
One of Dad's last jobs before he retired was coordinating international
efforts to set up these automatic weather stations to cover blank spots
on the map.

The German managed to have some in WWII, one is occasionally found.

Graeme Wall

2025-01-25 22:12:11 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
One of Dad's last jobs before he retired was coordinating
international efforts to set up these automatic weather stations to
cover blank spots on the map.

The German managed to have some in WWII, one is occasionally found.

Apparently one of the keys used to break the German naval enigma codes
was the U-boat habit of transmitting weather reports every morning.
Although the report was enciphered on the machine, the basic report was
in the standard international format. Coastal Command were flying
weather reporting flights out over the Atlantic every day and by
comparing their reports from similar areas with that from the U-boats
the settings for the day could often be deduced.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-01-26 07:41:56 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
One of Dad's last jobs before he retired was coordinating international
efforts to set up these automatic weather stations to cover blank spots
on the map.

The German managed to have some in WWII, one is occasionally found.

I guess you know about the Blacksod Lighthouse story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_forecasting_for_Operation_Overlord
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacksod_Lighthouse#History

JMB99

2025-01-26 09:01:30 UTC

Post by Ulf_Kutzner
I guess you know about the Blacksod Lighthouse story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_forecasting_for_Operation_Overlord
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacksod_Lighthouse#History

Yes I watched the excellent TV programme about it after being tipped off
by a friend in Southern Ireland.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyjj7dddvmjo

Graeme Wall

2025-01-26 09:06:56 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
One of Dad's last jobs before he retired was coordinating international
efforts to set up these automatic weather stations to cover blank spots
on the map.

The German managed to have some in WWII, one is occasionally found.

I guess you know about the Blacksod Lighthouse story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_forecasting_for_Operation_Overlord
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacksod_Lighthouse#History

The bit they don't put in that story is that Blacksod were actually on
the lookout for it. The lull had been detected out in the Atlantic by
Coastal Command aircraft but they weren't sure whether it would last
until landfall. Blacksod confirmed that which enabled Eisenhower to go
ahead with the landings. Unfortunately for the Germans they had no
U-boats out in the Atlantic[1] at that time so didn't spot it and
thought they were safe.

[1] The Germans aso flew met flights over the Atlantic, using FW Kondor
4-engine planes but they were grounded at that time by bad weather at
their French bases.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

JMB99

2025-01-26 09:08:50 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
One of Dad's last jobs before he retired was coordinating international
efforts to set up these automatic weather stations to cover blank spots
on the map.

There is a story of one being washed ashore on the West coast of Ireland
and a local fisherman dragging it up the beach. The RN tried to get it
to examine but he would not hand it over.

There are also reports of them being found in remote areas of Greenland,
having been placed there by U-Boats.

Graeme Wall

2025-01-26 09:17:19 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
One of Dad's last jobs before he retired was coordinating international
efforts to set up these automatic weather stations to cover blank spots
on the map.

There is a story of one being washed ashore on the West coast of Ireland
and a local fisherman dragging it up the beach. The RN tried to get it
to examine but he would not hand it over.

Never believe anything told you by an Irish fisherman!

Post by JMB99
There are also reports of them being found in remote areas of Greenland,
having been placed there by U-Boats.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

JMB99

2025-01-27 08:51:49 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
Never believe anything told you by an Irish fisherman!

I don't think the story came from the fisherman!

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-01-26 09:18:19 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
One of Dad's last jobs before he retired was coordinating international
efforts to set up these automatic weather stations to cover blank spots
on the map.

I am quite sure I'm not the author.

Coffee

2025-01-26 13:08:23 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
One of Dad's last jobs before he retired was coordinating international
efforts to set up these automatic weather stations to cover blank spots
on the map.

The German managed to have some in WWII, one is occasionally found.

I guess you know about the Blacksod Lighthouse story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_forecasting_for_Operation_Overlord
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacksod_Lighthouse#History

The Irish lighthouse keeper who gave D-Day the go-ahead:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyjj7dddvmjo

ColinR

2025-01-25 15:42:09 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

Are there not also weather buoys at sea, plus innumerable automatic weather stations on land? This will provide both
raw data for the models, and also provide a way of validating the forecasts.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162442
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandettie_Lightvessel
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162304

Good comments BUT .... where does our weather come from? Across the
Atlantic so getting weather information from Sandettie and Met Office
coast stations just confirms what the current weather is, not what can
be expected.

