1 00:00:01,590 --> 00:00:03,810 Well, thank you very much for the invitation to come back. 2 00:00:04,800 --> 00:00:14,520 It's 19 years since I ran the Radcliffe Met Station, so but I still take quite close interest and I publish occasional articles. 3 00:00:14,520 --> 00:00:23,310 So it's nice to get the chance to review 200 years of weather records and to just think about some of the some of the results that we've got. 4 00:00:23,520 --> 00:00:29,010 I thought I'd just start with some very general comments about sort of the value of long term climate data, 5 00:00:29,430 --> 00:00:40,680 because we might sort of think, well, so what? But of course, there are a number of reasons why we might be interested in long term climate data, 6 00:00:40,860 --> 00:00:47,219 partly the patterns that are there, partly new hypotheses that come along, 7 00:00:47,220 --> 00:00:54,990 particularly when you've got 200 years of data and perhaps the most important one for detecting long term changes, 8 00:00:54,990 --> 00:01:01,890 particularly those that we might regard as unwelcome and looking for subtle signals in in noisy records. 9 00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:06,810 Long records also give us a chance of placing rare events in context, 10 00:01:06,810 --> 00:01:13,290 and I'll just give one example of that later on on a point that Chris Folland made when we met at the weekend to 11 00:01:13,290 --> 00:01:24,479 talk about our various r two talks that these days reanalysis relies on long records as well as as well as models. 12 00:01:24,480 --> 00:01:30,720 So there are good reasons to conserve these long records and, and to keep them going. 13 00:01:31,200 --> 00:01:38,549 And it may be that the early climatologists were just interested in thinking that climate was was constant. 14 00:01:38,550 --> 00:01:44,040 And it was a question of really just sort of noting variability. 15 00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:48,089 But of course, these days we're perhaps particularly interested in directional change. 16 00:01:48,090 --> 00:01:56,370 And as I've already said, sometimes rare episodes, which might be a big storm or it might be a protracted drought or whatever that might be. 17 00:01:57,360 --> 00:02:00,929 Well, what about the the Radcliffe itself? 18 00:02:00,930 --> 00:02:10,080 Why should we worry about it? Well, of course, it is 200 years, at least of of long daily records. 19 00:02:10,950 --> 00:02:15,750 And there's been a lot of interest over those two centuries in the data. 20 00:02:16,680 --> 00:02:22,920 Gordon Wallace's little book is a good example because that is really a history of all the instrumentation, 21 00:02:23,250 --> 00:02:31,620 all the observations, and it's good that we have that record collated so that we can check what was being used, where and when. 22 00:02:32,520 --> 00:02:40,649 Of course, there have been a whole series of observers who've who've been connected with the station and and over the years, 23 00:02:40,650 --> 00:02:45,770 people have therefore worried about the quality of the data and checked it. 24 00:02:45,780 --> 00:02:53,790 And so it just happens to be my daughter in the early nineties doing the Sun observations, which was a good way of earning a bit of pocket money. 25 00:02:53,860 --> 00:02:58,620 And, and this at the bottom is typical of what you find in the lectures. 26 00:02:59,070 --> 00:03:03,600 This is a correction from 1903 by Bellamy, 27 00:03:03,900 --> 00:03:12,660 who was obviously going through the lectures and had found that the the original sun was out by 100th of an inch for the rainfall. 28 00:03:12,660 --> 00:03:17,400 And so there's a a record that, in fact, it should be one hundredths of an inch higher. 29 00:03:17,430 --> 00:03:22,290 And there's a note noting it's a red pen just to show the changes. 30 00:03:22,290 --> 00:03:27,570 So we've got the records, we've got people who've analysed them, reanalysed them, 31 00:03:27,870 --> 00:03:32,220 checked as instruments have been moved around and so on and so forth. 