Howard – as Q#1 you left out some facts, such as if the sun was out! But as it may, I was wrong . . . but pressure works too, as in the pressure at the bottom of a glacier. I think we are saying the same thing for #3 . . . but, if Q#1 was a hypothetical as an expert witness, and you left out the little fact that the sun was out, I’m not sure a jury would think kindly of an expert leaving out such a crucial fact when providing an expert opinion on a hypothetical!

AS for aviation, meteorology and law, I’ll freely admit that I know merely a small fraction of what there is to know – about anything to be honest. I just try to have logical opinions which take into account human nature . . . thats all. And while I do practice law, once again, none of us can ever know it all ;-) and, a good lawyer on cross does not need to disprove anything, merely attack credibility logically within the realm of the common sense of the jury.

and BTW – I never ever cast doubt on the value of forensic meteorology – like every other science it has value within the limits of the science and the technology applied to the science.

How will I ever know who you are since you hide under the name Joe F.? Besides, I would love to have you cross examine me. I love proving those attorney’s who think they know it all wrong in front of a jury.

Despite your attempts to clarify and restate your answers in a more correct sounding manner, you’re original answer the way it is written is incorrect. Accept it. Anyway, it seems that this conversation is not going anywhere. I’m not here to play professor because I have real work and important cases to work on. So, i’ll let you continue to believe that you know everything about Meteorology, Law, Aviation and anything else you’d like to proclaim your specialty in on this blog. I take that back, you probably know a lot about Law since that is your career.

Constructive questions and responses from posters I would be happy to comment on. All the best to you Joe F.

Yep, Flight Aware is first on my laptop; one of those 21st century tools that makes life really hard on any gate agent who’s trying to give passengers a song and dance about a particular flight. And yes, that inbound was Chicago’s all along – have taken it several times myself although it’s now changed in SWA’s system. It now comes in from New Mexico rather than Phoenix and the flight number is changed.
Seems like SWA is trying to hide something here (joking).

I then answered #3correctly – you get the lightning strike info – the sensor information is ALWAYS in the past – no matter if it is on the weather channel, on the tv weather or in the ‘archived records,’ the information displayed is ALWAYS past information. So, THAT answer was correct as well since I referred you to the SAME source.

The issue with doppler is resolution. The further you go from the site of the WSR-88D the less resolution there is since the waves propagate outward – the inverse square law means that the distance from the doppler means an ever large slice of space is being noted – which means that very small scale vorticity cannot be discerned, give me an A .

C’mon, Howie, you hate to have me cross-examine you . ..

Also note that all this is puffed up from: “In my opinion, the day has now come …”, “may be in for a rude awakening” and “should someone decide to challenge them”, i.e. there’s nothing behind it…