Metomania

I agree completely. Apologies for repeating Philip's original as well, but it bears repeating. Using the latest 30 year rolling + showing a comparison to the last 100 years seems an excellent way of doing it without causing confusion. For that reason alone it is probably high time the 1961-1990 figure was put to bed.

Just to pick up on the November-March point, here are the figures against the 3 different means, assuming that February will be 3.8C and March 5C: neither published yet by the Met Office): November 2005: 6.2C which is 0.3C below the 1961-1990 average; 0.7C below the 1971-200 average; 0.3C below the 100yr rolling December 2005: 4.4C which is 0.2C below the 1961-1990; 0.8C below 1971-2000; 0.3C below 1906-2005 January 2006: 4.3C which is 0.5C above the 1961-1990; 0.1C above the 1971-2000; 0.4C above 1906-2005 February 2006 3.8C which is the same as the 1961-1990; 0.4C below the 1971-2000; 0.1C below the 1906-2005 March 2006: 5.0C which is 0.7C below the 1961-1990; 1.3C below the 1971-2000; 0.9C below the 1906-2005 Overall winter 2005/6: 12.5C which is: 0.3C above the 1961-1990 average (12.2C) 1C below the 1971-2000 average (13.5C) 0.2C below the 100 yr rolling 1906-2005 average (12.7C) November 2005-March 2006: 23.7C which is: 0.7C below the 1961-1990 average (24.4C) 3C below the 1971-2000 average (26.7C) 1.5C below the 100 yr rolling 1906-2005 average (25.2C) Since the run up to November 2005 had been a record-breaking sequence, to have 5 months below all 3 means is significant I think. The one that catches my eye is against the 100 yr rolling. It means that taking out any skewing either way, the past 5 months have been properly below average. The question that I ask myself now is this: is this a blip in the onward march to warming, or the start of a cyclical correction?

I may have been slightly over the top about the 100 year average being closer to 1971-2000 than 1961-1990. Here are the figures: The 3 figures are, in turn, 1961-1990 then 1971-2000 and finally the 100 year rolling 1906-2005 average January 3.8 4.2 3.9 February 3.8 4.2 4.1 March 5.7 6.3 5.9 April 7.9 8.1 8.1 May 11.2 11.3 11.4 June 14.1 14.1 14.2 July 16.1 16.5 16.1 August 15.8 16.2 15.9 Sept 13.6 13.7 13.6 Oct 10.6 10.4 10.2 Nov 6.5 6.9 6.6 Dec 4.6 5.1 4.7 The annual CET from the 3 means is as follows: 1961-1990: 9.5 1971-2000: 9.75 1906-2005: 9.6 I cannot really see much justification for now using the 1961-1990 figures. Someone has had a familiar nip at the Met Office (!) but in fact they are moving to the more recent 30 year average. It may be true that some of those who use the 1961-1990 average do so to impress the global warming argument. On the other hand, the same might be true the other way of those using the 1971-2000 figure? I do think the 100 year rolling average lessens complaints from all quarters. It sits between the two 30 year means and that is probably a fair indication that the 1961-1990 figure is skewed to cold, and the 1971-2000 is skewed to warm. I'll start a campaign for the 100 year rollking average! Great to see John's comments, and look forward to Philip's in due course ... and others of course.

I don't think it is a good point. These things iron themselves out over time. The CET is a long, very long, established record dating back to 1659 based on calendar months. Picking and choosing abitrary cold or warm spells is interesting in itself, but they cannot be set against the CET for comparison.

I think we had better agree to disagree :lol: I notice looking back some arguments over which mean benchmark the current CET should be set against. Contrary to the odd opinion on here, the 1961-1990 is undoubtedly skewed towards cold. The 1960's and 1980's saw anomalously cold months and years, and this 30 year average is not in my opinion fair against the longer term CET figures. By the same token, the 1971-2000 figure is slightly above the average, skewed as it is by the anomalously warm 1990's. However, the 1971-2000 average is much closer to the long term average than the 1961-1990 figure, so I am not against using it. However, to iron-out such arguments I do prefer a 100-year rolling average. I'd be interested in Philip's view on this, John Holmes too, as well as everyone else. It's easy to follow, and equally easy to compute. It brings the average right up to date, but avoids really anomalous cycles such as the aforementioned. The argument against is that it has never been done like that because 30-year means were considered sufficient. The counter-argument is that we are seeing some temperature extremes the like of which the planet has not experienced since records began and that this means a longer-term 100 year rolling average is appropriate. For those who are interested it usually comes in slightly below the 1971-2000 mean, but well above the 1961-1990 mean.

Does your last sentence really make total sense Nick? One of the reasons I do like the CET is that when tested against a long mean it is possible to discern patterns. The problems only emerge when people read into the statistics 'meaning' based on a week, a fortnight or even an isolated month's data. So I would say the March 2006 CET is a very fair reflection of, well, March 2006. The really interesting aspect is that March 2006 continues a trend begun last November. We have had 5 months of average to below-average months and that begins to look like a pattern.

Here are the mean benchmarks for testing this month. Will it continue the new sequence of average to below average months, or will the normal service of recent years be resumed? 1971-2000 mean: 8.1C 1961-1990 mean: 7.9C 1906-2005 (100 year rolling average): 8.1C

I thought some of you might be interested in the following: March 2006: 5.0C 1971-2000 mean: 6.3C Anomaly -1.3C 1961-1990 mean: 5.7C Anomaly -0.7C 1906-2005 mean (100 year rolling average): 5.9C Anomaly -0.9C I keep a rolling 100 year average because it can sometimes iron out the arguments over which benchmark to use. The 100 year average up to 2005 is a good test, and against it March 2006 was 0.9C below average. In anyone's analysis of that raw statistic it must be considered a cold month. (I will post the 100 year rolling average for April in that thread.)