32 00:03:33,690 --> 00:03:42,929 I'm grateful to Ian Curtis for some of the photographs, and I just wanted to say something about both the site and the situation of of of the records. 33 00:03:42,930 --> 00:03:48,690 The current pen moved on to the north side of the observatory at the start of the Second World War. 34 00:03:49,380 --> 00:03:51,210 Before that, it was on the South Side. 35 00:03:51,540 --> 00:03:58,199 And of course, over the years there have been instruments on the north wall, there have been instruments on the roof and so on. 36 00:03:58,200 --> 00:04:06,750 So there have been changes, but at least these are documented. Ring gauges have gone up and down in height and diameter and so on and so forth. 37 00:04:07,020 --> 00:04:11,999 I guess since the Second World War there's been a little bit of impact on the site itself. 38 00:04:12,000 --> 00:04:17,430 So the sky view factor is a little less than than it used to be sure, the age of this building, 39 00:04:17,430 --> 00:04:24,870 but I think it's post-war and the site is probably just a little bit more protected than it used to be. 40 00:04:25,590 --> 00:04:32,940 And then, of course, the situation is that we've got an observatory which when it was built, 41 00:04:32,940 --> 00:04:41,669 would have been on the edge of the built up area and particularly from the 1860s as North Oxford developed. 42 00:04:41,670 --> 00:04:53,129 Once dons were allowed to marry, it's become much more urbanised and Chris will show some results, which shows the the urban heat island effect. 43 00:04:53,130 --> 00:04:59,520 Quite clearly there was some discussion between Gordon Manley and Gordon Smith about whether Oxford had a. 44 00:05:00,270 --> 00:05:04,680 Significant urban heat island effect. I think it would be slightly odd if it didn't. 45 00:05:04,980 --> 00:05:08,850 But, you know, the edge of town was here, I guess, in 1770s. 46 00:05:09,210 --> 00:05:14,760 I think Observatory Street is 1830s. And then you've got the growth to the north. 47 00:05:16,710 --> 00:05:20,250 Well, let's just think a little bit about the records themselves. 48 00:05:20,280 --> 00:05:28,770 This is a photocopy of the original ledger. Um, I can't imagine, really, that I used to have in my filing cabinet the original ledgers. 49 00:05:29,490 --> 00:05:34,390 I think they're rather better looked after now than they were then, perhaps, but there they are. 50 00:05:34,420 --> 00:05:46,649 So this is one of Thomas Hornsby sets of records from 1767 when he was he there were earlier Hornsby records from I think New College, 51 00:05:46,650 --> 00:05:57,010 but um, or New College Lane anyway. And uh, from the 1760s you've got continuous daily records, but they dwindle as Hornsby got older. 52 00:05:57,030 --> 00:06:01,470 I think they stop in 1804 and he died in 1810. 53 00:06:02,250 --> 00:06:05,819 But there are some good records. I'm not sure they've they've been transcribed. 54 00:06:05,820 --> 00:06:10,170 So there's probably a job for, for me or someone at some stage. 55 00:06:10,500 --> 00:06:16,590 The daily, continuous daily record, as we now know, it actually starts in the middle of 1814. 56 00:06:18,030 --> 00:06:23,430 And so 1815 is the first calendar year for which we've got a correct record. 57 00:06:23,820 --> 00:06:31,440 So here's middle of April 1814. We can jump on a year and come to May 1850. 58 00:06:31,860 --> 00:06:41,909 And so in terms of 200 years ago today, it's kind of interesting to be able to look at the results that that were observed. 59 00:06:41,910 --> 00:06:49,850 Then three observations eight 1230 and 1030 in the evening barometric pressure temperatures 60 00:06:49,860 --> 00:06:58,260 without within this record in the ledger of southwesterly wind uh eighth of an inch and cloudy. 