October CET

[Stratos Ferric]

I can't see a problem with summer and autumn months being 2-3ºC above average, and January-March being average or below. More continental, and suits me fine. Saves me moving to Poland anyway.

Lets see what November - March bring before we become merchants of doom.

Remember GW was invented by, and is constantly touted by the Met Office, because they want some more money or something.

PT,

I'm struggling to find anything FACTUALLY correct in the above. Have you been on the shandies?

[Dawlish]

12.94C according to Philip Eden. He's been burning the midnight oil.

Paul

[West is Best]

12.94C according to Philip Eden. He's been burning the midnight oil.

Paul

Yes, I don't like to be critical of Philip but I'm not impressed by his introduction of 1/100ths this year. If in fact you take his 1/10ths readings the maxima was 15.9C and the minima 10.0C making the overall CET 12.95C rounded up to 13C by all the usual, established and conventional methods. http://www.climate-uk.com/graphs/0610.htm. Producing figures to 1/100th seems to me a bit of an affectation. No offence intended Philip!

I await the official Met Office figure. Probably find it's 12.5C

Remember GW was invented by, and is constantly touted by the Met Office, because they want some more money or something.

Oh deary me ...

There are wild comments occasionally on Net-Weather, but this certainly makes the top ten all-time crass ones. Still, let's bash the Met Office 'eh?! Come on Paul.

[johnholmes]

I like this comment

I don't like to be critical of Philip but I'm not impressed by his introduction of 1/100ths this year. If in fact you take his 1/10ths readings the maxima was 15.9C and the minima 10.0C making the overall CET 12.95C rounded up to 13C by all the usual, established and conventional methods.

Quite what is gained by giving something an 'apparent' accuracy to 1 decimal place more than was made in the first places is beyond me.

I'm quite certain that Prof Manley would be outraged at such practices.

So come Philip make it realistic again.

I have given up trying to convince our own Paul to do the same on Net Wx.

Never mind its not the end of the world.

John

Edited November 1, 2006 by johnholmes

[johnholmes]

hi

I was asked yesterday how much above a certain value for my 7 months with above average temps

October=+2.4C

September=+3.3C

August=+0.7C

July=+4.8C

June=+3.2C

May=+1.7C

April=+0.9C

my arithmetic gives this as 7 months and an average of +2.4C for that period.

As to other warm Octobers, there are no other Octobers with a higher mean temperature. Two years, 1968 and 1969 with each showing a mean of 12.8C and 1959 with 12.5C.These are the only years with a mean of 12.0C or above.

One other point, the max temp on the 30th October this year is the second highest for that date, 19.6C in 1970 is the highest.

John

oops

error!!

I have had one October with a higher mean I have discovered, 2001 with 13.3C. So at my site its the 2nd highest October. I will amend any comment in my October stats also.

John

edited 02/11/06

Edited November 2, 2006 by johnholmes

[Weather-history]

Quite what is gained by giving something an 'apparent' accuracy to 1 decimal place more than was made in the first places is beyond me.

I'm quite certain that Prof Manley would be outraged at such practices.

John

So what about annual CETs that are to the 1/100th degree? Hadley does it.

[johnholmes]

I say the same to that, it is not correct in my view.

no one measures temps to greater than 0.1C so why make the average to .001?

jh

[Red Raven]

Prompted by Johns list of means and anomalies heres mine:

January 4.2 (0.4)

February 4.1 (0)

March 4.2 (-1.5)

April 7.5 (0.1)

May 11 (0.4)

June 14.3 (1.2)

July 17.8 (2.6)

August 14.6 (-0.3)

September 15 (2.4)

October 11.6 (1.9)

Mean 10.4 (0.7)

It's easier to read on my website!

Edited November 1, 2006 by Red Raven

[paul tall]

PT,

I'm struggling to find anything FACTUALLY correct in the above. Have you been on the shandies?

Its all a con man! You'll see

[summer blizzard]

Interestingly, despite broadly similar synoptics to 2005, this October is 0.21C below that of 2005, in the case of 2005, the Hadley CET was slightly lower, therefore i expect the Hadley CET to be 12.9C.

[The PIT]

I was rather surprised to find that our October came in at 6th warmest overall. I suppose thats due to Max's never getting above 18C yet never falling below 12C. It was a very wet though with 142.9% of rainfall.

[West is Best]

Interestingly, despite broadly similar synoptics to 2005, this October is 0.21C below that of 2005, in the case of 2005, the Hadley CET was slightly lower, therefore i expect the Hadley CET to be 12.9C.

Doesn't really work like that though SB. The emulation methods are fairly complex, and I'm not sure you can leap from alleged similarities in 2005 synoptics to those this year. My hunch, no more, is that Philip's readings for October may be slightly under those of Hadley but that could be wide of the mark.

Having now written that it'll probably come out at 12.9C!

(The Pit ... shouldn't we await the official verdict on October from the Met Office?)

Edited November 1, 2006 by West is Best

[summer blizzard]

West Is Best, i thought you supported the Manley CET as being the official one????????

[West is Best]

West Is Best, i thought you supported the Manley CET as being the official one????????

No.

