Why do weather records only begin in 1914?

Emine Saner
Monday September 3, 2007
The Guardian

Actually, they didn't. While the Met Office seems keen on saying
"since records began in 1914" to describe any kind of record-busting
weather (such as 2007's "wettest summer"), it has records that go back
much further.

The England and Wales Precipitation series, which measures rainfall
and snow, goes back to 1766, and the Central England Temperature
series, which covers the temperature from the south Midlands to
Lancashire, is the longest-running record in the world, dating from
1659.

"They were kept on a personal basis by amateur meteorologists," says
Sancha Lancaster, a spokeswoman for the Met Office. "We have an
archive here of thousands of people's weather diaries. Many don't just
record the weather, they also record the effects on wildlife and
plants. It takes years to quality-control them and put the data on to
a computer."

Statisticians work out whether the entries are reliable, which is why
the record going back to 1914 - when observation stations became more
uniform in the way they collected data - is almost always the one
used. The Met Office says this is the only reliable one (and it gives
a picture of the UK as a whole).

But if records go back less than 100 years, can we really set much
store by so-called freak events such as the floods this summer? The
fact that we do irritates Philip Eden, a weather historian. "Saying it
is 'unprecedented' allows the people who look after our infrastructure
a ready-made excuse for not being able to deal with [extreme weather].
It is not unprecedented."

Eden uses records going back to 1727 and says there have been 15
summers wetter than this one. "The 16th wettest summer on record
doesn't make such a good headline, does it?"

Well said Philip. This ridiculous change of policy by the Met Office
and the aside that the records prior to 1914 are somehow valueless is
an insult to decades of painstaking work in researching, carefully
standardising and publishing records from the 17th, 18th and 19th
centuries undertaken by Gordon Manley, Hubert Lamb, Emanuel LeRoy
Ladurie and many others.

Anyone who has access to the relevant volumes of British Rainfall,
Monthly Weather Report and Symons's Monthly Meteorological Magazine
will know that the collection, publication and quality of
climatological data a century ago is an order of magnitude better than
today's, despite the advantages of today's technology making it easier
than ever to publish.

Grrr!

Stephen Burt
Stratfield Mortimer, Berkshire

"Paul C" wrote in message
...
Why do weather records only begin in 1914?

Emine Saner
Monday September 3, 2007
The Guardian

Actually, they didn't. While the Met Office seems keen on saying
"since records began in 1914" to describe any kind of record-busting
weather (such as 2007's "wettest summer"), it has records that go back
much further.

The England and Wales Precipitation series, which measures rainfall
and snow, goes back to 1766, and the Central England Temperature
series, which covers the temperature from the south Midlands to
Lancashire, is the longest-running record in the world, dating from
1659.

"They were kept on a personal basis by amateur meteorologists," says
Sancha Lancaster, a spokeswoman for the Met Office. "We have an
archive here of thousands of people's weather diaries. Many don't just
record the weather, they also record the effects on wildlife and
plants. It takes years to quality-control them and put the data on to
a computer."

Statisticians work out whether the entries are reliable, which is why
the record going back to 1914 - when observation stations became more
uniform in the way they collected data - is almost always the one
used. The Met Office says this is the only reliable one (and it gives
a picture of the UK as a whole).

But if records go back less than 100 years, can we really set much
store by so-called freak events such as the floods this summer? The
fact that we do irritates Philip Eden, a weather historian. "Saying it
is 'unprecedented' allows the people who look after our infrastructure
a ready-made excuse for not being able to deal with [extreme weather].
It is not unprecedented."

Eden uses records going back to 1727 and says there have been 15
summers wetter than this one. "The 16th wettest summer on record
doesn't make such a good headline, does it?"


I don't usually care much for the Guardian. But they are quite right on this
point.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:43:11 +0100, Paul C wrote:

Why do weather records only begin in 1914?

I'm still waiting for the MO to reply to my e-mail in which I asked that
question...

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

On 4 Sep, 20:43, Paul C wrote:
Why do weather records only begin in 1914?

Emine Saner
Monday September 3, 2007
The Guardian

Actually, they didn't. While the Met Office seems keen on saying
"since records began in 1914" to describe any kind of record-busting
weather (such as 2007's "wettest summer"), it has records that go back
much further.