61 00:06:58,710 --> 00:07:05,910 So those are the actual records that were done 200 years ago today, which is, I think, rather neat. 62 00:07:06,270 --> 00:07:13,140 A lot of the records in terms of being slightly more modern date from 1827 or 1828. 63 00:07:13,440 --> 00:07:21,060 And as I'll say shortly, I've got some doubts about some of the observation practices even through perhaps to the 1850s. 64 00:07:21,690 --> 00:07:26,070 Now, I'm going to say nothing about minor temperature because Chris is covering that. 65 00:07:26,430 --> 00:07:34,169 And so I will keep off the temperature record, although I will say something about some of the sort of related complimentary records, 66 00:07:34,170 --> 00:07:47,280 because I thought it was important to sort of cover the range of of observations that we've got the fossil record dates from 1881, I think. 67 00:07:47,640 --> 00:07:56,280 So that's that's it. And you can see that as you would expect a general downward trend with some some variability. 68 00:07:56,730 --> 00:08:05,129 The air frost record dates from 1828 when the sixties thermometers were first being used max mean. 69 00:08:05,130 --> 00:08:18,270 And again there's a good clear downward trend in the number of air frosts and and again quite a bit of intra decadal variability as well but maybe 15, 70 00:08:18,310 --> 00:08:24,660 20 frosts, less frosts than than there were nearly two centuries ago. 71 00:08:26,800 --> 00:08:35,200 I thought it would be interesting just to look at growing day degrees when I was getting ready for this talk. 72 00:08:35,680 --> 00:08:45,010 And I suppose very often people use the 5.5 degree scale for sort of grass growing days. 73 00:08:45,850 --> 00:08:48,550 There's an alternative index that uses ten degrees C. 74 00:08:48,790 --> 00:08:55,960 That was quite interesting, I thought, because I found some some use of that index to work out whether you could grow vines or not. 75 00:08:55,970 --> 00:08:59,990 And it seemed to me being able to grow, you know, vines and make wine in, in, 76 00:09:00,100 --> 00:09:04,420 in Oxford or Oxfordshire anyway, was, was, was quite an interesting thing. 77 00:09:04,690 --> 00:09:13,150 So there are the two indices of growing season, um, much the same pattern of course, just slightly different accumulated numbers. 78 00:09:13,540 --> 00:09:23,830 And if you look for the sort of continuous growing season within that record, as you would expect, the growing season is just widened front and end. 79 00:09:24,190 --> 00:09:33,100 Uh, since. 1853 when I was working on that particular version of the off the record. 80 00:09:33,110 --> 00:09:44,479 So starting in early May and ending in sort of mid-October in 1853, but into April by now and to the end of October. 81 00:09:44,480 --> 00:09:48,800 So quite a significant widening of the day degree. 82 00:09:49,100 --> 00:09:56,450 And if you assume that you need an index value up here of 945 to have a fair chance of growing vines, 83 00:09:56,840 --> 00:10:04,370 then you can see that for a good deal of that record, there wasn't much hope, although there might have been if you had the right sloping aspect. 84 00:10:04,700 --> 00:10:08,950 But in recent decades, we're up above that. 85 00:10:09,050 --> 00:10:15,440 And not surprisingly, people in the chilterns and so on could have run vineyards, etc. 86 00:10:15,470 --> 00:10:21,590 So in terms of, you know, applied climatology, if you like, an interesting result. 87 00:10:22,520 --> 00:10:27,080 My main interest as a hydrologist is in the rainfall records and related data, 88 00:10:27,470 --> 00:10:32,150 so I thought I'd just show you some of the rainfall records and what they show us. 89 00:10:32,480 --> 00:10:37,820 And I think one of the interesting things is that over the well more than 200 years, 90 00:10:37,820 --> 00:10:45,950 because we've got the we've got a record recreated back to 1767, which the tropics and Gordon Smith worked on. 91 00:10:46,430 --> 00:10:50,299 So here's our very long record from 1767. 