"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:11:20 +0100, "Philip Eden"
philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote:

I'll bite my tongue and not comment on the content. But, Julian,
what
do you make of the boundaries used between different colours?
These are, presumably, rounded figures which approximate to quint
boundaries ... is this cartographically acceptable these days, is
it a
whim of the compilers who perhaps don't give a damn what is and
is not normal practice, or is it, ahem, best described otherwise
in
private? Or am I plain out of date?

I'm not sure about the science of it but I much preferred the old
contoured mapped averages. It's very hard for me to see the boundaries
between similar colours on these new maps (shades or red or blue),
particularly where are several colour changes in a small area.

Also, the boundary values used on some of th maps are frankly weird
and make it hard or impossible to discern the differences in climate
in, say, lowland Southern England. This was easy to see with contoured
maps.

Never mind lowland Southern England. What about the whole of Scotland.
Look at the Annual Mean Maximum Temperature map;
http://www.metoffice.com/climate/uk/...00/tmax/17.gif
and nearly all of Scotland is coloured blue which the key says is 2.4C!

No wonder visiting Sasenachs arriving in May expect to find the Pentland
Hills covered in snow!

Cheers, Alastair.