... following the discussion late last month re: whether 'London MO' 
should be used/included in the list of extremes, although the figures 
for same are used by the presenters on the day, I note from the latest 
monthly summary (Met O/NCIC) here:-
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2008/july.html

that the highest for the month of July was quoted as Cambridge NIAB at 
30.2°C on the 28th, so the London MO readings have definitely been 
discounted for 'climatological' summaries - and this agrees with the 
practice used for the MWR that the Met O issue.

Martin.


-- 
Martin Rowley
West Moors, East Dorset (UK): 17m (56ft) amsl
Lat: 50.82N   Long: 01.88W
NGR: SU 082 023

On Aug 5, 8:04 pm, "Martin Rowley"
 wrote:
> ... following the discussion late last month re: whether 'London MO'
> should be used/included in the list of extremes, although the figures
> for same are used by the presenters on the day, I note from the latest
> monthly summary (Met O/NCIC) here:-http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2008/july.html
>
> that the highest for the month of July was quoted as Cambridge NIAB at
> 30.2°C on the 28th, so the London MO readings have definitely been
> discounted for 'climatological' summaries - and this agrees with the
> practice used for the MWR that the Met O issue.
>
> Martin.
>
> --
> Martin Rowley
> West Moors, East Dorset (UK): 17m (56ft) amsl
> Lat: 50.82N   Long: 01.88W
> NGR: SU 082 023

         I see that they use the period 1961-1990 for comparisons.  I
would have thought that 1971-2000 would be available, not that the
difference would be very large.  1971-2000 is used in COL.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

"Tudor Hughes" wrote in message....

> I see that they use the period 1961-1990 for comparisons.  I
> would have thought that 1971-2000 would be available, not that the
> difference would be very large.  1971-2000 is used in COL.

... interesting point - we've discussed this before: another 
peculiarity ....
here:-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

the base period is 1951-1980!  I suppose it's OK as long as you 
understand which period is being used, and make appropriate 
adjustments when comparing series with differing 'base-lines'.

Not sure why the Met Office are still on 1961-1990; I always assumed 
that it was WMO-driven as they only have available on their web site 
('publications') the 1961-1990 climatological normals (CLINO). Within 
the publication part of the web site, a search for 1971-2000 shows no 
return.

It can't be a lack of computing power these days - major 
meteorological centres are stuffed full of machines that could sort 
out a new set of averages in a nonce. Must be a policy decision by 
someone/some committee.

-- 
Martin Rowley
West Moors, East Dorset (UK): 17m (56ft) amsl
Lat: 50.82N   Long: 01.88W
NGR: SU 082 023

On Aug 6, 8:46 am, "Martin Rowley"
 wrote:
> "Tudor Hughes" wrote in message....
> > I see that they use the period 1961-1990 for comparisons.  I
> > would have thought that 1971-2000 would be available, not that the
> > difference would be very large.  1971-2000 is used in COL.
>
> ... interesting point - we've discussed this before: another
> peculiarity ....
> here:-http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
>
> the base period is 1951-1980!  I suppose it's OK as long as you
> understand which period is being used, and make appropriate
> adjustments when comparing series with differing 'base-lines'.
>
> Not sure why the Met Office are still on 1961-1990; I always assumed
> that it was WMO-driven as they only have available on their web site
> ('publications') the 1961-1990 climatological normals (CLINO). Within
> the publication part of the web site, a search for 1971-2000 shows no
> return.
>
> It can't be a lack of computing power these days - major
> meteorological centres are stuffed full of machines that could sort
> out a new set of averages in a nonce. Must be a policy decision by
> someone/some committee.
>
> --
> Martin Rowley
> West Moors, East Dorset (UK): 17m (56ft) amsl
> Lat: 50.82N   Long: 01.88W
> NGR: SU 082 023

Why isn't the long-term Manley average used? Surely re-basing makes
for a changing perception, over time, of what "average" temperatures
means?

Paul

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 at 01:02:36, Dawlish  wrote in 
uk.sci.weather :
>
>Why isn't the long-term Manley average used?

>Surely re-basing makes
>for a changing perception, over time, of what "average" temperatures
>means?

Given that average temperatures *do* change over time, re-basing seems 
very sensible.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)