NW tracker 5.02 but may nudge another 0.01 before close of play. One interesting feature of this is how close Manley-Hadley-NW are to one another. The first two is not so surprising, but well done to this site. I cannot say that all weather fora manage quite so well ... cough cough. So 5C it looks like being for Hadley (rounded up) and 5C with Philip's Manley. Although this will disappoint some of the diehard cold lovers, it is still a well below average month against the 1971-2000 mean. It is variously the coldest since March 1996 or March 2001. In terms of 'meaning' it continues the sequence of average-ish/below average months since November which saw the end of the long above average run.

I feel the same as you actually. The mean was pegged back I think in the main by some persistently low night-time minima. It was the persistence of the low temps, rather than the extremity of them, which produced such a low CET for 3/4 of the month. I fyou look at the temperature chart on Philip's site this is borne out: http://www.climate-uk.com/graphs/0603.htm Even so, I think I will remember this March as one where for 3 weeks spring just never seemed to want to come. Day after day of ghastly horrible yukky stinking nasty cold weather. Yuk yuk yuk.

Excellent, thanks! In theory, by applying the same principle, anyone with access to a handful of stations should be able to produce a CET and over time get very close to knowing the Hadley figure. Which is what you do?! But for all my support of the Met Office there is a case to be made for yours being the 'official' CET anyway, although 'official CET' is arguably a tautology where Gordon Manley was concerned? Your domain, so I put that as a question! A pretty good bet I would think. There are 12's and 13's up the north-west coast, and Benson and Brize Norton were showing 14C and 15C an hour ago. A sudden leap of 0.02 on the NW tracker to 4.95C makes 5C a pretty firm bet now on that tracker index.

I think Everton is actually a very experienced and very accurate forecaster. His long-range forecasts are consistently more accurate than most, along with the rest of the Met Office after this winter's rather impressive performance.

I don't think 5.1C is likely. But I think, think, 5C will now be reached. It's just gone to 4.92. I laid out a chart of what the temp needs to be at different points today for it to make it to 5C, and so far it's about 40 minutes ahead of schedule! This is great fun and very silly! But yesterday you said it was impossible to get to 5C :huh: Seriously cannot see 5.1C very easily. It would take some soaring maxes this afternoon, which could happen. It should just about make 5C though.

You are so right. I just checked the data and 1986 was the coldest year in the last 40 years (CET 8.74C). In fact, only 1962 and 1963 were colder since 1922.

I seem to recall a very very warm Easter in the mid 1980s. I think it was 1984 with some stations breaking their all-time Easter maxima. But Easter was very late that year (22nd) so that raised the chance of it happening. I think March is the month of greatest potential extremes, but April is not far behind. It is another month which can yield everything from snow to sunbathing. As an example, two years later (1986) saw a bitterly cold easterly outbreak and the CET of 5.8C was the coldest April for 60 years. Does anyone remember it?

Philip - Are you able to tell us more about the "bias adjustment" they use, and why? NW tracker up to 4.87C now. 5C looking very likely by midnight.

: straight after the name? So, Metomania: 9.1C I'm being madly pedantic. However when we get to the bitterly cold 2006/7 winter that some of you want you will need a different symbol for those - ice months. Otherwise it will look like this: January CET Nick Sussex - - 3.2C Thank you for collating all the data so diligently. I have become quite addicted to this silly game over the past 2 weeks. It's cheaper than the lottery and I have a better chance of success.

Agreed! In fact both Philip and NW tracker are currently on 4.8C, so with 26.5 hours to go it is very likely that it will be in the 4.9's at least, and possibly 5C.

4.6C was yesterday evening. The NW tracker has risen nearly 0.2C today so I think Philip's figure will be either 4.9C or 5C depending which way it rounds. NW tracker will be in the 4.9's by the look of it by midnight tomorrow.

Philip, how do you estimate the Met Office Hadley if you are not using exactly the same station feeds? (I assume you are not!) The tracker on this site is now up to 4.78C. The symbolically significant 5C on this and possibly Philip's looking quite possible, but if Philip is right, Hadley will be below this. It really needs to be more than 0.2C below the 5.2C of 2001 for it to be fairly described as the coldest since 1996 because of statistical margins for error, so below 5C will have double importance for those who are key CET watchers!

I'll join in this game. It is only a game! It's hard enough trying to work out the synoptics 5 days from now, nevermind the whole month in terms of the final temperature. But it's fun! I think the April CET will be 9.1C (1.2C above the 1971-2000 average) SB - any possibility or removing the - in front of the figures? It makes it look like below zero. I know no-one thinks April will be an ice month but it leaves poor old me confused!

Hi - oh, I see! The final figure will be 4.91C I get it. Yes, that looks close doesn't it? Might be a shade higher. Interesting to see Philip's comment (thank you!) suggesting Hadley slightly below his figure. Good news for all you sub-5C fans!

February has not been officially released yet so no-one knows the Hadley figure, except people inside the relevant Met Office department

Rising very fast today. Maxes will be much higher than 14C in some places. 4.69C at the moment on NW, and that is a little below Philip Eden's reading as well.

4.6C up to yesterday evening. Where did you see the 4.91? It's still rising briskly so I think Philip will finish at 4.9C rounded up. Might be 4.8C. Hadley may be a shade higher. The official Met Office Hadley figure for February is not yet published.