Mid-Atlantic information is what is needed and this is sorely missing -
even with Graeme's container ships!

QUOTE
Because of high operating costs and budget issues, weather ship R
("Romeo") was recalled from the Bay of Biscay before the deployment of a
weather buoy for the region. This recall was blamed for the minimal
warning given in advance of the Great Storm of 1987, when wind speeds of
up to 149 km/h (93 mph) caused extensive damage to areas of southern
England and northern France. UNQUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_ship

--
Colin

Recliner

2025-01-25 16:42:14 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

Are there not also weather buoys at sea, plus innumerable automatic
weather stations on land? This will provide both
raw data for the models, and also provide a way of validating the forecasts.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162442
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandettie_Lightvessel
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162304

That was just one of dozens of examples:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/observations/marine-observations

Post by ColinR
Mid-Atlantic information is what is needed and this is sorely missing -
even with Graeme's container ships!
QUOTE
Because of high operating costs and budget issues, weather ship R
("Romeo") was recalled from the Bay of Biscay before the deployment of a
weather buoy for the region. This recall was blamed for the minimal
warning given in advance of the Great Storm of 1987, when wind speeds of
up to 149 km/h (93 mph) caused extensive damage to areas of southern
England and northern France. UNQUOTE

No doubt things have improved in the 37 years since then? And, in any
case, that was a temporary gap.

Post by ColinR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_ship

There’s a constant flow of container ships across the Atlantic. For
example:

https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2022/02/07/maersk-vessels-live-feed-meteorologists-around-the-globe-with-weather-data

ColinR

2025-01-25 15:57:58 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

Are there not also weather buoys at sea, plus innumerable automatic weather stations on land? This will provide both
raw data for the models, and also provide a way of validating the forecasts.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162442
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandettie_Lightvessel
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162304

In respect of buoys you are correct, but they are an accountant's answer
to the cost of getting limited data - cheaper than weather ships. Buoys
cannot give information on cloud cover nor type. (OK satellite imaging
can give some data but clouds are usually multi-layered so sats "see"
the top layer, meteorologists on ships will see the lower layers!)

Also, maybe to justify the cost savings, it appears that "they" believe
buoys are more accurate:
QUOTE Sea surface temperature measured in the intake port of large ships
have a warm bias of around 0.6 °C (1 °F) due to the heat of the engine
room. UNQUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_buoy
In my day water temperature was taken by throwing an insulated "bucket"
into the sea from the bridge wing, letting it sink to get "below
surface" water, then bringing back up to measure the temperature. The
Wikipedia article is (yet again) inaccurate. Maybe these automatic
stations on container ships need to use sea-water intakes instead of
using traditional methods.

I believe that buoys can get wave data, but can they distinguish between
swell waves and wind waves? I suspect not - a trained observer on a ship
can.

Sorry, not changed my mind about the deterioration of weather
forecasting!!

--
Colin

Tweed

2025-01-25 16:09:18 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

Are there not also weather buoys at sea, plus innumerable automatic
weather stations on land? This will provide both
raw data for the models, and also provide a way of validating the forecasts.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162442
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandettie_Lightvessel
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162304

In respect of buoys you are correct, but they are an accountant's answer
to the cost of getting limited data - cheaper than weather ships. Buoys
cannot give information on cloud cover nor type. (OK satellite imaging
can give some data but clouds are usually multi-layered so sats "see"
the top layer, meteorologists on ships will see the lower layers!)
Also, maybe to justify the cost savings, it appears that "they" believe
QUOTE Sea surface temperature measured in the intake port of large ships
have a warm bias of around 0.6 °C (1 °F) due to the heat of the engine
room. UNQUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_buoy
In my day water temperature was taken by throwing an insulated "bucket"
into the sea from the bridge wing, letting it sink to get "below
surface" water, then bringing back up to measure the temperature. The
Wikipedia article is (yet again) inaccurate. Maybe these automatic
stations on container ships need to use sea-water intakes instead of
using traditional methods.
I believe that buoys can get wave data, but can they distinguish between
swell waves and wind waves? I suspect not - a trained observer on a ship
can.
Sorry, not changed my mind about the deterioration of weather
forecasting!!

