January CET

[noggin]

My old link to Hadobs takes me to a MetO page which says that "this page has been replaced" but does not give a link for any "new" page. I will take it that there is a perfectly reasonable reason (!) for this and it is not suspicious in any way!

Nice to see that 2008 came in at under 10o though!

I will put Duncan's link to Hadobs in my "favourites" and hope that it doesn't disappear.

[johnholmes]

have those of you who see a 'plot' about the late release of the January data thought about sending an e mail to the Met O and asking politely when it may come out, and why their link is no longer there?

[Yeti]

have those of you who see a 'plot' about the late release of the January data thought about sending an e mail to the Met O and asking politely when it may come out, and why their link is no longer there?

Just done that.

[The PIT]

have those of you who see a 'plot' about the late release of the January data thought about sending an e mail to the Met O and asking politely when it may come out, and why their link is no longer there?

John you're our inside informer you can get the information.

[Yeti]

Just sent an email to the Metoffice and this is their reply so far:

Dear David

Thank you for your enquiry.

The Met Office is world renowned for its expertise and in order to best deal with your correspondence it has been forwarded to a colleague with specialist knowledge in the area you have outlined.

At the Met Office we are committed to providing you with the information you requested quickly and accurately, although this will be subject to the complexity and nature of your enquiry.

If you have any further questions or need additional information please contact the Weather Desk on 0870 9000 100 where one of our advisors will be happy to help you. The number is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Kind Regards

Will let you know as soon as this expert gets back to me!

[Roger J Smith]

I would have to say they are still considering my million dollar offer regarding -0.4 C. You can buy a lot of thermometers with that kind of money. :unsure:

[Stratos Ferric]

The delay in issuing the final CET figure over the last two months is odd. If this continues through the year I would advocate returning to Climate UK and the Manley series for the next year of our competition starting in December 2009. It is only a light hearted competition anyway and if we continually have to wait to the middle of the following month half the entrants have lost interest.

That was always the original rationale for using Phil's data, plus the fact that it makes a nod in the direction of someone who has contributed hugely to the online 'amateur' community.

[Stu_London]

That was always the original rationale for using Phil's data, plus the fact that it makes a nod in the direction of someone who has contributed hugely to the online 'amateur' community.

Yes but his final figure as often different to the headline figure published on the home page - Indeed the confirmed figure for January 2009 is yet to be published.

http://www.climate-uk.com/provisional.htm

We might as use the net weather temperature tracker or the readings from my garden as Philip's homepage.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I think the Met Office will update Monday or Tuesday. Complete coincidence this will be in time for the mild February weather.

[Chris Knight]

Perhaps the guy with the sliderule is still snowed in

[Nick L]

STILL no official figure. This is getting silly now!

[SteveB]

STILL no official figure. This is getting silly now!

This has got to be the longest it's taken to release a figure.

[Optimus Prime]

The NOAA take about 3 weeks to release their figures, sometimes more. The Metoffice are probably only releasing it after they have done all the checks.

[Nick L]

The NOAA take about 3 weeks to release their figures, sometimes more. The Metoffice are probably only releasing it after they have done all the checks.

For the US? Or globally? Either way, that's understandable because both options are considerably bigger than the UK! As long as the figure eventually is announced I don't really mind, but it certainly is odd.

[SteveB]

Finally in

And a bit of a shock

3.0c

Lowest since 1997

Edited February 18, 2009 by SteveB

[Mark Bayley]

Heres the link

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html

[Optimus Prime]

Finally in

And a bit of a shock

3.0c

Lowest since 1997

Mean Max 6.0c (-0.3c)

Mean Min 0.1 (-1.1c)

3.05c, rounded down to 3.0c. Should be 3.1c, not that it matters.

[shuggee]

Yes, as you probably know OP temperature stats in meteorology always round to the even number.

[reef]

Mean Max 6.0c (-0.3c)

Mean Min 0.1 (-1.1c)

3.05c, rounded down to 3.0c. Should be 3.1c, not that it matters.

The actual number is 3.03C, if you look here:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_mean_2009

So once again we cannot manage a sub-3.0C month. As Ive said many times, if we cannot dip below this mark in a colder winter (possibly close to as cold as is possible nowadays) then you have to ask the question if for now, is it beyond us?

Nevertheless, its the coldest January and indeed coldest month of all since 1997.

Edited February 18, 2009 by reef

[LadyPakal]

But why expect instant cooling? This is what gets me - it tooks years to warm up, and it would take at least as many years to cool down again. The earth is a big place - it's not going to happen overnight.

[Weather-history]

So once again we cannot manage a sub-3.0C month. As Ive said many times, if we cannot dip below this mark in a colder winter (possibly close to as cold as is possible nowadays) then you have to ask the question if for now, is it beyond us?

However 27th December- 13th February CET: 2.2

Call it cherry picking you may do but thats a 7 week period

Also

29th November-13th February CET: 2.8

A 11 week period

[summer blizzard]

However 27th December- 13th February CET: 2.2

Call it cherry picking you may do but thats a 7 week period

Also

29th November-13th February CET: 2.8

A 11 week period

Are these the longest such periods since 1997, or was winter 2006 able to surpass these.

[Weather-history]

Are these the longest such periods since 1997, or was winter 2006 able to surpass these.

That is the coldest period since 1997 for 7 weeks, not sure about the 11 week period though.

By the way 27th December 1995 - 13th February 1996 CET: 2.8

27th December 1996 - 13th February 1997 CET: 3.2

Edited February 18, 2009 by Mr_Data

[reef]

But why expect instant cooling? This is what gets me - it tooks years to warm up, and it would take at least as many years to cool down again. The earth is a big place - it's not going to happen overnight.

Thats exactly the point though. Theres no proof yet that we in the UK are actually cooling. Until we have several years of data suggesting so, at present it is merely a small trough in an otherwise upward trend. .The fact that we still havent achieved a month below 3C actually cements the argument. In historical terms, 3.0C isnt actually a really cold month. As recently as 18 years ago we had a 1.5C month and 5 years earlier a -1.1C month. As SF has often mentioned, the longer we go without attaining a true cold month, the more unlikely it becomes. The fact that despite a cold winter by recent standards we still cant get the sustained cold to deliver a sub-3.0C month just maintains the idea that potent and prolonged cold is probably beyond us for now.

Even if you look at the period 1896-1928, often cited as a period of milder winters (or indeed 'modern winters' as Mr Datas news cuttings show), still 16 months in the period recorded a sub-3C CET. Indeed, one month was actually November 1915. The fact is, that we are now in the longest period in recorded history that a month has failed to see a CET below the threshold. Its ridiculous to talk of any cooling while this statistic stands.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes but his final figure as often different to the headline figure published on the home page - Indeed the confirmed figure for January 2009 is yet to be published.

This is true, but I remember at least a couple of occasions when the Hadley figures were revised significantly as much as several months after the event.

Personally I'm more with Stratos Ferric on this one although I'm quite happy to continue using Hadley if the general consensus is that it is the better measure to use.