January 2024 CET and E.W.P. forecast contests

[Metwatch]

15 minutes ago, TillyS said:

January will still finish very mild. It will be officially in the ‘well above average’ category i.e. 1C + above the 1961-1990 mean.

Cannot agree with that. A January with a CET in the 4.5 to 5C range is far from 'well above average'. I would say a very mild January would be in the top 50 out of the 365 which have already been recorded in the CET database, which starts from having a CET of above 5.5C. The only Januaries like that in recent years (last 15 years) were 2020 and 2014.

If a lot of months finished even close to a little above the 61-90 average they can't be classed as mild/warm and with today's climate most wouldn't even be or feel mild but still on the colder side of things.

Edited January 20 by Metwatch

[SollyOlly]

2 hours ago, Metwatch said:

Cannot agree with that. A January with a CET in the 4.5 to 5C range is far from 'well above average'. I would say a very mild January would be in the top 50 out of the 365 which have already been recorded in the CET database, which starts from having a CET of above 5.5C. The only Januaries like that in recent years (last 15 years) were 2020 and 2014.

If a lot of months finished even close to a little above the 61-90 average they can't be classed as mild/warm and with today's climate most wouldn't even be or feel mild but still on the colder side of things.

We'll have to agree to disagree...!  Been around this before...the last 30 years rolling average is useful, but the World Meteorological Organisation indicate using the 1961-1990 numbers as a reference point for monitoring climate change.  Anyway, as I say, we've been around this before, so I'm not here to argue...we all have our own opinions/ make our own choices 

[Methuselah]

2 minutes ago, SollyOlly said:

We'll have to agree to disagree...!  Been around this before...the last 30 years rolling average is useful, but the World Meteorological Organisation indicate using the 1961-1990 numbers as a reference point for monitoring climate change.  Anyway, as I say, we've been around this before, so I'm not here to argue...we all have our own opinions/ make our own choices 

Agreed @SollyOlly, ignoring the warming is futile.

[SollyOlly]

Hello again @Methuselah! Yes, it is. I don't really get 'emotional' about the weather (well not too much!), but it does rile me a bit when people dismiss scientific facts because it doesn't suit their world view or preference. Anyway, the way the world is going, it looks as though I'm onto a loser with that one...! I do respect the World Meteorological Organisation, they certainly know more about it than I do (!), so if it's good enough for them...

[Metwatch]

FWIW, I'm not saying 61-90 is useless, of course not it shows how the climate is changing / warming, but comparing months in a 100 years time if the climate goes bonkers, still to the 61-90 average we might end up with anomalies of 4-7C above that average consistently and when 7C above average is mentioned, a lot won't know the exact average that is being referenced without it being said leading to confusion among the general public. The latest 30 year averages tells us what is more or less normal up until the next average comes out. One graph since the late 19th century tells us the full picture though rather than one 30 year mean average instead.

The example with USA below comparing to a 100 year mean showing the change nicely.

Another good idea I would think is to compare all the months or years to a 1900-2022 CET average or a much longer mean than a 30 year one. If @Roger J Smith could do the CET averages of all months in the 1900-2023 period, that might be useful to see then compare to some recent 30 year averages.

Edited January 20 by Metwatch

[Daniel*]

20 minutes ago, SollyOlly said:

We'll have to agree to disagree...!  Been around this before...the last 30 years rolling average is useful, but the World Meteorological Organisation indicate using the 1961-1990 numbers as a reference point for monitoring climate change.  Anyway, as I say, we've been around this before, so I'm not here to argue...we all have our own opinions/ make our own choices 

Virtually all meteorological organisations all around the world have moved to 1991-2020. Wake up, good heavens that climate does not exist anymore. It is not representative of modern climate which we experience. 

Edited January 20 by Daniel*

[Daniel*]

25 minutes ago, Methuselah said:

Agreed @SollyOlly, ignoring the warming is futile.

It’s nothing to about ignoring it. That can still be done separately but it is the convention to compare with latest 30 year averages for current climate. The World Meteorological Organisation are not respected by climatologists. They maintain the 56.7°C in Death Valley in 1913 was highest temperature measured on Earth even though it has been totally disproven. Utterly useless. 

