The Warmest September ever recorded?

[Snowyowl9]

Eeek ... more of a dip than I expected. Philip now has it at 16.71C with 24 hrs to go! http://www.climate-uk.com/

That doesn`t include last night`s minima either which dropped quite a lot to recent nights but the CET doesn`t cover Wales...anyway I got down to 7.7c.

http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleyce...bsdata/cet/html

[Nick H]

Given that the CET for Sep 1-29 is 16.71, and that last night's minima over the CET region by my calculations were just below 9C, that would mean we would need maxima of just under 21C in the CET region today to finish up at 16.65 and hence break the record. I doubt this is possible so expect the CET to come out at 16.6 and hence equal the record.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Nick H

[su rui ke]

To just equal the record, using Philip's figures, I reckon today's CET needs to be at least 11.6C - assuming 16.55 counts as 16.6C - or 13.4C if it needs to be at least 16.60 to count as 16.6C.

Does anyone have an estimate of what last night's minimum was?

[SP1986]

If this record CET doesn't come off we'll only go and break another record, which of course the four 'summer' months above 16C. I think the current CET is far too close to tell whether it will break the warmest ever september category, however an intense 24 hours ahead!

Craig, the lowest temperature I can find in central England was Nottingham at 9C, although a few places in the CET area were on 13-15C

[Nick H]

To just equal the record, using Philip's figures, I reckon today's CET needs to be at least 11.6C - assuming 16.55 counts as 16.6C - or 13.4C if it needs to be at least 16.60 to count as 16.6C.

Does anyone have an estimate of what last night's minimum was?

Hi su rui ke,

By my calculations today's CET needs to be 14.61 to equal the record. You posted this message at the same time I posted my estimate of last night's minima: I reckon it's about 8.66.

[su rui ke]

Hi su rui ke,

By my calculations today's CET needs to be 14.61 to equal the record. You posted this message at the same time I posted my estimate of last night's minima: I reckon it's about 8.66.

Hi Nick,

Checking, I think my 11.6 was a bit out, but 12.0C would do it, wouldn't it? If 8.7C is near the mark for the minimum that would mean a CET max of about 15.3C for today would see the record equalled.

(16.71 x 29 + 12.0)/30 = 16.55C

But better if it was a little higher to avoid rounding arguments!

[stormchaser1]

Well here in the North east my average mean so far is 16.62c which is up by 3.12c, this has been the warmest september the north east has seen in the last 10 years , 2002 was the last warmest with an average of just 14.25c

nigel

[Nick H]

Hi Nick,

Checking, I think my 11.6 was a bit out, but 12.0C would do it, wouldn't it? If 8.7C is near the mark for the minimum that would mean a CET max of about 15.3C for today would see the record equalled.

(16.71 x 29 + 12.0)/30 = 16.55C

But better if it was a little higher to avoid rounding arguments!

Yep, apologies, you're right with 12.0. 14.61 is needed to make the CET equal to 16.64. I forgot it can be equalled by rounding up as well as down. :lol: I think we can say with near certainty that it will be at least equalled.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Nick H

[su rui ke]

Yep, apologies, you're right with 12.0. 14.61 is needed to make the CET equal to 16.64. I forgot it can be equalled by rounding up as well as down. :lol:

OK, Nick - it is obviously going to be very, very close. It feels strangely like waiting for an election result to come in!

[Nordic Snowman]

It's also going to be very, very close up here in Lesjaskog. The mean September temperature here is 6.2c. Up to and including the 28th, it was running at 10.3c... + 4.1c.

Tonight I will find out if it broke the record which was only set back in 1999 with 11c.

A close one.

[parmenides3]

It's also going to be very, very close up here in Lesjaskog. The mean September temperature here is 6.2c. Up to and including the 28th, it was running at 10.3c... + 4.1c.

Tonight I will find out if it broke the record which was only set back in 1999 with 11c.

