You are absolutely right Pictures; and I note (in the link) how the UV has been downgraded to a moderate. I think they must have downgraded the numbers first, then the category. On a plus note, 5s are forecast as far N as Bridlington on Saturday. Wouldn't surprise me if somewhere IYNOTW got a 6- or maybe S Devon, IOW or the Channels.

 

I'm confused as to what you mean as a 5 has been classed as moderate for a fair few years now Bert. Don't forget these things are all automated and change multiple times a day :)

 

I'm confused as to what you mean as a 5 has been classed as moderate for a fair few years now Bert. Don't forget these things are all automated and change multiple times a day :)

What I mean is, I think I must have looked at roughly the time when the 6 changed to a 5, saw the H for High still, then a short time later looked at the 'more detail' section and put the two together; thus, I equated the 'High' to the 5, when in fact, as you say, it is moderate. 

---

 

What I mean is, I think I must have looked at roughly the time when the 6 changed to a 5, saw the H for High still, then a short time later looked at the 'more detail' section and put the two together; thus, I equated the 'High' to the 5, when in fact, as you say, it is moderate. 

Ah I got you now.. I understand. 

Camborne's max of just over 5 was about the same as Gibraltar's today. Good on ya Cornwall. We'll get a 10 out of you yet!

---

Camborne's max of just over 5 was about the same as Gibraltar's today. Good on ya Cornwall. We'll get a 10 out of you yet!

Poor index for Gibraltar but a fairly average one for Cornwall.

I imagine there were some especially high values for April today given the extremely clear skies and low humidity (it was 31% or less for 5 hours here, bottoming out at 27%!).

Forecasts were in the 5s generally, maybe a local 6.

---

I imagine there were some especially high values for April today given the extremely clear skies and low humidity (it was 31% or less for 5 hours here, bottoming out at 27%!).

Forecasts were in the 5s generally, maybe a local 6.

Missed your post SC- but I think you would be right. Sunday was brilliant blue. Camborne managed a 5.6 and Chilton a 5.4 but still nothing from Reading or Swansea- I'm giving up hope there. For the far South, Roger (Forest Edge) has a consistent recorder. Think I'll drop him a PM.

Today, in between the clouds, the sun feels very strong indeed,out of the wind. 

---

Chilton 6.0 yesterday; Camborne 6.3 today.

---

5.8 here today in brief sunny intervals, really ramping up now!

---

6.3 in Camborne Roger; I note Art's comment in the CET threads, which I interpret as that Hadley cast off a bit of responsibility for publishing CET data on time. Perhaps Reading & co feel no responsibility, although I'm not sure of the funding there.

---

Camborne hit 6 today but nearly 7 yesterday. Love the serrated graph- all that cumulus cloud drifting by. Could be a clear 7+ tomorrow.

---

Camborne 6.9, Chilton 6.8

---

Chilton 6.9

Camborne 7.4

---

I suspect my local station has a faulty UV reader as nothing much higher than a 6 has been recorded this year.

Chilton 6.9

Camborne 7.4

Bertie, I have not exceeded 5.8 yet and I think you are misreading the DEFRA graph bands , it should be Camborne 6.4 and Chilton 5.9 !

---

 

Bertie, I have not exceeded 5.8 yet and I think you are misreading the DEFRA graph bands , it should be Camborne 6.4 and Chilton 5.9 !

Do explain... please. My local station (not sure on accuracy) has only managed 6.1 index so far this year - could change to today.

Edit: it reached a 6.3 index today

 

 

Bertie, I have not exceeded 5.8 yet and I think you are misreading the DEFRA graph bands , it should be Camborne 6.4 and Chilton 5.9 !

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/uv-index-graphs?site=Camborne

I'd say Camborne reached about 7.6 today based on the above.

Zero means no UV at all, of course, and it's where the graph starts the day. As soon as there's any UV, that counts as 1 on the scale. Based on that, Bert's readings are fine.

(The Met Office is predicting 7 here tomorrow, which also fits with the figures seen at the likes of Camborne - it's definitely in the 7s down there!)

---

 

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/uv-index-graphs?site=Camborne

I'd say Camborne reached about 7.6 today based on the above.

Zero means no UV at all, of course, and it's where the graph starts the day. As soon as there's any UV, that counts as 1 on the scale. Based on that, Bert's readings are fine.

(The Met Office is predicting 7 here tomorrow, which also fits with the figures seen at the likes of Camborne - it's definitely in the 7s down there!)

Sorry if I am confusing the reading of these graphs here!

If you assume the uv scale starts at zero , then the first green band covers zero to 1.0, second green band 1.0 to 2.0 and so on.

i.e all the uv numbers are rounded up, does this not make sense?

---

 

Sorry if I am confusing the reading of these graphs here!

If you assume the uv scale starts at zero , then the first green band covers zero to 1.0, second green band 1.0 to 2.0 and so on.

i.e all the uv numbers are rounded up, does this not make sense?

Why do you assume this scale starts at zero Roger, rather than the bottom of 1? Zero means no measurable UV- above that, if it's measurable, as Darren says, it enters the first measurable band: band 1. Otherwise one has to assume that the line at the top of the labelled band is the first threshold that that labelled band (beneath it) is reached. That would be odd sense- the model would be visually ineffective, and it is a visual model. Note also on the vertical scale there is no zero labelled at all. 

It reminds me of the mistake sometimes portrayed on time lines of History: there is a line half way along between 1BC and AD1- as if someone has invented a year zero; but of course, there is no year zero- it was 1BC up to (not getting into the historical debate about the birth) the moment Jesus was born, then it immediately became AD1- not AD 0.5 for the first half year after the birth. When did this Millenium start? Everybody got excited on 31st December 1999, but they were a year early. The Millenium (not its misleading digits) started on 1st January 2001- one thousand years after 1 January AD1.

Similarly, if it's measurable UV, it's UV1. And, if you read back through the thread, sometimes your station reads higher than the listed ones, and often it ties in very nicely. That would preclude the argument, or else mean Camborne can be expected to be lower?

I suspect the disparities this time are, genuinely, regional variations in UV- an interesting synoptic set up with very cool nights for mid May might lead to differences in O3 for example, or other pollutants. Alternatively, since hitherto the readings in the NF have been comparable with Reading, maybe there's a technical difficulty.

Also, Camborne could be expected to be a level higher if the old MetO info (7 rare, 8 only in Camborne) is to have ever been relevant- surely due to air quality as well as the slight latitudinal advantage it has over the rest of S England.

Hope we all get some sunny 7s soon!

Edit: Chilton got its first 7.0 today, and Camborne a heady 7.7.

Felt right outside.

---

The (simple) way to look at it is that "Protection Needed" starts at UV3 from a WHO perspective so the yellow is from 3.0 - 3.99, and therefore the scale starts at 1.0, or that's how I always read it. Not sure why Reading don't give the readings over to the ECMWF HQ which is down the road from the Uni...

---