If my current estimate of the CET is close to the final official figure then your estimate of 3.8C will be right on the money.

Ah GW...

You've gone and spoilt it

I hoped I was sitting pretty at 4.3C, but I guess I knew what was coming from your earlier comments....

These blooming adjustments again I suppose?

May I say how much I enjoy looking at your tables of the daily adjustments each month. 

Thank you, I really do  appreciate the time you spend on it, and the fact that you are prepared to share it all with us..

Grandad

PS

I suspect that February is going to see some very large spreads to reflect the current charts! 

Metcheck            3.75c.        Anomaly       -0.40c.

Netweather         4.5c.          Anomaly       -0.06c. 

Peasedown St John    4.6c.    Anomaly       -1.5c. 

If my current estimate of the CET is close to the final official figure then your estimate of 3.8C will be right on the money.

Wow - given how much didn't quite go to plan this month, I feel seriously lucky just to be less than 1*C out this month 

Seems that had that easterly angled to bring the cold from the E/SE just a few hundred miles further north earlier in the month, the CET could have finished below 3*C which would have been good going with respect to the past decade.

Funnily enough, with the very mild air struggling to push northeast over the past two days, yet still making it as far as my location, my mean has jumped up from 3.2*C as of Sunday to what looks to be around 3.6*C for the final figure, so it won't be way below the CET after all, despite the large departures during the third week of the month 

Provisional Hadley at 4.34C to the 30th http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_mean_est_2017

My final CET estimate for January is 3.78C (although actually that may still increase a little because some places are seeing temperature rising at the moment so the maximum for today may be recorded overnight in some locations).

Interesting stats for this month - the 7 day period from 21 to 27 Jan saw a mean CET of just 1.20C by my calculations. Nothing remarkable about that though. In January 2016 the period from 15 to 21 January saw a mean of 1.51C and in 2015 the period from 17 to 23 Jan saw a CET mean of 1.0C. We often get one period of cold weather in January even in relatively mild years.

Minimum CET this month 1.0C. Anomaly of -0.7C to 1981-2010

Maximum CET this month 6.5C. Anomaly of -0.7C to 1981-2010

One negative CET mean of -0.2C on the 26th.

Here are the provisional tables and charts for January.

My own data shows that here in Chineham the mean temperature for January (midnight to midnight data - not calculated the 9z to 9z yet) comes in at 2.96C. So a good 0.8C lower than the CET.

January data and tables

Mine finished at just 2.9C.

My 3.5 guess isn't looking quite as sad now. 

What are these 'adjustments' they do at the month end, and why can't they do it as the month progresses?

That is the $64,000 question. No idea why they can't or don't give more accurate figures as the month progresses. The data is clearly available because they manage to produce final figures for the whole month usually on the 1st of the following month (although today is an exception).

I found out some years back that the provisional data is based on a large number of sites which are not the official CET sites and some not even in the CET area. So not surprising that the official data looks different. Not sure if or why they still use these non official CET sites for the provisional data. All very mysterious I'm afraid. All we know is that the official figures are always different to the provisional. The biggest differences tend to be when we get cold weather in the winter. 

Unfortunately Hadley has failed to issue any official data today so can't provide any further updates.

They did provide a provisional figure for the 31st so the provisional mean for the whole month is 4.45C http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_mean_est_2017

The figure for the 31st was 7.8C which is the joint highest reading of the month.

But as previously mentioned these provisional figures are rubbish. So ignore them. Bear no resemblance to the actual data for the official CET stations.

My 3.5 guess isn't looking quite as sad now. 

It's nice when your luck turns around isn't it? 

From my perspective, it turned so many times in January it still hasn't stopped spinning.

 

If my current estimate of the CET is close to the final official figure then your estimate of 3.8C will be right on the money.

And with 3.8 I will be joining Saint Snow!

A met office blog review for January gave a figure of 3.8c for England. Not sure if that's related to Hadley or not though but links up with GW's figure.

A met office blog review for January gave a figure of 3.8c for England. Not sure if that's related to Hadley or not though but links up with GW's figure.

That is the figure for the whole of England not the Hadley CET area. But I suspect it will be close to the CET figure. North much warmer than the south with the central area somwhere in between - I.e close to the average for the whole of England.

Well I am not waiting any longer for Hadley. Here is the table for the CET competition based on my very final CET estimate for January of 3.85C.

When I publish the February table I will update the January results for the official final Hadley figure, assuming it has been published by then

View larger image at this link: 2017 CET competition table - January

Well I am not waiting any longer for Hadley. Here is the table for the CET competition based on my very final CET estimate for January of 3.85C.

When I publish the February table I will update the January results for the official final Hadley figure, assuming it has been published by then

View larger image at this link: 2017 CET competition table - January

GW..

