Not sure if this has been remarked upon before, but the Met Office now
have in an easily accessed form, the climatological averages for
1971-2000, alongside those for 1961-1990 at the following page:-

http://www.metoffice.com/climate/uk/averages/index.html

the two datasets enable changes over the two 30-year periods to be
assessed.


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

"JJCMayes1" wrote in message
...
The highest air frost frequency in lowland England away from the far
north
appears to be at Mickleham climate station in Surrey, a well known
frost
hollow.

Hi, Julian,

Juniper Hall? If so, I remember it well. When I was a sixth form student
in November 1965 I was allowed to do the obs there during a field
course. I was really impressed with how low the screen min. and grass
min. were.

When I returned to Scarborough, my own minima were much higher - an
object lesson, first hand.

If I remember correctly, the site was not so well maintained when we had
our COL weekend there about 10 years ago.

Are you just interpreting the maps, Julian, or are there some figures
for Mickleham that I can not see?

Best wishes,

--
Ken Cook, Copley (5miles north of Barnard Castle), County Durham.
830ft
http://mysite.freeserve.com/copley
(MO climat. site updated before 10Z and 19Z daily)
kencookATcopleydurham.freeserve.co.uk



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.663 / Virus Database: 426 - Release Date: 20/04/04

Not sure if this has been remarked upon before, but the Met Office now
have in an easily accessed form, the climatological averages for
1971-2000, alongside those for 1961-1990 at the following page:-

http://www.metoffice.com/climate/uk/averages/index.html

I was planning to mention this myself this evening after browsing through the
maps of 1971-2000 averages. This is probably a more valuable educational
resource than the tabulated values (some oddly chosen sites here) but - for
those who have not yet looked - the maps are at a 1km grid resolution. Of
course, this means that there is a lot of spatial extrapolation, and the role
of orography in the system is clear on most of the maps. Some of the detail
might thus be said to spurious, but it is fascinating.

Looking at the sunshine maps, my suspicions regarding under-recording at
Lowestoft and at Greenwich are confirmed,a pity as the former is a health
resort station (and appears in Weather Log in Weather). The opposite *seems* to
apply to Lyneham in Wiltshire.

The highest air frost frequency in lowland England away from the far north
appears to be at Mickleham climate station in Surrey, a well known frost
hollow.

Julian
Julian Mayes,
West Molesey
Surrey.

Are you just interpreting the maps, Julian, or are there some figures
for Mickleham that I can not see?


I am afraid that I was merely interpreting the maps Ken (looking closely,
guessing locations; not too difficult as the input to the maps will be the
climat. and synoptic stations). I can't even quote any averages for the site as
my 30 aves. booklet is at work. Thank goodness some met. stations are in the
bottom of dry valleys, though doubtless Chipstead valley - and probably other
sites - are more extreme. A colleague who lives very nearby has a distinctly
frosty back garden.

Further browsing reveals that sometimes when you request a ground frost map you
receive an air frost map. Overall though, probably the best feature on the M O
website yet.

regards
Julian
West Molesey, Surrey.

"JJCMayes1" wrote in message
...
Not sure if this has been remarked upon before, but the Met
Office now
have in an easily accessed form, the climatological averages
for
1971-2000, alongside those for 1961-1990 at the following
page:-

http://www.metoffice.com/climate/uk/averages/index.html

I was planning to mention this myself this evening after
browsing through the
maps of 1971-2000 averages. This is probably a more valuable
educational
resource than the tabulated values (some oddly chosen sites
here) but - for
those who have not yet looked - the maps are at a 1km grid
resolution. Of
course, this means that there is a lot of spatial extrapolation,
and the role
of orography in the system is clear on most of the maps. Some of
the detail
might thus be said to spurious, but it is fascinating.

I'll bite my tongue and not comment on the content. But, Julian,
what
do you make of the boundaries used between different colours?
These are, presumably, rounded figures which approximate to quint
boundaries ... is this cartographically acceptable these days, is
it a
whim of the compilers who perhaps don't give a damn what is and
is not normal practice, or is it, ahem, best described otherwise
in
private? Or am I plain out of date?

