June CET

[Methuselah]

not the case in meteorology, temperature is always rounded to the odd number, thus 12.5C=13C and 13.5C=13C

John

COR

I've just read the post fully, should have done first time and Mr Data is correct in the instance he quoted, to 2 decimal places.

Personally it is pretty silly in my view to give a CET to 2 decimal places. The original series were done with mercury and alcohol thermometers. There is absolutely no way that anyone can give a relaible figure to more than 1 decimal point. Its a mute point whether in the case of say 10.55C its rounded to 10.5C or 10.6C, I would think the 10.5C which then by the rules of rounding temps in meteorology becomes 11C. It all leads to confusion unless you are part of the WMO(World Met Organisation) when the 'odd' rule is universally accepted.

Nowadays, of course, we simply set our digital data to as many places as we want.

j

Wouldn't it be easier if the WMO were to adopt the same rounding-protocols as the rest of the scientific community??

[Dawlish]

Wouldn't it be easier if the WMO were to adopt the same rounding-protocols as the rest of the scientific community??

In this instance, I prefer the comfort of the wider community! Also, 2 decimal places and 16.2C sounds good to me!

Paul

Edited July 1, 2006 by Dawlish

[johnholmes]

re the two posts above

I suspect attempting to change the WMO stance would be like trying to make the tide turn back only 3 hours after it started to come in

John

[Methuselah]

re the two posts above

I suspect attempting to change the WMO stance would be like trying to make the tide turn back only 3 hours after it started to come in

John

As Fred used to say on How: "it's our old friend inertia"?

[Tim]

I can't believe this. This CET I have collected is higher than any summer month last year or 2004 but the CET for me this month is currently 21.1C! That is strange.

Does the fact I live directly under the southern flight path from Bristol International Airport have anything to do with the temperatures I record?

I noticed the other day you recorded 28 degrees C when in the center of Bristol it was 23. I goto Yatton a lot and it's not 5 degrees warmer than Bristol so I'd say you need to relocate your thermometer

[The PIT]

Finally totaled up our averages and it was our Hottest June for 30 years and the driest on record.

[Guest Mike W]

I can't believe this but accroding to the Hadley CET series June finished at 15.9, so it's wasn't the hottest June in 30 years then, not yet anyway. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle.../HadCET_act.txt

For the time being 2003 is the hottest June since 1976.

Edited July 3, 2006 by Mike W

[reef]

I can't believe this but accroding to the Hadley CET series June finished at 15.9, so it's wasn't the hottest June in 30 years then, not yet anyway. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle.../HadCET_act.txt

For the time being 2003 is the hottest June since 1976.

Lower than I thought, it looks like Gtuk and Anti-Mild were spot on then :lol:

As I mentioned earlier in the month, to sustain a CET of above 16°C in June is quite difficult. Although the last few days were above average, it seems they were sufficiently low enough to prevent the warmest June for 30 years.

[Guest Mike W]

Also if 15.9 stays it will mean a record for the number of June's with CET of 15, previously the most was 2 in a row on several occassions, it's 3 in a row for the time being.

Edited July 3, 2006 by Mike W

[Scorcher]

I can't believe this but accroding to the Hadley CET series June finished at 15.9, so it's wasn't the hottest June in 30 years then, not yet anyway. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle.../HadCET_act.txt

For the time being 2003 is the hottest June since 1976.

I have no idea where they've got the 15.9 figure from- it's considerably lower than the figure quote on Philip Eden's site of 16.2, surely there can't be a difference of .3? It must have risen in the last couple of days of June as well- there was no way it was that far below 16 at any point.

[Dawlish]

Lower than I thought, it looks like Gtuk and Anti-Mild were spot on then :lol:

As I mentioned earlier in the month, to sustain a CET of above 16°C in June is quite difficult. Although the last few days were above average, it seems they were sufficiently low enough to prevent the warmest June for 30 years.