Just checked this morning and they have posted a final value for January of 4.8C.

What is going on?

They stop updating 4 days before the end of the month then 4 days afterwards they come up with a figure just the 1C higher value than you are showing!!! Some adjustment that!

A simple typing error or have they gone and changed the basis for their calculations without announcing it?

Grandad

 

GW..

Just checked this morning and they have posted a final value for January of 4.8C.

What is going on?

They stop updating 4 days before the end of the month then 4 days afterwards they come up with a figure just the 1C higher value than you are showing!!! Some adjustment that!

A simple typing error or have they gone and changed the basis for their calculations without announcing it?

Grandad

 

Grandad

That figure of 4.8 you saw is one that has been sitting there since 22nd January. That figure is just an old estimated figure which can now be ignored

There is a newer estimated figure for the end of January inside the 'estimated values' link on that page which is showing 4.45C up to 31st Jan. But as GW has been saying, the final figure (after Met Office QA) is likely to be a lot lower still and around 3.8C which is a big adjustment even by the Met Office's own previous track record !

We don't know what the delay is - probably either data issues or staffing but it is unusually late being shown this time - it will normally appear in the "finalised data" link on the same page a day later  or so but this only shows up to December 2016 still

Well I am not waiting any longer for Hadley. Here is the table for the CET competition based on my very final CET estimate for January of 3.85C.

I concur - great decision.

We don't know what the delay is - probably either data issues or staffing but it is unusually late being shown this time - it will normally appear in the "finalised data" link on the same page a day later  or so but this only shows up to December 2016 still

 

I hope you're right and this is just a technical problem. I did notice something recently that could make me a little worried - somebody on Watt's Up With That had an article attacking CET recently, and this included a letter in response to an FOI to the MetOffice.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/0052166-barr.pdf

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but this letter is dated the 23rd January, which is the same date the website went down.  Is it possible they've stopped giving updates to avoid any political fallout? 

The letter also mentions they are going to overhaul the data sets mid-2017, so maybe the page is being taken down in preparation for that.

 

 

I hope you're right and this is just a technical problem. I did notice something recently that could make me a little worried - somebody on Watt's Up With That had an article attacking CET recently, and this included a letter in response to an FOI to the MetOffice.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/0052166-barr.pdf

 

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but this letter is dated the 23rd January, which is the same date the website went down.  Is it possible they've stopped giving updates to avoid any political fallout? 

 

The letter also mentions they are going to overhaul the data sets mid-2017, so maybe the page is being taken down in preparation for that.

Thanks that is really interesting. I doubt the lack of data is due to the planned overhaul later this year. Firstly they still have to produce the data in the meantime in order to keep the series going. Secondly the overhaul they refer to seems to be merely the format in which the data is published. There is no suggestion that the underlying methodology will change. The greater visibility on the figures for each station and the adjustments that are made for urban warming etc. will be very welcome.

Also worth noting that it is Pershore College not Pershore that is used for the CET data based on what is said in the letter. We had a debate about this some years ago (I think it was actually during the cold spell of December 2010) because the CET figures I was calculating using Pershore (bit of a known frost hollow) were much lower than the official CET numbers when they were published. The minimums at Pershore College tend not to be as low as at Pershore.

So we may find that my estimate of 3.85C for January may be too low given there were some very cold minimums at Pershore in January. Although having said that Rothamsted had the colder nights last month whereas I think Pershore did back in 2010. We will have to wait and see. But perhaps the official CET could be anything from 3.85C up to 4C.

 

Thanks that is really interesting. I doubt the lack of data is due to the planned overhaul later this year. Firstly they still have to produce the data in the meantime in order to keep the series going. Secondly the overhaul they refer to seems to be merely the format in which the data is published. There is no suggestion that the underlying methodology will change. The greater visibility on the figures for each station and the adjustments that are made for urban warming etc. will be very welcome.

Also worth noting that it is Pershore College not Pershore that is used for the CET data based on what is said in the letter. We had a debate about this some years ago (I think it was actually during the cold spell of December 2010) because the CET figures I was calculating using Pershore (bit of a known frost hollow) were much lower than the official CET numbers when they were published. The minimums at Pershore College tend not to be as low as at Pershore.

So we may find that my estimate of 3.85C for January may be too low given there were some very cold minimums at Pershore in January. Although having said that Rothamsted had the colder nights last month whereas I think Pershore did back in 2010. We will have to wait and see. But perhaps the official CET could be anything from 3.85C up to 4C.

Yes I was rather pleased to see that confirmation (after all this time!).   The readings (highs and lows) for Pershore College are much more representative of this area than those from Pershore (actually Throckmorton Airfield) - which as you know is often very much colder than anywhere else in the Midlands.  I could never understand why the latter was used - yet all reference was always just to "Pershore", so our confusion is quite understandable.