Edited January 20 by Daniel*

[SollyOlly]

9 minutes ago, Daniel* said:

It’s nothing to about ignoring it. That can still be done separately but it is the convention to compare with latest 30 year averages for current climate. The World Meteorological Organisation are not respected by climatologists. They maintain the 56.7°C in Death Valley in 1913 was highest temperature measured on Earth even though it has been totally disproven. Utterly useless. 

That's interesting. Is it true that the WMO is not respected by climatologists? I had not heard that before, but as I say, I am not an expert. I work at a (respected) University, and the climate people there don't seem to have a problem with the WMO, other than the usual gripes about political interference in science. As I say, I'm not arguing (I have my own views) but also enjoy learning. I had genuinely not heard that the WMO were not respected.

This sums it up pretty well from my perspective:

It’s warmer than average. But what is average?

WMO.INT

---

WMO scientists explain the important of global climate monitoring and its value for decision-making in a blog post published by the UK's Met Office. The heat of summer is...

But if that is baloney, then my education continues...

[Metwatch]

22 minutes ago, SollyOlly said:

That's interesting. Is it true that the WMO is not respected by climatologists? I had not heard that before, but as I say, I am not an expert. I work at a (respected) University, and the climate people there don't seem to have a problem with the WMO, other than the usual gripes about political interference in science. As I say, I'm not arguing (I have my own views) but also enjoy learning. I had genuinely not heard that the WMO were not respected.

This sums it up pretty well from my perspective:

It’s warmer than average. But what is average?

WMO.INT

---

WMO scientists explain the important of global climate monitoring and its value for decision-making in a blog post published by the UK's Met Office. The heat of summer is...

But if that is baloney, then my education continues...

What is written in that article isn't wrong and it even says that the 1991-2020 average is still good to use. Updating 30 year averages every decade is strongly recommended by each countries's weather services... I think you're getting confused between which 30 year or longer average is used for which purpose.

For the latest 30 year averages, "WMO has agreed that the standard 30-year reference period has to be updated every decade in order to better reflect the changing climate and its influence on our day-to-day weather experience.

While for older averages before much warming, "it is also worth highlighting that there are also fixed historical reference periods that are used to benchmark climate change monitoring. The WMO Reference Period for long-term climate change assessment is based on the period 1961-1990 whilst the pre-industrial reference period, 1850-1900, is used by WMO and IPCC as the baseline for estimating past and future global temperature increases."

 

There is nothing wrong about any average, they just have different purposes and both are useful. The CET tracker however many agree that it should be updated to be compared to the latest average which hasn't seem to be done yet.

Edited January 20 by Metwatch

[SollyOlly]

2 minutes ago, Metwatch said:

What is written in that article isn't wrong and it even says that the 1991-2020 average is still good to use. Updating 30 year averages every decade is strongly recommended by each countries's weather services... I think you're getting confused between which 30 year or longer average is used for which purpose.

For the latest 30 year averages, "WMO has agreed that the standard 30-year reference period has to be updated every decade in order to better reflect the changing climate and its influence on our day-to-day weather experience.

While for older averages before much warming, "it is also worth highlighting that there are also fixed historical reference periods that are used to benchmark climate change monitoring. The WMO Reference Period for long-term climate change assessment is based on the period 1961-1990 whilst the pre-industrial reference period, 1850-1900, is used by WMO and IPCC as the baseline for estimating past and future global temperature increases."

 

There is nothing wrong about any average, they just have different purposes and both are useful. The CET tracker however many agree that it should be updated to be compared to the latest average which hasn't seem to be done yet.

I'm not"confused", but thanks for your thoughts. 

[damianslaw]

1 hour ago, Metwatch said:

FWIW, I'm not saying 61-90 is useless, of course not it shows how the climate is changing / warming, but comparing months in a 100 years time if the climate goes bonkers, still to the 61-90 average we might end up with anomalies of 4-7C above that average consistently and when 7C above average is mentioned, a lot won't know the exact average that is being referenced without it being said leading to confusion among the general public. The latest 30 year averages tells us what is more or less normal up until the next average comes out. One graph since the late 19th century tells us the full picture though rather than one 30 year mean average instead.

The example with USA below comparing to a 100 year mean showing the change nicely.

Another good idea I would think is to compare all the months or years to a 1900-2022 CET average or a much longer mean than a 30 year one. If @Roger J Smith could do the CET averages of all months in the 1900-2023 period, that might be useful to see then compare to some recent 30 year averages.

