Spirit of 1740
-
Posts
29 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Spirit of 1740
-
-
The question as to whether this recorded temp of 30.3ºC at an official meto observation site (as described on thier website) will be official in that it will show up in the records could be solved in two ways:
1. Has LWC's stats ever been used to show something official in years' past - i.e. is there a temp, a rainfall stat or a sunshine stat in previous years that uses LWC's readings and is there in the public record?
2. If not, then at the end of the year, or indeed at the end of this month in the monthly meto summaries, we will have to wait and see if this is referred to by the meto. That will answer all the questions
The answers to those two questions are no, though as far as I know there is no public record, and yes, they may well report in their monthly review. The answer to the second question one doesn't affect the first one though.
-
ROFL.
It seems that some people are going to argue until they're blue in the face that the reading on Sunday was somehow valid for statistical and historical reasons. Well, to that I say this. You can believe what you like, but the fact will be that only the standard readings will be used for statistical and historical purposes. Unless 30c is hit at another station, it will become conventional wisdom over time that it wasn't reached this year. If you want to hold a different view on that, that is your own problem.
-
The fact is, it probably reached 30C somewhere in 1993, but no official site reported 30C or above. For historical purposes, we need to compare like with like
Indeed. I was trying to make exactly this point yesterday.
It's OK for people to report their own obervations and reports from non-standard sites, but they must realise what will go into the history books and what won't. -
Ok fair enough, I agree statistically that summer 2007 will not be heading for a 30C. Although to put my point in a better way, some lucky person somewhere could have been lucky enough to walk out into 30C unofficially (which will never be proved by official statistics which I very much accept, but cant be disproved on a none official, dynamic scale)
I have no problem in agreeing with that.
-
Stephen,
Sincerely, I am not trying to wind you up.
I am merely pointing out that when all is said and done, only official statistics count for historical comparisons because other sites and personal records are not subject to proper and consistent checking and standardisation. When placed in that proper context, 2007 is presently heading for the title of a year without 30c.
-
Thanks Optimus - great minds think alike.
Prove that it hasnt happened, because as far as concerned standard official sites cant prove it didnt happen anywhere either.LOL. Listen to yourself Stephen. You are asking me to prove that 30c wasn't reached. That's not how we record weather statistics - by saying that we can't prove that they weren't reached. We record them only by proving that they were reached.
-
I fully understand that, official temperatures re the ones that count for statistical historical records, and I do accept that accepting none standard is meandering away from absolute accuracy. However not all none-standard sites are innaccurate and therefore this means on that day regardless of official measurements, it was odds on there was a 30.0C> recorded somewhere, accurately in England.
The problem with that argument is that it can apply all the time. In 2003, you could say it probably reached 40c somewhere on August 10. However, we don't put 40c down in the historical records. Nope, I'm afraid unless it was recorded at a standard site, it hasn't happened.
-
But I think to compare Personal Dundee and even Philip Eden with the Met Office/BBC is also not comparing like for like. The former are worthy, very worthy, sites but amateur ones nonetheless. The Met Office is official. The fact is that the 30.3C has been registered by both the Met Office and the BBC. There may be issues about urbanisation, which Stephen quite rightly raises, but in the review of that day's weather 30.3C has been recorded: http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweather/dai...007review.shtml
Yes, but the whole point is that the figure won't even count for the MET office because that site is only used for daily readings and not for statistical and historical purposes, as pointed out by Mr Data and PJB on UKWW.
-
No because London recorded 30C.
Don't shoot me - if you don't like it take it up with the Met Office and the BBC. You'll find the Met Office official site has recorded 30C this year ... at their site in London.
I think you will find that when the highest temperature for this year is entered into the records that count, for example here:
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~taharley/hottest_days.htm
or the monthly summaries by Philip Eden maintained by the Royal Meteorological Society and the Met Office, I think you will find that the reading is not the one that is recorded. That's all that counts from my point of view.
And when people come to look back on this year in 10, 20 or 30 years that's all that will count for them too.
I think people need to be careful when talking about officiality. Official temperatures do not represent a diverse, dynamic world, they only represent conditions that are recorded from very strictly measured locations, therefore locations that have been picked because they represent the best rural temperature. Unfortunately as we live in a world where it is urbanised we need to take that into account too, so I think London rooftop measurements are as valid as site ones.Yes, but official temps are the ones that one down in history and the ones that count for real comparative purposes of one year versus another.
As soon as you start accepting non-standard observations, you are not comparing like with like and you are also on the slippery slope to accepting anything at all. Why not take a temperature inside a greenhouse, that's as real world as anything else?
-
It does make sense in some ways.
Anyway, it means we have had a 30C - that's the main thing for those who want to tick the box.
Fact is though that the box cannot be ticked. 29.7c was also the highest temperature on the warmest day of 1993. I am sure there were a few unofficial 30c readings that day. But the only thing people now remember about that year was the 29.7c was the highest temperature of the year because that was the highest at a standard site.
If 30c is not hit somewhere else, exactly the same will be the case for this year and the box will be left unticked.
-
Having been away from the site for a few days (enjoying our 26C and more sun than cloud ha ha) do I take it that as the reported 30C was at nonstandard LWC, that we're still on for a) no official 30C this year and b.) the highest temp being OUTSIDE the south east of England (that latter hasn't happened for 10 years while before the early 90s it happened regularly)?
Nice to see the hottest weather went north of Watford too even if it didn't fancy going west as well- would have been a crying shame to see a May-05 or Aug-03 style "southeast v the rest" set up ruin the first serious chance we've had of either a) or b.) coming off.
Yes and Yes - so far.