Hi Reef,

The hadley Centre CET series, in it's present form, should not be the one to use, in my opinion.

The only CET series that counts for me is the continuation of the Manley series, for which we have Philip Eden, primarily, to thank. (and I'm not just saying that coz I guessed 16.2 :lol: ). The stewardship of Manley's series does not sit easily with the Hadley centre. I know the reasons for them, but the changes to the stations that the Hadley centre initiated, after Manley's death, in 1980, would, almost certianly, not have been sanctioned by the man himself.

I know about the arguments that have raged in meteorological academia since the Hadley centre gained the continuation of the sequence, though I have observed them from a distance and I'm very grateful to Philip for continuing the series, as it should have been continued, using the same stations, as far as was possible.

Paul

PS Schorcher, just seen you post. Well observed. For me, neither the Hadley Centre CET, nor Philip Eden's continuation of the Manley series actually does the heat of this June justice! The amateur observations around the country, combined with and compared to the official (or semi-official!!) CET series give a better idea. This June was hot!

Edited July 3, 2006 by Dawlish

[West is Best]

Lower than I thought, it looks like Gtuk and Anti-Mild were spot on then :lol:

As I mentioned earlier in the month, to sustain a CET of above 16°C in June is quite difficult. Although the last few days were above average, it seems they were sufficiently low enough to prevent the warmest June for 30 years.

Don't think it had anything to do with this. It looks like Lancashire under-performed, that's all. Happens from time to time.

Paul's points are quite pertinent. There is much to be said for treating the Manley CET as THE CET because it is the more genuine continuation of the Manley CET. The Hadley stations bear little resemblance to the original series. They're useful and interesting of course but the 'real' Central England Temp series for June is arguably 16.2C ... i.e. the Manley CET.

Edited July 3, 2006 by West is Best

[Weather-history]

I have no idea where they've got the 15.9 figure from- it's considerably lower than the figure quote on Philip Eden's site of 16.2, surely there can't be a difference of .3? It must have risen in the last couple of days of June as well- there was no way it was that far below 16 at any point.

Phil Eden has intimated that this could be a possibility in a post he made a couple of pages back.

[reef]

To West is Best and Dawlish:

One has to ask if the Manley value turned out lower than the Hadley value, would you still be treating the Manley value as 'THE CET' then?

Personally I think you're looking for a record warm June in 30 years where there wasnt one. As Phillip Eden mentioned a few days back, his prediction for the Hadley CET was bang on 16.00°C, therefore a value of 15.9°C isnt that unbelievable. It doesnt matter whether you 'think' the value doesnt do the month justice or whether unofficial (and often far less accurate) stations agree with you, it simply wasnt the warmest in 30 years.

[Dawlish]

To West is Best and Dawlish:

One has to ask if the Manley value turned out lower than the Hadley value, would you still be treating the Manley value as 'THE CET' then?

I did put a smiley in my post which ought to have answered that one Reef! :lol:

I don't acknowledge the Hadley CET series and I always acknowledge the continuation of the Manley series. I always use it. The Netweather, Hadley, Metcheck CETs have no validity, compared to that CET series. Whether it was warmer, or cooler, last month makes no difference to me. The principle makes the difference.

Paul

[Guest Mike W]

I'm confused Dawlish, is that smiley face mean that you would ahve used the Hadley CET if it was higher than the Manley one or not. It's just that on the one hand you say adamently that you will and already go by the Manley always, but then it sounds like you are now saying only if it's higher than the Hadley.

[West is Best]

Personally I think you're looking for a record warm June in 30 years where there wasnt one.

Well it was Reef ... by Manley. It wasn't by Hadley. Not much more to say really.

[Guest Mike W]

Hadley CET for June might change anyway, they change alot of months evn after several years of not chnaging them, I rember only a couple of yers ago they chnaged February 1991 CET from 1.5 to 1.7 then back to 1.5 again.

