February CET

[Snowly does it]

I'm no mathematician, John, but 7.75 rounded to one decimal place will be 7.8 I believe.

Moose

Odd numbers round down from 5 in meteorolgical stats Moose, crazy but thats how it is!

[ukmoose]

Odd numbers round down from 5 in meteorolgical stats Moose, crazy but thats how it is!

And these guys are trying to predict the weather TM...? Thanks anyway

Moose

[Snowly does it]

And these guys are trying to predict the weather TM...? Thanks anyway

Moose

I am trying to arrange for 'rain' to be rounded down to 'snow' in the outputs as well

No Problem

[ukmoose]

I am trying to arrange for 'rain' to be rounded down to 'snow' in the outputs as well

No Problem

Now that might just be the answer we are looking for SM

Moose

[Roger J Smith]

I still believe there can be some very cold weather before this winter is over, and the second half of February will deliver on it, besides the fact that the first few days of the month have some chance of going well below average with inversions. Somewhere in between it is likely to go above 10 C for a day or two as well, so I won't go particularly low on average, possibly 3.4 C.

[kold weather]

I've changed my mind actually, I'm very worried blocking is lokcing but in the wrong places, so i'll go for my orginal punt for Feb in my winter forecast, 6.7C.

[Megamoonflake]

5.6C. will be the winner!!!

[Joneseye]

My heart says that there may be some cold weather for us to cheer, however my head rules and I predict another mild month. Therefore I going to plump for 6.1C

[johnholmes]

Odd numbers round down from 5 in meteorolgical stats Moose, crazy but thats how it is!

correct

the main point is the total invalidity of giving figures to 2 decimal places.

Its simply not scientific.

Why?

Because the original data is to one decimal point.

So the CET, mean, whatever you want to call it has to be to the same number of decimal points.

Don't ask me why meteorologists always round the values down to the odd. Its just been done since meteorology started as far as I know.

so 7.75=7.7

7.5 to the whole number =7 and 8.5 would be 9

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm not sure as to the reasons myself, but I have sometimes thought that if we follow the practice of always rounding .5 up to the nearest whole number, it can sometimes lead to a slight overestimate error (as fewer decimal places are rounded down than up). Thus the convention of rounding odd numbers down might be to avoid that bias.

[osmposm]

Tempted to repeat my miserably insufficient +5.3 for January, but suspect it'll still be too low.....so will add a tad and go for

+5.6^oC

Please god may it turn out to be much too high.....

[Hiya]

I fancy a month of three halfs, cool, mild, cold, I'm gonna go for 4.9, I fancy the Scottish average temprature could touch into the high 3.x

[eddie]

When 'proper' scientists use temperature data measured to one decimal place in a series of calculations (say for example in NWP), do they use one decimal place in every step of the calculation or do they use more but give the final result to one decimal place?

In my mind, if you only used 1 decimal place in each step, then every step in the calculation would introduce a larger margin of error in your final result do to cumulative rounding errors. Can anyone stop my brain from huring and confirm how this is actually done?

[Weather-history]

Don't ask me why meteorologists always round the values down to the odd. Its just been done since meteorology started as far as I know.

so 7.75=7.7

7.5 to the whole number =7 and 8.5 would be 9

I always thought it was to the nearest even number?

Certainly the practice of rounding to the nearest even number is the method preferred.

Infact I remember you saying that I was correct in saying that it was to the nearest even number when this has been mentioned in the past.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Mr_Data

[SP1986]

Just for those who think that 7C is a crazy value to be inserting.

7 is only around 2.8C higher than the average CET

whilst some of the lower CET punts are more than 5C below the CET average

but of course theres nothing crazy in that at all

[Weather-history]

Just for those who think that 7C is a crazy value to be inserting.

7 is only around 2.8C higher than the average CET

whilst some of the lower CET punts are more than 5C below the CET average

but of course theres nothing crazy in that at all

Stephen

I think it is easier for a winter month to be much more below normal than it is to be much above, if you see what I'm saying

Take January 1916, it was 4C above normal compared to the 30 year average at the time.

Take January 1963, which was -2.1 and that was 5.5C below the 30 year average at the time.

The opposite is true for summer, its harder for a summer month to be much below normal than it is to be much above.

[SP1986]

Stephen

I think it is easier for a winter month to be much more below normal than it is to be much above, if you see what I'm saying

Take January 1916, it was 4C above normal compared to the 30 year average at the time.

Take January 1963, which was -2.1 and that was 5.5C below the 30 year average at the time.

The opposite is true for summer, its harder for a summer month to be much below normal than it is to be much above.

Well that's true actually - never thought of that, but it's becoming ever increasingly more difficult. We'll need perhaps another 10-20 years to be able to conclude whether its a large scale or small scale pattern though..

[johnholmes]

I always thought it was to the nearest even number?

Certainly the practice of rounding to the nearest even number is the method preferred.

Infact I remember you saying that I was correct in saying that it was to the nearest even number when this has been mentioned in the past.

not sure I ever said that. It seems very unlikely as an ex meteorologist that I did. If I did I apologise for causing any confusion.

Official meteorological practice has always been to round a number to the odd.

Once again 7.75C=7.5C

7.5C=7C

8.5C=9C, etc

John

[Weather-history]

Well that's true actually - never thought of that, but it's becoming ever increasingly more difficult. We'll need perhaps another 10-20 years to be able to conclude whether its a large scale or small scale pattern though..

It does seem to be getting more difficult.

I don't have exact figures but my gut feeling is that the months with the largest anomalies will be nearly all winter months and they will be negative anomalies at that.

Even July 2006 had an anomaly of "just" +3.2 compared to the 1971-2000 average.

[Summer of 95]

2.0C

Anything's possible in this "winter" I've decided

Edited January 31, 2007 by Summer of 95

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

SF

Indeed not special but certainly 'even larger teapot' breaking. I have been away and have been back a couple of days. I am now withdrawing my 4.6c and will post this evening possibly tomorrow my final CET. I am going lower than average as I do see a countrywide lying snow event occurring in Feb, the longevity is the key

BFTP.

Updated CET...........3.3C for me. The jet is showing real signs of moving south with the coldest period for last 12 days or so.

BFTP

[guitarnutter]

here is my stupid punt: 5.7C.

im hoping its a lot lower.pinking hell

hoping for more than a 3 day mildy cold blast

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm going to go for a CET of 4.4C, which might surprise some people, but I think that the first half will be wet and mixed, with above average temperature but some cool incursions especially in the north and possible frontal snow events like the one the Scottish Lowlands had around 18 January. The second half should have a week or so of cold north-easterlies, but a mild end.

[phil nw.]

A different northern hemisphere pattern at last now seems to be evolving compared to the earlier part of winter with a more tranditional looking Winter set up projected.ie,some higher pressure to the North and a more Southerly tracking jet for a while.

I expect cold zonality to be the dominant pattern in Feb. but this will allow for a some milder days but overall a colder month i think.

I am going for just a little above normal at 5.4c

[Paul Sherman]

Just a little bit lower than my January guess, so I am opting for 5.1c

Paul Sherman