Michael Strickland wrote:
On 7 Jan 2007 10:40:36 -0800, dpb wrote:

Yes, good and valid point and we have that, too. Is of most use for
spring/summer weather (the tornado threat), of course.

Same here, although it was going off this past Friday and yesterday afternoon
and evening. Got kinda rough - particularly for this time of year - just to
the south and southeast of us. Severe T-storms and tornados are our major
threat also, but not nearly as bad as I understand your area is - tropical
systems sometimes cause some grief with flooding, winds and severe T-storms.
Rarely get much snow, 3" is a lot generally, but did get 16" locally back in
the early '90s, most I've ever seen up close and personal. Been lucky for
quite a few years now and haven't had any serious ice. Certainly hope yall
get thawed out soon - been there and done that so I can relate to the
situation out there.

I saw that -- the result of the same front after it passed thru here.
The temperature gradient and lift were actually sufficient there were
some t-storms here ahead of the ice/snow event altho nothing more than
some hail.

We're just to the west of the real "tornado alley", but there are at
least some in the area every year. It's a little farther
east/southeast where it's a little wetter on average than here where
the heaviest concentration are spawned. Our major events here are
likely to be large hail. Last 2-3 years have been pretty high numbers,
but no monsters. About 3 miles south last summer was closest although
town got a couple of hits each of the last two years, they were
relatively small also. Took a few buildings and (as always) a trailer
park. Lost the old barn at the County Historical Museum, though,
sadly. It was a landmark barn that had been moved to the site from a
early farmstead but was too heavily damaged to try to salvage.

We're pretty well de-iced here now, but the folks w/ all the snow and
w/o power are still hurtin'. And, it's a real problem getting in to
continue to feed/water cattle and will be for quite some time. Since
there was so much precipitation where it has melted some and/or
combined w/ the snow they're having to use farmers' tractors on every
pole truck and pickup/service vehicle to pull them from one pole to the
next or even, in some places, down the road while trying to
rebuild/repair lines. As only one example, there was one stretch of 25
miles with not a single pole left standing and something over 10,000
poles down altogether in KS alone. It'll take a while.

....
for a short period, maybe; most generally when it's after dark and so
getting "snuck up on" unawares is more likely.

The radio I have won't let you get snuck up on - have the volume set pretty
low and it'll still wake the soundest sleepers around here. I really like not
having to have the radio turned on (listening to the broadcast) in order to
get the alerts - beats any other method I know of in that respect.

Yes, that's the advantage and we rely on it as well for such alerts. I
was simply meaning when already know there's weather around and it's
dark enough to not be able to spot an approaching funnel if there were
one -- otherwise, we're flat enough that most of the time you've got
clear enough view to know.

Not sure what you're trying to get from the TV weather that isn't available
via NWS or The Weather Channel online or the weather radio in emergencies.
Here the TV weather long-range forecast is pretty much whether or not it's
gonna rain and the hi/lo for each day. They do show fronts and High/Low
pressure areas, but that info is readily available from other sources - a
trip to the NWS or Weather Channel website can provide that info and more.
....

As I noted in a reply earlier, two things -- one, since it is an
agricultural area, the weather segment is longer and far more detailed
than in other locations, particularly urban. What they do is to
provide the analysis of their projections and best guesstimates of
likelihoods of what the fronts are really going to do and when. For
winter weather, this is significant in trying to make a decision on
whether to actually move cattle, for example. That's no minor
undertaking that can be done in a few minutes or an hour, even.
Bringing them to the house necessitates feeding as well as the actual
moving, then they've got to be moved back afterwards, another
significant effort. If it does storm significantly, it's likely to be
worth the effort. But, working them and then it all doesn't happen
after all is a pretty sizable effort and the actual act of moving them
is both stressful to them and alone may cause weight loss and/or
subsequent susceptibility to sickness. There's a financial cost
associated with that as well as that which might occur from the the
result of the storm if just leave them to weather it as best the can.
Got's to try to judge what's the better choice of the two, neither very
good. All the info you can get is better.