A close one.

Even with current temps at 12.2C, Mike, surely this con't be possible? Are you expecting a very warm day & night again tonight?

Great to have the comparison, thanks.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Gray-Wolf,

Actually for the purposes of CET calculation the month ends at 1900 BST tonight. Thus tonight's minima will have no bearing on the September CET but will be counted as the first minima for the purposes of calculating the October CET. Similarly, the first minima used to calculate the September CET is the night of August 31-September 1.

Thank you Nick, so another 5 1/2 hrs of recording then?

[Bottesford]

FYI:

A king is but a foolish labourer

Who wastes his blood to be another's dream.

:)P

Does anyone know where I can get the raw dataset for the information in this graph? I'd like to have a play around with the figures...

edit: this graph:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?a...st&id=23684

Edited September 30, 2006 by Bottesford

[Dawlish]

OK, Nick - it is obviously going to be very, very close. It feels strangely like waiting for an election result to come in!

! know exactly what you mean. I'm on tenterhooks! Quite pathetic, but I can't help it!

Paul

[parmenides3]

Does anyone know where I can get the raw dataset for the information in this graph? I'd like to have a play around with the figures...

edit: this graph:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?a...st&id=23684

The CETs are on the Hadley site at the MetO. If you can't find the links, ask; someone will know.

:)P

[Scorcher]

I think the 1729 CET is at the very least questionable. I think it's quite odd that we discount the data from certain stations these days but still allow data from the the 18th century to be on a par with that of today. Did they have the technology back then and as much knowledge as the meteorologists of today about how to produce accurate readings? It just seems odd that this record has lasted so long in a period of growing warmth.

[Dawlish]

I think the 1729 CET is at the very least questionable. I think it's quite odd that we discount the data from certain stations these days but still allow data from the the 18th century to be on a par with that of today. Did they have the technology back then and as much knowledge as the meteorologists of today about how to produce accurate readings? It just seems odd that this record has lasted so long in a period of growing warmth.

Good point Schorcher, we just have to trust Prof. Gordon Manley's work there.

[West is Best]

Phillip Eden posted the exact figure in the September CET thread for the 1-28th September period at 16.89, making the CET 16.8C as it is rounded down, with a cold night last night and maxima around average today, the CET will most likely drop to 16.5C, when rounded to one decimal place.

No this isn't right. That's the figure to the 27th not the 28th SB.

As an interesting guide the NW tracker hasn't varied all day. I'm pretty sure when Hadley publish the figure it will be the warmest Sept on record ... providing Philip is right about them being 0.1C above his. Manley should finish no lower than 16.6C.

[snowsure]

I have just skimmed over the last 5 pages regarding this very exciting topic.

I cannot see any devil's advocates amongst the contributors so here I go!

Why all the excitement? The record has stood for 277 years. It was much "just as hot" then as now. Does that not mean that the CET, ergo our bit of the jigsaw, was warmer then than now? Discounting the freak that was July, the average temp for June, Aug and Sep was 15.8 oC in 1729. The average for 2006 (assuming a 16.6oC Sep CET) will be 16.2 oC. Not much change in nearly 3 centuries is there?

The above is mainly in jest but it may re-focus the mind a little. This late season warmth is unseasonable, unnatural and, in my case, highly unwanted.

I hope it is bringing enjoyment to some people. I have had to cut the grass again (thus using petrol in the mower, compounding the problem. I know!)

A late frost may help me achieve my CET estimate of 13.9 oC. :lol:

[Weather-history]

Phillip Eden posted the exact figure in the September CET thread for the 1-28th September period at 16.89, making the CET 16.8C as it is rounded down,

SB

Its rounded up. When the figure is say 12.65 or 12.75 etc then it is rounded to the nearest even number. However since it is 16.89 then its rounded up to 16.9

[Roger J Smith]

I would expect today's temperatures to reduce the monthly CET to 16.59 if in fact the value was 16.71 through the 29th. If the other scale is running 0.1 above the numbers being used in this discussion, then it would seem that the record will be broken by 0.1 -- perhaps since a lot of people are interested in this topic and may not be familiar with the reasons for having two different CET values (three if you count Net-weather), somebody could provide a brief summary of why this is so (I think I understand it but not really sure).