-
The BBC wouldn't have comfirmed it if it was a non-standard site. 30C has been reached- as much as a lot of you didn't want it to happen I'm afraid it's there in black and white.
LOL. Actually, the reverse. As much as you were obviously desperate for 30c, it hasn't been reached. Previous readings from LWC have not counted. I'm sure it was probably reached at a non-standard site in 1993, but for statistical purposes it wasn't achieved at a standard site. All seasoned observers across the weather forums agree on this point. You'll just have to accept that your wait for 30c goes on.
-
Met Office confirm LWC as highest reading of the day at 30.3C
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/uk_...st_weather.html
I guess this means it is official. Sigh. I don't think we'll have a shot at a year without 30C for many years to come, this was probably the best chance. One consolation is that that could very well be the highest reading of the year, and is still quite low, even in comparison with the period 1900-1970.
Still won't count. Back on 11th June, they listed Newry as having reached 28.6c, but that was discounted. Basic fact is we know the site is non-standard by their own rules and therefore it just can't count.
-
LWC is not an officuial station (non-standard) and will not count as an official 30c this year. It will have had to hit it somewhere else.
-
Though even the very cool summer of 1922 exceeded 90F (yes, in May, but we are not being picky). So it's really a bit of a lottery when it comes to yearly maxima and not something to beat yourself up about.
-
Bah, humbug
It's not going to make any difference to me, it's not going to get anywhere near that in Ayr or anywhere in Scotland for the rest of the year. I wanted a year without 30C in the British Isles - we haven't had one since 1993 and it would be a nice statistical quirk for the hottest (second hottest?) year on record not to achieve the temperature. Now it looks as if this weekend might just nose past it again!
Yes.
However, at least next week is look cool in compensation. -
The mystery deepens. According to Philip Eden:
... and it was the coolest July over the country as a whole since 1993.http://www.climate-uk.com/monthly/0707.htm
-
LOL! It was a well below average month (in the CET zone) whatever spin the Met Office try and put on it. So rejoice (if you like cool/cold) and be happy. They don't come along very often these days.
Early sign of TomP's 2012?
-
They always confuse the hell out with me, the way they work the CET out in the review. I don't take much notice of it.
I remember when they called December 2001 'close to average' and yet it said it was 0.9c below normal....hardly close to average!
Also like the way they mention 24c during the last few days of the month, yet only say a few chilly nights! I would had thought they would have put the single figure minima down, some places below 5c!
But hey, with the global warming spin in existance it might look bad
Yes, as you say, it could well be a conspiracy by METO to inflate the numbers to convince people of AGW.
-
Hi Kold.
I am one of those philistines still using the 1961-90 averages as I believe that they represent a good benchmark for the pre-recent warming climate, whereas I think the 1971-2000 are a bit of a half-way house between the last 10 years' climate and that before the warming set-in. Anyway, that debate can run and run. :lol:
Therefore, by the 61-90 averages, July 2007 was colder than March 2006. However, I accept your point on December 2001, so just 3rd coldest since Jan 97 then. The one thing on that, though, is that the cold of that month was focussed on the CET area (the METO areal series were not as cold) whereas with this month I expect the CET value to be fully reflected in the more extensive series.
Well in fact, I was utterly wrong:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2007/july.html
The UK anomaly was a mere -0.2c and the one for England -0.3c. I have to this strikes me as a little strange. Yes, I know there is no reason to expect the CET anomaly to the same as the Areal series, but look at the anomalies for earlier this year - they all match really well.
Then, just when you get a really good July CET, the relationship massively breaks down and the Areal series produce a paltry anomaly.
What are other people's thoughts? Was July really just 0.2-0.3c below 61-90 and more or less equal to 2004 or was it 0.8-0.9c below and close to 1993?
-
One more stat on the Hadley figure - 11th coolest of the last 85 years. Only 1940, 1954, 1960, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1978, 1980 and 1988 were colder. Half of those were only 0.1-0.2c cooler.
Were a January to replicate that ranking, the associated CET would be 1.7-2.2c.
-
Yeah but you forgot the decimal place.
1961-1990 average is;
June; 14.2c
July; 16.0c
Average; 15.1c
June came in at 15.1c
July; 15.2c
Average; 15.15c
Hi Optimus - the July average is 16.1c rather than 16.0c. You can check this using the data if you wish to do so. Therefore, the anomaly is 0.0c.
The July 2007 Hadley CET was actually 15.23*C, or 15.2 rounded down. July 1993 was exactly 15.20*C. So July 2007 is actually the coolest since 1993, not quite the joint coolest since 1988 with 1993.North-Easterly - Not sure you are right there actually. Do you have the source? The reason I say this is that it is ranked above 1993 in the METO 'cold' month rankings:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/mly_cet_mean_sort.txt
84th place 2007, 95th place 1993. A higher ranking denotes a colder month.
-
The combined June/July period is actually 0.05c above the 61-90 average
But 0.15c below the 71-000 average.
Not sure we are looking at the same data, but on Hadley the June figure is 15.1c, 0.9c above the 61-90 average of 14.2c whilst July was 15.2c, 0.9c below the 61-90 average of 16.1c.
-
Kold - I'd go along with you to the extent that I believe that June did the groundwork for July by hauling down the SSTs. Soil moisture may also have played a role too, I admit, though remember that wet soils hold up night time minima. :o
If SSTs were lower at the outset of a hypothetical future summer, then I believe it wouldn't require May and June to be so wet in order to deliver a similar or even cooler July.
Possible 30c
in Spring Weather Discussion
Posted
Indeed and, if true, I don't think anyone can then feasibly argue that 30c was reached in central London under standard conditions. You can hardly get any more central than St James' Park!