The graphs here

https://ourworldindata.org/weather-forecasts

would disagree.

ColinR

2025-01-25 16:21:21 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

Are there not also weather buoys at sea, plus innumerable automatic
weather stations on land? This will provide both
raw data for the models, and also provide a way of validating the forecasts.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162442
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandettie_Lightvessel
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162304

In respect of buoys you are correct, but they are an accountant's answer
to the cost of getting limited data - cheaper than weather ships. Buoys
cannot give information on cloud cover nor type. (OK satellite imaging
can give some data but clouds are usually multi-layered so sats "see"
the top layer, meteorologists on ships will see the lower layers!)
Also, maybe to justify the cost savings, it appears that "they" believe
QUOTE Sea surface temperature measured in the intake port of large ships
have a warm bias of around 0.6 °C (1 °F) due to the heat of the engine
room. UNQUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_buoy
In my day water temperature was taken by throwing an insulated "bucket"
into the sea from the bridge wing, letting it sink to get "below
surface" water, then bringing back up to measure the temperature. The
Wikipedia article is (yet again) inaccurate. Maybe these automatic
stations on container ships need to use sea-water intakes instead of
using traditional methods.
I believe that buoys can get wave data, but can they distinguish between
swell waves and wind waves? I suspect not - a trained observer on a ship
can.
Sorry, not changed my mind about the deterioration of weather
forecasting!!

The graphs here
https://ourworldindata.org/weather-forecasts
would disagree.

Interesting article, but I still have concerns. One quote from the
article is
QUOTE
The first big change is that the data has improved. More extensive and
higher-resolution observations can be used as inputs into the weather
models. This is because we have more and better satellite data and
because land-based stations are covering many more areas around the
globe and at a higher density. The precision of these instruments has
improved, too. UNQUOTE Second changes relate to computerisation -
remember GIGO??

Going back to my answer to Recliner, our weather comes primarily comes
from the Atlantic. So yes to satellite data, but this has limitations,
just a picture but no temperature / wind etc data. And land-based
stations can only say what is happening, not a forecast of what will happen.

I think the author is looking at the general availabity of
data/forecasts to the general public which has vastly improved over
time, but a pretty app is only as good as the forecast it shows.

And, cynical hat on, the Met Office needs to show how good it is to
maintain funding....

--
Colin

Recliner

2025-01-25 16:42:15 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

Are there not also weather buoys at sea, plus innumerable automatic
weather stations on land? This will provide both
raw data for the models, and also provide a way of validating the forecasts.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162442
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandettie_Lightvessel
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162304

In respect of buoys you are correct, but they are an accountant's answer
to the cost of getting limited data - cheaper than weather ships. Buoys
cannot give information on cloud cover nor type. (OK satellite imaging
can give some data but clouds are usually multi-layered so sats "see"
the top layer, meteorologists on ships will see the lower layers!)
Also, maybe to justify the cost savings, it appears that "they" believe
QUOTE Sea surface temperature measured in the intake port of large ships
have a warm bias of around 0.6 °C (1 °F) due to the heat of the engine
room. UNQUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_buoy
In my day water temperature was taken by throwing an insulated "bucket"
into the sea from the bridge wing, letting it sink to get "below
surface" water, then bringing back up to measure the temperature. The
Wikipedia article is (yet again) inaccurate. Maybe these automatic
stations on container ships need to use sea-water intakes instead of
using traditional methods.
I believe that buoys can get wave data, but can they distinguish between
swell waves and wind waves? I suspect not - a trained observer on a ship
can.
Sorry, not changed my mind about the deterioration of weather
forecasting!!

The graphs here
https://ourworldindata.org/weather-forecasts
would disagree.