One other point -- it strikes me as almost Orwellian to start thinking that the old records are suspect because we now live in an age of global warming. The period from about 1725 to 1739 was probably just about similar to this modern "global warming" epoch in many ways, it was obviously a peak of warmth in natural cycles. And here's something to ponder -- if you were living through the warm September of 1729, it would have been over 20 years since you experienced a really cold winter (1709) although there was a fairly cold one in 1716. In today's terms that would be like 1986 and 1993, so a fairly similar experience to what you've had in your recent past. And you'd be waiting a little over ten years for that all-time cold winter of 1739-40 (2016-17). Ouch, cold lovers!

[Dawlish]

I would expect today's temperatures to reduce the monthly CET to 16.59 if in fact the value was 16.71 through the 29th. If the other scale is running 0.1 above the numbers being used in this discussion, then it would seem that the record will be broken by 0.1 -- perhaps since a lot of people are interested in this topic and may not be familiar with the reasons for having two different CET values (three if you count Net-weather), somebody could provide a brief summary of why this is so (I think I understand it but not really sure).

One other point -- it strikes me as almost Orwellian to start thinking that the old records are suspect because we now live in an age of global warming. The period from about 1725 to 1739 was probably just about similar to this modern "global warming" epoch in many ways, it was obviously a peak of warmth in natural cycles. And here's something to ponder -- if you were living through the warm September of 1729, it would have been over 20 years since you experienced a really cold winter (1709) although there was a fairly cold one in 1716. In today's terms that would be like 1986 and 1993, so a fairly similar experience to what you've had in your recent past. And you'd be waiting a little over ten years for that all-time cold winter of 1739-40 (2016-17). Ouch, cold lovers!

Absolutely correct to stick up for the old records. What else have we got to compare today's climate to, if we ignore them? I'm with you 100%.

However, you are really stretching a point in that comparison Roger! The period 1725 to 1739 was not comparable to the modern epoch at all. During the period you mention, there were 9 months with a CET of below 2.5C. People would have seen plenty of snow and frost. 1726 saw a Jan CET and a December CET below 2.0C. If you were sitting in the warm September of 1729, you'd have just experienced a winter with monthly CETs of 1.6C Dec, 1.2C Jan, 2.3C Feb and only 2.8C for March! That March was colder than almost any winter month we've had for 15 years!! Even April was a cold month and planting would have been late. I don't think anyone would have forgotten such a dreadfully long winter by September of the same year. You can hardly say it was "over 20 years since they'd experienced a cold winter". They'd just come through one! Can you imagine a winter like that in the modern epoch? I'd have to buy an off-licence to pay off my debts, if it happened this year! The country would grind to a halt!

The last 14 years have seen only one winter with a monthly CET of below 2.5C. There were only 2 of the years in that sequence (3, if you include 1736) with an annual CET of >10C. 10 of the last 15 years have had a CET>10. We

As I said on a different thread, there are no periods, in the Hadley/Manley series, that bear comparison to the present warmer, UKGW period. It was warmer than many other times, to about 1985, in the period you state, Roger, but to blithely say it was "just about similar", just isn't correct You'll be saying that the UK hasn't really warmed soon!

Paul

Edited September 30, 2006 by Dawlish

[Roger J Smith]

Well, that was a fairly cool March there in 1729, but from March 1 to 23 of this year, it was about that cold, right?

