July CET

[West is Best]

Well, 1.6C above average sounds a lot better than 0.9C above average if you are pushing the AGW case (I am no sceptic, btw)

Interesting, so 1961-90 was actually a relatively cool period in our climate (in the context of the last century).

Thanks for the 100-year averages, I didn't know where to find them before.

I know - I just don't think there needs to be a conspiracy theory about the Met Office acting in a Machiavellian manner in deliberately choosing one set of figures over another. I'm sure that a lot of the workers in Exeter do think AGW has a lot of mileage, but they do so for good scientific reasons.

Yes 61-90 was a really cool period relative to the rest. Amazing really.

I should add a caution about those rolling 100 year figures: I spent an afternoon putting them together once. Don't think I made a mistake but I can't 100% guarantee that!

[Stu_London]

I know - I just don't think there needs to be a conspiracy theory about the Met Office acting in a Machiavellian manner in deliberately choosing one set of figures over another. I'm sure that a lot of the workers in Exeter do think AGW has a lot of mileage, but they do so for good scientific reasons.

Yes 61-90 was a really cool period relative to the rest. Amazing really.

I should add a caution about those rolling 100 year figures: I spent an afternoon putting them together once. Don't think I made a mistake but I can't 100% guarantee that!

51-80 was even cooler at 9.43

61-90 would have been cooler than 51-80 but 1989 and 1990 destroyed it

[Gavin P]

A far more representative 30 year average, for the current UK climate, may be 1911-1940. If we're picking and choosing which 30 year average we're going to use, why don't we use that one?

I'm not one for conspiracy theory's, but even I've got to admit that using 61-90 in 2007 is looking increasingly suspicious.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Gavin P

[Stu_London]

A far more representative 30 year average, for the current UK climate, may be 1911-1940. If we're picking and choosing which 30 year average we're going to use, why don't we use that one?

I'm not one for conspiracy theory's, but even I've got to admit that using 61-90 in 2007 is looking increasingly suspicious.

Only problem with your theory Gavin is that 1911 to 1940 was 9.42C

0.01C less than 1961-1990

[Gavin P]

What about 1040-1070?

[Stratos Ferric]

...Of course your baseline isn't 'better'. It's 1/3rd the length. For any given month you only have 10 inputs - a very weak statistical baseline. It's so open to skewing by outliers as to be meaningless. For a given month you need a good 30 inputs - though it's actually much more complex than this as the UKMO links illustrate.

...

WiB,

I do sometimes use a ten year average, but as I said in the main body of my reply, when I do so I state very clearly what I'm doing. The comparisons I raised above were on a rolling thirty year basis so stack up with the UKMO standard, it's just that I choose to use the most recent thirty years. As a rule it's plain daft to suggest that somehow a period from 6 to 35 years ago is more representative than one from 1 to 30 year ago reference any given year (I can think of exceptions but these would be minority cases). Statistically a thirty year assessment is more robust for purposes of inferential stats, but, that doesn't hold true where data is trending and NOT normally distributed. For example, in the last thirty years Liverpool have won the league title more often than Chelsea and Notts Forest have won the European Cup as often as Man Utd: will Liverpool win the league next year? Forest the European Cup?

[Stu_London]

What about 1040-1070?

You might be OK - probably in the medieval warming period. Newcastle had the finest vinyards in Europe, Northern france was a desert, Greenland was brown and the Arctic waters were so warm that Category 5 hurricanes formed 12 months of the year.

example, in the last thirty years Liverpool have won the league title more often than Chelsea and Notts Forest have won the European Cup as often as Man Utd: will Liverpool win the league next year? Forest the European Cup?

Do you think GW has contributed to the fortunes of Nottingham Forest.

Perhaps the rot set in when half the forest was cutdown to allow greenbelt development

[West is Best]

If we're picking and choosing which 30 year average we're going to use,

We're not. We're using the last completed decade: 1971-2000. That's what most of the Met O use, and certainly in their published stats.

Let's stop the silly conspiracy theory nonsense. Nothing 'suspicious' about it at all. Indeed, with all the fanciful stuff flying around about climate change this and climate change that I'd suspect the sceptic lobby for using the 1961-1990 figures to debase the whole thing!

