Why do weather records only begin in 1914?

Emine Saner
Monday September 3, 2007
The Guardian

Actually, they didn't. While the Met Office seems keen on saying
"since records began in 1914" to describe any kind of record-busting
weather (such as 2007's "wettest summer"), it has records that go back
much further.

The England and Wales Precipitation series, which measures rainfall
and snow, goes back to 1766, and the Central England Temperature
series, which covers the temperature from the south Midlands to
Lancashire, is the longest-running record in the world, dating from
1659.

"They were kept on a personal basis by amateur meteorologists," says
Sancha Lancaster, a spokeswoman for the Met Office. "We have an
archive here of thousands of people's weather diaries. Many don't just
record the weather, they also record the effects on wildlife and
plants. It takes years to quality-control them and put the data on to
a computer."

Statisticians work out whether the entries are reliable, which is why
the record going back to 1914 - when observation stations became more
uniform in the way they collected data - is almost always the one
used. The Met Office says this is the only reliable one (and it gives
a picture of the UK as a whole).

But if records go back less than 100 years, can we really set much
store by so-called freak events such as the floods this summer? The
fact that we do irritates Philip Eden, a weather historian. "Saying it
is 'unprecedented' allows the people who look after our infrastructure
a ready-made excuse for not being able to deal with [extreme weather].
It is not unprecedented."

Eden uses records going back to 1727 and says there have been 15
summers wetter than this one. "The 16th wettest summer on record
doesn't make such a good headline, does it?"

Well said Philip. This ridiculous change of policy by the Met Office
and the aside that the records prior to 1914 are somehow valueless is
an insult to decades of painstaking work in researching, carefully
standardising and publishing records from the 17th, 18th and 19th
centuries undertaken by Gordon Manley, Hubert Lamb, Emanuel LeRoy
Ladurie and many others.

Anyone who has access to the relevant volumes of British Rainfall,
Monthly Weather Report and Symons's Monthly Meteorological Magazine
will know that the collection, publication and quality of
climatological data a century ago is an order of magnitude better than
today's, despite the advantages of today's technology making it easier
than ever to publish.

Grrr!

Stephen Burt
Stratfield Mortimer, Berkshire

Hi Stephen,

Regards to Helen and family BTW!

I have to agree with you to some extent. I have used British Rainfall and Met
mag. a lot in my researches over the years and the detail and dedication is
astonishing. It is a great pity that BR ceased publication in its old form in
1960 IMO. However, I don't think The MetO assume they are valueless just not in
a readily accessible computer format, any member of the public is able to go
down to Exeter and browse the published data in the National Met. Library and
Archives, just ring up beforehand and arrange an appointment is best. See
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ary/index.html for more details.

Stephen if you wish to chat further on this subject you have my phone number and
e-mail.

Cheers,

Will
--

On 5 Sep, 19:47, "Will Hand" wrote:
Hi Stephen,
1960 IMO. However, I don't think The MetO assume they are valueless just not in
a readily accessible computer format

So, presumeably, all my weather records from the 70's & 80's I should
ignore because they are not in a 'readily accessible electronic
format'

As excuses for ignoring data goes, it's almost beyond belief. But
somehow doesn't surprise me.

Graham
Penzance

"Graham Easterling" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 5 Sep, 19:47, "Will Hand" wrote:
Hi Stephen,
1960 IMO. However, I don't think The MetO assume they are valueless just not
in
a readily accessible computer format

So, presumeably, all my weather records from the 70's & 80's I should
ignore because they are not in a 'readily accessible electronic
format'

As excuses for ignoring data goes, it's almost beyond belief. But
somehow doesn't surprise me.

Graham
Penzance


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/...mes/index.html
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/...ata/index.html

Will
--

On 5 Sep, 19:08, Graham Easterling wrote:
On 5 Sep, 19:47, "Will Hand" wrote:

Hi Stephen,
1960 IMO. However, I don't think The MetO assume they are valueless just not in
a readily accessible computer format

So, presumeably, all my weather records from the 70's & 80's I should
ignore because they are not in a 'readily accessible electronic
format'

As excuses for ignoring data goes, it's almost beyond belief. But
somehow doesn't surprise me.

Graham
Penzance

As a matter of fact, Graham and all others who are interested, all Met
Office daily climatological and rainfall records began to be
'computerised' in 1959 and (almost) anything since then is in computer-
ready format. The 3-hourly observations from synoptic stations began
to be 'keyed' onto Hollerith cards in 1957 as part of the
International Geophysical Year.

Since then many stations have had their manuscript monthly summaries
punched up retrospectively, extending the period of computerised
record back 150 years in a few cases. It's a great pity this vast
online archive assembled at the taxpayer's expense is not made freely
available to non-commercial users, as the New Zealand Met Department
have recently done.

