January CET

[I remember Atlantic 252]

metcheck have it as 1.5°C

[Nick L]

They use the 61-90 series because they reckon it's more reflective of the British climate.

If that's the case then wouldn't it be better to use the 300 odd year series? 1695-2009 say

I've wondered that, what is wrong with using the complete average?

[Guest]

I put in my estimate of 2.9C before the start of the month and at that time a lot of other people were putting in figures for above that value.

As the month went on and the cold deepened a lot of people revised their estimates down but in my view this is no longer a true contest - a bit like backing a horse halfway through the race - at the same time it has given rise to many interesting comments as to how we are progressing.

I won't change my original figure because that ain't on but will acknowledge that I overshot probably by about 1C or so.

On the other hand if we were to take an average for the month, say for Watford, I think Northolt is the nearest which keeps recognised stats, I don't think that my original estimate of 2.9C would be too far off.

From the extreme south of the area to the north I believe there has been quite some variation.

Any comments?

Edited January 29, 2010 by mike Meehan

[osmposm]

Yes IMO this is to fit their agenda in pushing GW. By keeping that outdated period which had more cold winters then it's harder for the UK to get colder than average months. Why can't they just include the last 50 years and include the entire period which means this takes into account recent milder winters aswell as those colder ones from the past. The obvious reason is that it doesn't allow them the opportunity to push Global Warming, I would like to know from them their justification in using that time period.

Regarding the WMO, the Met Office still have figures for the UK so why can't they use them, we're talking about the CET series which is UK not the world, if thats the reason then its obvious they're using that lame excuse to further their GW obsession.

IMO, on the other hand, it is not for the reason you suggest, but for the reasons TWS has carefully explained - and it's certainly not "obvious" either way. There are good arguments for other measures, certainly, perhaps in conjunction with 61-90; but following standard world meteorological practice is hardly evidence of wicked intent, even if it may be a little unimaginative.

Perhaps, too - to avoid conflict in these nice, clean threads - we could try and keep the GW-conspiracy theories safely corralled in the Climate Change area?

Thanks, Ossie

I put in my estimate of 2.9C before the start of the month and at that time a lot of other people were putting in figures for above that value.

As the month went on and the cold deepened a lot of people revised their estimates down but in my view this is no longer a true contest - a bit like backing a horse halfway through the race....

I'm confused, Mike. The actual contest is still for the guesses everybody made before (or very shortly after, with penalties) the start of the month - nobody can or is changing them.

But the thread is not only about the competition, it is a free discussion on where we think the CET figure is heading; and that, of course, changes as the month progresses and its weather unfolds.

[Cymro]

IMO, on the other hand, it is not for the reason you suggest, but for the reasons TWS has carefully explained - and it's certainly not "obvious" either way. There are good arguments for other measures, certainly, perhaps in conjunction with 61-90; but following standard world meteorological practice is hardly evidence of wicked intent, even if it may be a little unimaginative.

Perhaps, too - to avoid conflict in these nice, clean threads - we could try and keep the GW-conspiracy theories safely corralled in the Climate Change area?

Thanks, Ossie

I'm confused, Mike. The actual contest is still for the guesses everybody made before (or very shortly after, with penalties) the start of the month - nobody can or is changing them.

But the thread is not only about the competition, it is a free discussion on where we think the CET figure is heading; and that, of course, changes as the month progresses and its weather unfolds.

Yes mike they might be able to edit their posts but their original guess is still there and therefore they wont cheat, and as for your comment on averages i think is way off tbh, im in West Wales and our average here so far is around 1.1 a tad cooler than the Uk average. The uk average if anything is mild biased almost certainly. Another thing that frustrates me with the metoffice most weather stations are near the coast? Mild ramping much and using data to fit they're own agenda?

[Guest]

Yes mike they might be able to edit their posts but their original guess is still there and therefore they wont cheat, and as for your comment on averages i think is way off tbh, im in West Wales and our average here so far is around 1.1 a tad cooler than the Uk average. The uk average if anything is mild biased almost certainly. Another thing that frustrates me with the metoffice most weather stations are near the coast? Mild ramping much and using data to fit they're own agenda?

Accepted, though I also made the point that the theme as a whole made for some interesting comments.

As for the temperatures at Watford, these appear to be modified to a great extent by its proximity to London which we all know as a "heat island" (you know, like what, it is alleged, the GW climatoligists are using) whereas if you take Benson, (or even Rickmansworth, which is well known as a "frost hollow"), not so far away recorded far lower temperatures than what we had and a lower min is going to take the average for the day down.

Edited January 29, 2010 by mike Meehan

[Thundery wintry showers]

Also, re. those who are slagging off the Met Office for using 1961-90, for the most part they have moved over to using 1971-2000 as the default comparison period but left the 1961-90 averages in there as a comparison point.

