I've just found a splendid article on Thomas Barker, who kept a
meticulous weather record in his journal from 1736 to 1798:

http://www.lyndon-estate.co.uk/04%20...20Abstract.htm
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde

Good evocative stuff John, childish as it may seem it would be fantastic, if
just once again in our life times we could observe such conditions.
Thank goodness for people like Thomas Barker who let us glimpse so
wonderfully into the past. Blimey his account brought back deep vivid
memories of 63.







"John Hall" wrote in message
...
I've just found a splendid article on Thomas Barker, who kept a meticulous
weather record in his journal from 1736 to 1798:

http://www.lyndon-estate.co.uk/04%20...20Abstract.htm
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde

In message , Lawrence Jenkins
writes
Good evocative stuff John, childish as it may seem it would be fantastic, if
just once again in our life times we could observe such conditions.
Thank goodness for people like Thomas Barker who let us glimpse so
wonderfully into the past. Blimey his account brought back deep vivid
memories of 63.







"John Hall" wrote in message
...
I've just found a splendid article on Thomas Barker, who kept a meticulous
weather record in his journal from 1736 to 1798:


http://www.lyndon-estate.co.uk/04%20...Figures/Thomas
Barker/Thomas%20Barker%20Abstract.htm
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde


I live close to our beloved Tom, and his records have been published.
Imagine the enthusiasm of those early days! An enthusiasm that
continues - but I feel the excitment - instead of just interpreting
numerical progs.
I think I have seen the best years of the Office 1960-1991.
Cheers
Paul
--
'Wisest are they that know they do not know.' Socrates.
Paul Bartlett FRMetS
www.rutnet.co.uk Go to local weather.
400FT AMSL 25Miles southwest of the Wash

In article ,
Paul Bartlett writes:
I live close to our beloved Tom, and his records have been published.
Imagine the enthusiasm of those early days! An enthusiasm that
continues - but I feel the excitment - instead of just interpreting
numerical progs.
I think I have seen the best years of the Office 1960-1991.

I thought that Barker merited a Wikipedia article, and there was enough
material available online for me to write one. The piece can be found
he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Barker

It draws heavily for its information on the article that I mentioned at
the start of this thread.
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde

John Hall wrote:
In article ,
Paul Bartlett writes:
I live close to our beloved Tom, and his records have been published.
Imagine the enthusiasm of those early days! An enthusiasm that
continues - but I feel the excitment - instead of just interpreting
numerical progs.
I think I have seen the best years of the Office 1960-1991.

I thought that Barker merited a Wikipedia article, and there was enough
material available online for me to write one. The piece can be found
he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Barker

It draws heavily for its information on the article that I mentioned at
the start of this thread.


John Hall wrote:
I've just found a splendid article on Thomas Barker, who kept a
meticulous weather record in his journal from 1736 to 1798:

http://www.lyndon-estate.co.uk/04%20...20Abstract.htm
--
John Hall

I shall have to do these years:
Snow began to fall in January and then "it froze most days & every
night till February 16 ... February 2 when the Ice was thickest I found
it 11.5 In. thick in a pond ... The Effects of this frost were many &
destructive...".

It will be nice to get back in the swing of things. Or how can I tell
it wasn't a negative NAO?

Anything on the database for hurricanes that year? Or large mag
earthquakes?

In article .com,
Weatherlawyer writes:
I shall have to do these years:
Snow began to fall in January and then "it froze most days & every
night till February 16 ... February 2 when the Ice was thickest I found
it 11.5 In. thick in a pond ... The Effects of this frost were many &
destructive...".

If you do then bear in mind that, the year bring prior to 1752, the
dates will be Old Style and you'll need to add about 11 days to convert
to New Style.

It will be nice to get back in the swing of things. Or how can I tell
it wasn't a negative NAO?

Anything on the database for hurricanes that year? Or large mag
earthquakes?

I suppose that the Admiralty might have records of hurricanes that
affected RN ships. I believe it was standard practice for naval vessels
to include weather info in their logs.
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde

John Hall wrote:
In article .com,
Weatherlawyer writes:
I shall have to do these years:
Snow began to fall in January and then "it froze most days & every
night till February 16 ... February 2 when the Ice was thickest I found
it 11.5 In. thick in a pond ... The Effects of this frost were many &
destructive...".