The England and Wales Precipitation series, which measures rainfall
and snow, goes back to 1766, and the Central England Temperature
series, which covers the temperature from the south Midlands to
Lancashire, is the longest-running record in the world, dating from
1659.

"They were kept on a personal basis by amateur meteorologists," says
Sancha Lancaster, a spokeswoman for the Met Office. "We have an
archive here of thousands of people's weather diaries. Many don't just
record the weather, they also record the effects on wildlife and
plants. It takes years to quality-control them and put the data on to
a computer."

Statisticians work out whether the entries are reliable, which is why
the record going back to 1914 - when observation stations became more
uniform in the way they collected data - is almost always the one
used. The Met Office says this is the only reliable one (and it gives
a picture of the UK as a whole).

But if records go back less than 100 years, can we really set much
store by so-called freak events such as the floods this summer? The
fact that we do irritates Philip Eden, a weather historian. "Saying it
is 'unprecedented' allows the people who look after our infrastructure
a ready-made excuse for not being able to deal with [extreme weather].
It is not unprecedented."

Eden uses records going back to 1727 and says there have been 15
summers wetter than this one. "The 16th wettest summer on record
doesn't make such a good headline, does it?"

I recently requested a set of long term averages for the now defunct
MetO site in Raunds from 1904-1992 from the National Meteorological
archive in Exeter. While I cant fault the speed of the service or
quantity of data provided it was frustrating that 1904-1913 data is no
longer available. 1911 was of particular interest to me, due to the
long standing UK record maximum of 36.7C on the 9th August. The new
highest maximum for Raunds is 35.9 on the 3rd August 1990. Thankfully
we have historians such as Phillip Eden to keep pre 1914 data alive,
and put some perspective on all our recent 'unprecedented'
weather.

Ian.

Raunds, East Northants. Nat Grid Ref SP9972
-------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:40:26 -0700, Ian wrote:

...it was frustrating that 1904-1913 data is no
longer available...

Does that mean that they're no longer releasing it or that it's been
destroyed?

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

In message , Alan White
writes
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:40:26 -0700, Ian wrote:

...it was frustrating that 1904-1913 data is no
longer available...

Does that mean that they're no longer releasing it or that it's been
destroyed?


What about the Freedom of Information Act?

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England

On 5 Sep, 12:42, Norman Lynagh normanthis...@thisbitweather-
consultancy.com wrote:
In message , Alan White
writes

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:40:26 -0700, Ian wrote:

...it was frustrating that 1904-1913 data is no
longer available...

Does that mean that they're no longer releasing it or that it's been
destroyed?

What about the Freedom of Information Act?

Monthly data is available electronically from 1914 (sunshine
from1929).
My understanding is that one can view earlier station files IF they
still exist. I am waiting hear if the 1904-1913 data I requested is
still available before making a day trip to Exeter. I have pasted a
section of the email I recieved from the MetO archive below.

We are open to the public and you very welcome to visit us (opening
hours below) at Exeter and browse through all the records, as well as
the station history file, which may provide interesting details such
as
site location, instruments used, correspondence between the observers
Met Office etc.

Ian

Raunds

Hi Stephen,

Regards to Helen and family BTW!

I have to agree with you to some extent. I have used British Rainfall and Met
mag. a lot in my researches over the years and the detail and dedication is
astonishing. It is a great pity that BR ceased publication in its old form in
1960 IMO. However, I don't think The MetO assume they are valueless just not in
a readily accessible computer format, any member of the public is able to go
down to Exeter and browse the published data in the National Met. Library and
Archives, just ring up beforehand and arrange an appointment is best. See
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ary/index.html for more details.

Stephen if you wish to chat further on this subject you have my phone number and
e-mail.

Cheers,

Will
--

On 5 Sep, 19:47, "Will Hand" wrote:
Hi Stephen,
1960 IMO. However, I don't think The MetO assume they are valueless just not in
a readily accessible computer format

So, presumeably, all my weather records from the 70's & 80's I should
ignore because they are not in a 'readily accessible electronic
format'

As excuses for ignoring data goes, it's almost beyond belief. But
somehow doesn't surprise me.

Graham
Penzance