92 00:10:50,300 --> 00:10:59,660 And other than that, early sort of decline down to the big droughts of the 1780s, then a pretty steady increase in annual rainfall total. 93 00:11:00,200 --> 00:11:07,130 And that's driven really by an increase in winter rainfall over the same sort of period. 94 00:11:07,370 --> 00:11:11,420 And you can see quite a significant trend there. 95 00:11:11,720 --> 00:11:16,970 And of course, if you take the first bit of the data, it's it's even more significant. 96 00:11:16,970 --> 00:11:23,120 One of the problems with all of these data is lots you will know is that depending on which period you choose, 97 00:11:23,450 --> 00:11:28,730 you can almost get any result you want in terms of correlations and and linear trends. 98 00:11:30,050 --> 00:11:37,670 What I've tended to go for here are the longest records we've got, and shorter records clearly might give you rather different results. 99 00:11:37,670 --> 00:11:42,020 But anyway, I think that's a pretty convincing long term winter rainfall trend. 100 00:11:42,440 --> 00:11:46,159 The summer rainfall doesn't really show the same trend. 101 00:11:46,160 --> 00:11:48,469 It shows much more variability. 102 00:11:48,470 --> 00:11:55,070 And I think that will tie in with perhaps some of the things Chris is going to talk about in terms of summer temperatures and so on. 103 00:11:55,730 --> 00:12:00,470 So that long term increase is driven more by winter than than summer rainfall. 104 00:12:00,740 --> 00:12:05,059 I've not put in spring and autumn just to save a bit of time. 105 00:12:05,060 --> 00:12:12,200 But anyway, a lot of variability both year to year and over longer periods. 106 00:12:14,660 --> 00:12:22,310 No. Number of rain days. This, I think, is a record about which I've got a bit more doubt really in the early years. 107 00:12:23,150 --> 00:12:29,900 I've made some sort of correction here for days when they observe snow but didn't measure it in the early years. 108 00:12:31,550 --> 00:12:36,520 I think the record is okay from the 1850s, although we're not absolutely sure, 109 00:12:36,530 --> 00:12:42,139 according to Gordon Wallace, that daily readings were taken every day until 1881. 110 00:12:42,140 --> 00:12:46,330 So some of this early bit of the curve may be too low. 111 00:12:46,340 --> 00:12:53,150 So we don't really know whether the 1830s are fearing days or just not so many observations. 112 00:12:54,020 --> 00:12:56,900 But of course, the later part of the record is is clearer. 113 00:12:57,260 --> 00:13:07,100 And there are some obviously some quite big changes over that period, which as yet we, I think, don't fully understand. 114 00:13:10,160 --> 00:13:17,930 What I was working on yesterday with John Boardman, because we're both interested in soil erosion, was looking at mean rain for rain day, 115 00:13:18,020 --> 00:13:22,370 which is of interest if you're interested in patterns of soil erosion, 116 00:13:22,370 --> 00:13:28,129 if if daily rainfall is in general getting bigger, you might expect a more erosive environment. 117 00:13:28,130 --> 00:13:32,000 And that seems to be the case over the last half century. 118 00:13:32,430 --> 00:13:40,999 Um, I think this is probably not reliable, so we should probably just, uh, look at the later part of the curve. 119 00:13:41,000 --> 00:13:45,350 But there's been quite an increase in mean ring or for per ring day. 120 00:13:45,350 --> 00:13:51,770 And we were looking at some data from the South Downs, which is even more compelling over a longer period. 121 00:13:51,770 --> 00:13:59,030 So, so these data do have have relevance. And of course, if partway through here you suddenly change from grassland arable, 122 00:13:59,330 --> 00:14:05,149 you've got an increasingly erosive rainfall regime and more susceptible crop type. 123 00:14:05,150 --> 00:14:09,110 So one can see how erosion might become more prevalent. 124 00:14:10,010 --> 00:14:13,670 And this just sort of sums up the, the three. Um. 125 00:14:15,070 --> 00:14:19,000 The two variables you combine to get to get the bottom graph. 126 00:14:19,660 --> 00:14:28,480 So there's always new things you can look at in these long records and new, new things to explain, the new things to apply and so on. 127 00:14:29,930 --> 00:14:34,070 This is the record of number of daily totals above 50 millimetres. 128 00:14:34,310 --> 00:14:37,840 One index of I suppose slightly wet days. 129 00:14:37,850 --> 00:14:41,660 I don't know if we had 15 millimetres yesterday in Oxford, probably close to it. 130 00:14:42,230 --> 00:14:45,230 Um, and I don't think there's much of a trend there. 131 00:14:45,230 --> 00:14:50,180 If you would again ignore these early observations which would probably cumulated totals. 132 00:14:50,540 --> 00:14:58,700 The rest of it is, is really pretty flat. So no real evidence that there's any long term trend in heavy falls of rain. 133 00:14:58,940 --> 00:15:05,900 There is in many parts of the country, particularly in the uplands, but Oxford is in that sense very definitely a lowland site. 134 00:15:06,290 --> 00:15:15,419 And there's not much to be seen here. And here's the annual maximum daily rainfall record for Oxford. 135 00:15:15,420 --> 00:15:18,090 Again, I don't think there's any discernable trend there. 136 00:15:18,360 --> 00:15:32,099 It just allows us to at least identify the wettest day on record at an Oxford, which was July the 10th, 1968, which was the big storm on the mend. 137 00:15:32,100 --> 00:15:37,020 Ipswich have a couple of metres of water flowing down Cheddar Gorge and parts of 138 00:15:37,020 --> 00:15:45,100 Bristol were flooded and that same storm dumped 87.9 millimetres on on Oxford. 139 00:15:45,120 --> 00:15:56,340 But as I said, there's no evidence of any long term trend there, just some some variability and obviously one or two extreme events. 140 00:15:58,230 --> 00:15:58,530 Now. 141 00:15:58,530 --> 00:16:13,559 Some time ago, Maria Donovan and I worked on a record of loan evaporation for Oxford, using records since 1815 and using the phone's weighted index. 142 00:16:13,560 --> 00:16:23,480 We calculated potential and actual evaporation and were therefore able to do a sort of water balance for for it. 143 00:16:23,730 --> 00:16:29,639 As far as I know, it's the longest record that anybody's tried to re-establish in terms of evaporation. 144 00:16:29,640 --> 00:16:35,700 And again, you can do that because the record is there to use the evaporation. 145 00:16:35,700 --> 00:16:43,890 Figures seem relatively high. Penman used to say 420 millimetres and Oxford looks more like 500. 146 00:16:44,310 --> 00:16:50,070 It may be the evaporation is a bit higher, or it may be that under current temperature conditions. 147 00:16:50,070 --> 00:16:55,310 That is right. But anyway, the the results are what they are. 148 00:16:56,160 --> 00:16:59,880 So we can come up with a very simple sort of water balance of, you know, 149 00:16:59,910 --> 00:17:08,070 average rainfall, 640, actual evaporation, about 500, and therefore a remainder of 146. 150 00:17:08,520 --> 00:17:16,530 If you then compare the Oxford runoff record with the Thames record at Teddington Weir, 151 00:17:17,310 --> 00:17:25,080 which is the purple line here, you can see that the Oxford calculations underestimate flow in the Thames. 152 00:17:25,650 --> 00:17:31,110 And again, I don't know whether that's because we've overestimated evaporation or whether 153 00:17:31,110 --> 00:17:35,459 Oxford is just a bit too dry to represent the whole of the Thames catchment. 154 00:17:35,460 --> 00:17:41,910 It could be either of those too, but nevertheless there's a good correspondence between the curves and you could 155 00:17:42,270 --> 00:17:47,490 very readily add 50 millimetres to the to the Oxford record and extend the, 156 00:17:48,360 --> 00:17:52,589 extend the calculation back to to 1815 for the river flow. 157 00:17:52,590 --> 00:18:02,340 So again, there are useful ways in which the the data can be used, droughts or the other end of course of the rainfall record. 