They did move rather more slowly than expected though- I recall that in the 1990s they moved from 1951-80 to 1961-90 around the middle of the decade.

[Optimus Prime]

Also, re. those who are slagging off the Met Office for using 1961-90, for the most part they have moved over to using 1971-2000 as the default comparison period but left the 1961-90 averages in there as a comparison point.

They leave the 61-90 in where it matters and use the 71-000 where it doesn't. That's called moving goalposts.

[paul tall]

Yes mike they might be able to edit their posts but their original guess is still there and therefore they wont cheat, and as for your comment on averages i think is way off tbh, im in West Wales and our average here so far is around 1.1 a tad cooler than the Uk average. The uk average if anything is mild biased almost certainly. Another thing that frustrates me with the metoffice most weather stations are near the coast? Mild ramping much and using data to fit they're own agenda?

Should not really make any difference where the stations are so long as they compare long term measurements for the same locations.

[Cymro]

Should not really make any difference where the stations are so long as they compare long term measurements for the same locations.

Yes it does because i they are near the coast they are more maritme hence warmer, Neath abbey the nearest observing point to here is 20 miles away and on the coast tempreatures rarely get below 0 there when we've been -15 here. Its not a true account of the British climate if the vast majority of observing centres are on the coast because in a country like this the weather varies dramatically from area to area.

[Guest]

I'm not sure what they used when I was at school - it was probably 1920 to 1950 - colder values then

[reef]

Should not really make any difference where the stations are so long as they compare long term measurements for the same locations.

Exactly. Its complete nonsense to suggest the MetOffice somehow have an agenda here.

Hadley is 1.6C after yesterday came in at 4.8C. Today could see a moderate rise but these will be balanced by small falls over the remaining two days. 1.5C - 1.7C before adjustment looks a good bet now. Manley is currently on 1.2C so we still could yet beat February 1991.

[noggin]

Another thing that frustrates me with the metoffice most weather stations are near the coast? Mild ramping much and using data to fit they're own agenda?

For the purpose of calculating the CET (Central England Temperature), the designated area is a triangular area bounded by Bristol, London and Lancashire, so there isn't much coastal-ness there.

Somewhere there is a map of the situations of all the weather stations.....I'll see if I can find it and I'll post a link!

Here it is....

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/networks/

Edited January 29, 2010 by noggin

[paul tall]

Yes it does because i they are near the coast they are more maritme hence warmer, Neath abbey the nearest observing point to here is 20 miles away and on the coast tempreatures rarely get below 0 there when we've been -15 here. Its not a true account of the British climate if the vast majority of observing centres are on the coast because in a country like this the weather varies dramatically from area to area.

Yes but so what?

It doesn't matter that you are 15 degrees colder one day, than a particular coastal station that the Met Office may use. What matters is that if they choose to use that coastal station, that they remain consistant and use the same station/s for historical comparisons. Because you are comparing like for like you can tell accurately if a particular month is colder/warmer than the average.

[Duncan McAlister]

Yes but so what?

It doesn't matter that you are 15 degrees colder one day, than a particular coastal station that the Met Office may use. What matters is that if they choose to use that coastal station, that they remain consistant and use the same station/s for historical comparisons. Because you are comparing like for like you can tell accurately if a particular month is colder/warmer than the average.

But didn't they change the Hadley stations during the 70s? Hence why Philip Eden continues with the old Manley stations, for consistency.

[The PIT]

Well for us Sheffield it's going to be the coldest Jan since 1987. Despite the wind tonight could be really cold so may not have yet recorded the coldest night for the month.

[Cymro]

But didn't they change the Hadley stations during the 70s? Hence why Philip Eden continues with the old Manley stations, for consistency.

Yes your write, people are being so defensive and out write bullish here too the usual GW bandwagon, Fact is the vast majority of observation sites are costal that is not a correct assesment of the British climate, Im not on about how they configure the mean average im talking about in general, and those who deny this are jst leading them selves into a false sense of denyal, Where i am in Wales Pembrey, Mumbles,Milford haven, Trawsgoed, Valley, St Athan, all on the coast just about, the only ones that aint are Lake Vyrnwy and Sennybridge oh and Caepl Gurig. not a fair assesment of the Welsh climate for certain.

[Guest]

Should not really make any difference where the stations are so long as they compare long term measurements for the same locations.

I can't totally agree with this because there would be locations which started off as rural locations which have since become urbanised - this is bound to have something of an effect.

[Optimus Prime]

I can't totally agree with this because there would be locations which started off as rural locations which have since become urbanised - this is bound to have something of an effect.

Doesn't that alos represent a change in temperature? Which is what it's all about.