Philip Eden

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:11:20 +0100, "Philip Eden"
philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote:

I'll bite my tongue and not comment on the content. But, Julian,
what
do you make of the boundaries used between different colours?
These are, presumably, rounded figures which approximate to quint
boundaries ... is this cartographically acceptable these days, is
it a
whim of the compilers who perhaps don't give a damn what is and
is not normal practice, or is it, ahem, best described otherwise
in
private? Or am I plain out of date?

I'm not sure about the science of it but I much preferred the old
contoured mapped averages. It's very hard for me to see the boundaries
between similar colours on these new maps (shades or red or blue),
particularly where are several colour changes in a small area.

Also, the boundary values used on some of th maps are frankly weird
and make it hard or impossible to discern the differences in climate
in, say, lowland Southern England. This was easy to see with contoured
maps.

Example - Colour key for Days with Ground Frost in January:
White: 2 to 16 days
Light blue: 17 days
Greeny blue: 18 days
Dark blue: 19 days.

What on earth?????

What's wrong with old fashioned 2 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 20? Come on,
Met Office - does anyone really care if somewhere averages 17, 18 or
19 days? NO! Because in practical terms, the difference is
insignificant. On the other hand, the difference between a monthly
average of say 3 days and 15 is HUGE and could be important. Not to
mention interesting.

So, I don't like these new maps one little bit - all they had to do
was lightly colour the contoured maps and everyone would have been
happy. Change for no good reason. To the statisticians and graphics
designers involved, I say "Pah!"

--
Dave

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:03:04 +0100, Dave Ludlow wrote in

snip
I'm not sure about the science of it but I much preferred the old
contoured mapped averages. It's very hard for me to see the boundaries
between similar colours on these new maps (shades or red or blue),
particularly where are several colour changes in a small area.

I hadn't seen those maps until Philip referred to them two posts back. I
think the use of colours is ridiculous - I was constantly moving my eyes
between the map and key to match the colours and that wasn't always
possible. The colour boundaries look odd too. As you say - bring back
isopleth maps. I do think this is potentially a very useful source,
though, once such problems are ironed out.

--
Mike 55.13°N 6.69°W Coleraine posted to uk.sci.weather 23/04/2004 07:32:01 UTC

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:11:20 +0100, "Philip Eden"
philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom wrote:

I'll bite my tongue and not comment on the content. But, Julian,
what
do you make of the boundaries used between different colours?
These are, presumably, rounded figures which approximate to quint
boundaries ... is this cartographically acceptable these days, is
it a
whim of the compilers who perhaps don't give a damn what is and
is not normal practice, or is it, ahem, best described otherwise
in
private? Or am I plain out of date?

I'm not sure about the science of it but I much preferred the old
contoured mapped averages. It's very hard for me to see the boundaries
between similar colours on these new maps (shades or red or blue),
particularly where are several colour changes in a small area.

Also, the boundary values used on some of th maps are frankly weird
and make it hard or impossible to discern the differences in climate
in, say, lowland Southern England. This was easy to see with contoured
maps.

Never mind lowland Southern England. What about the whole of Scotland.
Look at the Annual Mean Maximum Temperature map;
http://www.metoffice.com/climate/uk/...00/tmax/17.gif
and nearly all of Scotland is coloured blue which the key says is 2.4C!

No wonder visiting Sasenachs arriving in May expect to find the Pentland
Hills covered in snow!

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

Never mind lowland Southern England. What about the whole of Scotland.
Look at the Annual Mean Maximum Temperature map;
http://www.metoffice.com/climate/uk/...00/tmax/17.gif
and nearly all of Scotland is coloured blue which the key says is 2.4C!

No wonder visiting Sasenachs arriving in May expect to find the Pentland
Hills covered in snow!

Cheers, Alastair.



It actually says between 2.3 and 10.3 (bit of a range) I gather it means the
peaks average 2.3 at the least.

"Joe, Bedford." wrote in message
...

"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote
in message ...

Never mind lowland Southern England. What about the whole of Scotland.
Look at the Annual Mean Maximum Temperature map;
http://www.metoffice.com/climate/uk/...00/tmax/17.gif
and nearly all of Scotland is coloured blue which the key says is 2.4C!

No wonder visiting Sasenachs arriving in May expect to find the Pentland
Hills covered in snow!

Cheers, Alastair.



It actually says between 2.3 and 10.3 (bit of a range) I gather it means
the
peaks average 2.3 at the least.



That should read 2.4 not 2.3.