Interesting to note the running mean 1897-1927 and 1910-1939 same as 81-10. 61-90 mean is quite a cold but not as cold as 41-70 or 51-80 means I think.

[Roger J Smith]

From the intro post, 1901-2000 average for January is 3.9, 2001-2023 is 4.8, so without actually going to file and calculating, that would yield an average from 1901 to present of about 4.1 C. Average for 1801-1900 was 3.0, and 1701-1800 was 2.9. 1659-1700 had an average of 2.6. The entire period of record average is 3.3. 

I would imagine most of the other months would look like this, June shows less of a warming. Winter is getting shorter and November, march both show larger increases. 

 

30-year averages in CET period of record

 

30-yr period _____ JAN __ FEB __ MAR __ APR __ MAY __ JUN __ JUL __ AUG __ SEP __ OCT __ NOV __ DEC__YEAR

__ 1659-2023) ____ 3.3 ___3.9 ___5.3 ___7.9 __ 11.2 __ 14.3 __ 16.0 __ 15.6 __ 13.3 ___9.7 ___6.1 ___4.1 ___ 9.2

1661-1690 _______ 2.9 ___3.1 ___4.8 ___7.4 __ 11.0 __ 14.3 __ 15.8 __ 15.3 __ 12.8 ___9.4 ___5.7 ___3.4 __ 8.8

1671-1700________2.6 ___2.6 ___4.4 ___7.1 __ 10.7 __ 13.9 __ 15.5 __ 14.9 __ 12.3 ___9.0 ___5.3 ___3.3 __ 8.5

1681-1710________2.4 ___3.0 ___4.5 ___7.3 __ 10.8 __ 13.9 __ 15.5 __ 15.3 __ 12.6 ___9.0 ___5.6 ___4.0 __ 8.6

1691-1720________2.6 ___3.3 ___4.7 ___7.4 __ 10.7 __ 14.0 __ 15.8 __ 15.5 __ 12.9 ___9.1 ___5.8 ___3.8 __ 8.8

1701-1730________3.1 ___3.8 ___5.1 ___7.9 __ 11.3 __ 14.4 __ 15.9 __ 15.8 __ 13.6 ___9.5 ___6.4 ___4.0 __ 9.2

1711-1740________3.4 ___4.0 ___5.4 ___8.1 __ 11.2 __ 14.6 __ 16.0 __ 15.7 __ 13.8 ___9.7 ___6.2 ___4.1 __ 9.3

1721-1750________3.4 ___3.9 ___5.2 ___7.8 __ 11.4 __ 14.5 __ 16.0 __ 15.9 __ 14.0 ___9.6 ___6.3 ___4.2 __ 9.3

1731-1760________3.3 ___3.8 ___5.2 ___7.7 __ 11.2 __ 14.5 __ 16.1 __ 15.8 __ 13.8 ___9.4 ___5.8 ___4.2 __ 9.2

1741-1770________2.9 ___3.7 ___4.8 ___7.6 __ 11.2 __ 14.3 __ 16.0 __ 15.7 __ 13.6 ___9.2 ___5.7 ___3.9 __ 9.0

1751-1780________2.4 ___3.7 ___5.3 ___7.9 __ 11.2 __ 14.5 __ 16.1 __ 15.8 __ 13.4 ___9.3 ___5.6 ___3.7 __ 9.0

1761-1790________2.4 ___3.7 ___4.8 ___7.9 __ 11.5 __ 14.6 __ 16.1 __ 15.9 __ 13.3 ___9.2 ___5.5 ___3.7 __ 9.0

1771-1800________2.4 ___3.8 ___4.9 ___8.1 __ 11.4 __ 14.7 __ 16.3 __ 15.9 __ 13.3 ___9.2 ___5.5 ___3.5 __ 9.1

1781-1810________2.9 ___3.8 ___4.6 ___8.0 __ 11.5 __ 14.6 __ 16.1 __ 15.8 __ 13.2 ___9.4 ___5.3 ___3.2 __ 9.0

1791-1820________2.5 ___4.0 ___5.1 ___8.0 __ 11.2 __ 14.2 __ 15.9 __ 15.6 __ 13.1 ___9.5 ___5.5 ___3.2 __ 9.0

1801-1830________2.4 ___3.9 ___5.5 ___7.9 __ 11.4 __ 14.2 __ 15.8 __ 15.8 __ 13.1 ___9.8 ___5.9 ___3.6 __ 9.1

