Applying the indices used in the monthly analysis of flow
patterns over the British Isles on, for example,
http://www.climate-uk.com/indices/01.htm
these are overlapping 30-day means since November.
Figures are for the 30 days ending on the date given.

The mean westerly gradient for Dec21-Jan20 is
higher than for any calendar month of January, and
is close to the highest for any calendar month of
any name.

The updated period Dec 26-Jan 25 shows a
decline in westerliness and southerliness (as one
might have expected) and a jump in mean
pressure.

Period W-ly S-ly A/cyclonic
30 Nov 11.0 -1.3 18.4
05 Dec 12.3 -1.9 18.4
10 Dec 13.6 -0.3 18.2
15 Dec 12.9 1.6 19.0
20 Dec 13.7 2.7 14.4
25 Dec 16.2 1.5 11.7
30 Dec 18.2 1.1 10.8
05 Jan 21.1 1.5 10.4
10 Jan 23.9 1.2 07.6
15 Jan 24.8 1.7 06.6
20 Jan 27.0 1.5 06.1
25 Jan 23.2 0.7 10.1

Philip Eden

PS I would normally just have added this to the earlier
thread, but I get the impression that many people simply
don't see things which are posted to threads more than
48 hours old (not that I'm implying that this is "mustn't
miss" material) ... is this a fair assumption?

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
...

I would normally just have added this to the earlier
thread, but I get the impression that many people simply
don't see things which are posted to threads more than
48 hours old (not that I'm implying that this is "mustn't
miss" material) ... is this a fair assumption?



Yes, I think it is.

Graham
Penzance Weather www.easterling.freeserve.co.uk/weather.html

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:37:47 -0000, "Graham Easterling"
wrote:


"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
.. .

I would normally just have added this to the earlier
thread, but I get the impression that many people simply
don't see things which are posted to threads more than
48 hours old (not that I'm implying that this is "mustn't
miss" material) ... is this a fair assumption?


Yes, I think it is.

I agree. I fell into the trap of posting something a couple of days
ago that would normally be commented on - but it was tacked onto an
"old" thread - and it wasn't. Silly me!

--
Dave

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:36:20 -0000, "Philip Eden"
philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote:

PS I would normally just have added this to the earlier
thread, but I get the impression that many people simply
don't see things which are posted to threads more than
48 hours old (not that I'm implying that this is "mustn't
miss" material) ... is this a fair assumption?

Probably true. The sheer weight of postings means that I,for one, just
do not have time to read through the many that are interesting. And
after 2-3 days I just have to delete whole blocks, just keeping ones
that I might just be able to read.
Regards
Robin

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:36:20 -0000, Philip Eden wrote:

PS I would normally just have added this to the earlier thread, but
I get the impression that many people simply don't see things which
are posted to threads more than 48 hours old (not that I'm implying
that this is "mustn't miss" material) ... is this a fair assumption?

It shouldn't be, I see new postings to threads were the previous
posting was weeks ago. But there is no accounting for broken
newsreaders or servers...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail