|
Climatological day
Having just read the piece on observation timing on the FAQ pages, I wanted to see what the majority do with regards timings.
10 or so years ago, as a teenager with admittedly not much of an eye for detail, I used to take my readings at 1800 local time each day, noting the max/mins for the previous 24 hours. However, having had a little look on various sites I see 0900 local seems to be a more common time, along with splitting the climatological day into two periods. Or is a "normal" day seen as acceptable (00-24 local)? Thanks, Luke |
Climatological day
On Friday, 11 November 2016 17:26:40 UTC, wrote:
Having just read the piece on observation timing on the FAQ pages, I wanted to see what the majority do with regards timings. 10 or so years ago, as a teenager with admittedly not much of an eye for detail, I used to take my readings at 1800 local time each day, noting the max/mins for the previous 24 hours. However, having had a little look on various sites I see 0900 local seems to be a more common time, along with splitting the climatological day into two periods. Or is a "normal" day seen as acceptable (00-24 local)? Because the first thing an academic would do on turning up for work would be dealing with his weather station data. It would have become the norm. Having an amateur station would require you had a cushy number to copy that timing. These days where the flowerpotmen are playing fast and loose with important artefacts for political stupidities, you can so whatever you think fit. |
Climatological day
"Brian Wakem" wrote in message ...
Personally I use actual days i.e. 00-24 as that is the only way that makes any sense to me at all. It's also the only easy way to use the automated daily min/max values that most automatic weather stations (and especially their software) generate and this includes the Vue. There are one or two exceptions to this, like the Cumulus software AIUI, but in general they are exceptions and not the norm. Those more steeped in the traditional manual ways of weather recording are still very much attuned to the 09-09 station day because of the obvious practical difficulties of taking readings in the dark or, necessarily for non-professional observers, of being awake at midnight each night. And so much of the UK archival data is presumably based on an 09 day. Ultimately, the choice is yours - it will be your station and your data. But accepting the 00-24 day and automatic measurements solves a lot of practical issues. |
Climatological day
Brian Wakem wrote:
wrote: Having just read the piece on observation timing on the FAQ pages, I wanted to see what the majority do with regards timings. 10 or so years ago, as a teenager with admittedly not much of an eye for detail, I used to take my readings at 1800 local time each day, noting the max/mins for the previous 24 hours. However, having had a little look on various sites I see 0900 local seems to be a more common time, along with splitting the climatological day into two periods. Or is a "normal" day seen as acceptable (00-24 local)? Thanks, Luke Personally I use actual days i.e. 00-24 as that is the only way that makes any sense to me at all. The "official" climatological day in this country is 0900 GMT to 0900 GMT. This has its origins back in the days when observing meant taking manual readings from instruments i.e. when there was none of the technology available today. For the sake of continuity the 0900-0900 GMT system remains the standard today. Having said that, the lifestyle of many "amateur" observers makes the 0900-0900 GMT climatological day impossible. In that case, do what suits you. The important thing is to have a system that you can replicate day after day so that there is internal consistency in your observations. However, if you do want to make comparisons with "official" sites you should endeavor to use the 0900-0900 GMT climatological day. With today's automated equipment that's more achievable than it used to be. -- Norman Lynagh Tideswell, Derbyshire 303m a.s.l. http://peakdistrictweather.org @TideswellWeathr |
Climatological day
On 11/11/2016 19:15, Brian Wakem wrote:
wrote: Having just read the piece on observation timing on the FAQ pages, I wanted to see what the majority do with regards timings. 10 or so years ago, as a teenager with admittedly not much of an eye for detail, I used to take my readings at 1800 local time each day, noting the max/mins for the previous 24 hours. However, having had a little look on various sites I see 0900 local seems to be a more common time, along with splitting the climatological day into two periods. Or is a "normal" day seen as acceptable (00-24 local)? Thanks, Luke Personally I use actual days i.e. 00-24 as that is the only way that makes any sense to me at all. 09-09 here. That's how I started in 1979 and that's how I shall finish. Up here the rainfall readings go to SEPA/UKMO which specify daily readings to be made at 09 anyway. -- George in Swanston, Edinburgh, 580'asl www.swanstonweather.co.uk www.eppingweather.co.uk www.winter1947.co.uk |
Climatological day
I'm with Brian on this, it is the most logical thing to do. I understand why 0900 is used, but one day it will change.
Having said that, it's not that difficult to use both systems and be able to make comparisons and it's interesting to see what a difference it can make. |
Climatological day
09GMT-09GMT for my manual readings that I use for my records and 00-24 for my DVP which I use for rain intensity etc
00-24 makes more sense to me, but I followed the standard convention here 24 years ago. Work shifts still allow for these obs times. If I was just starting to keep records I'd go 00-24. Makes more sense to me 09 obs on a foul Jan morning not exactly fun. Ian Raunds E Northants |
Climatological day
|
Climatological day
" wrote in message
om... Weather Display software allows 09-09 or 00-24. Does it? OK, interesting to know and that's a new one on me - maybe a relatively recent introduction? But I'm always a little reluctant to recommend WD to new users, at least until the user interface might get completely rewritten - cosmetics aside, the learning curve is a bit steep for anyone who's not into computers. There are other more straightforward option like Cumulus and even Weatherlink itself does a sound job on the basics - which is all many users need - if you can overlook the rather dated UI. John Dann www.weatherstations.co.uk |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk