Although it's probably only of interest to an old obsessive like me, there seems to be a bit of confusion about the lowest temperature in February and indeed the whole of 2018.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate...ruary2018-snow

That's the first time I've seen a -14.2 C mentioned at Faversham, although several people have since mentioned it to me.

However

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate.../2018/february

doesn't mention Faversham, sticking with the much higher (*but still a bit nippy) 11.7 at South Farnborough.

Anyone know any more?

Of course Philip Eden would probably say "Faversham!".


Trevor

On Friday, 18 January 2019 11:43:44 UTC, Trevor Harley wrote:
Although it's probably only of interest to an old obsessive like me, there seems to be a bit of confusion about the lowest temperature in February and indeed the whole of 2018.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate...ruary2018-snow

That's the first time I've seen a -14.2 C mentioned at Faversham, although several people have since mentioned it to me.

However

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate.../2018/february

doesn't mention Faversham, sticking with the much higher (*but still a bit nippy) 11.7 at South Farnborough.

Anyone know any more?

Looking at the "last updated" dates of the two articles, I note that the climate summary at the second link predates the "interesting" article in the first link. So I would assume further data arrived (or, perhaps, passed quality control checks) between the publication of the two articles, which included the Faversham minimum.

--
Freddie
Ystrad
Rhondda
148m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
https://twitter.com/YstradRhonddaWx for hourly reports (very few tweets getting through currently)
Stats for the month so far: https://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/st...201901JAN.xlsx

Yes, the regular summaries issued in first few days of the following month will mostly quote readings from automated sites. So it's the fact that (I assume) Faversham is a non-automated climat. station that explains the difference. I think also that the maps produced in the regular monthly summaries are updated with the additional data when it becomes available / QC'd?

We know from 2003 that faversham is quite a sheltered site and the general area is on a north-facing slope, but IIRC it's quite high up on the slope, albeit the area around the observing site is flat. So I wonder if a lower min would have been recorded some way down the slope?

Julian Molesey Surrey