Interesting article, but I still have concerns. One quote from the
article is
QUOTE
The first big change is that the data has improved. More extensive and
higher-resolution observations can be used as inputs into the weather
models. This is because we have more and better satellite data and
because land-based stations are covering many more areas around the
globe and at a higher density. The precision of these instruments has
improved, too. UNQUOTE Second changes relate to computerisation -
remember GIGO??
Going back to my answer to Recliner, our weather comes primarily comes
from the Atlantic. So yes to satellite data, but this has limitations,
just a picture but no temperature / wind etc data. And land-based
stations can only say what is happening, not a forecast of what will happen.
I think the author is looking at the general availabity of
data/forecasts to the general public which has vastly improved over
time, but a pretty app is only as good as the forecast it shows.
And, cynical hat on, the Met Office needs to show how good it is to
maintain funding....

The data comes from many sources, not just the Met Office.

Recliner

2025-01-25 16:42:17 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

Are there not also weather buoys at sea, plus innumerable automatic
weather stations on land? This will provide both
raw data for the models, and also provide a way of validating the forecasts.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162442
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandettie_Lightvessel
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/specialist-forecasts/coast-and-sea/observations/162304

Can’t they use other wavelengths to measure different types of cloud? For
example, infrared cameras might see different formations to UV.

Post by ColinR
Also, maybe to justify the cost savings, it appears that "they" believe
QUOTE Sea surface temperature measured in the intake port of large ships
have a warm bias of around 0.6 °C (1 °F) due to the heat of the engine
room. UNQUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_buoy
In my day water temperature was taken by throwing an insulated "bucket"
into the sea from the bridge wing, letting it sink to get "below
surface" water, then bringing back up to measure the temperature. The
Wikipedia article is (yet again) inaccurate. Maybe these automatic
stations on container ships need to use sea-water intakes instead of
using traditional methods.

Perhaps they do?

Post by ColinR
I believe that buoys can get wave data, but can they distinguish between
swell waves and wind waves? I suspect not - a trained observer on a ship
can.

Can that not be deduced from other, accurately collected, data? I’m uneasy
about relying on judgments from trained observers.

Post by ColinR
Sorry, not changed my mind about the deterioration of weather
forecasting!!

Our expectations are higher now, so forecasts that were once regarded as
pretty good might now be regarded as inadequate.

ColinR

2025-01-25 15:35:57 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships
stationed at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used
to be very accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually
happening at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles
above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

You are correct, but one modern containership replaced 10-20 odd ships
in the 60s so vastly reducing the number of at-sea "weather stations".
There are far fewer ships at sea now than there were when I went to sea.
I can recall sending four hourly weather reports to the Met Office /
USCG etc all my time deep-sea (70s).

Weather ships were still a feature in the 60s and 70s, being phased out
mostly in the 80s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_ship

--
Colin

Graeme Wall

2025-01-25 21:59:31 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships
stationed at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world
used to be very accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually
happening at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles
above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I
personally feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

There haven't been weather ships for a very long time. As an aside my
father was a meteorologist on weatherships[1] when I was born! I
believe the major container ship companies carry automatic weather
reporting stations on their vessels. As they operate what were
traditional liner services they are more use than cruise liners which
have more varied itineries.
[1] OWS Weather Observer, ex HMS Zenobia.

You are correct, but one modern containership replaced 10-20 odd ships
in the 60s so vastly reducing the number of at-sea "weather stations".

There were originally six weather ships in total, over the years another
5 were commissioned as the older ones were withdrawn.

Post by ColinR
There are far fewer ships at sea now than there were when I went to sea.
I can recall sending four hourly weather reports to the Met Office /
USCG etc all my time deep-sea (70s).
Weather ships were still a feature in the 60s and 70s, being phased out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_ship

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

JMB99

2025-01-25 21:37:48 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
There haven't been weather ships for a very long time.

I am sure I remember a meteorologist some years ago that if he had the
choice then would like a few weather ships.

I suspect that the present system works well most of the time but if
something unusual happens then it might be difficult for them to predict.

I suspect that much of the when people complain about inaccurate
forecasts, all they have heard is a short forecast trying to cover the
whole country.

I once one of the TV Met Office forecasters saying the only get about
two (?) minutes and often, just before they go live they are told that
something has overrun and they only have half that and have to edit live
as they are speaking.

When I worked on Lewis, the first thing we had to do every morning was
ring the Met Office at the local airport and get a figure for the
Lightning Risk. If it was above a certain figure we had to leave site.

ColinR

2025-01-26 11:29:06 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
There haven't been weather ships for a very long time.

I am sure I remember a meteorologist some years ago that if he had the
choice then would like a few weather ships.
I suspect that the present system works well most of the time but if
something unusual happens then it might be difficult for them to predict.
I suspect that much of the when people complain about inaccurate
forecasts, all they have heard is a short forecast trying to cover the
whole country.
I once one of the TV Met Office forecasters saying the only get about
two (?) minutes and often, just before they go live they are told that
something has overrun and they only have half that and have to edit live
as they are speaking.
When I worked on Lewis, the first thing we had to do every morning was
ring the Met Office at the local airport and get a figure for the
Lightning Risk. If it was above a certain figure we had to leave site.

That is one of the criteria used for forcasting local weather at the
Sullom Voe oil terminal - loading operations are suspended when there is
a lightning risk.

--
Colin

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-01-26 11:40:41 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
There haven't been weather ships for a very long time.

I am sure I remember a meteorologist some years ago that if he had the
choice then would like a few weather ships.
I suspect that the present system works well most of the time but if
something unusual happens then it might be difficult for them to predict.
I suspect that much of the when people complain about inaccurate
forecasts, all they have heard is a short forecast trying to cover the
whole country.
I once one of the TV Met Office forecasters saying the only get about
two (?) minutes and often, just before they go live they are told that
something has overrun and they only have half that and have to edit live
as they are speaking.
When I worked on Lewis, the first thing we had to do every morning was
ring the Met Office at the local airport and get a figure for the
Lightning Risk. If it was above a certain figure we had to leave site.

That is one of the criteria used for forcasting local weather at the
Sullom Voe oil terminal - loading operations are suspended when there is
a lightning risk.

Same now at many airports.

While landing/starting *might* still
be okay with lighning risk, loading/
unloading luggage, approaching a mobile
staircase or jetbridge and fuelling
won't, IIUC, at least for the closest
hub here.

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-01-26 11:34:19 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
There haven't been weather ships for a very long time.

I am sure I remember a meteorologist some years ago that if he had the
choice then would like a few weather ships.

Are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_balloon
released from ships?

Post by JMB99
I suspect that the present system works well most of the time but if
something unusual happens then it might be difficult for them to predict.
I suspect that much of the when people complain about inaccurate
forecasts, all they have heard is a short forecast trying to cover the
whole country.
I once one of the TV Met Office forecasters saying the only get about
two (?) minutes and often, just before they go live they are told that
something has overrun and they only have half that and have to edit live
as they are speaking.

With shortened presentation there are still
possibilities to access the public forecasts.

Graeme Wall

2025-01-26 12:57:54 UTC

Post by Graeme Wall
There haven't been weather ships for a very long time.

I am sure I remember a meteorologist some years ago that if he had the
choice then would like a few weather ships.

Are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_balloon
released from ships?

They used to be from weather ships but I don't think merchant vessels
ever did it.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner

2025-01-25 13:32:43 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

That’s an interesting observation. It hadn’t occurred to me that those huge
computer models might be being fed with inaccurate, estimated data.

Sam Wilson

2025-01-27 22:35:17 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

That’s an interesting observation. It hadn’t occurred to me that those huge
computer models might be being fed with inaccurate, estimated data.

That’s only part of the issue. The maths that weather obeys is chaotic -
crtically sensitive to initial conditions. Any inaccuracy in measurement,
*any* inescapable inaccuracy, will affect the forecast outcome. In fact
weather forecasters deliberately run mutiple forecasts based on deliberate
variations on the measurements. If the results turn out fairly similar
then they are reasonably confident in their forecasts; if they diverge they
have much less assurance.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_weather_prediction#Ensembles>

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Recliner

2025-01-27 22:59:38 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

That’s an interesting observation. It hadn’t occurred to me that those huge
computer models might be being fed with inaccurate, estimated data.

