As a meteorologist that's used to dealing with questions from the public, I actually had one that stumped me a bit. This was kind of a long discussion with a guy that was not a meteorologist, but seemed to have an above-average knowledge of physics and common sense. He asked me why we take official wind measurements at 10 meters and not the same 2 meter (near average human height) that we do temperature.
At first, I explained the obvious reasonings of ground friction slowing winds, trees/buildings/other structures slowing/blocking/altering winds and the need to have uninterrupted low level flow information to track temp/moisture advection.
His response: That makes sense and I can see why a forecaster would want to know 10m wind as well as winds at all levels of the atmosphere, but a 2m wind would be more important to your average Joe because that's the wind he actually feels blowing on his face. Even if it's a slower speed due to friction, that's just part of natural physics and it's what he's actually feeling. Plus, you use this to calculate wind chill. Well, unless he's sitting on the top of a 30 foot tree, that can't be what the temperature feels like on his skin because he's not experiencing the full amount of that wind speed at ground level. Shouldn't we also have wind gauges reporting from 2m to give a better idea of the human experience?
I was a bit stumped and didn't know what to say. Because the more I thought about it, he actually kind of had a valid point. Especially with wind chill. How can we honestly say "this is what the temp feels like to the human skin" when the human skin is only experiencing a fraction of the wind speed we're using the calculate with? I got to thinking that maybe there would be some value if stations in unsheltered spots had 2 anemometers reporting both 2m and 10m winds? I realize, it's impossible to replicate all the possibilities of blocking from trees/building, but a 2m in open field measurement would at least incorporate the frictional drag and give a closer estimate of "max possible" winds that human would experience.
Curious as to what others in the weather industry think. Could 2m wind have some "personal" value even if it's of little scientific value? Is this another chapter of "Serving science over the people" (ie. the whole "Superstorm Sandy" debacle of changing the status from tropical to extratropical before landfall for scientific reasons without thought of how it could impact the public. Many mistakenly thought the storm had somehow weakened rather than simply a change in temperature structure within the storm.) Maybe we are concentrating on 10m winds for our own scientific reasons and underestimating the value that a true surface wind could have for the general public?
Would love to hear your thoughts!
