Steve Loft wrote:

John Mackenzie wrote:

Average Outside Humidity 80.42 % ( 99.3% )

John, could you clarify this one too? Does this mean that the 80.42%
is 99.3% of the LTA? So the LTA is 80.99%? Is this the usual way of
representing RH anomalies? I find it confusing, and (-0.57) would
make more sense to me. But maybe that's just me. -- Steve Loft,
Wanlockhead, Dumfriesshire. 1417ft ASL
http://www.wanlockhead.org.uk/weather/ Free weather softwa
http://cumulus.nybbles.co.uk/ Experimental webcam:
http://www.wanlockhead.org.uk/webcam.php

Hello Steve. Yes - the historic mean relative humidity figure I am
working from is 81%. I recorded a monthly mean for January of 80.42%.
The relevant summary page on my website does indeed show this as an
anomoly of -0.58 as well as 99.3% (of the LTA). I suppose what you're
saying is that having 2 % figures side by side representing different
things is confusing - and I can see what you mean. I 'll check into
what conventions there are in this area. A quick Google search throws
up an Australian government envoronmental website where anomolies are
represented as % differences from the historic figure, i.e my -0.58
would be represented as -0.72% (from the LTA). I suppose that approach
is less confusing as anomoly % expressed in that way would always be
much lower than relative humidity % figures.

Sorry for the confusion and as a newcomer to these matters happy to
consider any advice. I'll think through the presentation again before
next month!

Regards, John

--
....Cruden Bay, Aberdeenshire
http://www.crudenbayweather.org.uk