"This month has been the wettest May since 1983 but it is unlikely to have any impact
on the drought in the South East of England, say forecasters."

More at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5021032.stm
--
Nick in Northallerton
Also @ www.whelan.me.uk
And nickw7coc on
Yahoo & MSN
but I use http://www.trillian.cc as I like it better
also on Skype and Google talk

Wettest here in Farsley near Leeds since 1983 when 119mm fell,. We have had
116mm to date - I.m hoping to break this record and it will be the wettest
May since 1967 when 123mm fell. Who knows we may break this too!

Rob in thoroughly soaking Farsley
"Nick" wrote in message
...
"This month has been the wettest May since 1983 but it is unlikely to have
any impact
on the drought in the South East of England, say forecasters."

More at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5021032.stm
--
Nick in Northallerton
Also @ www.whelan.me.uk
And nickw7coc on
Yahoo & MSN
but I use http://www.trillian.cc as I like it better
also on Skype and Google talk

There doesn't appear to have been much evaporation here (East of
Peterborough), the very surface of the soil itself has remained wet for
several weeks, it hasnt been warm or sunny enough for it to evaporate.

Nick wrote:
"This month has been the wettest May since 1983 but it is unlikely to have any impact
on the drought in the South East of England, say forecasters."

More at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5021032.stm

According to a statement by 'the water companies' on the radio last evening
"although it is the wettest May for 23 years, it still is not as wet as north
Africa".

There, that explains the alleged shortage in south-east England.

--
Gianna

"Nick" wrote in message
...
"This month has been the wettest May since 1983 but it is unlikely to have
any impact
on the drought in the South East of England, say forecasters."

This, of course, is not true. It won't alleviate the water shortage much,
but
it will have an impact:
(a) the rainfall of the last fortnight substantially exceeds
evapotranspiration
for the same period, so some water (though probably not much)
will get through to groundwater, and a good deal is contributing to
runoff (the main source for reservoirs
(b) as long as the weather remains like this, consumption by domestic
and municipal customers remains below average.

What we have here is civil servants mouthing the party line and not
thinking for themselves.

Philip Eden

"Philip Eden" philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
...
"This month has been the wettest May since 1983 but it is unlikely to
have any impact
on the drought in the South East of England, say forecasters."

This, of course, is not true. It won't alleviate the water shortage much,
but
it will have an impact:
(a) the rainfall of the last fortnight substantially exceeds
evapotranspiration
for the same period, so some water (though probably not much)
will get through to groundwater, and a good deal is contributing to
runoff (the main source for reservoirs
(b) as long as the weather remains like this, consumption by domestic
and municipal customers remains below average.

What we have here is civil servants mouthing the party line and not
thinking for themselves.

Philip Eden



Phil I love you. Now that is the kiss of death.

"Nick" wrote in message
...
"This month has been the wettest May since 1983 but it is unlikely to have
any impact
on the drought in the South East of England, say forecasters."

More at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5021032.stm
--
Nick in Northallerton
Also @ www.whelan.me.uk
And nickw7coc on
Yahoo & MSN
but I use http://www.trillian.cc as I like it better
also on Skype and Google talk

"But on that occasion, below-average rainfall persisted from March 1995 to
October 1997 inclusive - a period of 32 months, so we've got a long way to
go to emulate that."

Seems to be in contradiction to this site:

http://www.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk/ih...w_rainfall.htm

"A repeat of the rainfall experienced during the summers of 1989, 1990 or
1995 would have created severe hydrological stress and local water supply
difficulties in 1997. In the event, May was very unsettled and rain-bearing
low pressure systems continued to cross the British Isles at regular
intervals through the summer; the frontal rainfall was augmented by
significant convectional rainfall, in July and August especially. The June
rainfall total was exceptional, exceeding twice the average in most of
eastern Britain; for England and Wales, it was the second wettest June since
1879. On the 26th, a number of raingauges in the South-West recorded
rain-day totals in excess of 100 mm (see Table 2) and rainfall accumulations
over 7-28 days were particularly outstanding in the Yorkshire Wolds; at Wold
Newton 171 mm fell in the 14 days to the 1st July - the associated return
period exceeds 100 years. Despite high average temperatures and sunshine
hours, August was also notably wet in southern Britain. Thunderstorms were
common and associated with a cluster of intense rainfall events - in
Yorkshire especially: at Sandall (north of Doncaster) 22.8 mm fell in 15
minutes (return period 100 years) and 34.8 mm in an hour on the 17th. On
the last day of the month, at Bramham (north-east of Leeds) 45 mm (+/- 5 mm)
was estimated to have fallen in only 30 minutes - a remarkable downpour with
a return period assessed at around 1000 years."