1811-1840________2.3 ___4.0 ___5.4 ___7.9 __ 11.4 __ 14.4 __ 15.7 __ 15.6 __ 13.0 ___9.8 ___6.1 ___4.0 __ 9.1

1821-1850________2.6 ___3.9 ___5.5 ___8.0 __ 11.6 __ 14.7 __ 15.7 __ 15.3 __ 13.0 ___9.6 ___6.3 ___4.5 __ 9.2

1831-1860________3.2 ___3.7 ___5.2 ___7.8 __ 11.2 __ 14.6 __ 15.7 __ 15.4 __ 13.0 ___9.6 ___5.8 ___4.3 __ 9.1

1841-1870________3.4 ___3.9 ___5.2 ___8.2 __ 11.2 __ 14.4 __ 15.8 __ 15.4 __ 13.2 ___9.6 ___5.7 ___4.3 __ 9.2

1851-1880________3.7 ___4.2 ___5.2 ___8.2 __ 10.8 __ 14.2 __ 15.9 __ 15.6 __ 13.2 ___9.7 ___5.3 ___4.1 __ 9.2

1861-1890________3.5 ___4.5 ___5.1 ___8.1 __ 10.9 __ 14.1 __ 15.8 __ 15.4 __ 13.2 ___9.3 ___5.7 ___3.8 __ 9.1

1871-1900________3.4 ___4.2 ___5.2 ___7.9 __ 10.7 __ 14.2 __ 15.8 __ 15.5 __ 13.1 ___9.0 ___6.1 ___3.7 __ 9.1

1881-1910________3.5 ___3.9 ___5.1 ___7.7 __ 10.9 __ 14.1 __ 15.7 __ 15.2 __ 13.1 ___9.3 ___6.3 ___4.0 __ 9.1

1891-1920________3.7 ___4.1 ___5.3 ___7.9 __ 11.3 __ 14.1 __ 15.7 __ 15.4 __ 13.1 ___9.4 ___6.2 ___4.5 __ 9.2

1901-1930________4.2 ___4.2 ___5.5 ___8.0 __ 11.3 __ 13.8 __ 15.8 __ 15.2 __ 13.1 ___9.8 ___5.8 ___4.5 __ 9.2

1911-1940________4.2 ___4.3 ___5.7 ___8.2 __ 11.5 __ 14.2 __ 15.9 __ 15.6 __ 13.3 ___9.6 ___6.2 ___4.6 __ 9.4

1921-1950________3.9 ___4.2 ___5.9 ___8.0 __ 11.3 __ 14.4 __ 16.3 __ 15.9 __ 13.6 __10.0 ___6.4 ___4.5 __ 9.5

1931-1960________3.5 ___3.9 ___5.9 ___8.1 __ 11.5 __ 14.6 __ 16.2 __ 16.0 __ 13.7 __10.1 ___6.8 ___4.7 __ 9.6

1941-1970________3.3 ___3.6 ___5.7 ___8.1 __ 11.4 __ 14.5 __ 16.0 __ 15.7 __ 13.7 __10.6 ___6.6 ___4.4 __ 9.5

1951-1980________3.6 ___3.7 ___5.6 ___8.0 __ 11.3 __ 14.3 __ 15.9 __ 15.6 __ 13.6 __10.5 ___6.6 ___4.7 __ 9.4

1961-1990________3.8 ___3.8 ___5.7 ___7.9 __ 11.2 __ 14.2 __ 16.1 __ 15.8 __ 13.6 __10.6 ___6.6 ___4.7 __ 9.5

1971-2000________4.2 ___4.2 ___6.3 ___8.1 __ 11.3 __ 14.1 __ 16.5 __ 16.2 __ 13.7 __10.4 ___6.9 ___5.1 __ 9.7

1981-2010________4.4 ___4.4 ___6.6 ___8.5 __ 11.7 __ 14.4 __ 16.7 __ 16.4 __ 14.0 __10.7 ___7.1 ___4.6 __10.0

1991-2020 _______ 4.7 __ 4.9 __ 6.7 ___ 9.0 __ 11.9 __ 14.7 __ 16.8 __ 16.5 __ 14.2 __10.9 __ 7.4 __ 5.0 __ 10.2

[SollyOlly]

Really insightful, thanks @Roger J Smith. 