Stratos - I'm glad to see you admit the 30 yr base is more robust than 10 yrs. I have no problem using the most recent 30 yrs, but for practical purposes it is fairly pointless to consider it necessary to update it any more regularly than every 10 years. We are not dealing with the flotsam and jetsam of the football transfer market Stratos, where a wind blows every which way and teams rise and fall faster than a whore's drawers. We're dealing with the earth's climate. There is no climatic equivalent to the cash injection into a football team of a Russian tycoon, nor indeed of the gobby brilliance of a Brian Clough.

I frankly refuse to believe that these 'trends' are observable at such short notice. Indeed there is immense danger in trying to spot them at that range because our climate contains many variables which are only properly observed when anomalies and outliers are ironed out by a large statistical basis over a given period of time. My fear in this is that there are those who are succumbing to the AGW hype in the sense that they are trying to spot immediate signs of climate change in any given day, week or month of figures (and therefore the obverse: no 30C in Peterborough must mean the end of climate chnage for example). This is folly, which ultimately will do great damage to those who do think climate change is occurring.

We need a long period of time, and to take a step back.

[Gavin P]

"We're not. We're using the last completed decade: 1971-2000. That's what most of the Met O use, and certainly in their published stats."

Why, "most" and not "all?" And if Hadley are the keepers of the CET and Hadley still use 61-90, then aren't all current CET's being compared against 61-90 and not 71-00?

"Let's stop the silly conspiracy theory nonsense. Nothing 'suspicious' about it at all."

I happen to agree with you. It probably isn't a conspiracy. So, shall we call it complete and total incompetence instead?

[Stu_London]

Stats to 16Jul07 - Manley - From climate-uk.com

CET - 15.5C (-0.7C)

Rain - 58.4mm (198%)

Sun - 76.8hr (74%)

Not quite as mild now as yesterday and maxes should be down a notch as showers much more widespread today.

Should result in another 0.1C being added tomorrow before the tropical air is banished again for a while.

[West is Best]

"We're not. We're using the last completed decade: 1971-2000. That's what most of the Met O use, and certainly in their published stats."

Why, "most" and not "all?" And if Hadley are the keepers of the CET and Hadley still use 61-90, then aren't all current CET's being compared against 61-90 and not 71-00?

"Let's stop the silly conspiracy theory nonsense. Nothing 'suspicious' about it at all."

I happen to agree with you. It probably isn't a conspiracy. So, shall we call it complete and total incompetence instead?

Be a bit fairer on the Met Office Gavin though?! Huge organisation with many different areas. I know someone in the Hadley centre and I'm pretty sure she described herself as working for the Hadley centre not the Met Office.

Edited July 17, 2007 by West is Best

[osmposm]

Sorry, WIB, I'm with Gavin on this one: it's an embarrassing dog's dinner.....unless, of course, they have a good reason. In which case they should explain it - the figures have been available for years.

However big and disparate the organisation, all it takes is one clear and firm directive from the top. Not to do so - or offer a clear explanation - only provides ammunition for conspiracy theorists.

Edited July 17, 2007 by osmposm

[VillagePlank]

Well, I'm certainly in favour of using rolling averages. In fact, some of my decision making for this 'competition' is based on such techniques.

Given that in real terms I'm a complete plank when it comes to medium term forecasting, my position in the current league table is pretty remarkable.

Of course, six months success is nowhere near a ringing endorsement of my techniques ...

Edited July 17, 2007 by VillagePlank

[noggin]

Rant over.

Dave

I quite agree with you, Dave. I would apply the same accusation at just about every "organisation", be it scientific, governmental, journalistic etc. By picking and choosing what info they are going to spout, they can create totally opposite "pictures" of what is actually happening. To suit, of course.

It's the old lies, damned lies and statistics thing.

I take it all with a pinch of salt now.

[West is Best]

Oh, you can't knock the Met Office speed - the utmost haste with which they've inflicted 'since records began in 1914' on us is rather impressive. Not. They don't seem to know which base to refer too, but i'm suspicious that it's the one that shows GW up in the most favourable light.

[...]

Rant over.

Dave

Bashing the Met Office is such an easy and cowardly thing to do. Cowardly, because as civil servants they cannot reply.

The reason the 1914 series is used is because the Areal series is a different one to the CET: so they need to use different bases when referring to different measurements.

There is no bias in the Met Office. Hadley is a different centre and if those of you who are Met O detractors really were prepared to study this properly you'd read the links I posted from the Met O which have some very good articles on the subject of how to use bases. You will see from them that it is complex, and not worthy of the nursery school level of slanging off from a couple of you on here.

