December CET

[J10]

Hi All

In the event of the Hadley CET figure being revised from 4.9 to 5.06c, do you think that the scores should be changed, and in the event of this happening in future, what should happen.

[snowsure]

Hi All

In the event of the Hadley CET figure being revised from 4.9 to 5.06c, do you think that the scores should be changed, and in the event of this happening in future, what should happen.

Perhaps a poll would be the best way of remaining democratic regarding the revision of the December CET (Why do we have conflicting results anyway?)

As to the future, I will continue guessing in the same way irrespective of the final source of the data set.

[Stratos Ferric]

Hi All

In the event of the Hadley CET figure being revised from 4.9 to 5.06c, do you think that the scores should be changed, and in the event of this happening in future, what should happen.

I'd always be happy to use Philip Eden's proxy result. It's not exactly Hadley, but it's close enough, and once it's landed it doesn't change. The problem with using Hadley proper is simply that revisions can sometimes occur several months downstream.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter which data set we use because all anyone is doing is making an educated guess and there's never much clear water between them. Given that, I'd suggest consideration be given to the people compiling the results and to make their task, in everyone's interest, as easy as possible. I have always been of the view that Philip's data best serves this function; so far as I'm aware he never revises the final result.

Perhaps a poll would be the best way of remaining democratic regarding the revision of the December CET (Why do we have conflicting results anyway?)

As to the future, I will continue guessing in the same way irrespective of the final source of the data set.

I don't think it's a matter of results conflicting, so much as one of the final figure for Hadley not yet having been confirned. Jack-o's first results were based on the earlier result. The point is that the final Hadley figure has now been changed.

Interesting aside that I think it's the first time for a while that the adjustment has been upwards.

[J10]

My apologies, it was of course the Manley CET that was changed to 5.06c.

[Stratos Ferric]

My apologies, it was of course the Manley CET that was changed to 5.06c.

That will explain why there's no update on the Hadley pages.

[The PIT]

Ah yes. Now where is La NIna he told me I was wrong about being it not coming under 5C. You see I'm always right the month wasn't sub 5C. Leg pulling by the way and not said in serious manner.

I keep forgetting which ones where using anyway. Perhaps the results should wait two weeks until it's confirmed.

[West is Best]

The point is that the final Hadley figure has now been changed.

There's only once CET, and that is the official one with The Metereological Office Hadley Centre as you yourself have frequently commented. And the official CET is unchanged on 4.9C http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle.../HadCET_act.txt

Philip does stirling work, and we use him on a sort of temporary basis for the fun competition, but once the proper official CET is set it is the one to which we all refer, and to which we will continue to do so for decades and centuries to come providing by then we haven't all been frozen off the planet by the next cyclical ice age.

[summer blizzard]

May as well stick with the preliminary figure from Phillip Eden.

[The PIT]

Can anyone remember which one we originally agreed on.

[reef]

There's only once CET, and that is the official one with The Metereological Office Hadley Centre as you yourself have frequently commented. And the official CET is unchanged on 4.9C http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle.../HadCET_act.txt

Philip does stirling work, and we use him on a sort of temporary basis for the fun competition, but once the proper official CET is set it is the one to which we all refer, and to which we will continue to do so for decades and centuries to come providing by then we haven't all been frozen off the planet by the next cyclical ice age.

Its ironic to see you swear by the Hadley CET as the value we should take as 'official'. I remember after June 2006 arguing with you for ages when you said that it was the warmest June since 1976 because the Manley series had the month as 16.25C versus the 15.97C of 2003. The Hadley of course showed a final number of 15.9C versus the 16.1C of 2003 so in my and others' minds that was the end of the debate. You however wouldnt have any of it, to you the Manley series was official as it remained with the same/similar sites used pre-1974 before Hadley took it over.

Of course then you were looking for mild, funny old world isnt it

Personally, I think this is a good time to switch the Hadley figure. Its now updated regularly and has finished at the 4.9C figure we've used already in the competition for the first month.

[summer blizzard]

We agreed on the Manley figure, which apart from this time, has not been changed as far as we know.

