"Alan White" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 11:08:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

Mean or gust?

Personally I feel that the quoting of gust speeds is rather meaningless
and rather tabloid mejia like. An accompanying mean would mitigate that
somewhat. Case in point the lone 57mph gust here at 0259, was that real
or a instrumentation glitch? Other gusts at that time where the low 50's
mph.

I tend to agree.

Lone gusts are exciting to quote but don't really give a true picture
which is better represented by, say, a fifteen minute mean.

In my [WR]s I quote a previous hourly mean based on fifteen minute
means, a previous hourly mean gust based on fifteen minute maximum gusts
and maximum gust for the period since 00:00z. This, I think, gives a
better subjective appreciation of what is actually happening.


Alan, yes the fuller the picture the better. At what height are your wind speeds
recorded? I am going to make sure it is very clear on my own web site, for
example, that they are measured at 3m agl as it is clear from all the reports
today that anemometers are at varying heights making comparison difficult unless
thay are corrected to 10m (which requires expertise).

Will.
--