158 00:18:03,330 --> 00:18:09,510 And depending on which period you take, you get a slightly different sort of period of interest. 159 00:18:09,720 --> 00:18:18,270 I'm often interested in 18 month running totals because they tend to pick up where you get to dry summers with a dry winter in between. 160 00:18:18,270 --> 00:18:21,600 So 76 comes out low on that scale. 161 00:18:21,930 --> 00:18:28,200 The 60 month rainfall running total is interesting because that really shows you very protracted droughts 162 00:18:28,680 --> 00:18:34,920 and it shows you droughts which might be relevant to groundwater sources rather than surface water sources. 163 00:18:35,250 --> 00:18:45,480 So relevant to south east England. I remember in 1992, the Times published a leader to say that we were in the most severe drought ever. 164 00:18:46,680 --> 00:18:51,360 So I very quickly penned a letter to the editor to say, No, we weren't. 165 00:18:52,230 --> 00:19:01,740 We had some droughts 200 years ago that that rather put 1992 into into perspective and in absolute terms, of course, I was right. 166 00:19:02,790 --> 00:19:09,659 But actually thinking about the other day, if you do trend the upward curve, then in fact, 167 00:19:09,660 --> 00:19:18,809 the 1992 drought was as severe as any other long drought in terms of how far below the sort of local mean it actually was. 168 00:19:18,810 --> 00:19:27,450 So in a way, the Times editor was right, but but probably rather unknowingly and not quite with the sort of perspective that we would take. 169 00:19:27,450 --> 00:19:33,030 But anyway, there were big droughts in the 1780s, in the early 1800s. 170 00:19:33,060 --> 00:19:38,460 And again, that's interesting to know and have that long term perspective. 171 00:19:40,350 --> 00:19:45,089 So just one or two other brief comments about the observational record just to show 172 00:19:45,090 --> 00:19:48,870 that there are other things other than temperature and rainfall being measured. 173 00:19:49,440 --> 00:19:55,410 Hours of sunshine, of course, have been measured since the 18 since 1880, I think. 174 00:19:55,860 --> 00:20:08,850 My daughter again dealing with the candle Stoke's rather more recent photo and you can see a an upward trend even in a very noisy record. 175 00:20:09,330 --> 00:20:13,000 There's a. We're off on the wall at the back of the same thing. 176 00:20:13,660 --> 00:20:18,580 You could use these indices of summer weather to see whether weather summers have been improving or not. 177 00:20:19,360 --> 00:20:23,200 And for about 40 years, Oxford summers were very definitely getting better. 178 00:20:23,530 --> 00:20:31,130 They've deteriorated since the turn of the century. And, of course, the summer of 2012 was, you know, the worst on record. 179 00:20:31,150 --> 00:20:35,800 So we've had good as bad as well as good in recent times. 180 00:20:37,380 --> 00:20:42,660 This is a record of wind speed, just being annual wind speed with a running mean going through it. 181 00:20:43,050 --> 00:20:48,360 I'm not quite sure what happened in 1995, but I was running the weather station then, 182 00:20:48,360 --> 00:20:53,690 so it's either a fault with the Observers or 95 was a very calm year. 183 00:20:53,700 --> 00:20:56,930 It was a drought year, but I don't know whether it was that calm. 184 00:20:56,940 --> 00:21:05,700 I suspect something had gone wrong with the anemometer, but it shows that there are still issues of data quality to be looked at and worried about. 185 00:21:08,410 --> 00:21:12,600 This is the incidence of fog. Not thick fog, just fog. 186 00:21:12,610 --> 00:21:17,050 So it's it's number four on the code and distance of a kilometre. 187 00:21:17,320 --> 00:21:22,600 And you can see, as you would expect, the decline with the Clean Air Acts and so on. 188 00:21:23,050 --> 00:21:32,110 And what I don't know is whether this is some deterioration in visibility or whether something has changed in terms of observation or practice. 