(I've cut out the rest of your quote out out because you were shouting.)

The Met Office is an institution which is the envy of the world. Only in Britain, and only from [word edited out by author], is such an organisation likely to get such infantile criticism. My rant over - but it's deserved.

Edited July 17, 2007 by West is Best

[SP1986]

Aside from all the disagreement about the CET validity, which I think unecessary, I think the mid month slight warm up has definitely given the CET a chance to boost up to average come the end of the month. The only thing stopping a recovery from CET recovering the 16.5 now is night time mins. If night time mins fall to below 11C widespread in the CET zone we may be looking at a month 0.5 to 1C below the most recent average (71-00), but if night time temps stay above 11C in the CET zone I think around or just above average is likely. Plenty of July left as were only just halfway through.

[Stu_London]

Aside from all the disagreement about the CET validity, which I think unecessary, I think the mid month slight warm up has definitely given the CET a chance to boost up to average come the end of the month. The only thing stopping a recovery from CET recovering the 16.5 now is night time mins. If night time mins fall to below 11C widespread in the CET zone we may be looking at a month 0.5 to 1C below the most recent average (71-00), but if night time temps stay above 11C in the CET zone I think around or just above average is likely. Plenty of July left as were only just halfway through.

Do you really think 17.6C from now to the end of the month is possible ?

[SP1986]

Do you really think 17.6C from now to the end of the month is possible ?

Yes, I think its possible, but only that, not probable, just possible. People often forget that you dont need a heatwave to reach these heights, you just need some fairly agreeable day temperatures about 20-23°C and some fairly warm night temperatures, 14-16°C. It is unlikely in the current pattern, but a heatwave at the end of the month (last 5-6 days) could force it onto average.

[Stu_London]

Yes, I think its possible, but only that, not probable, just possible. People often forget that you dont need a heatwave to reach these heights, you just need some fairly agreeable day temperatures about 20-23°C and some fairly warm night temperatures, 14-16°C. It is unlikely in the current pattern, but a heatwave at the end of the month (last 5-6 days) could force it onto average.

FWIW, I think it will struggle to hold where it is now - I doubt the CET zone will average 20C or more during the day for the rest of the week. 18C looks likely and there are couple of really very chilly nights for the time of year coming - 9C is cautious for the next few nights (could be a degree lower).

Thats a CET of 13.5. I can see that being sustained for 4/5 days, dropping 0.1C per day from where we are now

Edited July 17, 2007 by Stu_London

[SP1986]

FWIW, I think it will struggle to hold where it is now - I doubt the CET zone will average 20C or more during the day for the rest of the week. 18C looks likely and there are couple of really very chilly nights for the time of year coming - 9C is cautious for the next few nights (could be a degree lower).

Thats a CET of 13.5. I can see that being sustained for 4/5 days, dropping 0.1C per day from where we are now

Well that seems to be the way the pattern has it, so I would be inclined to agree with you as it stands. it makes a change anyway not having the warmer side. The predominant wind direction here has been RPM but I am surprised this month has sustained its below average side.

[West is Best]

- 9C is cautious for the next few nights (could be a degree lower).

Just nowhere near what the BBC/Met O are forecasting Stu. Are you just using the infamous GFS temperature chart by chance?

BBC for instance forecasting routinely 13C tonight in the CET zone. As HP is now slipping away I think you may find we have that curious dichotomy of relatively warm nights but cool daytime maxes (although 24C forecast for tomorrow).

[summer blizzard]

Hmm, this is a difficult one for me, it looks as though the CET to the 20th will be no higher than 15.5C, which based on the current trends and outputs would mean a Manley CET no higher than 16C, and possibly as low as 15.1C.

Incidently, i would much prefer the 16C option, purely for selfish CET competition points.

[The PIT]

Our average should start dropping again later this week. Looking at the models theres no sign of a heatwave so theres a good chance of a rare below average month coming up.

[West is Best]

Our average should start dropping again later this week. Looking at the models theres no sign of a heatwave so theres a good chance of a rare below average month coming up.

Just wondering if we're coming up for a pattern change actually. The Atlantic looks like it might be abating. The 0z ECMWF ... But this might be more important for August's temps than July's.

[summer blizzard]

The pattern change looks like occuring in the final days of July, it is doubtful that we will see a big enougth chance to dent the CET, it doe'nt even look overly warm to be honest, just more average.