In article ,
Christopher Norton writes:
|
| My view for what it`s worth is that considering the MANY amendments we
| have had for structural design over the past 5 years let alone the last
| 30 this code of practice should have been revised a long time ago.
|
| Why? There is no evidence that the weather has changed significantly
| in that respect (despite what the murdochs put in their headlines),
| so it will remain good until that does happen. My guess is that
| modern data would change it by only a few percent, which is irrelevant
| in this context.
|
| Wind speeds here in Lincs have increased as my fathers friend is one of
| these amateur weathermen and he has records going back nearly 50 years.
| It`s also drier in summer but wetter in winter (for what it`s worth)

Enough to be a statistically significant indicator that the change is
likely to continue? If so, it would be close to the first data that
demonstrates such a change that I have heard of - though I am not a
meteorologist, and there might now be some. There certainly wasn't
until very recently and still may not be any that is generally
accepted.

| However, I do think the code should be revised to bring it "up to date"
| in format as well as the hard data. Just my opinion of course.

Without seeing it, let alone using it, I can't comment. If it is
getting hard to use because of changes in notation, you have a good
point.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.