[phil nw.]

I am with SB on this.

I thought we used Manley because it never got revised.

Correct me if i am wrong but i don`t recall any previous month`s figure being revised--through last years comp,that is.

Hadley`s yes-quite often.

If this is an exception let`s stick with Manley and use the final(revised)figure--it would bring me slightly closer (my punt was 5.7) i accept-but it would be the correct thing to do.

[The PIT]

Yes another vote for Manley. Otherwise we'd be waiting forever for Hadley to settle on it's final figure only find yet another adjustment further down the line.

[noggin]

To change it now would be mean.

[Stratos Ferric]

To change it now would be mean.

Well, it would be a revised mean.

It's sounding like Manley. I honestly thought we'd agreed on Philip, though I can't recall now myself whether Philip tries to emulate Manley or revises Hadley - I recall he doesn't like Hadley because of the coastal station in Lancs, and he has a point.

[Kentish Man]

Surely you either have from now on to switch to Hadley which conveniently recorded 4.9C for Dec and is the first month of the CET year for competition purposes or alternatively you have to be prepared to update the previous result tables if you stick with Manley.

[PersianPaladin]

Who cares...there are no prizes for the competition.

[Stu_London]

Who cares...there are no prizes for the competition.

Is there not?

I thought a years NW extra went to the winner

[Roger J Smith]

It is not an issue for me, but if the organizers want a suggestion that might solve their dilemma, then score December as though any of 4.9, 5.0 and 5.1 were "on the money" and score everyone else from either end of that narrow range. And use that formula again in the future if you find that you've scored before a final figure is set.

I hope this won't cause any real problems, the competition is enjoyed by all and I'm sure we can all live with the decision you make.

[Snowly does it]

As I punted 5.1 I will refrain from stating my preference for fear of claims of dreadful bias.

[acbrixton]

I would go for Manley as first we agreed to use it and secondly it is safe to assume that Philip will not revise monthly means long after the event.

regards

ACB

[osmposm]

Surely you either have from now on to switch to Hadley which conveniently recorded 4.9C for Dec and is the first month of the CET year for competition purposes or alternatively you have to be prepared to update the previous result tables if you stick with Manley.

I think that's right, KM. Although we do not know why Philip revised his figure, we must presumably accept that he had good reason to do so, and that the adjusted figure is a "better" one.

Alternatively - and particularly if Philip is likely to be a more regular post-month 'adjuster' hereafter - I am very happy to change now to Hadley for this year's competition at least, with the fortuitous bonus that the scoreboard will not require recalculating.

Whether Manley or Hadley, we must go with the "best" i.e. final adjusted figure for the month, even if that involves a wait.

(My guess, by the way, was a little high, so using adjusted Manley would be to my advantage for December)

Ossie

[Stratos Ferric]

I think that's right, KM. Although we do not know why Philip revised his figure, we must presumably accept that he had good reason to do so, and that the adjusted figure is a "better" one.

Alternatively - and particularly if Philip is likely to be a more regular post-month 'adjuster' hereafter - I am very happy to change now to Hadley for this year's competition at least, with the fortuitous bonus that the scoreboard will not require recalculating.

Whether Manley or Hadley, we must go with the "best" i.e. final adjusted figure for the month, even if that involves a wait.

(My guess, by the way, was a little high, so using adjusted Manley would be to my advantage for December)

Ossie

Well, perhaps the easiest solution is, whichever numbers we go with - though as ACB suggests Manley was the original choice - not to calculate the results until around the 10th of the following month. Evryone can see the list anyway so will know rought where they have finished. This is hardly life and death, so to prevent pointless rework I propose sticking with Manley but NOT producing definitivre results until, say, the 10th of the following month.

[J10]

Revised Figures are as follows, if we are goiing to wait in future we might as well use the revised figures for this month.

By the way the recalculation of the spreadsheet is not that great, as it is all linked to the CET actual figure, if only the data entry was as easy.

[chionomaniac]

Drat dropped 19 places with the revised figures!

Not to worry - still another 11 months to catch up.

c