Can anyone tell me if there is an average thickness value for each month
here in the UK?

Thanks in advance.
Gav.

"Gav" sat@home wrote in message ...
Can anyone tell me if there is an average thickness value for each month
here in the UK?

Thanks in advance.
Gav.



Can't be much help, but I *do* know that the average for Dec, Jan and Feb is
nowhere near 528dam!
:-p

In uk.sci.weather on Wed, 2 Feb 2005 at 15:27:39, Gav wrote :

Can anyone tell me if there is an average thickness value for each month
here in the UK?

I assume you are talking in meteorological terms, rather than
intellectual?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

"Gav" sat@home wrote in message
...
Can anyone tell me if there is an average thickness value for each
month
here in the UK?

Thanks in advance.
Gav.

.... I was hoping that someone in a big glassy building on the edge of
Dartmoor might pop down to the Library and look these up, but they are
all probably busy saving the Planet ;-)

I don't have access to these data now - but unravelling (?) the various
mean mslp/500/TTHK diffs charts that are published with the R.Met.Soc
'Weather Log', I've worked out some rough figures for the lowest and
highest for two locations ... this is not an exercise I recommend for
the sake of the eyes! Very small charts, small-scale etc. Treat these
figures as a good guide without being gospel (fairly happy with a +/- 1
dam possible error).

1961-1990 [dam]
Jan/Feb Jul/Aug
Aberdeen area: 529 552
London area: 533 558


for a rough idea of *extremes* (read cautionary notes please) then use:-

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/tthkxtrm.htm

Martin.


--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm

"Gav" sat@home wrote ...
Can anyone tell me if there is an average thickness value for each
month
here in the UK?

and I wrote:
Treat these
figures as a good guide without being gospel (fairly happy with a +/-
1 dam possible error).

1961-1990 [dam]
Jan/Feb Jul/Aug
Aberdeen area: 529 552
London area: 533 558
[ 'corrected/amended' ... see below ]

I have now ploughed through the data available on the NOAA-CIRES Climate
Diagnostics Centre site
(http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/) :
I'm not quite clear what averaging period was used though the
implication is that it runs from:- 1968 to 1996, though elsewhere on the
site, different periods are used. However, it looks as if my figures
could do with a little amending, and I have also extracted monthly mean
thickness values for a point roughly in the middle of the CET 'triangle'
..... see below.

1968-1996 [dam]
Jan/Feb Jul/Aug
Aberdeen area: 531 552(u/c)
London area: 534 557

And for a notional point within the CET domain (see:-
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...sdata/cet.html )

JAN 535
FEB 534
MAR 535
APR 538
MAY 544
JUN 551
JUL 555
AUG 556
SEP 552
OCT 548
NOV 541
DEC 538

Martin.


--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm

In article ,
Martin Rowley writes:
snip
I have now ploughed through the data available on the NOAA-CIRES Climate
Diagnostics Centre site
(http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/) :
I'm not quite clear what averaging period was used though the
implication is that it runs from:- 1968 to 1996, though elsewhere on the
site, different periods are used.

Thanks, Martin. I've noticed in the monthly charts of thickness
anomalies covering most of the Northern Hemisphere that are published in
weather log, that the areas of positive anomaly almost always seem to be
much larger and more intense than those of negative anomaly, at least in
the winter months. Those take 1961-90 as their reference. So I suspect
that if one could compile a "running average" it would now be noticeably
higher than either 1961-90 or 1968-96. Another effect of GW?
--
John Hall
Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)

"John Hall" wrote in message
...

Thanks, Martin. I've noticed in the monthly charts of thickness
anomalies covering most of the Northern Hemisphere that are published
in
weather log, that the areas of positive anomaly almost always seem to
be
much larger and more intense than those of negative anomaly, at least
in
the winter months. Those take 1961-90 as their reference. So I suspect
that if one could compile a "running average" it would now be
noticeably
higher than either 1961-90 or 1968-96. Another effect of GW?

..... I've kept a log of crude difference from the 61-90 climatology
using the 'Weather Log' charts for some years now. Looking at the 10
years 1995 to 2004, the overwhelming majority of months (no seasonal
bias as far as I can detect) had +ve anomalies (wrt 61-90).

Averaged over these 10 years, the difference (nearest half dam only ..
the size/scale+ of the charts don't justify anything more accurate) was
+1.5dam, representing an increase in the mean temperature through the
layer ( 1000 mbar to 500 mbar ) of between 0.5 and 1.0C.
Two of those years had consistent and dramatic excess over the LTA: 1997
and 2004 with anomalies of +3 dam (or roughly 1.5C increase in layer
mean T). Only one year (1996) had a negative anomaly, though 2001 was
close to zero.

Whether all this is due to GW, or circulation change I'm not competent
to say. However, I suggest that the size of the anomalies over a period
of 10yr can't be put down just to 'random' variation, particularly when
coupled to other studies which show an increase in lower tropospheric
warmth, both by classic observation and proxy series.

Martin.

--
FAQ & Glossary for uk.sci.weather at:-
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/uswfaqfr.htm