As I think I also noted before, the difference in what happened in this
storm was drastic from an area of about 60 mile width of rain-only to
the east/south and almost all snow/blizzard north/west. We were just
about in the middle of that. The difference between what is on the NWS
site and feeds is they provide the basic data and forecasts and
information and concentrate the forecasts primarily, it seems, on
travel impacts and the like. The TV weather guys take that information
and expand the detail of what the present via these repeaters and as
well as the same information really do try to work out the variations
in these situations. This last one they indicated pretty high
confidence in the location of the snow/ice/rain line and I decided to
not move any based on that assessment. If I'd relied only on the NWS,
I'm not sure which way I'd have gone. Turns out their projections
actually hit it quite accurately this time and not doing anything was
by far the better choice.

TWC is useless here, really, for anything other than knowing what is
happening elsewhere. It is a long-range feed and has no local presence
other than the automated time/temperature/etc., scrolling feed.

Mind you, I don't advocate dropping TV altogether, just don't see a need for
it when obtaining weather information. I'm not referring to any agricultural
programming available from the TV when I'm talking about weather - we have
(or at least had, not in the ag business so I haven't looked in quite a few
years) some of that here too with crop/animal prices and general long-term (2
months IIRC) weather projections along with other ag info on the local PBS
stations. Regular advertizing stations dropped that stuff when I was a kid -
north GA is just too "citified", probably still carry some of it in the more
agricultural, southern part of the state.

Yep, that's the way it is except in places such as here where it hasn't
yet become urban-dominated. I was in Knoxville, TN, area for 20-some
years until returning 7-8 years ago so am fully aware of the
difference. If were were just outside Wichita instead of in far
western KS, it would be the same thing and I would have no other
alternative but those you mention, either. We're still where the major
advertisers are the farm implement and seed and ag-chem dealers, etc.,
so that programming is still available. If, as others have suggested,
I were to go to the satellite only, then I'd go back to the only
"local" stations being those in Wichita, not the translators and the
city-slant is what I would get and if there were all there were, I'd
agree with you completely it wouldn't be of any incremental value over
other sources.

FYI, In case you're not aware of them. There are a couple of browser add-ons
that you might find useful in monitoring the weather. One can be obtained
from the Weather Channel website and (I think) works on all browsers, the
other is called ForecastFox and works on Mozilla browsers. Both put icons at
a location you choose in your browser and are highly configurable as to how
many days out they show and what information is shown. You can have NWS
alerts automatically pop up a clickable link that will take you to the text
of the alert if you like. Mine shows quite a few alerts and statements that I
wouldn't want to have the radio sound an alarm for - but it is possible to
have the radio do it if you like...

Also, at least locally here (may not be true of your area), the NWS supports
satellite reporting stations all around the state which can provide things
like soil temp at several depths, rainfall, UV levels, wind, and such. These
are automated readings and were limited to within the last 24 hours last I
looked, but I believe that they were planning on adding archival info. You
can set a link directly to the site(s) once you find them - go to NWS site
and shop around for locations.

Yes, those are of some use but again serve a somewhat different
purpose.

The real difference and what I want is that actual inference the local
guys make and provide through these translators. And, yes, it is far
different in what they actually do than what most are used to. They're
the meterological staff of the Wichita stations and are in Wichita, but
as well as watch the metro area, they know they have these repeaters in
the western areas that aren't well served otherwise, and they monitor
events carefully and in major events like these aren't afraid to
interrupt if it warrants it but more importantly, know the importance
and timing required for farmers and ranchers to be able to take
preventive action and understand the consequences of their
recommendations/forecasts as outline above. You don't get that from
NWS or TWC and like haller says, "if you ain't seen it, you can't
understand" And, of course, unless one were intimately involved and
affected, it wouldn't be of any interest anyway.

But, in the end, I'm just interested on top of all the rest!