September CET

[Dawlish]

The length of warmest month CET records.

January record: 90 years

February record: 227 years

March record: 49 years

April record: 141 years

May record: 173 years

June record: 150 years

July record: 0

August record: 11 years

September record: 276 years

October record: 4 years

November record: 11 years

December record: 31 years (71 years)

HI Mr. Data

The July record is only correct if you accept the changed CET sequence, as sequestered by the Met Office/Hadley Centre. Compared to the continuation of the Manley sequence, on Philip's site, this last July was not a record. Thus, July's record, above, should read 23 years, not 0.

Paul

[reef]

HI Mr. Data

The July record is only correct if you accept the changed CET sequence, as sequestered by the Met Office/Hadley Centre. Compared to the continuation of the Manley sequence, on Philip's site, this last July was not a record. Thus, July's record, above, should read 23 years, not 0.

Paul

The same applies to October aswell. October 2005 on the Manley series had an average of 13.15°C, compared to October 2001 which was 13.01°C. Funnily enough this went completely unmentioned on the forum last year!

[su rui ke]

It is possible su rui ke. Not likely at the moment, but more possible than it was yesterday, if one believes the fast-changing charts at T+240+. I've altered my September CET odds as a result of you reminding me of the possibilities (note to self - stay alert: your odds needs a lert!).

Paul

It looks even more likely now if the GFS's predictions of a 'heatwave' for southern parts from Thursday onwards come true!

[Weather-history]

HI Mr. Data

The July record is only correct if you accept the changed CET sequence, as sequestered by the Met Office/Hadley Centre. Compared to the continuation of the Manley sequence, on Philip's site, this last July was not a record. Thus, July's record, above, should read 23 years, not 0.

Paul

Yes, Paul that is right if we look at the Manley series but I point out that series does have the caveat "provisional" attached to it, so when we quote those figures we should really be say "provisionally" Splitting hairs maybe, unfortunately they are unofficial figures, certainly until "provisional" is dropped.

Even the Manley series has got its problems, as about the first 40 years of that series is only as quoted to X.5 and Y.0 whilst the rest is to 0.1, so we have to be wary of that fact as well and so it puts some doubt when we quote those early figures.

The question I have to ask is did Gordon Manley keep figures for 1974 to 79, he died in early 1980. He must have done, what with the winter of 1974-75, summer of 1976 and winter of 1978-79. The Met Office took guardian of those figures but when? In 1980, after he died or before or well after his death?

Edited September 17, 2006 by Mr_Data

[johnholmes]

send the Met Office an e mail and ask for the information.

[Dawlish]

Yes, Paul that is right if we look at the Manley series but I point out that series does have the caveat "provisional" attached to it, so when we quote those figures we should really be say "provisionally" Splitting hairs maybe, unfortunately they are unofficial figures, certainly until "provisional" is dropped.

Even the Manley series has got its problems, as about the first 40 years of that series is only as quoted to X.5 and Y.0 whilst the rest is to 0.1, so we have to be wary of that fact as well and so it puts some doubt when we quote those early figures.

The question I have to ask is did Gordon Manley keep figures for 1974 to 79, he died in early 1980. He must have done, what with the winter of 1974-75, summer of 1976 and winter of 1978-79. The Met Office took guardian of those figures but when? In 1980, after he died or before or well after his death?

Dunno, Mr D, is my answer to your last paragraph. The recording sites kept recording, so maybe it is academic whether Manley carried on his own records. I'm pretty sure he would have; a lifetime of work in that field surely wouldn't suddenly end, 6 years before his death, unless there was a very good reason. Maybe Philip can help there. I know about the provisional bit. I foresee continued dispute about the validity of the Hadley series. I wonder if they would ever admit that they may have made a mistake y altering the recording sites? I know they did it with good intentions, at the time, but does hindsight look favourably on those changes......and should they consider reverting to the original sites (as closely as possible).