I absolutely accept that different reference periods are useful for different purposes, and I think that many on here do see that. Whilst Hadley use the CET reference period of 1961-1990, it is surely acceptable to quote that, albeit in context with other periods. There are some who don't seem to like the data because it doesn't align with their preferences, and that is what I point out/ object to.

Met Office Hadley Centre Central England Temperature Data Download

WWW.METOFFICE.GOV.UK

I am not a meteorologist. But I do work at a Russell Group University, in and around health. My department has a formal alliance with climatologists, and works on projects with the Met Office - in fact, I am soon going to a mini-conference in Exeter. I completely agree with posters who recognise the differential use of data according to what one is examining; but to suggest that only a continuously rolling average is the 'true' measure of climate change is, I am afraid, palpable nonsense (and as an academic working at a conservative University, I am not given to hyperbole). In fact, when I am at Exeter, I will ask about views about the WMO. But until I am convinced otherwise, I will view the CET through two lenses - the 1961-1990 period, and the latest rolling 30 year period. Both are sources of rich data.

There are some truly excellent people on here, and I repeat that I am no more than an interested, engaged, and semi-educated amateur in meteorology, and some of the content in the model thread is vastly superior to my knowledge (I come from the NHS). But my specialist academically recognised area is in the health impacts of climate change - I have peer-reviewed publications. I can see why some valuable and esteemed posters have left this site, given the quality of some of the debate!

Enough for a Saturday night...

[WYorksWeather]

45 minutes ago, SollyOlly said:

Really insightful, thanks @Roger J Smith. 

I absolutely accept that different reference periods are useful for different purposes, and I think that many on here do see that. Whilst Hadley use the CET reference period of 1961-1990, it is surely acceptable to quote that, albeit in context with other periods. There are some who don't seem to like the data because it doesn't align with their preferences, and that is what I point out/ object to.

Met Office Hadley Centre Central England Temperature Data Download

WWW.METOFFICE.GOV.UK

I am not a meteorologist. But I do work at a Russell Group University, in and around health. My department has a formal alliance with climatologists, and works on projects with the Met Office - in fact, I am soon going to a mini-conference in Exeter. I completely agree with posters who recognise the differential use of data according to what one is examining; but to suggest that only a continuously rolling average is the 'true' measure of climate change is, I am afraid, palpable nonsense (and as an academic working at a conservative University, I am not given to hyperbole). In fact, when I am at Exeter, I will ask about views about the WMO. But until I am convinced otherwise, I will view the CET through two lenses - the 1961-1990 period, and the latest rolling 30 year period. Both are sources of rich data.

There are some truly excellent people on here, and I repeat that I am no more than an interested, engaged, and semi-educated amateur in meteorology, and some of the content in the model thread is vastly superior to my knowledge (I come from the NHS). But my specialist academically recognised area is in the health impacts of climate change - I have peer-reviewed publications. I can see why some valuable and esteemed posters have left this site, given the quality of some of the debate!

Enough for a Saturday night...

To add to this, I would also argue that even though they don't have much statistical validity, the use of 10-year and 20-year averages is also useful when the picture is changing rapidly. Of course there is a risk of some false-positives, but the issue with using longer averages sometimes is that even a continuously rolling 30-year average (1994-2023) is centred on the late noughties. We've probably seen warming of half a degree over the UK land area since then (global trend ~0.3C over 15 years, multiplied by an additional factor for land warming faster than ocean).

Anyway, I will leave it there as I don't want to turn this into another climate change thread outside of the appropriate area, as my previous experience on this forum is that such discussions tend to undergo proverbial explosive cyclogenesis, leading to significant and widespread damage!

[SollyOlly]

1 minute ago, WYorksWeather said:

To add to this, I would also argue that even though they don't have much statistical validity, the use of 10-year and 20-year averages is also useful when the picture is changing rapidly. Of course there is a risk of some false-positives, but the issue with using longer averages sometimes is that even a continuously rolling 30-year average (1994-2023) is centred on the late noughties. We've probably seen warming of half a degree over the UK land area since then (global trend ~0.3C over 15 years, multiplied by an additional factor for land warming faster than ocean).

Anyway, I will leave it there as I don't want to turn this into another climate change thread outside of the appropriate area, as my previous experience on this forum is that such discussions tend to undergo proverbial explosive cyclogenesis, leading to significant and widespread damage!