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
...
"This month has been the wettest May since 1983 but it is unlikely to
have any impact
on the drought in the South East of England, say forecasters."

"But on that occasion, below-average rainfall persisted from March 1995 to
October 1997 inclusive - a period of 32 months, so we've got a long way to
go to emulate that."

I recognise this as a quote of something I wrote elsewhere (although
I trust I wasn't responsible for the dreadful punctuation) but you
don't seem inclined to source it. Bear in mind that that quotation
in its original context refers only to a shortage of rainfall, not to water
resources.

Seems to be in contradiction to this site:

http://www.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk/ih...w_rainfall.htm

"A repeat of the rainfall experienced during the summers of 1989, 1990 or
1995 would have created severe hydrological stress and local water supply
difficulties in 1997. In the event, May was very unsettled and
rain-bearing low pressure systems continued to cross the British Isles at
regular intervals through the summer; the frontal rainfall was augmented
by significant convectional rainfall, in July and August especially.
snip

Summer 1997 was indeed wetter than its two predecessors, and June
was particularly wet, but there were shortfalls in July, September and
October. And, remember, the water industry keep telling us that
summer rainfall doesn't count.

It might have been more accurate to say that, in 1995-97 the
cumulative deficit continued to grow for 26 months (to April 1997)
and it did not begin to fall significantly for a further 10 months
(until March 1998).

The following comparison, using published E&W rainfall data and
means for 1971-2000 might be illuminating:

1995-98 2004-06
Mnth Rain- Cumulative Mnth Rain- Cumul.
fall Deficit fall Deficit
M 66.9 6.1 N 52.8 47.4
A 29.7 38.7 D 63.8 84.6
M 46.7 53.3 J 54.2 124.0
J 25.3 96.1 F 46.2 144.3
J 38.7 114.7 M 55.9 161.4
A 12.6 174.4 A 77.7 146.0
S 131.5 125.6 M 45.1 162.2
O 49.1 171.4 J 55.4 174.9
N 86.5 185.1 J 76.7 155.5
D 104.1 182.0 A 63.2 164.6
J 63.8 211.8 S 68.9 178.4
F 82.0 196.3 O 126.0 147.3
M 44.2 225.1 N 87.9 159.6
A 48.6 239.8 D 71.5 189.1
M 56.4 244.7 J 32.9 249.8
J 29.8 283.0 F 57.8 258.5
J 42.3 298.0 M 90.6 239.9
A 81.8 288.5 A 45.1 257.1
S 33.2 338.0 M 120.0 198.4 (estimated)
O 81.8 351.1
N 132.4 318.9
D 57.6 362.3
J 16.1 439.8
F 97.9 408.4
M 27.9 453.5
A 24.7 491.1
M 70.3 482.1
J 131.1 419.1
J 53.6 422.8
A 101.1 394.0
S 29.9 446.8
O 74.7 467.0
N 123.6 443.6
D 106.8 437.8
J 121.2 410.2
F 20.1 456.6
M 88.0 441.6
A 132.6 371.3
M 35.4 397.2
J 119.8 345.5
J 56.5 346.3
A 47.2 371.4
S 102.1 352.0
O 154.7 292.2

FWIW, the deficit wasn't actually fully offset until Feb 2001 ...
towards the end of that floody winter.

Now move the goalposts.

Philip

Philip Eden wrote:Philip Eden wrote:
The following comparison, using published E&W rainfall data and
means for 1971-2000 might be illuminating:

1995-98 2004-06

FWIW, the deficit wasn't actually fully offset until Feb 2001 ...
towards the end of that floody winter.

Now move the goalposts.

You mean they had three more resevoirs for the first dates and some of
the last. But not for any future? And no doubt less trees and hedges
than ever to minimise water restoration into the soil and more land
drains to accelerate its disposal?

And even more tree damage due to the stress they are under in certain
parts.

And that's not counting an as yet unknown effect on the fungii that the
green revolution started to kill from the 1960's.

(An effect brought to light with the study of rain forest farming
methods in more civilised cultures: "So one of the hypothesis is that
the Amerindian populations actually used some sort of slash and char
technique as a soil fertility enhancer."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...adotrans.shtml)