That’s only part of the issue. The maths that weather obeys is chaotic -
crtically sensitive to initial conditions. Any inaccuracy in measurement,
*any* inescapable inaccuracy, will affect the forecast outcome. In fact
weather forecasters deliberately run mutiple forecasts based on deliberate
variations on the measurements. If the results turn out fairly similar
then they are reasonably confident in their forecasts; if they diverge they
have much less assurance.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_weather_prediction#Ensembles>

The infamous butterfly flapping its wings, possibly triggering a typhoon on
the other side of the world.

Marland

2025-01-25 17:15:13 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

A lot less shipping but a much greater number of aircraft in the air at any
one time and thousands of readings are taken by sensors on them and
transmitted back automatically at a rate far greater than shipping ever
did.
<https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/safety-ops-regulation/impact-flight-weather-data-collection-part-1>

The reduction in flights during the Covid epidemic was enough to cause
concern to the various meteorological organisations as they lost an
important source of information.

GH

ColinR

2025-01-25 17:21:32 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

A lot less shipping but a much greater number of aircraft in the air at any
one time and thousands of readings are taken by sensors on them and
transmitted back automatically at a rate far greater than shipping ever
did.
<https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/safety-ops-regulation/impact-flight-weather-data-collection-part-1>
The reduction in flights during the Covid epidemic was enough to cause
concern to the various meteorological organisations as they lost an
important source of information.
GH

A good point that I had not considered, or even known about!

--
Colin

Tweed

2025-01-25 17:31:16 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

A lot less shipping but a much greater number of aircraft in the air at any
one time and thousands of readings are taken by sensors on them and
transmitted back automatically at a rate far greater than shipping ever
did.
<https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/safety-ops-regulation/impact-flight-weather-data-collection-part-1>
The reduction in flights during the Covid epidemic was enough to cause
concern to the various meteorological organisations as they lost an
important source of information.
GH

An interesting article, thank you. The most notable point is that with all
the various measurement methods around a million observations are made per
day.

Recliner

2025-01-25 17:44:37 UTC

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships stationed
at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world used to be very
accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually happening
at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I personally
feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

A lot less shipping but a much greater number of aircraft in the air at any
one time and thousands of readings are taken by sensors on them and
transmitted back automatically at a rate far greater than shipping ever
did.
<https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/safety-ops-regulation/impact-flight-weather-data-collection-part-1>
The reduction in flights during the Covid epidemic was enough to cause
concern to the various meteorological organisations as they lost an
important source of information.
GH

An interesting article, thank you. The most notable point is that with all
the various measurement methods around a million observations are made per
day.

Yes, this is turning into an unexpectedly interesting, educational thread!
I’m learning a lot.

I now recollect a box being brought aboard a ship I was on, I think in the
South Atlantic, that was going to be fitted below deck somewhere, that
would record and transmit various weather data.

Clank

2025-01-25 19:04:45 UTC

Post by Scott
As I watched the news about Storm Éowyn, I wondered if all the
trains would have been cancelled had this event taken place in
1964. I know steam locomotives were heavier and there was less of a
health and safety culture, so I wonder if more services would have
run.

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships
stationed at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world
used to be very accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually
happening at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles
above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I
personally feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

impact-flight-weather-data-collection-part-1>

Post by Tweed

Post by Marland
The reduction in flights during the Covid epidemic was enough to cause
concern to the various meteorological organisations as they lost an
important source of information.
GH

An interesting article, thank you. The most notable point is that with
all the various measurement methods around a million observations are
made per day.

Yes, this is turning into an unexpectedly interesting, educational thread!
I’m learning a lot.
I now recollect a box being brought aboard a ship I was on, I think in
the South Atlantic, that was going to be fitted below deck somewhere,
that would record and transmit various weather data.

Unless it was operated by a man with a beard so thick you can't understand
him speak, a bright yellow sou'wester, a pipe in his mouth, and he had to
toss it overboard and then track it with only a sextant and a homing
pigeon for company, then I for one shall be refusing to believe it is in
any way an adequate replacement for one man sticking his finger in the air
and muttering "arr, there bes a storm a-coming, I can feels it in ma bilge
water".

New-fangled nonsense with 'micro-chips', never going to take on.

