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
 

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.



--
Brian Wakem
Lower Bourne, Farnham, Surrey
http://www.brianwakem.co.uk/weather
Live obs @ 19:14:29 : 0.7C, DP 0.6C, RH 99%, 0.0 mm

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
 

In article , says...


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.

Weather Display software allows 09-09 or 00-24. Works with most of the
available automatic stations including Davis.

--
Kev
NNNN

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

Climatological day
 

In article , says...



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.

I've been using it 09-09 for 10 years.

If you accept the defaults when you first start then you get a very
acceptable web page with the relevant data without needing to know much
about websites. YMMV.



--
Kev
NNNN

Climatological day
 

On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 5:26:40 PM 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)?

Thanks,

Luke

If you want to align with WMO standards 09-09h is the correct way to do it! So many weather station these days use the period 0000-2400, which does make more sense. An example of how errors occur with 09-09h is when minimum temperatures occur before midnight. If for arguments sake a minimum of -2.5C occurs at 2300 this would go down as on the day it occur ed. However on the 09-09 time period a minimum at this time would be recorded on the following day if -2.5C was the minimum. (minimum between 2100-0900h) This situation occurs quite frequently during the winter months!

Climatological day
 

I've always thought it a bit daft when recording 09-09 that particularly
In winter your 09 obs of for example -2C is quite often your min for the
next 09-09 period if there is a change to a milder airmass.
2 air frost days for the price of 1.

Ian Raunds E Northants

Climatological day
 

Ian wrote:

I've always thought it a bit daft when recording 09-09 that particularly
In winter your 09 obs of for example -2C is quite often your min for the
next 09-09 period if there is a change to a milder airmass.
2 air frost days for the price of 1.


The same can happen with 00-24. On Friday night for example the temp
dropped below zero here before midnight before much milder air moved in
around 00:30. 2 air frosts when the temp was only sub zero for a couple of
hours.


--
Brian Wakem
Lower Bourne, Farnham, Surrey
http://www.brianwakem.co.uk/weather
Live obs @ 09:11:00 : 5.9C, DP 5.9C, RH 100%, 0.2 mm

Climatological day
 

Ian wrote:

I've always thought it a bit daft when recording 09-09 that particularly
In winter your 09 obs of for example -2C is quite often your min for the
next 09-09 period if there is a change to a milder airmass.
2 air frost days for the price of 1.

Ian Raunds E Northants

The same sort of thing happens no matter what recording period you use. For
example, if there is a very short period of air frost from 2330 till 0030 that
would only count as 1 air frost day if using the 09-09 recording period but it
would count as 2 air frost days if you use the 00-24 recording period. Indeed a
single night of air frost lasting, say, from 2000 till 0800 would count as 1
air frost day in the 0900-0900 recording system but would count as 2 days in
the 0000-2400 system, even though there was actually only one night of air
frost. No system is perfect. The important thing is to have a system and stick
to it so that there is internal consistency withing your own set of
observations. Strictly speaking, comparison with surrounding "official"
stations is valid only if you use the 0900-0900 GMT recording period.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org
@TideswellWeathr

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)?

Thanks,

Luke

I never realised my post would create such a debate. I think I'll go with the 09-09 period so my observations can be directly compared to other "official" stations. Thanks all.

Climatological day
 

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 02:06:57 -0800 (PST)
wrote:

I never realised my post would create such a debate.

I can't think why you didn't. This subject has been causing big
debates here for the past couple of decades. ;-)

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
There are more fools than knaves in the world, else the knaves would
not have enough to live upon. [Samuel Butler]

Climatological day
 

On 13/11/2016 09:27, Norman Lynagh wrote:
Ian wrote:

I've always thought it a bit daft when recording 09-09 that particularly
In winter your 09 obs of for example -2C is quite often your min for the
next 09-09 period if there is a change to a milder airmass.
2 air frost days for the price of 1.

Ian Raunds E Northants

The same sort of thing happens no matter what recording period you use. For
example, if there is a very short period of air frost from 2330 till 0030 that
would only count as 1 air frost day if using the 09-09 recording period but it
would count as 2 air frost days if you use the 00-24 recording period. Indeed a
single night of air frost lasting, say, from 2000 till 0800 would count as 1
air frost day in the 0900-0900 recording system but would count as 2 days in
the 0000-2400 system, even though there was actually only one night of air
frost. No system is perfect. The important thing is to have a system and stick
to it so that there is internal consistency withing your own set of
observations. Strictly speaking, comparison with surrounding "official"
stations is valid only if you use the 0900-0900 GMT recording period.


On the Winter 1947 website I wrote

'Finally, from other sources, the minimum overnight temperature at
Writtle (Essex) on the 28th/29th January was a rather chilly -5.1°F
(-20.6°C) recorded at 0900 on the 29th.

That 0900 reading has been assigned to 28th and/or 29th depending where
you look.

--
George in Swanston, Edinburgh, 580'asl
www.swanstonweather.co.uk
www.eppingweather.co.uk
www.winter1947.co.uk

Climatological day
 

wrote:

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)?

Thanks,

Luke

I never realised my post would create such a debate. I think I'll go with the
09-09 period so my observations can be directly compared to other "official"
stations. Thanks all.

If you do go with the 0900-0900 recording period don't forget that it's
0900-0900 GMT. Therefore, when daylight saving is in operation (late March to
late October), the recording period will be 1000-1000 clock time.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
http://peakdistrictweather.org
@TideswellWeathr

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)?

Thanks,

Luke

Having just visited the Met Office website, I notice on the "extremes" page for the last 24 hours, they have high/low max temp as having occurred between 09-21 on the date listed, and low min between 21-09 (along with rainfall and sun between 21-21).

Do anyone of you follow this way of recording your extremes or should I follow the COL standards on this page http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~brugge..._protocols.pdf

Climatological day
 

On Sunday, 13 November 2016 20:22:42 UTC, wrote:
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)?

Thanks,

Luke

Having just visited the Met Office website, I notice on the "extremes" page for the last 24 hours, they have high/low max temp as having occurred between 09-21 on the date listed, and low min between 21-09 (along with rainfall and sun between 21-21).

Do anyone of you follow this way of recording your extremes or should I follow the COL standards on this page http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~brugge..._protocols.pdf

I'm also assuming the COL standards I've linked to are the most up to date?

Climatological day
 

On Sunday, 13 November 2016 10:25:07 UTC, Graham P Davis wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 02:06:57 -0800 (PST)
wrote:

I never realised my post would create such a debate.

I can't think why you didn't. This subject has been causing big
debates here for the past couple of decades. ;-)

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
There are more fools than knaves in the world, else the knaves would
not have enough to live upon. [Samuel Butler]

I can see that now!