Retraction In comments to ESA(20050828.1), Mr. Thompson
quoted perhaps one of the most direly worded and most accurate forecast products in the history of the government weather services of the United States. [Note: This is not the originally issued product, which likely was issued Sunday morning.] Based on my limited experience with NWS forecast products and familiarity with the operations of the NWS, this product appeared to me to be a hoax. All sources I found it in originally did not link to an official NWS site. Nor could I find it in the likely places in the NWS's huge web network. (For what reason, I don't know. Looking back, it should have been easy to find, but it wasn't where I thought.) However, I decided today to use other methods, namely yahoo! searches of weather.noaa.gov to track it down.
Here's what I know about this product:
(a) To the best of my knowledge, it originated in NWSFO, New Orleans. The earliest issue time I can find for it, thanks to wikisource is 10:11 AM CDT.
(b) Oddly enough, it is unsigned. My best guess on authorship (and it is mere speculation) is that it was authored by the same forecaster who did the afternoon forecast discussion that day based on the mention of urgency being stressed in all products. But wait, my guess was right. Strangely enough, I just found the original full product and signed, too, by the same forecaster who signed the discussion, the mysterious "24." [There's some new business of numbers being assigned to forecasters for statistical and quality control purposes. Some forecasters sign with last names, others with initials, which can be confusing for such purposes.]
Here's a more permanent link. (c) Who's "24"? I have no idea. In the last few days, NWSFO New Orleans forecasters have been signing last names and numbers. 24, provided he or she is OK, should be working during the next few days. But considering all the play his or her forecast has had in the blogosphere, he or she has the dubious distinction of writing one of the most read weather forecasts in history. Sadly. it was all too accurate.
ESA(20050903.1)