See also: "Flying was much safer when they had 4 engines and 3 flightcrew
all of whom were so skilled they could operate the whole aircraft by hand
just by pulling the cables, even if there were far more crashes..."

Sam Wilson

2025-01-27 22:46:49 UTC

Post by Scott
As I watched the news about Storm Éowyn, I wondered if all the
trains would have been cancelled had this event taken place in
1964. I know steam locomotives were heavier and there was less of a
health and safety culture, so I wonder if more services would have
run.

Part of the difference is that weather forecasting is better.

As a merchant seaman from the late 60s to mid-90s I tend to disagree.
Forecasts, fed by multiple weather stations from weather ships
stationed at sea to multiple met reporting ships around the world
used to be very accurate.
Then there was the Fastnet Race in 1979 and, subsequently. the Met
Office moved from accurate forecasts to "woe is me" level of
exaggeration for a number of years.
Now they rely on satellites and computers. There are no weather ships
any more and, I believe, the voluntary reporting by merchant ships is
less or non-existent. Satellites cannot tell what is actually
happening at sea level, just interpret the photo images from miles
above the sea.
Sorry, I do not agree that forecasting is any better and, I
personally feel, is now worse than back in the 60s.

impact-flight-weather-data-collection-part-1>

Post by Tweed

Post by Marland
The reduction in flights during the Covid epidemic was enough to cause
concern to the various meteorological organisations as they lost an
important source of information.
GH

An interesting article, thank you. The most notable point is that with
all the various measurement methods around a million observations are
made per day.

Yes, this is turning into an unexpectedly interesting, educational thread!
I’m learning a lot.
I now recollect a box being brought aboard a ship I was on, I think in
the South Atlantic, that was going to be fitted below deck somewhere,
that would record and transmit various weather data.

Unless it was operated by a man with a beard so thick you can't understand
him speak, a bright yellow sou'wester, a pipe in his mouth, and he had to
toss it overboard and then track it with only a sextant and a homing
pigeon for company, then I for one shall be refusing to believe it is in
any way an adequate replacement for one man sticking his finger in the air
and muttering "arr, there bes a storm a-coming, I can feels it in ma bilge
water".
New-fangled nonsense with 'micro-chips', never going to take on.
See also: "Flying was much safer when they had 4 engines and 3 flightcrew
all of whom were so skilled they could operate the whole aircraft by hand
just by pulling the cables, even if there were far more crashes..."

Only 3 flight crew? Dangerously skimpy, that - you need at least 5 (2
pilots, a flight engineer, a navigator and a radio operator) and a relief
crew on longer flights!

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Bevan Price

2025-01-26 11:57:07 UTC

I think that only heavy snowdrifts and fallen trees would have led to
temporary suspensions of rail services.

And for anyone who thinks Eowyn was bad - prepare for even worse in the
future, thanks to President "Drill, Drill, Drill, Burn more oil".

ColinR

2025-01-26 13:02:28 UTC

I think that only heavy snowdrifts and fallen trees would have led to
temporary suspensions of rail services.
And for anyone who thinks Eowyn was bad - prepare for even worse in the
future, thanks to President "Drill, Drill, Drill, Burn more oil".

I assume you are talking about President Musk? ;-)

--
Colin

Recliner

2025-01-26 13:11:53 UTC

I think that only heavy snowdrifts and fallen trees would have led to
temporary suspensions of rail services.
And for anyone who thinks Eowyn was bad - prepare for even worse in the
future, thanks to President "Drill, Drill, Drill, Burn more oil".

I assume you are talking about President Musk? ;-)

The funny thing is that the US progression towards green energy didn’t slow
during Trump’s first term. And Biden approved nearly 50% more oil drilling
than Trump did.

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2024/01/30/biden-administration-oil-drilling-permits-outpace-trump-ee-00138376

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-01-26 14:29:45 UTC

I think that only heavy snowdrifts and fallen trees would have led to
temporary suspensions of rail services.
And for anyone who thinks Eowyn was bad - prepare for even worse in the
future, thanks to President "Drill, Drill, Drill, Burn more oil".

