> Ok, they are't entirely independent, but still. So, if June isn't a
> record, well, let's see whether June + May are, or at least are for
> England and Wales, or for Scotland, and if that still doesn't yield a
> record, let's add April or the first half of July.
I would say that *generally* they will be quite closely linked. If
June isn't a record, but you get one by adding May, either May is
likely a record in its own right, or June is also very high, if not a
record. You won't get a record two month period without two high
months. Now, add in the fact that the values are calculated from spot
measurements, and the second highest may well have been the highest in
reality. Thus rather than just talking about record months, it is
often advisable to see the differences and rainfall pattern as well.
Also, the whole thing is complicated by the fact that there are two
types of rainfall (convective and dynamic), and spot values are
affected by speed of movement of the system (as the S Yorks floods
were).
IMHO it partly (as well as variations from the average over time)
comes down to if we continue to get 50, 100, 200 etc. year events, in
the same spots, within the short spans of time (currently within the
same decade). I might start to ponder the reasons. ;)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