189 00:21:32,110 --> 00:21:38,950 And again, it would be interesting to know whether whether there was any change in the 2000s or not. 190 00:21:38,950 --> 00:21:46,450 But you still have to be careful with data quality and to worry about whether they're whether they're right or not. 191 00:21:46,450 --> 00:21:52,990 But it's in a sense, you know, is there some real deterioration in in visibility? 192 00:21:53,140 --> 00:21:59,920 And if there is, that's something interesting to to to look into in terms of rare events. 193 00:21:59,920 --> 00:22:10,060 I thought I'd just mentioned the so-called hurricane from 1987, which was really too far south to really trouble Oxford in in any very major way. 194 00:22:10,660 --> 00:22:13,510 But nevertheless, it came through when the records were recorded. 195 00:22:13,870 --> 00:22:23,109 And so we've got records at the top wind direction, wind speed, wind gusts, rainfall, the temperature, and then the barometric pressure. 196 00:22:23,110 --> 00:22:27,760 So quite an interesting record of what was more or less of a bomb depression. 197 00:22:28,120 --> 00:22:31,570 It's pretty well 24 millimetres fall in 24 hours. 198 00:22:31,990 --> 00:22:36,010 Extraordinary increase in temperature when the cold front came through, 199 00:22:36,010 --> 00:22:42,549 I think something like eight degrees in 20 minutes to increase most of the rain with ahead 200 00:22:42,550 --> 00:22:48,130 of the warm front and of course the biggest gust and so on in the lay of the cold front. 201 00:22:48,280 --> 00:22:54,910 So an interesting event and one that you can use to put the longer record into into some context. 202 00:22:56,800 --> 00:23:00,879 I've done some work recently looking at controls with land weather types. 203 00:23:00,880 --> 00:23:06,310 So you can only go from 1871 in that particular version because that's when the record begins. 204 00:23:06,640 --> 00:23:12,760 But as you would expect, there are strong drivers controlling different parts of the record. 205 00:23:13,180 --> 00:23:17,169 The hydrological variables tend to be driven by cyclonic conditions, 206 00:23:17,170 --> 00:23:25,399 particularly the thermal variables tend to be more related to particularly to westerlies and wind speeds, 207 00:23:25,400 --> 00:23:29,440 and some again correlate with anti cyclonic and cyclonic conditions. 208 00:23:29,770 --> 00:23:36,249 But there's plenty of evidence of climatic drivers driving the Oxford weather, as you would expect, 209 00:23:36,250 --> 00:23:41,500 just as there are with with with other sites and in this part of northwest Europe. 210 00:23:43,400 --> 00:23:49,190 Just to very final sort of personal bits just to comment. 211 00:23:50,210 --> 00:23:57,110 Here's Gordon Manley on his wedding day. And Chris is going to talk about Manly, of course, with the Central England temperature record. 212 00:23:57,140 --> 00:24:01,130 Manly married the daughter of the master of Hatfield College, Durham. 213 00:24:01,670 --> 00:24:09,770 Here's my predecessor. You can see, other than the spats, glasses and moustache seem to be de rigueur for Masters of Hatfield. 214 00:24:09,980 --> 00:24:19,280 This is a slightly more interesting small world photo since my sister's engagement photograph in the gardens of what were then Auclair house, 215 00:24:19,280 --> 00:24:27,320 which is where we should be. Green temperature in college shortly May 1963, over her left shoulder. 216 00:24:27,680 --> 00:24:34,339 You can see the weather fan. And who would have thought that her little brother would have been running the Ratcliffe in sort of, 217 00:24:34,340 --> 00:24:37,520 I don't know, 25 years after that photo was taken. 218 00:24:37,530 --> 00:24:44,560 So it is a small world. Thank you for listening to that review and I hope you've enjoyed it. 219 00:24:44,570 --> 00:24:45,380 Thank you very much.