I know about the first 40 years, being measured slightly differently too and yes; you are right about wariness when comparing to those. For manley to get convincing, never mind even reasonably acceptable figures from the late 17th century must have involved some true dedication. Can you imagine the script the lists were written in?? I'll bet some midnight oil was burned there! The meteorilogical world has a deep debt of gratitude to the man for that work. It fuels discussions like ours today and it will do for years into the future.

Philip's site implies that the "custodianship" of the series transferred to them after his death. Further than that, I can't add any more!

http://www.climate-uk.com/page5.html .......will explain, to others, what I'm talking about.

Paul

[Nick H]

send the Met Office an e mail and ask for the information.

I admire your optimism regarding the Met Office's customer services, John.

[West is Best]

I admire your optimism regarding the Met Office's customer services, John.

Indeed Nick! I wrote to them 2 months ago on this subject and they never bothered to reply. Like other publicly funded bodies (the BBC in particular come to mind) they don't really give two hoots about the public. I like the Met Office in lots of ways, but they need a giant kick up the backside.

John will probably now rush to their defence, but their disregard for courtesy towards 'ordinary' people wears very, very, thin. Indeed what a contrast with Philip Eden who always takes the trouble to respond.

[Dawlish]

send the Met Office an e mail and ask for the information.

You don't really expect them to enter into a dialogue about this one, do you John?

Paul

[reef]

This month is starting to look like it could record an extremely high CET now. Going by the 6z GFS run the CET would be around 17.3°C (Manley) by the 24th! We would then require the final 6 days to have a CET average of only 13.8°C to equal the long-term September record of 16.6°C.

Needless to say this month has an even larger chance of being warmer than August, the first time I believe since 1891. What is remarkable though is that such August/September combinations usually consist of a well below average August, whereas this year August was near-enough average.

Still, its only the 16th, much can change yet.

Edited September 17, 2006 by reef

[summer blizzard]

According to Phillip Eden, the current CET is 17C with the ensembles showing a very mild outcome for the rest of the month, i would not rule out a record CET.

Edited September 17, 2006 by summer blizzard

[Weather-history]

The biggest rise in the CET between August and September occurred in 1865

Aug 1865: 15.1

Sep 1865: 16.3

Don't forget we just had one of biggest drops in CET ever between July and August.

In the Hadley series, 1956 was the last occasion August was cooler than September, in Philip's and the Areal series', it is 1985.

[West is Best]

According to Phillip Eden, the current CET is 17C with the ensembles showing a very mild outcome for the rest of the month, i would not rule out a record CET.

I still think it's extremely unlikely the CET will hold, or anything like it in the second half of the month. It's not so much the maxima, but the way the minima tend to fall away as the month progresses. I'll be very surprised if we see something above 16C by the 30th ... but then I love the surprises the UK can throw!

[summer blizzard]

While the ensembles do show ridiculus mild garbage, there look to be at least one high pressure dominated spell, which could cause some low nigh time minima.

[shuggee]

I still think it's extremely unlikely the CET will hold, or anything like it in the second half of the month. It's not so much the maxima, but the way the minima tend to fall away as the month progresses. I'll be very surprised if we see something above 16C by the 30th ... but then I love the surprises the UK can throw!

That's a very good point WiB. We're already starting to see 5s and 6s - particularly the night after a cold front clears through - when one comes down from a more NW'ly track - they'll go even lower, and of course will become more frequent anyway.

[Calrissian]

Hmm..

Well, the weather until the next weekend looks like 70f+, so that is only dragging the average up towards 18/19.

I think a record is almost a given. Yes the nights are cooling off, but still, September is such a good month for great weather.

Calrissian: enjoying this somewhat extended summer

[Nick F]

Night minima look staying fairly high this coming week, certainly no lower than the low teens (apart from tomorrow morning in the North), as we maintain a SW'erly flow until mid-week, then it looks like atm we draw in a S'erly flow Wednesday onwards with signs of another plume being dragged up from Iberia/even North Africa. So can't see the CET taking much of a knock downwards this week.

[The PIT]

Agree Nick looks a very mild week ahead so I'm expecting CET to go up a bit.

