Having just read the piece on observation timing on the FAQ pages, I wanted to see what the majority do with regards timings.

10 or so years ago, as a teenager with admittedly not much of an eye for detail, I used to take my readings at 1800 local time each day, noting the max/mins for the previous 24 hours. However, having had a little look on various sites I see 0900 local seems to be a more common time, along with splitting the climatological day into two periods. Or is a "normal" day seen as acceptable (00-24 local)?

Thanks,

Luke

On Friday, 11 November 2016 17:26:40 UTC, wrote:
Having just read the piece on observation timing on the FAQ pages, I wanted to see what the majority do with regards timings.

10 or so years ago, as a teenager with admittedly not much of an eye for detail, I used to take my readings at 1800 local time each day, noting the max/mins for the previous 24 hours. However, having had a little look on various sites I see 0900 local seems to be a more common time, along with splitting the climatological day into two periods. Or is a "normal" day seen as acceptable (00-24 local)?

Because the first thing an academic would do on turning up for work would be dealing with his weather station data. It would have become the norm. Having an amateur station would require you had a cushy number to copy that timing.

These days where the flowerpotmen are playing fast and loose with important artefacts for political stupidities, you can so whatever you think fit.

wrote:

Having just read the piece on observation timing on the FAQ pages, I
wanted to see what the majority do with regards timings.

10 or so years ago, as a teenager with admittedly not much of an eye for
detail, I used to take my readings at 1800 local time each day, noting the
max/mins for the previous 24 hours. However, having had a little look on
various sites I see 0900 local seems to be a more common time, along with
splitting the climatological day into two periods. Or is a "normal" day
seen as acceptable (00-24 local)?

Thanks,

Luke


Personally I use actual days i.e. 00-24 as that is the only way that makes
any sense to me at all.



--
Brian Wakem
Lower Bourne, Farnham, Surrey
http://www.brianwakem.co.uk/weather
Live obs @ 19:14:29 : 0.7C, DP 0.6C, RH 99%, 0.0 mm

"Brian Wakem" wrote in message ...

Personally I use actual days i.e. 00-24 as that is the only way that makes
any sense to me at all.

It's also the only easy way to use the automated daily min/max values that
most automatic weather stations (and especially their software) generate and
this includes the Vue. There are one or two exceptions to this, like the
Cumulus software AIUI, but in general they are exceptions and not the norm.

Those more steeped in the traditional manual ways of weather recording are
still very much attuned to the 09-09 station day because of the obvious
practical difficulties of taking readings in the dark or, necessarily for
non-professional observers, of being awake at midnight each night. And so
much of the UK archival data is presumably based on an 09 day.

Ultimately, the choice is yours - it will be your station and your data. But
accepting the 00-24 day and automatic measurements solves a lot of practical
issues.

Brian Wakem wrote:

wrote:

Having just read the piece on observation timing on the FAQ pages, I
wanted to see what the majority do with regards timings.

10 or so years ago, as a teenager with admittedly not much of an eye for
detail, I used to take my readings at 1800 local time each day, noting the
max/mins for the previous 24 hours. However, having had a little look on
various sites I see 0900 local seems to be a more common time, along with
splitting the climatological day into two periods. Or is a "normal" day
seen as acceptable (00-24 local)?

Thanks,

Luke


Personally I use actual days i.e. 00-24 as that is the only way that makes
any sense to me at all.


The "official" climatological day in this country is 0900 GMT to 0900 GMT. This
has its origins back in the days when observing meant taking manual readings
from instruments i.e. when there was none of the technology available today.
For the sake of continuity the 0900-0900 GMT system remains the standard today.

Having said that, the lifestyle of many "amateur" observers makes the 0900-0900
GMT climatological day impossible. In that case, do what suits you. The
important thing is to have a system that you can replicate day after day so
that there is internal consistency in your observations. However, if you do
want to make comparisons with "official" sites you should endeavor to use the
0900-0900 GMT climatological day. With today's automated equipment that's more
achievable than it used to be.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org
@TideswellWeathr

On 11/11/2016 19:15, Brian Wakem wrote:
wrote:

Having just read the piece on observation timing on the FAQ pages, I
wanted to see what the majority do with regards timings.

10 or so years ago, as a teenager with admittedly not much of an eye for
detail, I used to take my readings at 1800 local time each day, noting the
max/mins for the previous 24 hours. However, having had a little look on
various sites I see 0900 local seems to be a more common time, along with
splitting the climatological day into two periods. Or is a "normal" day
seen as acceptable (00-24 local)?

Thanks,

Luke


Personally I use actual days i.e. 00-24 as that is the only way that makes
any sense to me at all.




09-09 here. That's how I started in 1979 and that's how I shall finish.
Up here the rainfall readings go to SEPA/UKMO which specify daily
readings to be made at 09 anyway.

--
George in Swanston, Edinburgh, 580'asl
www.swanstonweather.co.uk
www.eppingweather.co.uk
www.winter1947.co.uk

I'm with Brian on this, it is the most logical thing to do. I understand why 0900 is used, but one day it will change.

Having said that, it's not that difficult to use both systems and be able to make comparisons and it's interesting to see what a difference it can make.

09GMT-09GMT for my manual readings that I use for my records and 00-24 for my DVP which I use for rain intensity etc
00-24 makes more sense to me, but I followed the standard convention here
24 years ago. Work shifts still allow for these obs times.
If I was just starting to keep records I'd go 00-24. Makes more sense to me
09 obs on a foul Jan morning not exactly fun.

Ian Raunds E Northants

In article , says...


It's also the only easy way to use the automated daily min/max values that
most automatic weather stations (and especially their software) generate and
this includes the Vue. There are one or two exceptions to this, like the
Cumulus software AIUI, but in general they are exceptions and not the norm.

Those more steeped in the traditional manual ways of weather recording are
still very much attuned to the 09-09 station day because of the obvious
practical difficulties of taking readings in the dark or, necessarily for
non-professional observers, of being awake at midnight each night. And so
much of the UK archival data is presumably based on an 09 day.

Ultimately, the choice is yours - it will be your station and your data. But
accepting the 00-24 day and automatic measurements solves a lot of practical
issues.

Weather Display software allows 09-09 or 00-24. Works with most of the
available automatic stations including Davis.

--
Kev
NNNN

" wrote in message
om...

Weather Display software allows 09-09 or 00-24.

Does it? OK, interesting to know and that's a new one on me - maybe a
relatively recent introduction?

But I'm always a little reluctant to recommend WD to new users, at least
until the user interface might get completely rewritten - cosmetics aside,
the learning curve is a bit steep for anyone who's not into computers. There
are other more straightforward option like Cumulus and even Weatherlink
itself does a sound job on the basics - which is all many users need - if
you can overlook the rather dated UI.

John Dann
www.weatherstations.co.uk