The following quotes from the Met Office website are revealing:

16 December 2004:
QUOTE
Closer to home, this year [2004] is ranked the fifth warmest
in the Central England Temperature series which dates back
to 1659, with a temperature 1.08 ºC warmer than average
so far. The warmer years were 1949, 1990, 1999 and 2002,
which all recorded temperatures between 1.1 ºC and 1.2 ºC
above the long-term average.
UNQUOTE
and from 16 December 2003:
QUOTE
.... 2003 has only been the fifth warmest in much of Britain
since records began in 1659 ... the mean Central England
Temperature so far this year as been 10.82 ºC, 1.09 ºC
above the long-term average. 1949, 1990, 1999 and
2002 were warmer with a CET between 1.1 and 1.2 ºC
above average.
UNQUOTE
I queried last year's press release at the time and received
a not particularly polite brush off. I could not find a revised
figure for 2003 in subsequent press releases, but clearly
it was revised downwards at some point. (I had pointed
out that it was unwise to make such statements 15 days
before the end of the year, that the figure of 10.82 was
meaningless at it was the mean up to, I believe, Dec 13,
and that the final CET was more likely to come in at 10.50
which would have made it the eighth warmest).

This year's statement nods almost imperceptibly towards
my criticism as it no longer includes a mean CET "for the
year so far", but it is equally fallible. Given the variable
nature of the prognoses for the remainder of the year,
the December CET could, I reckon, come in anwhere
between 4.7 and 5.5ºC which would leave us with a
CET for 2004 anywhere between 10.54 and 10.47
which would place it anywhere between fifth warmest
and tenth warmest.

If I say that the English in this year's press release is
sloppy, too, please do not point out the errors in mine
as they are both deliberate :-)

Philip Eden

Thank you.

Some reality at last.

I'm biting my tongue somewhat at the moment, with all the weather hype
going on.

A cold snap lasting probably for 2 days and it just happens to be the
Christmas weekend at the same time.
2 day cold-snaps from the north-west and not even the north. What that
tells me is, the west is near the atlantic
with sea temps around 17C, and the east hoping the showers filter
across.
I read the wording carefully on forecasts. Wintry showers doesn't mean
the same thing as snow showers.
If people at lower levels expect rain, sleet, soft hail showers then
they won't be disappointed

I wish people would curb their excitement until the snow is actually
falling. Don't fall for the hype.
There are some people that arse-lick and praise people even before
anything has actually happened, i find it really bizarre the way their
minds work

On 21 Dec 2004 08:29:28 -0800, BlueLightning wrote in
oups.com

A cold snap lasting probably for 2 days and it just happens to be the
Christmas weekend at the same time.
2 day cold-snaps from the north-west and not even the north. What that
tells me is, the west is near the atlantic

This looks far more like a northerly:

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/brack3a.html

with sea temps around 17C, and the east hoping the showers filter
across.

I'd guess we would have to go well to the south to see SSTs of 17C :-) OK
sea temps are about 2C above those of 40 years ago, but not by that much.
May there not be a bit of dynamic forcing in that northerly?

--
Mike 55.13°N 6.69°W Coleraine posted to uk.sci.weather 21/12/2004 16:38:07 UTC

"BlueLightning" wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
the west is near the atlantic
with sea temps around 17C,
Good points in your post, but sea temperatures not this high!

SST's west of Scotland around 10/11 and west of Cornwall 11/12degC. (see
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/brack5.html )

Martin.


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