A rant specific to meteorology....

Classical frontal analysis appears to have become passe in the National Weather Service. For the past several weeks I have read countless meteorological discussions from people whom are otherwise good meteorologists. A constant theme in them has been the identification of a Pacific origin polar frontal system as a "dry-line"... whatever that is.

I used to think I knew what a dry line was - a feature produced when dry, downslope flow into the plains from the mountains "mixes out" water vapor in the air, thereby forming an gradient of moisture which slopes eastward from the surface as one goes aloft. Furthermore, it shows a distinct diurnal cycle in its movement, mixing back to the west at night. But, from the preponderance of discourse I read and hear from modern meteorologists, I'm beginning to wonder if my understanding of the processes which form a dry-line (and its physical characteristics) is not somehow very lacking.

Frontal systems moving eastward out of the Rockies and into the plains naturally undergo some structural changes due to orographic concerns . The effects upon temperature and moisture with an airmass undergoing downslope transport of from the mountains to the plains is demonstrably (through adiabatic decent considerations) an order of magnitude or more greater than the effects of simple synoptic scale advection of the airmass. As a result, *ANY* airmass moving out of the mountains and into the plains will become much drier and much warmer than if it were moving over non-sloping terrain. If one, therefore, ignores the vertical structure of a front moving out of the mountains and into the plains, looking only at surface observations, one is going to see dry, warm air invading the plains in the wake of a surface wind shift. This may, or may not be a dry-line, however! If the structure aloft shows this to be consistent with a synoptic scale front, especially if it continues to move eastward at night, then it is most certainly a front even if it has some surface characteristics of a dry-line. As mentioned above, true dry-lines slope eastward with height whereas fronts slope at least slightly westward (baring the rather nebulous vertical characteristics of occluded fronts exiting higher terrain) toward the upper jet streak and the colder air aloft.

Vertical cross-sectional analyses of relative humidity, wind speed, and potential temperature usually are sufficient to identify the nature of a feature moving into the plains from the mountains. They are not used nearly enough in my opinion, thus the most outrageous terminology being bandied about concerning "boundaries" in meteorological discussions. It is not sufficient to look at a surface chart with plotted data on the mesoscale when one wishes to diagnose the structure (and thus the identity) of some feature in the atmosphere. Failure to do such complete analysis, whether due to lack of time, knowledge, ability, or interest, is inexcusable in my eyes. To further perpetrate the lack of proper diagnosis by discussing a feature using terminology which cannot be backed up in fact (but is clever sounding "jargon") is not science at all, but simply B.S.'ing the uninitiated reader. I, for one, abhor it.

If a meteorologist doesn't do a complete 3 dimensional diagnosis to identify an atmospheric structure in relation to some accepted conceptual model (or develop an new conceptual model from the results of such diagnosis), then he/she should openly admit that they don't know for certain what the structure is. In no case, however, should meteorological "jargon" and "buzz words" be used to discuss the feature even with other meteorologists! To do so is extremely unscientific and unprofessional and lowers our science to the realm of voodoo, smoke and mirrors.

End of rant.....