If you do then bear in mind that, the year bring prior to 1752, the
dates will be Old Style and you'll need to add about 11 days to convert
to New Style.

It will be nice to get back in the swing of things. Or how can I tell
it wasn't a negative NAO?

Anything on the database for hurricanes that year? Or large mag
earthquakes?

I suppose that the Admiralty might have records of hurricanes that
affected RN ships. I believe it was standard practice for naval vessels
to include weather info in their logs.

Any idea how that would affect this:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips.../phasecat.html

I'm going to presume that the dates are converted to the standard that
all the others are based on: The Julian Calendar that modern astronomy
programmes work on. And that they have been worked backwards to allow
for that deviation as I hope had the OP's quote.

But the general run of the phases would give a yearly standard that
would stand out from the attempt to capture the spell of individual
phases anyway. The only point required would be to find out if the NAO
was +ve or -ve.

I'm too tired to bother ATM though.

Weatherlawyer wrote:
John Hall wrote:
In article .com,
Weatherlawyer writes:
I shall have to do these years:
Snow began to fall in January and then "it froze most days & every
night till February 16 ... February 2 when the Ice was thickest I found
it 11.5 In. thick in a pond ... The Effects of this frost were many &
destructive...".

If you do then bear in mind that, the year bring prior to 1752, the
dates will be Old Style and you'll need to add about 11 days to convert
to New Style.

It will be nice to get back in the swing of things. Or how can I tell
it wasn't a negative NAO?

Anything on the database for hurricanes that year? Or large mag
earthquakes?

I suppose that the Admiralty might have records of hurricanes that
affected RN ships. I believe it was standard practice for naval vessels
to include weather info in their logs.

Any idea how that would affect this:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips.../phasecat.html

I'm going to presume that the dates are converted to the standard that
all the others are based on: The Julian Calendar that modern astronomy
programmes work on. And that they have been worked backwards to allow
for that deviation as I hope had the OP's quote.

But the general run of the phases would give a yearly standard that
would stand out from the attempt to capture the spell of individual
phases anyway. The only point required would be to find out if the NAO
was +ve or -ve.

I'm too tired to bother ATM though.

The Frost in the winter 1739-40 was remarkable, being both Long,
Severe, & Settled, but was made more remarkable by the very backward,
dry, & cold season which followed it, & was more destructive than the
Frost itself.

The Autumn 1739 was mostly cold, with frequent Rimy mornings. The wind
being mostly Northerly all October, but there was no settled frost till
November 7, when there came one for 10 days, which was sharp for the
time of year. It froze .9 of an inch in a whole day in this frost, &
the greatest thickness of the ice was 3.1 inches...

....at the end of December it grew colder and began to freeze December
25 at night, the wind being ENE ... December 30 in the day time it
froze an inch; & in night after 2.5 inches. and December 31 the
Thermometer was fallen to [-4 C°], which is far lower than I ever
before saw it, though if the Thermometer had been out of doors it would
probably have fallen still lower....

Snow began to fall in January and then "it froze most days & every
night till February 16 ... February 2 when the Ice was thickest I found
it 11.5 In. thick in a pond ... The Effects of this frost were many &
destructive...".

http://www.lyndon-estate.co.uk/04%20...20Abstract.htm

From the catalogue of the moon phases by Fred Espenak:

1739 00h00m
Jan 3 02:04
Jan 9 17:21 Jan 16 18:04 Jan 24 23:06 p Feb 1 12:53
Feb 8 04:49 T Feb 15 13:18 Feb 23 16:24 Mar 2 21:03
Mar 9 16:49 Mar 17 09:35 Mar 25 06:31 Apr 1 03:40
Apr 8 05:24 Apr 16 05:13 Apr 23 17:24 Apr 30 09:54
May 7 18:46 May 15 22:41 May 23 01:54 May 29 16:48
Jun 6 09:07 Jun 14 13:03 Jun 21 09:07 Jun 28 01:20
Jul 6 00:21 Jul 14 00:12 Jul 20 16:04 t Jul 27 12:22
Aug 4 15:52 A Aug 12 08:48 Aug 18 23:40 Aug 26 02:35
Sep 3 06:51 Sep 10 15:48 Sep 17 08:41 Sep 24 20:06
Oct 2 20:47 Oct 9 22:20 Oct 16 19:54 Oct 24 16:12
Nov 1 09:35 Nov 8 05:26 Nov 15 10:01 Nov 23 13:07
Nov 30 21:37 Dec 7 14:03 Dec 15 03:12 Dec 23 08:45
Dec 30 09:09 P

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips...hases1701.html

[I have no idea what the letters mean, nor the time "subheading":
00h00m -in this case.