Stephen Burt
Stratfield Mortimer, Berkshire

On 5 Sep, 18:47, "Will Hand" wrote:


I have to agree with you to some extent. I have used British Rainfall and Met
mag. a lot in my researches over the years and the detail and dedication is
astonishing. It is a great pity that BR ceased publication in its old form in
1960 IMO. However, I don't think The MetO assume they are valueless just not in
a readily accessible computer format ... snip

A complete and Very Red Herring Will, as well you know. It does you
credit to try to defend your employers, but on this occasions the
actions taken are indefensible. Of course the CET and England and
Wales temperature and rainfall series are available in computer format
- they're on the Hadley Centre website amongst many others - and
there's absolutely no reason why with a little work on homogenisation
of the component records both series could not be amalgamated into a
reasonably homogenous run extending back much further than the 93
years of the Met O areal series.

Problem is, of course, the other series were not originated by the
MetO. Not Invented Here strikes again, methinks. So much for the noble
integrity of scientific research which is supposed to benefit from
previous research in the field, not to ignore it completely. But other
than making a better headline (as Philip has pointed out), I just
don't see any merit at all in making this utterly ridiculous change,
the explanation of which is patronising in the extreme.


Stephen Burt
Stratfield Mortimer, Berkshire

"Paul C" wrote in message
...
Why do weather records only begin in 1914?

Emine Saner
Monday September 3, 2007
The Guardian

Actually, they didn't. While the Met Office seems keen on saying
"since records began in 1914" to describe any kind of record-busting
weather (such as 2007's "wettest summer"), it has records that go back
much further.

The England and Wales Precipitation series, which measures rainfall
and snow, goes back to 1766, and the Central England Temperature
series, which covers the temperature from the south Midlands to
Lancashire, is the longest-running record in the world, dating from
1659.

"They were kept on a personal basis by amateur meteorologists," says
Sancha Lancaster, a spokeswoman for the Met Office. "We have an
archive here of thousands of people's weather diaries. Many don't just
record the weather, they also record the effects on wildlife and
plants. It takes years to quality-control them and put the data on to
a computer."

Statisticians work out whether the entries are reliable, which is why
the record going back to 1914 - when observation stations became more
uniform in the way they collected data - is almost always the one
used. The Met Office says this is the only reliable one (and it gives
a picture of the UK as a whole).

But if records go back less than 100 years, can we really set much
store by so-called freak events such as the floods this summer? The
fact that we do irritates Philip Eden, a weather historian. "Saying it
is 'unprecedented' allows the people who look after our infrastructure
a ready-made excuse for not being able to deal with [extreme weather].
It is not unprecedented."

Eden uses records going back to 1727 and says there have been 15
summers wetter than this one. "The 16th wettest summer on record
doesn't make such a good headline, does it?"


I don't usually care much for the Guardian. But they are quite right on this
point.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:43:11 +0100, Paul C wrote:

Why do weather records only begin in 1914?

I'm still waiting for the MO to reply to my e-mail in which I asked that
question...

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

On 4 Sep, 20:43, Paul C wrote:
Why do weather records only begin in 1914?

Emine Saner
Monday September 3, 2007
The Guardian

Actually, they didn't. While the Met Office seems keen on saying
"since records began in 1914" to describe any kind of record-busting
weather (such as 2007's "wettest summer"), it has records that go back
much further.

The England and Wales Precipitation series, which measures rainfall
and snow, goes back to 1766, and the Central England Temperature
series, which covers the temperature from the south Midlands to
Lancashire, is the longest-running record in the world, dating from
1659.

"They were kept on a personal basis by amateur meteorologists," says
Sancha Lancaster, a spokeswoman for the Met Office. "We have an
archive here of thousands of people's weather diaries. Many don't just
record the weather, they also record the effects on wildlife and
plants. It takes years to quality-control them and put the data on to
a computer."

Statisticians work out whether the entries are reliable, which is why
the record going back to 1914 - when observation stations became more
uniform in the way they collected data - is almost always the one
used. The Met Office says this is the only reliable one (and it gives
a picture of the UK as a whole).

But if records go back less than 100 years, can we really set much
store by so-called freak events such as the floods this summer? The
fact that we do irritates Philip Eden, a weather historian. "Saying it
is 'unprecedented' allows the people who look after our infrastructure
a ready-made excuse for not being able to deal with [extreme weather].
It is not unprecedented."

Eden uses records going back to 1727 and says there have been 15
summers wetter than this one. "The 16th wettest summer on record
doesn't make such a good headline, does it?"

I recently requested a set of long term averages for the now defunct
MetO site in Raunds from 1904-1992 from the National Meteorological
archive in Exeter. While I cant fault the speed of the service or
quantity of data provided it was frustrating that 1904-1913 data is no
longer available. 1911 was of particular interest to me, due to the
long standing UK record maximum of 36.7C on the 9th August. The new
highest maximum for Raunds is 35.9 on the 3rd August 1990. Thankfully
we have historians such as Phillip Eden to keep pre 1914 data alive,
and put some perspective on all our recent 'unprecedented'
weather.

Ian.

Raunds, East Northants. Nat Grid Ref SP9972
-------------------------------------------------------------------