On 5 Sep, 18:47, "Will Hand" wrote:


I have to agree with you to some extent. I have used British Rainfall and Met
mag. a lot in my researches over the years and the detail and dedication is
astonishing. It is a great pity that BR ceased publication in its old form in
1960 IMO. However, I don't think The MetO assume they are valueless just not in
a readily accessible computer format ... snip

A complete and Very Red Herring Will, as well you know. It does you
credit to try to defend your employers, but on this occasions the
actions taken are indefensible. Of course the CET and England and
Wales temperature and rainfall series are available in computer format
- they're on the Hadley Centre website amongst many others - and
there's absolutely no reason why with a little work on homogenisation
of the component records both series could not be amalgamated into a
reasonably homogenous run extending back much further than the 93
years of the Met O areal series.

Problem is, of course, the other series were not originated by the
MetO. Not Invented Here strikes again, methinks. So much for the noble
integrity of scientific research which is supposed to benefit from
previous research in the field, not to ignore it completely. But other
than making a better headline (as Philip has pointed out), I just
don't see any merit at all in making this utterly ridiculous change,
the explanation of which is patronising in the extreme.


Stephen Burt
Stratfield Mortimer, Berkshire