[damianslaw]

For the purpose of calculating the CET (Central England Temperature), the designated area is a triangular area bounded by Bristol, London and Lancashire, so there isn't much coastal-ness there.

Somewhere there is a map of the situations of all the weather stations.....I'll see if I can find it and I'll post a link!

Here it is....

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/networks/

Noteworthy is the fact that the stations do not appear to be evenly distributed. Large portions of the country do not have station, whereas in some places they are clustered very close together. Consequently, the CET doesn't look to be based on a true reflection of the country as a whole.

Looking at my region, much of central, south and east Cumbria inland areas are represented by Shap Fell. Shap Fell is a notorious cold spot and well over 1000 feet, it is not representative of much of the low ground of South Lakeland. The BBC forecasts for Kendal and Windermere are based on Shap Fell..

Anyhow, very good chance we are about to record our coldest month for 23 years, beating Feb 1991, who would have placed bets on this happening back in early december?

[TonyH]

Yes your write, people are being so defensive and out write bullish here too the usual GW bandwagon, Fact is the vast majority of observation sites are costal that is not a correct assesment of the British climate, Im not on about how they configure the mean average im talking about in general, and those who deny this are jst leading them selves into a false sense of denyal, Where i am in Wales Pembrey, Mumbles,Milford haven, Trawsgoed, Valley, St Athan, all on the coast just about, the only ones that aint are Lake Vyrnwy and Sennybridge oh and Caepl Gurig. not a fair assesment of the Welsh climate for certain.

Trawscoed has a strong inland influence, it has had -15c this winter, one of the lowest official readings in England and Wales. With Wales, the coastal zones are more populous, and could therefore be argued more representative of experienced climate. I agree with others that continuity of stations is more important re climate change than location.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Tonyh

[Cymro]

Trawscoed has a strong inland influence, it has had -15c this winter, one of the lowest official readings in England and Wales. With Wales, the coastal zones are more populous, and could therefore be argued more representative of experienced climate. I agree with others that continuity of stations is more important re climate change than location.

Not debating the existence of the ones that are currently there however Wales has relatively few for the size of the country and the contrasts we have in the climate from one town to the next, Carmarthen and Ammanford are populous yet are served by pembrey ? makes no sense?

[osmposm]

Yes your write, people are being so defensive and out write bullish here too the usual GW bandwagon, Fact is the vast majority of observation sites are costal that is not a correct assesment of the British climate, Im not on about how they configure the mean average im talking about in general, and those who deny this are jst leading them selves into a false sense of denyal, Where i am in Wales Pembrey, Mumbles,Milford haven, Trawsgoed, Valley, St Athan, all on the coast just about, the only ones that aint are Lake Vyrnwy and Sennybridge oh and Caepl Gurig. not a fair assesment of the Welsh climate for certain.

Adam, the great link Noggin very kindly gave us above seems to show this is just not true.

Here is the map of synoptic and climate stations in Wales from that link (and also the one for central/SE England):

While I agree that there is a sparsity in your part of South Wales, as you can see there are numerous inland stations over Wales as a whole. The same seems to be true in most other parts of the country - whether or not they are evenly distributed, there are many, many that are nowhere near a coast.

Nobody is being defensive, mate, nobody is in denial, and nobody is on a GW bandwagon. And as I've already said, I'd appreciate it if in this forum area you avoided trying to tie this into your opinions about supposed GW agendas. If that's what you still want to do, why not open up a thread on the subject in the Climate Change area?

[osmposm]

Noteworthy is the fact that the stations do not appear to be evenly distributed. Large portions of the country do not have station, whereas in some places they are clustered very close together. Consequently, the CET doesn't look to be based on a true reflection of the country as a whole.

Surely the evenness of station distribution nationwide is irrelevant to the measurement of the CET mean, which is calculated from just three stations - Stonyhurst, Pershore & Rothamsted I think it is (or was)?

[Guest]

The other thing I wander about is that in my view, The last half of December and January appears to have been moderately cold in the big scheme of things at watford we have had relatively few sub zero maxima and none particularly low, whereas in the years of yore we had maxima of -5C at Watford from time to time, the last I can recall with any certainty was 1991. Yet the propensity for this to happen with a quite a few maxima of -18C or below at Moscow appears to have been there. It seems we did not have the wind in the right direction at the right time.

Also in my youth in Lincolnshire I recall that there were a number of occasions when the maxima must have been quite low - I did not have thermometer at the time but I recall a number of occasions when we could not make snowballs because the snow was too powdery and I believe it needs a sub -5C for this. On another occasion, during the middle of the day I touched a galvanised steel water tank with my bare fingers and they stuck to it, in much the same as when you touch the ice tray in a freezer which is normally kept at -18C. I'm not saying that this was the actual temperature and would be extremely surprised if it was but it must have been pretty cold for this occur.