As I posted on here about 3 months ago I decided to support the Met O. There are complex reasons for this, and it's not in any sense a reflection on Philip's work which is superb and a wonderful asset to so many amateurs. But at the end of the day I do think the Met Office are the proper custodians of the 'official' CET stretching back to 1659. The issue about station sites, which was my main bugbear, has been clarified by emulation methods that are used by the Met Office, so I no longer think that's a problem. I do declare a hand though as I have contacts and friends in the Met Office, so I suppose you could say I'm not unbiased. I think many of the people working there are brilliant and dedicated metereologists/ scientists who are right at the top of the tree, and in many cases achieving outstanding results. If I get tetchy with some Meto-bashing it's because I think it's easy to take a pop at an organisation which for a number of reasons doesn't always enter the fray, and that therefore can appear slightly detached. This occasionally frustrated me too. But I have the utmost respect for the Met Office, and believe the CET is rightfully in their hands.

(p.s. I agree with John Holmes about the 1/100ths on the annual CET)

Edited November 1, 2006 by West is Best

[The PIT]

The Pit ... shouldn't we await the official verdict on October from the Met Office?)

Err I wasn't talking about the Met office offical figure just the data for our station hence "our"

[Stratos Ferric]

I like this comment

I don't like to be critical of Philip but I'm not impressed by his introduction of 1/100ths this year. If in fact you take his 1/10ths readings the maxima was 15.9C and the minima 10.0C making the overall CET 12.95C rounded up to 13C by all the usual, established and conventional methods.

Quite what is gained by giving something an 'apparent' accuracy to 1 decimal place more than was made in the first places is beyond me.

I'm quite certain that Prof Manley would be outraged at such practices.

So come Philip make it realistic again.

I have given up trying to convince our own Paul to do the same on Net Wx.

Never mind its not the end of the world.

John

From a purely methematical perspective, accepted practice is that you NEVER calculate to more significant figures than the input data is available to. I'm entirely with you on this John.

However, if in the meantime this means that OIctober outturns at 12.9 rather than 13.0, then who am I to quibble?

[ukmoose]

The suspense is killing me. Is it 12.9 or not??

Moose

[johnholmes]

as 1/10th degrees are the standard reading for most (if not all) sites, then no less than the same interval should, strictly speaking, be used for quoting an average of the readings, otherwise a precision is implied that may not actually be real.

[West is Best]

The official CET is out for October. And it is exactly 13.0C.

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadl.../HadCET_act.txt

That means all sorts of records have been broken along the way in the period to end of October. Kevin will no doubt fill us in on some of them. It also means November and December need to average 6.25C for this to be the warmest year on record. To be anywhere near that record after the first 3 months is pretty remarkable.

Only 2 Octobers have been warmer, and they both occurred in the last 5 years!

Edited November 2, 2006 by West is Best

[The PIT]

The official CET is out for October. And it is exactly 13.0C.

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadl.../HadCET_act.txt

That means all sorts of records have been broken along the way in the period to end of October. Kevin will no doubt fill us in on some of them. It also means November and December need to average 6.25C for this to be the warmest year on record. To be anywhere near that record after the first 3 months is pretty remarkable.

Only 2 Octobers have been warmer, and they both occurred in the last 5 years!

Somehow I think we'll manage it.

[West is Best]

Somehow I think we'll manage it.

The annual record?

I agree, but it's not set in stone just yet. 13C for October is pretty stonking though. I think it has been by a long way the warmest 6 month period ever recorded. Will be interested to see by how much. Kevin?!

[Scorcher]

The official CET is out for October. And it is exactly 13.0C.

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadl.../HadCET_act.txt

That means all sorts of records have been broken along the way in the period to end of October. Kevin will no doubt fill us in on some of them. It also means November and December need to average 6.25C for this to be the warmest year on record. To be anywhere near that record after the first 3 months is pretty remarkable.

Only 2 Octobers have been warmer, and they both occurred in the last 5 years!

Interesting that those figures also suggest that this September was .2C warmer than 1729.

[Weather-history]

13C for October is pretty stonking though. I think it has been by a long way the warmest 6 month period ever recorded. Will be interested to see by how much. Kevin?!

There has never been two consecutive Octobers with a CET of 13 or over

The warmest September/October combination

14.9 compared to 14.15 for 2005

Warmest August/September/October period: 15.3 (15.27 for 1995)

Warmest 6 month period

2006: 15.63

1995: 15.05

[West is Best]

Warmest 6 month period

2006: 15.63

1995: 15.05

Thanks Kevin.

In a year with a number of records tumbling this is to my mind the most gob-smacking statistic of them all. I have often suggested that sustained record temps are the pinnacle of 'achievement', whether below or above, as opposed to absolute temps. This is especially so for sustained spells of a month or more. To have a six month period which is nearly 0.6C above anything else recorded since 1659 is astonishing to me (all the more so when you consider how 'average' at least one of those months was).

Edited November 2, 2006 by West is Best

[Osbourne One-Nil]

October certainly didn't have any really cold nights for me, with the average minimum being 7.4º compared to 2.5º in 2003. However, last year was actually warmer (8.0º) and even warmer still was 2001 (8.6º).