Philip Eden wrote:
"Jonathan Stott" wrote in message
Graham Jones wrote:
Jonathan Stott wrote:
Graham Jones wrote:

I didn't realise how little rain the SE had recieved until I saw this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4744862.stm
Showing a graph of the England and Wales rainfall is pointless if you
are trying to illustrate the lack of rainfall in the south east!
I was refering more to the map showing reservoir levels.
Fair enough. My point still stands!

Not only that Jonathan, but (without gainsaying the seriousness
of the situation) it is just a tiny bit suspicious that the Environment
Agency and the Met Office are co-ordinating their press releases
four days *before* the end of a month during which, for the
southeastern corner at least, rainfall has been *above* average.

Habitually, over the last year or so, the cherry-picked statistics
have been issued during the first week of a new month ... that
is, when the data for another *dry* month have been collated.

When the February figures are added, neither the rainfall
statistics nor the reservoir levels will look quite as serious.
East Sussex, for instance, is approaching 160% of normal
rainfall this month.

Moreover, the MO continue to exclude October 2004 from
their analysis ... reasonable enough if you are looking at a
climatological event, but unacceptable if you are discussing
a hydrological one. (October is the first month of the
hydrological year).

Philip
(PS: And the colours are still wrong)



Thanks for putting some sense to it all Philip.

--
Keith (Southend)
http://www.southendweather.net