Spirit of 1740

Indeed and, if true, I don't think anyone can then feasibly argue that 30c was reached in central London under standard conditions. You can hardly get any more central than St James' Park!

The answers to those two questions are no, though as far as I know there is no public record, and yes, they may well report in their monthly review. The answer to the second question one doesn't affect the first one though.

ROFL. It seems that some people are going to argue until they're blue in the face that the reading on Sunday was somehow valid for statistical and historical reasons. Well, to that I say this. You can believe what you like, but the fact will be that only the standard readings will be used for statistical and historical purposes. Unless 30c is hit at another station, it will become conventional wisdom over time that it wasn't reached this year. If you want to hold a different view on that, that is your own problem.

Indeed. I was trying to make exactly this point yesterday. It's OK for people to report their own obervations and reports from non-standard sites, but they must realise what will go into the history books and what won't.

I have no problem in agreeing with that.

Stephen, Sincerely, I am not trying to wind you up. I am merely pointing out that when all is said and done, only official statistics count for historical comparisons because other sites and personal records are not subject to proper and consistent checking and standardisation. When placed in that proper context, 2007 is presently heading for the title of a year without 30c.

Thanks Optimus - great minds think alike. LOL. Listen to yourself Stephen. You are asking me to prove that 30c wasn't reached. That's not how we record weather statistics - by saying that we can't prove that they weren't reached. We record them only by proving that they were reached.

The problem with that argument is that it can apply all the time. In 2003, you could say it probably reached 40c somewhere on August 10. However, we don't put 40c down in the historical records. Nope, I'm afraid unless it was recorded at a standard site, it hasn't happened.

Yes, but the whole point is that the figure won't even count for the MET office because that site is only used for daily readings and not for statistical and historical purposes, as pointed out by Mr Data and PJB on UKWW.

I think you will find that when the highest temperature for this year is entered into the records that count, for example here: http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~taharley/hottest_days.htm or the monthly summaries by Philip Eden maintained by the Royal Meteorological Society and the Met Office, I think you will find that the reading is not the one that is recorded. That's all that counts from my point of view. And when people come to look back on this year in 10, 20 or 30 years that's all that will count for them too. Yes, but official temps are the ones that one down in history and the ones that count for real comparative purposes of one year versus another. As soon as you start accepting non-standard observations, you are not comparing like with like and you are also on the slippery slope to accepting anything at all. Why not take a temperature inside a greenhouse, that's as real world as anything else?

Fact is though that the box cannot be ticked. 29.7c was also the highest temperature on the warmest day of 1993. I am sure there were a few unofficial 30c readings that day. But the only thing people now remember about that year was the 29.7c was the highest temperature of the year because that was the highest at a standard site. If 30c is not hit somewhere else, exactly the same will be the case for this year and the box will be left unticked.

Yes and Yes - so far.

LOL. Actually, the reverse. As much as you were obviously desperate for 30c, it hasn't been reached. Previous readings from LWC have not counted. I'm sure it was probably reached at a non-standard site in 1993, but for statistical purposes it wasn't achieved at a standard site. All seasoned observers across the weather forums agree on this point. You'll just have to accept that your wait for 30c goes on.

Still won't count. Back on 11th June, they listed Newry as having reached 28.6c, but that was discounted. Basic fact is we know the site is non-standard by their own rules and therefore it just can't count.

LWC is not an officuial station (non-standard) and will not count as an official 30c this year. It will have had to hit it somewhere else.

Though even the very cool summer of 1922 exceeded 90F (yes, in May, but we are not being picky). So it's really a bit of a lottery when it comes to yearly maxima and not something to beat yourself up about.

Yes. However, at least next week is look cool in compensation.

The mystery deepens. According to Philip Eden: http://www.climate-uk.com/monthly/0707.htm

Early sign of TomP's 2012?

Yes, as you say, it could well be a conspiracy by METO to inflate the numbers to convince people of AGW.

Well in fact, I was utterly wrong: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2007/july.html The UK anomaly was a mere -0.2c and the one for England -0.3c. I have to this strikes me as a little strange. Yes, I know there is no reason to expect the CET anomaly to the same as the Areal series, but look at the anomalies for earlier this year - they all match really well. Then, just when you get a really good July CET, the relationship massively breaks down and the Areal series produce a paltry anomaly. What are other people's thoughts? Was July really just 0.2-0.3c below 61-90 and more or less equal to 2004 or was it 0.8-0.9c below and close to 1993?

One more stat on the Hadley figure - 11th coolest of the last 85 years. Only 1940, 1954, 1960, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1978, 1980 and 1988 were colder. Half of those were only 0.1-0.2c cooler. Were a January to replicate that ranking, the associated CET would be 1.7-2.2c.

Hi Optimus - the July average is 16.1c rather than 16.0c. You can check this using the data if you wish to do so. Therefore, the anomaly is 0.0c. North-Easterly - Not sure you are right there actually. Do you have the source? The reason I say this is that it is ranked above 1993 in the METO 'cold' month rankings: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/mly_cet_mean_sort.txt 84th place 2007, 95th place 1993. A higher ranking denotes a colder month.

Not sure we are looking at the same data, but on Hadley the June figure is 15.1c, 0.9c above the 61-90 average of 14.2c whilst July was 15.2c, 0.9c below the 61-90 average of 16.1c. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

Kold - I'd go along with you to the extent that I believe that June did the groundwork for July by hauling down the SSTs. Soil moisture may also have played a role too, I admit, though remember that wet soils hold up night time minima. :o If SSTs were lower at the outset of a hypothetical future summer, then I believe it wouldn't require May and June to be so wet in order to deliver a similar or even cooler July.