since records began

[100SRV]

It's been the wettest February

"since records began"

OK, when Did these records begin?
1890?
450?

Why don't they state a date in their reports, is it because the extent of the records is unimpressive?

[anonymous-user]

England and Wales from 1766. Sub regions of E&W from 1873.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/

[weeredmetro]

Not helpful, but I couldn't help thinking of this:

Homer: "Oh, Lisa! There's no record of a hurricane ever hitting Springfield."

Lisa: "Yes, but the records only go back to 1978, when the hall of records was mysteriously blown away."

[100SRV]

BlackWidow13 said:

England and Wales from 1766. Sub regions of E&W from 1873.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/

It's quicker to say "since 1766" but the reports prefer to be vague... 🤔

[100SRV]

weeredmetro said:

Not helpful, but I couldn't help thinking of this:

Homer: "Oh, Lisa! There's no record of a hurricane ever hitting Springfield."

Lisa: "Yes, but the records only go back to 1978, when the hall of records was mysteriously blown away."

🤣 You can see where I'm heading with my original question..are they being deliberately vague?

[Philplop]

If they said the wettest February since 1776, it sounds like 1776 was wetter, rather than they just hadn’t started counting yet.

[anonymous-user]

100SRV said:

BlackWidow13 said:

England and Wales from 1766. Sub regions of E&W from 1873.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/

It's quicker to say "since 1766" but the reports prefer to be vague... ??

“Since 1766” may not be true, as it suggests 1766 was wetter than 2020.

Newspaper reports like this are lifted straight from press releases. The press release will have been drafted to avoid misleading inaccuracies like “since 1766”. It may have assumed (unfairly) that the public has a basic knowledge of the fact that the Met Office has been compiling weather records for well over a hundred years.

[Jasandjules]

As one comedian said, the few months after they started keeping records must have been exciting times.. Every day it was best/worst since records began......

[Big-Bo-Beep]

reliable weather records have only been around for about 200 years of the earth's lifespan of 4.5 billion years,

who would seriously base a theory of climactic change on such meagre weather data ?

[BMWBen]

Big-Bo-Beep said:

reliable weather records have only been around for about 200 years of the earth's lifespan of 4.5 billion years,

who would seriously base a theory of climactic change on such meagre weather data ?

Yawn. Nobody does. Who would seriously listen to someone who's being wilfully ignorant?

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

BMWBen said:

Big-Bo-Beep said:

reliable weather records have only been around for about 200 years of the earth's lifespan of 4.5 billion years,

who would seriously base a theory of climactic change on such meagre weather data ?

Yawn. Nobody does. Who would seriously listen to someone who's being wilfully ignorant?

But they do though, don't they?
Ohhh, it's been the wettest Feb since records began=reinforce St.Greta's message.

I mean...that's the point of attention grabbing headlines. But it's always good to question these things with a critical mind.

[BMWBen]

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

BMWBen said:

Big-Bo-Beep said:

reliable weather records have only been around for about 200 years of the earth's lifespan of 4.5 billion years,

who would seriously base a theory of climactic change on such meagre weather data ?

Yawn. Nobody does. Who would seriously listen to someone who's being wilfully ignorant?

But they do though, don't they?
Ohhh, it's been the wettest Feb since records began=reinforce St.Greta's message.

I mean...that's the point of attention grabbing headlines. But it's always good to question these things with a critical mind.

No they don't.

who would seriously base a theory of climactic change on such meagre weather data

The media are not climate scientists producing peer reviewed studies on whether or not our climate is changing.

If it's been the wettest feb since records began it's been the wettest feb since records began, and your complaint makes no sense whatsoever.

[geeks]

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

BMWBen said:

Big-Bo-Beep said:

reliable weather records have only been around for about 200 years of the earth's lifespan of 4.5 billion years,

who would seriously base a theory of climactic change on such meagre weather data ?

Yawn. Nobody does. Who would seriously listen to someone who's being wilfully ignorant?

But they do though, don't they?
Ohhh, it's been the wettest Feb since records began=reinforce St.Greta's message.

I mean...that's the point of attention grabbing headlines. But it's always good to question these things with a critical mind.

I think your confusing Science with Media!

[Shakermaker]

Don't forget that saying things like "The wettest February since records began" is somewhat meaningless in the grand scheme of things - mostly because "February" as we know it today didn't really exist in its current format in England until about 250 years ago.

[geeks]

Shakermaker said:

Don't forget that saying things like "The wettest February since records began" is somewhat meaningless in the grand scheme of things - mostly because "February" as we know it today didn't really exist in its current format in England until about 250 years ago.

Which would coincide with when records began.....

[Shakermaker]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yes, I do know that, I think you've misunderstood my point.

[Eric Mc]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What records were being kept prior to about 1600?

[InitialDave]

Shakermaker said:

Don't forget that saying things like "The wettest February since records began" is somewhat meaningless in the grand scheme of things - mostly because "February" as we know it today didn't really exist in its current format in England until about 250 years ago.

"UK experiences wettest record since February began".

[Nexus Icon]

Eric Mc said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What records were being kept prior to about 1600?

Not records, ice cores. The levels of various gases and pollutants in the atmosphere can be measured in ice cores taken from glaciers, permafrost areas and at the poles. It's not even estimated and it doesn't rely on 200 year old measuring equipment and records. It's science.

[geeks]

Nexus Icon said:

Eric Mc said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What records were being kept prior to about 1600?

Not records, ice cores. The levels of various gases and pollutants in the atmosphere can be measured in ice cores taken from glaciers, permafrost areas and at the poles. It's not even estimated and it doesn't rely on 200 year old measuring equipment and records. It's science.

Eric is a smart chap (see the space threads) I am sure he knows this but is being factitious...