On 6 Jul, 09:56, Dave O'Hara wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:30 am, wrote:
On 6 Jul, 01:03, "Ian Currie" wrote:
Richard- the first time I send something in to Uk Sci in ages and the flak
starts, somewhat unjustified I think.
Firstly the initial poster in this thread Brian Blair said that the BBC had
shown no regional variation. I do a weather piece for the BBC everyday and
did give a regional qualification. I was merely pointing this out as it was
relevant. I was also showing that our Sussex show does do topical things and
not just a dry forecast, something which I am sure uk sci members would be
interested in. Members are often saying not enough time is given to the
weather forecasts or they lack interest. Secondly I was actually pointing
out that I run a weather station in the Southeast and was using the data to
prove the point about wetter past Junes. What also happens is that listeners
to Weather Watch send in their data from all over the Southeast, some with
long term readings and I was able to illustrate that the rainfall was
nothing special in the Southeast.
Thirdly I was genuinely extending hospitality to uk sci members. Surely if
some other uk sci contributors were giving a weather talk it would be very
apt for them to say so on this forum too, so that others may wish to come
along .It may be a way this group can interact other than just the computer.
The meeting is the Bedfordshire Family History Society and they are well
attended so certainly was not touting for a bigger audience- just being
friendly.
Fourthly a number of UKSci members subscribe to Weather eye and I was just
pointing out that it is being held up due to the excessive June rainfall in
some places ie the Floods- we want to include something about it in the next
issue and an article is currently being written. The R Met Soc Weather
magazine has been mentioned several times this year. I think this is the
first time in 2007 that I have said anything about Weather eye.
Sometimes people read too much into things and simply do not recognise
friendliness and a desire just to share an interest in a fascinating
subject- in this case our Weather.
Ian Currie-Coulsdon
"Richard Dixon" wrote in message
. 99...
"Ian Currie" wrote in
.uk:
I present Weather Watch for BBC Southern Counties Radio in west and
east Sussex each morning and my piece this morning did in fact point
out that in our part of the world it was not record breaking. I cited
readings from the area and illustrated that there have been wetter
Junes down here. I did explain though how wet some places have been
recently such as Sheffield compared to the Southeast.
At my own Surrey weather station 1998,1991 1987,1985 and 1980 were all
much wetter.
Incidentally Friday's Weather Watch will look at the great July 1797
superior mirage along parts of the Sussex coast when French boats and
harbours were seen high in the sky above Sussex beaches. On Monday I
explain the nightmare for brontophobics 9th/10th July 1923 when there
were over 6950 crashes of thunder in London overnight. The cells
responsible emanated from Sussex and moved north. Rottingdean had
116mm of rain. If any UK sci members are in the Bedford area I am
talking about 500 years of Weather at Mark Rutherford School tomorrow
evening.
Ian Currie- editor of Weather eye magazine (which the latest issue
number 24 has been held up due to too much weather literally) and
Weather Watch Presenter for the BBC.
www.frostedearth.com
Sorry to sound rude Ian - but as I've asked before - does uk.sci.weather
really have to act as a vessel for thinly-veiled self-promotion?
Sorry but in my humble opinion I think the above just looks very smug. I
hope you're not developing a TV Star ego.
Richard- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've seen these figures quoted for May-June and June 2007.
The official Metoffice press release is also linked below:-
Wettest May-June periods on record (mm)
2007 272.3 *
1860: 250.1
1797: 244.4
1830: 229.0
1789: 222.1
1879: 220.7
1766: 217.3
1773: 217.3
1843: 211.8
Wettest Junes on record for England and Wales (mm)
157.1 1860
151.7 2007 *
148.7 1768
141.5 1848
139.3 1879
134.9 1797
134.1 1852
132.2 1997
Met Office June Figureshttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070705.html-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, i've seen that page. The first line is extremely misleading to
start with.
"Provisional statistics from the Met Office have today shown that June
has been the wettest since records began in 1914".
Records didn't begin in 1914. An explanation is needed for why this
date has been chosen, how many stations are involved, how the data is
weighted, and why they insist on inferring that no records existed
prior to 1914. It is poor, poor reporting of the facts and distorts
the perception of how this month's weather fits into the historical
record.
Dave O'Hara
Ferryhill, Co Durhamhttp://www.napier.eclipse.co.uk/weather- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
......Which is what the other set of data I posted above attempts to
do, although I'd imagine that it's based on an even less standardised
set of instrumental readings, so perhaps the Met Office are just
erring on the side of caution?
Either way, nature is no respecter of calendar months and it certainly
seems like the May-June total is the heighest since measurements of
any kinds began.
Flood damage in Yorkshire, especially in Hull, which was being under-
reported until yesterday, seems to indicate that.
I've also seen other examples of false comparisons.
For example, the 'Telegraph' a week or so ago, referred to the
Sheffield Floods as the worst since the great flood of 1864.
That could be misleading to readers, since in fact, the 1864 flood was
the result of a poorly constructed dam collapsing.
see:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sheffield_flood