SCOTLAND enjoyed a drier than average autumn this year as England was lashed by unprecedented rain.
An average total of 348.4mm rain fell on England over the months of September, October and November, according to provisional figures from the Met Office.
Only four autumns have seen a higher average, including the autumn of 2000, which remains the wettest on record (437.5mm).
New records were set this year in South Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire.
Sheffield was a particularly wet location, seeing an average total rainfall of 474.8mm - enough to smash its previous autumn record of 425.2mm, set in 2000.
The location with the highest total throughout the season was Holne on the southern edge of Dartmoor in Devon, with 899.0mm.
Not everywhere in the UK had a wet autumn, however.
There was a marked difference in rainfall between England and Scotland.
While it was the fifth wettest autumn for England, Scotland had only 81% of its seasonal average - and north Scotland managed only 69%.
It was the 10th wettest autumn on record for Wales, and the 35th wettest for Northern Ireland.
For the UK as a whole, it was the 23rd wettest autumn on record.
The Met Office's rainfall data goes back as far as 1910.
Separate figures for last month show that South Yorkshire had its wettest November on record, with 257% of its average rainfall (185.0mm).
Nottinghamshire (136.0mm) had its third wettest November and Lincolnshire (116.0mm) its fourth.
By contrast, Ross and Cromarty was the driest location, with just 32% average rainfall for the month (64.1mm).
England had 132% of its average rainfall for November, while the UK as a whole had 97%.
The Met Office uses the period 1981-2010 as a baseline for calculating averages.
Why are you making commenting on HeraldScotland only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel