Anne Burgess wrote:
It's a bit like saying the reading from Aviemore is only cold
because it's at the top of a mountain. Dave, S.Essex

Er .... when I drove past Aviemore a couple of weeks ago, it was
at the bottom of the valley, beside the river. Has it moved
since then?

Anne


You know the comparison I was trying to make. Meant to say from the top
of the Cairngorms.

It's a bit like saying the reading from Aviemore is only
cold because it's at the top of a mountain. Dave, S.Essex

Er .... when I drove past Aviemore a couple of weeks ago, it
was at the bottom of the valley, beside the river. Has it
moved since then?
Anne

You know the comparison I was trying to make. Meant to say
from the top of the Cairngorms.

Hence the smiley

Anne

Aviemore isn't on top of a mountain!

I don't know who "he" is but I think Gravesend is an automatic.

Well said! If the Met Office inspectors accept the site and exposure then it's an official site.

Anne Burgess wrote:
It's a bit like saying the reading from Aviemore is only
cold because it's at the top of a mountain. Dave, S.Essex

Er .... when I drove past Aviemore a couple of weeks ago, it
was at the bottom of the valley, beside the river. Has it
moved since then?
Anne

You know the comparison I was trying to make. Meant to say
from the top of the Cairngorms.

Hence the smiley

Anne


:-)

Tudor Hughes wrote in
:

On Sunday, 9 March 2014 19:57:07 UTC, yttiw wrote:

I don't believe anything from Gravesend. 20C they are supposed to
have reached, and that is with an airmass dewpoint of 4 or 5. They
should be subjected to a correction of -10% on their max's, or
ignored.

What has the dewpoint got to do with it?

There's nothing wrong with the Gravesend site. It is near the
tip of an open grassy headland that sticks out into the Thames
and is about a mile from any significant building. The surface
is not sand as someone has stated but short grass. It is a very
exposed site.
I'm getting the impression that people just don't *like* it
because of its high readings under certain conditions (generally
a sunny anticyclonic south to southwesterly) and there is a
degree of envy, but there is no evidence to show it is
unsatisfactory.
The maximum reached was 2.2 degC higher than here on the North
Downs at 557 ft (169 m). That does not seem unreasonable. Even
if it were there are no grounds on which to dismiss it.
Here is a photo of the place (rather accidentally, since the
source is not a meteorological website):

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/48941

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.


Bing maps aerial view shows it well and it confirms all of the above
remarks. It's clearly over grass.

Alan

On Sunday, 9 March 2014 23:49:40 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:


Well 21C is usually quoted as 70F. I'm not sure without re-doing the

calculation whether to one decimal place that is 20.9C or 21.1C or

whatever. I don't record in fahrenheit anyway, like I said, It was 20.9C

here.

Trying not to split hairs, Dave, but Wanstead was 20.1C. Woodford Wells: 20C. I have the same Stevenson screen as Ron. It is remarkable that my minimum was 1.8C while Ron's only fell to 6C.


--

------------------------------
This email was sent by a company owned by Pearson plc, registered office at
80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL. Registered in England and Wales with company
number 53723.

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 9 March 2014 23:49:40 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

On Sunday, 9 March 2014 23:21:58 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



Lovely in Sydenham SE London this afternoon and I warned all the local
Pound Shops to keep their fine selection of plastic home ware indoors,
lest they melt. I have to say though it did get above 70f in my back
garden but my thermometer was quite close to the garden brazier I got
going early evening.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Pretty much 70F round here. Me, 20.9C, Corringham 21.2C, Wanstead 20.8C



of local stations I regularly look at.



Dave, S.Essex



So you actually reached 70F today?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Well 21C is usually quoted as 70F. I'm not sure without re-doing the

calculation whether to one decimal place that is 20.9C or 21.1C or

whatever. I don't record in fahrenheit anyway, like I said, It was 20.9C

here.

You know I've never heard about the Gravesend site before but now every
time I clock onto UKMO 24 HR obs I get

"Gravesend-Broadness"

I find the UKMO software either patronising in the way it assumes that you
are only interested in your locality and makes that choice for you ; or in
this case just damned weird or sinister that every time I visit UKMO this
evening and choose 24obs

"Gravesend-Broadness"

Now after searching I see that under 'regional extremes' that
Gravesend-Broadness was the highest for yesterday - is that why ukmo is
seemingly promoting the reading? Its all very odd why would that happen. I
mean why is the UKMO website data so locally driven and yet they are always
on about the 'globe' as in models and temperatures ?

Try clearing your cookies :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 9 March 2014 23:49:40 UTC, Dave Cornwell wrote:


Well 21C is usually quoted as 70F. I'm not sure without re-doing the

calculation whether to one decimal place that is 20.9C or 21.1C or

whatever. I don't record in fahrenheit anyway, like I said, It was 20.9C

here.

Trying not to split hairs, Dave, but Wanstead was 20.1C. Woodford Wells:
20C. I have the same Stevenson screen as Ron. It is remarkable that my
minimum was 1.8C while Ron's only fell to 6C.

My screen is perched on the edge of one of the Woodford ponds Scott, so gets
some warming from that but the main reason I suspect the difference is
altitude ,we're nearly 80 metres here ,
when I lived in industrial low lying Stratford many moons ago I clocked up
some very low mins,
i.e.minus 9c Jan 1963

RonB


--

------------------------------
This email was sent by a company owned by Pearson plc, registered office
at
80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL. Registered in England and Wales with company
number 53723.