[stormchaser1]

So far after 17days here in the North East my average mean temp is 17.12c which is currently +3.62c above the normal average of 13.5c for the North east for september. However with this cold front which is currently passing the North east this will change , This mornings temp is the lowest it has been since 9th september ,current temp is 10.9c

nigel

Newcastle upon tyne

[PhilipEden]

Yes, Paul that is right if we look at the Manley series but I point out that series does have the caveat "provisional" attached to it, so when we quote those figures we should really be say "provisionally" Splitting hairs maybe, unfortunately they are unofficial figures, certainly until "provisional" is dropped.

Even the Manley series has got its problems, as about the first 40 years of that series is only as quoted to X.5 and Y.0 whilst the rest is to 0.1, so we have to be wary of that fact as well and so it puts some doubt when we quote those early figures.

The question I have to ask is did Gordon Manley keep figures for 1974 to 79, he died in early 1980. He must have done, what with the winter of 1974-75, summer of 1976 and winter of 1978-79. The Met Office took guardian of those figures but when? In 1980, after he died or before or well after his death?

Kevin, Gordon Manley's published series ended at the end of 1973. He may well have kept a watch on the figures after that, but he didn't publish; he was an old man by then anyway.

The MO did not routinely publish a monthly CET until well into the 1980s, although the Synoptic Climatology Branch (as it was then) probably produced a figure in-house. It was not regarded as important - indeed Manley was often vilified inside the MO as being a "geographer" and therefore not a proper scientist.

When the MO finally did get around to publishing a monthly CET, at first they used all sorts of different methods to achieve the figure. Quite how and why they settled on the tri-polar scheme that forms the basis of the present Hadley calculation I have not been able to discover.

HTH, Philip

[Dawlish]

Kevin, Gordon Manley's published series ended at the end of 1973. He may well have kept a watch on the figures after that, but he didn't publish; he was an old man by then anyway.

The MO did not routinely publish a monthly CET until well into the 1980s, although the Synoptic Climatology Branch (as it was then) probably produced a figure in-house. It was not regarded as important - indeed Manley was often vilified inside the MO as being a "geographer" and therefore not a proper scientist.

When the MO finally did get around to publishing a monthly CET, at first they used all sorts of different methods to achieve the figure. Quite how and why they settled on the tri-polar scheme that forms the basis of the present Hadley calculation I have not been able to discover.

HTH, Philip

Yes, tell me about the Geographer/non-scientist tag. Thank you for the explanation - as far as you are able to give it!

Paul

[Scorcher]

Does anyone know when the warmest June-September period was? Surely with the September CET looking like it will be above 16C this has a chance of being the warmest such period? It would be a quite incredible few months if the CET finished above the all time record of 16.6C.

[Weather-history]

Does anyone know when the warmest June-September period was? Surely with the September CET looking like it will be above 16C this has a chance of being the warmest such period? It would be a quite incredible few months if the CET finished above the all time record of 16.6C.

June-September 1976 had a CET average of 16.68 (16.735 for Philip's data)

As long as the CET is above 15.0C for September, it will be the warmest such period on record

We've also had the warmest May- July period on record by the way

The warmest May-September period will be broken as long as the September CET is 14.9C or over

[Bottesford]

June-September 1976 had a CET average of 16.68 (16.735 for Philip's data)

As long as the CET is above 15.0C for September, it will be the warmest such period on record

We've also had the warmest May- July period on record by the way

The warmest May-September period will be broken as long as the September CET is 14.9C or over

So pretty much in the bag then! Crikey it's been a very warm year then; summers are hotter, September is now summer...

[Snowly does it]

So pretty much in the bag then! Crikey it's been a very warm year then; summers are hotter, September is now summer...

It has been a warm year, although if Sept CET is 16 then we are at exactly the same position as last year at the same time (with a very warm October needed to keep up!)

No doubt the bar has been raised as far as the expected and usual is, GW is happening, however September has always been a month that can be very warm, it still has the length of day necessary and the warmth on the continent and from the Atlantic to keep things summer-like. The difference is of course the more unsettled nature of most Septembers, whatever the temperature, autumnal incursions are far more likely.