Personally, I think the records from before about 1820 were probably reflective of a more rural environment -- we see the same sort of differences in old records in parts of North America, and you tend to get much lower overnight lows as you would still have today if there wasn't so much urban sprawl. I understand that various compilers of CET have tried to factor this in, but I think modern eyes can sometimes look at old records and think, wow that was a much colder climate, when in fact a lot of the difference comes from those overnight lows in clear spells. Since agriculture takes place by definition in rural areas, the actual difference to growing seasons is not so great.

But as to my point about the climatic regimes, I really think there is not a huge difference especially if you accept that the rural nature of central England in the 18th century would guarantee a certain lowering of an identical climate regime's temperatures from the modern period. That winter of 1729 probably didn't seem much different to the people who lived through it, as this past winter seemed to modern observers, although there is no snowfall data to look at, is there?

Here's another obscure point -- I believe that the CET values pre-1752 are adjusted to the modern calendar. So the warm September of 1729 was actually August 22 to September 20 as far as people living in 1729 were concerned. It was only when the Julian calendar gave way to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 that this period was defined, for the CET only, as September.

And no, I won't "next" be stating that it hasn't warmed recently in the UK, because it has, so that would be "illogical" as Mr Spock would say.

[Dawlish]

Well, that was a fairly cool March there in 1729, but from March 1 to 23 of this year, it was about that cold, right?

Personally, I think the records from before about 1820 were probably reflective of a more rural environment -- we see the same sort of differences in old records in parts of North America, and you tend to get much lower overnight lows as you would still have today if there wasn't so much urban sprawl. I understand that various compilers of CET have tried to factor this in, but I think modern eyes can sometimes look at old records and think, wow that was a much colder climate, when in fact a lot of the difference comes from those overnight lows in clear spells. Since agriculture takes place by definition in rural areas, the actual difference to growing seasons is not so great.

But as to my point about the climatic regimes, I really think there is not a huge difference especially if you accept that the rural nature of central England in the 18th century would guarantee a certain lowering of an identical climate regime's temperatures from the modern period. That winter of 1729 probably didn't seem much different to the people who lived through it, as this past winter seemed to modern observers, although there is no snowfall data to look at, is there?

Here's another obscure point -- I believe that the CET values pre-1752 are adjusted to the modern calendar. So the warm September of 1729 was actually August 22 to September 20 as far as people living in 1729 were concerned. It was only when the Julian calendar gave way to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 that this period was defined, for the CET only, as September.

And no, I won't "next" be stating that it hasn't warmed recently in the UK, because it has, so that would be "illogical" as Mr Spock would say.

Sorry Roger; if you are now arguing that the winter of 1729 didn't "seem much different to the people who lived through it, as this past winter seemed to modern observers", then it has nothing to do with comparing those times with these. To involve the Julain calendar, when you have a winter as cold as the one I have pointed out to you in 1728-9, 1.6C Dec, 1.2C Jan, 2.3C Feb and only 2.8C for March, which is unknown to anyone over 30, maybe 45 years old, today, would make no difference whatsoever. To say that these kinds of extreme CETs were simply due to rural influences, isn't correct. It was bloody cold!!

Like I said, there is no period in the Hadley series that is anything like as warm as the "present epoch".

Your post was simply wrong, as regards the statement that; "The period from about 1725 to 1739 was probably just about similar to this modern "global warming" epoch in many ways", much as you may not like to accept it is simply wrong and I take no pleasure in pointing it out. Why on earth don't you accept the evidence in front of your eyes, that the earth has warmed, to produce a 20+ year sequence that has no parallel in recorded, cilmate, history and stop trying to give the boards false, past, climatic information to try in some way to try to prove that is so?

Sound harsh, but it will take some countering on the evidence you've presented. You'd need more and I don't think that evidence is out there.

Paul

Edited September 30, 2006 by Dawlish

[Rustynailer]

Will we know the answer in an hour or so or will it take a bit longer? or will we have to wait till the press says? I hope the result is easy to find!

Russ

Edited September 30, 2006 by Rustynailer