Beautiful. Well stated!

[LetItSnow!]

I think it should be agreed upon that a 1901-2000 and the latest 30 year mean should be used concurrently. If we only use the previous 10, 20 or 30 years it will lead to months being classified as cooler than average that really weren’t, like August 2021 or April 2023 off the top of my head. However, it is also important to know where a year stands amongst its current era. But I personally will continue to judge months based off 1901-2000 etc. 

[WYorksWeather]

12 minutes ago, LetItSnow! said:

I think it should be agreed upon that a 1901-2000 and the latest 30 year mean should be used concurrently. If we only use the previous 10, 20 or 30 years it will lead to months being classified as cooler than average that really weren’t, like August 2021 or April 2023 off the top of my head. However, it is also important to know where a year stands amongst its current era. But I personally will continue to judge months based off 1901-2000 etc. 

I think the whole choice of average is very case-dependent. I would go with something like this:

• Longer-term context - either use an older average like 1961-1990 or a very broad average e.g. all 20th century
• Recent historical context - use a 30-year average updated either every decade (currently 1991-2020) or every year (currently 1994-2023)
• Climate change assessment - the IPCC standard is 20-year averages with a five-year update schedule, so who am I to disagree?
• Everyday experience - use a 10-year average, for example in terms of how a particular month feels compared to the last few (not to be used for more formal purposes of course!)

For example for a month like July 2023 you would say that temperature-wise (ignoring rainfall, sunshine etc.) it was an average month in a longer-term historical context, a poor month in recent history, and compared to the last 10 years it was quite notably poor.

[LetItSnow!]

21 minutes ago, WYorksWeather said:

I

For example for a month like July 2023 you would say that temperature-wise (ignoring rainfall, sunshine etc.) it was an average month in a longer-term historical context, a poor month in recent history, and compared to the last 10 years it was quite notably poor.

Ignoring more detailed variables like SST anomalies playing a part in the month’s temperature I would say yes. It was virtually an average month at the surface even though it isn’t typical for the synoptics (and IMO would have been cooler with the same synoptics even a couple of years ago/in the next few years if SSTs reduce) that were present, purely at the surface, at least for the CET then yes it was average. 

[BlueSkies_do_I_see]

What is the sunniest January on record?  I ask because the remainder of lanuary is looking sunnier than average and last week was very sunny, so I am guessing hours of Jan 2024: sunshine is running quite high right now.

Edited January 21 by BlueSkies_do_I_see

[The PIT]

Sunny Sheffield still on 3.2C -1.6C below average. Rainfall 49.5mm 66.5% of the monthly average.

[TillyS]

17 hours ago, Daniel* said:

Virtually all meteorological organisations all around the world have moved to 1991-2020. Wake up, good heavens that climate does not exist anymore. It is not representative of modern climate which we experience. 

Yes but that’s the whole point. Unless you use a fixed benchmark it’s meaningless. My only gripe was why they chose that particular 30 year mean, as it looked like they picked a coldest possible reference. But having done so, they and we need to stick to it.

I don’t have a problem putting both up for reference out of curiosity.

[TillyS]

20 hours ago, Metwatch said:

Cannot agree with that. A January with a CET in the 4.5 to 5C range is far from 'well above average'.

It's a technical reference.

1C+ is ‘well above’ average according to the official Meteorological Office method.

So, you’re very free to agree or disagree as much as you wish but it doesn’t have any relevance, politely expressed I assure you xx 

Incidentally, the Met Office do use other 30 year means: 

UK climate averages

WWW.METOFFICE.GOV.UK

---

UK climate averages

 

Not in fact 100% sure that it will  go 1C above average. Probably, but not certainly.

[feb1991blizzard]

Just for clarity now then, has the Arctic express been permanently derailed and is it by the stratosphere overriding in the wrong way or overriding in a good way but not long enough.

[Summer Sun]

3.1c to the 20th

0.7c below the 61 to 90 average
1.4c below the 81 to 10 average

[TonyH]

5 hours ago, BlueSkies_do_I_see said:

What is the sunniest January on record?  I ask because the remainder of lanuary is looking sunnier than average and last week was very sunny, so I am guessing hours of Jan 2024: sunshine is running quite high right now.

Sunniest in Coventry was 93.9 hours in 2001so most unlikely a record sunny January this year (Bablake currently on 54.5).