I suspect it is the margin of error allowed with (for earlier phases)
uncorrected data. I believe that observations only go back to around
the middle the above century with certainty; possibly owing to the lack
of reliable chronometers up until then.

Was it Poincarre who was getting accuracies of half a degree in 20
years of lunar co-ordinates at the turn of the 19th century? At any
rate an inaccuracy of some sort is bound to step in over centuries,
even with the modern supercomputers available to the JPL and Rutherford
Laboratories.]

3 Jan 02:04 A. (Anticyclonic)
9 Jan 17:21 A.
Also the possibility of mists.

16 Jan 18:04 C. (Col)
24 Jan 23:06 A.
1 Feb 12:53 L. (Low)
8 Feb 04:49 A.
15 Feb 13:18 L.
23 Feb 16:24 R. (Ridge of high pressure or the A to the west of the
UK.*)
Also the possibility of mists.

2 Mar 21:03
9 Mar 16:49
17 Mar 09:35
Also the possibility of mists.

25 Mar 06:31
Also the possibility of mists.

1 Apr 03:40
Also the possibility of mists.

8 Apr 05:24
Also the possibility of mists.


16 Apr 05:13
23 Apr 17:24
Also the possibility of mists.

30 Apr 09:54
7 May 18:46
15 May 22:41
Also the possibility of mists.

23 May 01:54
29 May 16:48
6 Jun 09:07
14 Jun 13:03
21 Jun 09:07
28 Jun 01:20
Also the possibility of mists.

6 Jul 00:21
14 Jul 00:12
20 Jul 16:04
27 Jul 12:22
Also the possibility of mists.

4 Aug 15:52
12 Aug 08:48
Also the possibility of mists.

18 Aug 23:40
Also the possibility of mists.

26 Aug 02:35
Also the possibility of mists.

3 Sep 06:51
10 Sep 15:48
Also the possibility of mists.

17 Sep 08:41
24 Sep 20:06
2 Oct 20:47
9 Oct 22:20
Also the possibility of mists.

16 Oct 19:54
24 Oct 16:12
Also the possibility of mists.

1 Nov 09:35
8 Nov 05:26
Also the possibility of mists.

15 Nov 10:01
23 Nov 13:07
30 Nov 21:37
Also the possibility of mists.

7 Dec 14:03
15 Dec 03:12
23 Dec 08:45
30 Dec 09:09

*This could mean dry weather depending on the declination of the moon.
But the SE of England tends to get wet weather from France in these
conditions.

The North Atlantic was extremely negative that year and there would
have been a number of serious volcanic eruptions along with a late
start to the Hurricane season. (Which hurricanes would have tended to
divert through the Azores to the Barents Sea.

Seriously devastating storms would have struck the Philippines and
Vietnam as well as China and various other places susceptible to
typhoons -as has been noted this year.)

Now I have realised what causes the negativity of the NAO, I shall not
be able to sleep tonight. Thanks John!

I'll do the actual forecast some other time. But it won't be anywhere
near accurate if I am correct about the NAO. But at least that will
show up in the records. Of course if the blighter lived in the SE of
England his records will not fit the code which is based on the North
West of England and North Wales's weather tendencies.

Perhaps if I just have a stab at placing the air masses....

....Oh Bloody Hell!

He lived near Peterborough:
http://www.lyndon-estate.co.uk/

SHHttt!

Weatherlawyer wrote:

23 Feb 16:24 R. (Ridge of high pressure, or the A to the west of the UK.)

That should read "..to the east.."

Onto every bonfire a little urine does fall.
Ah well, back to bed.

In article .com,
Weatherlawyer writes:
Any idea how that would affect this:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips.../phasecat.html

I'm going to presume that the dates are converted to the standard that
all the others are based on: The Julian Calendar that modern astronomy
programmes work on. And that they have been worked backwards to allow
for that deviation as I hope had the OP's quote.
snip

Modern astronomy programs don't work on Julian. Old Style is Julian,.
New Style is Gregorian.
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde