How do weather services get sky conditions above the surface?

It's easy enough to establish measurement stations on the surface to measure
wind, temperature, visibility, etc., but what is the normal way for
meteorologists to measure these things aloft? Do they depend on PIREPs, or
expendable/recoverable probes and balloons, or satellites, or what?

On Jul 23, 9:37*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
It's easy enough to establish measurement stations on the surface to measure
wind, temperature, visibility, etc., but what is the normal way for
meteorologists to measure these things aloft? *Do they depend on PIREPs, or
expendable/recoverable probes and balloons, or satellites, or what?

This is one of your poorest troll attempts, Anthony, you are a
disappointment. Please try to do better.

wrote:
On Jul 23, 9:37 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
It's easy enough to establish measurement stations on the surface to
measure wind, temperature, visibility, etc., but what is the normal
way for meteorologists to measure these things aloft? Do they depend
on PIREPs, or expendable/recoverable probes and balloons, or
satellites, or what?

This is one of your poorest troll attempts, Anthony, you are a
disappointment. Please try to do better.


Do you folks that continue to respond to Mxsmanic, Bertie, Maxwell, and the
other trolls realize that if you had simply ignored them this would still be
a useful forum?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
m:

wrote:
On Jul 23, 9:37 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
It's easy enough to establish measurement stations on the surface to
measure wind, temperature, visibility, etc., but what is the normal
way for meteorologists to measure these things aloft? Do they depend
on PIREPs, or expendable/recoverable probes and balloons, or
satellites, or what?

This is one of your poorest troll attempts, Anthony, you are a
disappointment. Please try to do better.


Do you folks that continue to respond to Mxsmanic, Bertie, Maxwell,
and the other trolls realize that if you had simply ignored them this
would still be a useful forum?




Actually, I likve for poasts just like this one....


Bertie

On Jul 23, 10:05*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 23, 9:37 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
It's easy enough to establish measurement stations on the surface to
measure wind, temperature, visibility, etc., but what is the normal
way for meteorologists to measure these things aloft? Do they depend
on PIREPs, or expendable/recoverable probes and balloons, or
satellites, or what?

This is one of your poorest troll attempts, Anthony, you are a
disappointment. Please try to do better.

Do you folks that continue to respond to Mxsmanic, Bertie, Maxwell, and the
other trolls realize that if you had simply ignored them this would still be
a useful forum?

It would also be a useful forum if people actually answered the
questions posed, regardless of *who* is asking it. The OP's question
is perefectly valid, and x number of years from now when somebody
Google's for the answer and gets this thread, all they will see for an
answer are insults. There is nothing more frustrating than
Googling for an anwer to something only to find the response was "why
don't you Google for it". If you have the time to post such a
response, you have the time to answer the question.

Rocky Stevens wrote:

It would also be a useful forum if people actually answered the
questions posed, regardless of *who* is asking it. The OP's question
is perefectly valid, and x number of years from now when somebody
Google's for the answer and gets this thread, all they will see for an
answer are insults. There is nothing more frustrating than
Googling for an anwer to something only to find the response was "why
don't you Google for it". If you have the time to post such a
response, you have the time to answer the question.


True, but the folks that post such a response probably don't know the
answer.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Rocky Stevens wrote:

It would also be a useful forum if people actually answered the
questions posed, regardless of *who* is asking it. The OP's question
is perefectly valid, and x number of years from now when somebody
Google's for the answer and gets this thread, all they will see for
an answer are insults. There is nothing more frustrating than
Googling for an anwer to something only to find the response was "why
don't you Google for it". If you have the time to post such a
response, you have the time to answer the question.


True, but the folks that post such a response probably don't know the
answer.

Over on rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic recently asked a question about
Cessna rudder input on MS Flight sim versus the real thing that Dudley
Henriques, among others, responded to - some good, some not. There was a
civil dialog between Dudley and Mxsmanic - Mxsmanic appears to have
followed Dudley's advice, looked up the references that Dudley provided,
and he thanked Dudley for his help a couple times. I considered the
thread distinctive because of the unfortunate Pavlovian responses a
number of people have conditioned themselves into that added noise
to what would have been an otherwise short and simple thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...3b0eae0?hl=en#

Rocky Stevens wrote:
On Jul 23, 10:05 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 23, 9:37 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
It's easy enough to establish measurement stations on the surface to
measure wind, temperature, visibility, etc., but what is the normal
way for meteorologists to measure these things aloft? Do they depend
on PIREPs, or expendable/recoverable probes and balloons, or
satellites, or what?
This is one of your poorest troll attempts, Anthony, you are a
disappointment. Please try to do better.
Do you folks that continue to respond to Mxsmanic, Bertie, Maxwell, and the
other trolls realize that if you had simply ignored them this would still be
a useful forum?

It would also be a useful forum if people actually answered the
questions posed, regardless of *who* is asking it. The OP's question
is perefectly valid, and x number of years from now when somebody
Google's for the answer and gets this thread, all they will see for an
answer are insults. There is nothing more frustrating than
Googling for an anwer to something only to find the response was "why
don't you Google for it". If you have the time to post such a
response, you have the time to answer the question.


You must be new here. Somebody will answer Anthony's question and then
he will tell them they are wrong and say he has studied the issue in
depth and that just because the person that answered the question is a
pilot does not mean that they know anything about weather or how the
information is collected.

And to top it all off the fact that I have posted the above in no way
lowers the chances of Anthony doing exactly what I've said he would do.

On Jul 23, 9:20*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Rocky Stevens wrote:
On Jul 23, 10:05 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 23, 9:37 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
It's easy enough to establish measurement stations on the surface to
measure wind, temperature, visibility, etc., but what is the normal
way for meteorologists to measure these things aloft? Do they depend
on PIREPs, or expendable/recoverable probes and balloons, or
satellites, or what?
This is one of your poorest troll attempts, Anthony, you are a
disappointment. Please try to do better.
Do you folks that continue to respond to Mxsmanic, Bertie, Maxwell, and the
other trolls realize that if you had simply ignored them this would still be
a useful forum?

It would also be a useful forum if people actually answered the
questions posed, regardless of *who* is asking it. The OP's question
is perefectly valid, and x number of years from now when somebody
Google's for the answer and gets this thread, all they will see for an
answer are insults. There is nothing more frustrating than
Googling for an anwer to something only to find the response was "why
don't you Google for it". If you have the time to post such a
response, you have the time to answer the question.

You must be new here. Somebody will answer Anthony's question and then
he will tell them they are wrong and say he has studied the issue in
depth and that just because the person that answered the question is a
pilot does not mean that they know anything about weather or how the
information is collected.

And to top it all off the fact that I have posted the above in no way
lowers the chances of Anthony doing exactly what I've said he would do.

oh god shut up. I've been frankly answering his questions for a while
now and I've yet to see him respond to me in that manner, or to other
people in that manner either. If it bothers you so much why don't you
just not read this place anymore? There are tons of people that post
here that I don't like. I cope with it by *gasp* ignoring them. Its
not as hard as it sounds.

"Rocky Stevens" wrote

It would also be a useful forum if people actually answered the
questions posed, regardless of *who* is asking it. The OP's question
is perefectly valid, and x number of years from now when somebody
Google's for the answer and gets this thread, all they will see for an
answer are insults. There is nothing more frustrating than
Googling for an anwer to something only to find the response was "why
don't you Google for it". If you have the time to post such a
response, you have the time to answer the question.

You must not have kids, or if you do, they are brats.

All kids occasionally need to be ignored when they exibit undesirable
behavior, and rewarded for correct behavior. That is MX. He never exibits
desireable behavior, when the big picture has been taken into account. What
he has done is drive off posters by the droves.

I still do not understand how anyone with a brain can think that his
presence here is desireable, or why they would answer any post of his for
any reason.
--
Jim in NC