I assume you are talking about President Musk? ;-)

The funny thing is that the US progression towards green energy didn’t slow
during Trump’s first term.

In 2017 coal mining increased but couldn't
say this was because of DT. Coal production
was lower than that in the US in all later
years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_States#Production

Recliner

2025-01-26 17:19:27 UTC

I think that only heavy snowdrifts and fallen trees would have led to
temporary suspensions of rail services.
And for anyone who thinks Eowyn was bad - prepare for even worse in the
future, thanks to President "Drill, Drill, Drill, Burn more oil".

I assume you are talking about President Musk? ;-)

The funny thing is that the US progression towards green energy didn’t slow
during Trump’s first term.

In 2017 coal mining increased but couldn't
say this was because of DT.

Given that he only took office during 2017, that increase won’t have been
his doing.

Post by Ulf_Kutzner
Coal production was lower than that in the US in all later years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_States#Production

Certes

2025-01-26 15:26:00 UTC

I think that only heavy snowdrifts and fallen trees would have led to
temporary suspensions of rail services.
And for anyone who thinks Eowyn was bad - prepare for even worse in the
future, thanks to President "Drill, Drill, Drill, Burn more oil".

I assume you are talking about President Musk? ;-)

The funny thing is that the US progression towards green energy didn’t slow
during Trump’s first term. And Biden approved nearly 50% more oil drilling
than Trump did.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2024/01/30/biden-administration-oil-drilling-permits-outpace-trump-ee-00138376

The orange buffoon changes his views more often than his underpants, to
favour the businesses owned by whoever he is friends with this week. If
someone who makes a living from renewables smooches their way into his
inner circle, policy will change to move money into their pockets.

Recliner

2025-01-26 17:19:25 UTC

I think that only heavy snowdrifts and fallen trees would have led to
temporary suspensions of rail services.
And for anyone who thinks Eowyn was bad - prepare for even worse in the
future, thanks to President "Drill, Drill, Drill, Burn more oil".

I assume you are talking about President Musk? ;-)

The funny thing is that the US progression towards green energy didn’t slow
during Trump’s first term. And Biden approved nearly 50% more oil drilling
than Trump did.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2024/01/30/biden-administration-oil-drilling-permits-outpace-trump-ee-00138376

Yes, as can be seen with TikTok and crypto. He used to be against them, now
he’s for them, because they did him favours. He doesn’t like wind farms
because he claims they spoil the view from his coastal golf course. But if
some wind farm tycoon pays him lots of money and names a wind farm after
him (Trump Wind?), he’ll be for them.

JMB99

2025-01-27 08:56:29 UTC

Post by Certes
If
someone who makes a living from renewables smooches their way into his
inner circle, policy will change to move money into their pockets.

As happens in the UK?

Recliner

2025-01-27 14:29:22 UTC

Post by Certes
If
someone who makes a living from renewables smooches their way into his
inner circle, policy will change to move money into their pockets.

As happens in the UK?

As anywhere, but not nearly so blatantly in most countries.

JMB99

2025-01-27 14:56:03 UTC

Post by Recliner
As anywhere, but not nearly so blatantly in most countries.

I would not be so sure, as in Animal Farm some pigs are more equal than
other pigs.

" Miliband approves huge solar farm being built by major Labour donor
Energy Secretary accused of ‘thrashing the countryside’ as he backs Dale
Vince project "

Recliner

2025-01-27 15:52:44 UTC

Post by Recliner
As anywhere, but not nearly so blatantly in most countries.

I would not be so sure, as in Animal Farm some pigs are more equal than
other pigs.
" Miliband approves huge solar farm being built by major Labour donor
Energy Secretary accused of ‘thrashing the countryside’ as he backs Dale
Vince project "

I think he’d approve a new solar farm regardless who was behind it.

Ulf_Kutzner

2025-01-26 14:16:56 UTC

I think that only heavy snowdrifts and fallen trees would have led to
temporary suspensions of rail services.
And for anyone who thinks Eowyn was bad - prepare for even worse in the
future, thanks to President "Drill, Drill, Drill, Burn more oil".

I assume you are talking about President Musk?

Who sells electric cars?

Recliner

2025-01-26 14:44:02 UTC