Stefan wrote:
Part of my (VFR) weather briefing is to collect the MEATRs of the
airports which lie in the vicinity of the route I will fly. In
abreviated form I can oversee those METARs, i.e. the weather enroute
with a glance, like in a table. If nothing unusual jumps to my eyes, I
often don't even really read them, it's more a pattern recognition.
Maybe it's just the first sign of a pre-alzheimer, but if I had to
wade through all that verbose jabber of ten "cler text METARs", I
probably would have forgotten the first when I arrive at the third.

How long did it take you to learn to use METARs this way? And are you
saying this is why METAR coding was designed the way it was?

Isn't it odd that in 2008 we still have to remember all those cryptic
mathematical signs like 1+1=2 when we could simply write "If you take
one unit of something and then add another unit of that same
something, then as a result of such behaviour you will have two units
of that something"?

First, the english language translation of 1+1=2 is "One plus one equal
two" - not what your wrote, which was your own semantic version.

Second, METAR code isn't taught in elementary school but math notation is.

The translation of METAR code to english is accomplished roughly one-for-
one similar to the mechanism I used than the odd translation you used.

Lastly, other than inertia, there doesn't seem to be any valid reason to
continue to use METAR code. What problem does it solve that use of english
cannot solve?