[West is Best]

Hadley CET for June might change anyway, they change alot of months evn after several years of not chnaging them, I rember only a couple of yers ago they chnaged February 1991 CET from 1.5 to 1.7 then back to 1.5 again.

Yes they change them quite often.

Don't get me wrong: I'm a great fan of the METO. But I don't think there's too much doubt that Philip's Manley figure is much closer to the original series. The Hadley is an interesting triangulation, and I'm sure in time will become very valuable. But it's manifestly not even close to the original series.

[Scorcher]

To West is Best and Dawlish:

One has to ask if the Manley value turned out lower than the Hadley value, would you still be treating the Manley value as 'THE CET' then?

Personally I think you're looking for a record warm June in 30 years where there wasnt one. As Phillip Eden mentioned a few days back, his prediction for the Hadley CET was bang on 16.00°C, therefore a value of 15.9°C isnt that unbelievable. It doesnt matter whether you 'think' the value doesnt do the month justice or whether unofficial (and often far less accurate) stations agree with you, it simply wasnt the warmest in 30 years.

Or alternatively we could say that you're the one hoping that it wasn't the warmest in 30 years, it's all subjective as the Manley value suggests that it was the warmest in 30 years, the Hadley value doesn't.

The final CET for June 2003- is the Manley figure or the Hadley figure used most commonly, as they must have been different?

[Dawlish]

I'm confused Dawlish, is that smiley face mean that you would ahve used the Hadley CET if it was higher than the Manley one or not. It's just that on the one hand you say adamently that you will and already go by the Manley always, but then it sounds like you are now saying only if it's higher than the Hadley.

Don't worry Mike, I'm not confused! :lol:

Paul

[reef]

The final CET for June 2003- is the Manley figure or the Hadley figure used most commonly, as they must have been different?

Always the Hadley figure, hence my original post.

The same goes for October 2005, it was actually warmer than October 2001 in the Manley series, making it the warmest on record. However, back then nothing was heard of it, as in the Hadley series it was behind 2001.

Absolutely no problem in my opinion with people who accept the Manley over the Hadley series, its just the inconsistency on occasion when it 'suits' to use one series over another.

My personal opinion is that as the Hadley centre are now 'officially' running the CET, then that is the series I will use. Regardless of what we think to the changes they have made, they are experts at this and Im sure they have very good reasons for what they have done.

[Dawlish]

Always the Hadley figure, hence my original post.

The same goes for October 2005, it was actually warmer than October 2001 in the Manley series, making it the warmest on record. However, back then nothing was heard of it, as in the Hadley series it was behind 2001.

Absolutely no problem in my opinion with people who accept the Manley over the Hadley series, its just the inconsistency on occasion when it 'suits' to use one series over another.

My personal opinion is that as the Hadley centre are now 'officially' running the CET, then that is the series I will use. Regardless of what we think to the changes they have made, they are experts at this and Im sure they have very good reasons for what they have done.

Are they really Reef? Or have they fiddled with the Manley series to the detriment of the longest temperature series in the world? The series, as it is now, is not the same series on which Manley did his work.

Paul

[Guest Mike W]

I would say the best to go by IMO is the Manley series as it's the oldest, I say oldest instead of original becasue sites have changed alot during the series I believe. But it's officialy the original anyway. It doesn't make sense to me to compare one month that has a Hadley CET given to it and then compare it to a CET under the Manley regime pre 74. Because then you get February 91 at 1.5 and say it's colder than Feb 1844 at 1.6 but it isn't becasue under Manley Feb 1991 is 1.7 and their are other examples obviously. But use which sereis you want.

[West is Best]

My personal opinion is that as the Hadley centre are now 'officially' running the CET, then that is the series I will use.

Hmmm .... not really sure you understand the subtleties of this Reef. Would Manley himself have spoken of an 'official' series? I think not. Surely the best one for using that name is the one that is closest to his original stations? Manley.