Over at Tallbloke’s Talkshop, moderator Tim Channon wondered about this regularly hot station reported in the news:
An often appearing name in the BBC news as the hottest place in the country is Gravesend but the true location of the Met Office thermometer is a mystery. By chance I followed up today and discovered a new snippet of information.
From the BBC – 2003: Britain swelters in record heat
Britain has recorded its hottest day ever as the temperature soared to 38.1C (100.6F) in Gravesend, Kent.
The record has actually been broken twice today. The first place to beat the previous record of 37.1C (98.8F), set in Cheltenham in 1990, was Heathrow Airport where the temperature earlier today registered 37.9C (100.2F).
Then an even higher temperature was recorded in Kent, making today the hottest day since records began about 130 years ago in 1875.
Here’s another example: Gravesend sizzles in late September sun
It’s definitely time to get that sun screen out as Gravesend is officially one of the hottest places in the UK today.Temperatures reached 28.6C this afternoon, making it Kent’s warmest September 30 ever!
Clearly, it is a leading hot spot.
So what does the Met office say about how official weather stations should be sited? They have it right here:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/science/first-steps/observations/weather-stations
And what does the officially hottest station in the UK at Gravesend look like?
The process of discovery of this station was a long one, aided by a global discussion at Tallbloke’s Talkshop. This Bing Maps aerial view I found and posted at TB’s confirmed to me that there was in fact a Stevenson Screen there:
Source: http://binged.it/RqV8Cv
And that lead commenter “Caz” to make the discovery of the photo:
Caz says:
The Bing Link cracked it for me. It was obvious looking at the shadows that the weather station, transmitter and radar tower were sat on a level depression protected on three sides by banking ie they had their own micro climate.
I then selected Ordnance survey mapping and confirmed that this was indeed a place with a micro climate as the banks are clearly marked on the OS map. But it gave one other vital piece information, the location is Broadness Salt Marsh.
Just a few steps later and a Google of Broadness Salt Marsh and I had the picture and all the information required to see that this weather station is a dud. Note the banking, brick power building with ventilation equipment and the weather station.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Broadness_Radar_-_geograph.org.uk_-_48941.jpg
The Met Office should hang their heads in shame and also the BBC for reporting the temperatures recorded by this station. Well done chaps I hope you can get the message out to the wider world. If anyone lives in that area the site looks easily accessible.
Getting the message out to the wider world is what we do here at WUWT, happy to help.
Now here’s the interesting thing about this station, it has a trifecta of siting issues, and not just from the air conditioner and brick building. Look at the location located by Tim Channon:
That spit of land juts into the Thames. What is nearby? Channon writes:
This is east of London, is the tidal lower Thames close to the estuary. It is going to be permanently humid, including any effect from the elevation of the temperature of the Thames, heat from London.
Industrial activity is obvious as is close dense residential.
Go towards London (left) and within 5 km is the non-motorway section of the M25 London orbital “motorway”, blue on the map. This is 8 lanes all told with queues a lot of the time, is a toll road. Queen Elizabeth bridge southbound and the Dartford tunnel northbound. Both expel heat into the air, a bridge and ventilated tunnel. South side to the left of that see the bright circles? Heavy oil storage tanks, river pontoon for fuel delivery tankers. Next across is the RWE Littlebrook power station. Being oil is probably not run continuously, about 1.4GW output and has additional gas turbine generator sets. This will eject circa 2GW of waste heat, up prevailing wind. RWE web page on station, head photo is looking east toward bridge and weather station.
Next to the left is a wee and poo plant, also tends to be warm stuff. I expect the sludge is tankered into the outer estuary for disposal. (used to be the case)
Little Reach Sewage Treatment plant, run by Thames Water. Photo looking west, can see the edge of the power station.
Is that all?
Figure 3Just off the right of the previous image, north side of the river is… another power station. Top of image here is the electricity output site.
RWE Tilbury Power station, coal fired, hence the pontoon for delivery and black stuff but the RWE web page says the site is being converted. Looks like another 2 to 3GW of waste heat, east winter winds or blocking highs have this one upwind. I notice the RWE photo doesn’t want to show much.
Converting to biomass? I bet the conversion efficiency is lower than conventional fuels, therefore even more waste heat.
There are other power stations a little further away, at least two major ones to the east. (there because of the river, coal delivery)
All this sparkery, I’ve not reached the end yet.
Figure 4
So what is that? Met site is top right. Four piles at the base, is a large power grid pylon, can look bizarre from an aircraft (these are aerial photos, not satellite).
Electricity transmission is not 100% efficient, the lines get hot, are a compromise. Actual lines are aluminium with a steel core. The alignment, this is a river crossing.
Other side are several sites
I pointed out that:
It may be that the station is affected by heated water discharge from the power plant and the sewage plant into the river. Being on that spit of land it has water on three sides.
Only some water temperature measurements will tell for sure.
But another commenter pointed out:
Scute says:
Following up on Anthony’s comments, I have been digging a little, using Tim’s links. The Littlebrook power station just to the west of the QE Bridge does discharge warm water from its condenser into the Thames. The intake and outflow are the two circles in the Thames, visible in the Bing ariel view if you scroll left. The PDF document on the site that Tim linked says:
“The condensate is pumped back to the boiler for reuse and the cooling water [i.e. now warm water] is returned to the river.”
This must be several hundred megawatts at least, given the fact that it is cooling something approaching 800kg of condensate per second at full operating capacity. This would be in addition to the heat lost up the chimney during oil combustion which may or may not drift over the station in question. What is certain is that a large portion of the condenser outflow ends up bathing the station on three sides. Even if there is some convective/turbulent mixing, the mixed water will retain this heat energy quite well at or near the surface albeit as lower grade heat. Since water has a specific heat capacity four times that of air and the mass of air directly above the Thames is much less than the now-mixed surface layer, it means that the water surface can heat the air above it to the same temperature without dropping in temperature itself, or at least by a negligible amount. This amounts to a very reliable, permanently elevated heating source, one which is likely to be elevated further when the power station cranks up in the evening….I noticed that Thursdays temperature graph for Gravesend showed an anomalous rise at 6PM. I was waiting for today’s 6PM update to see if it happened again but as of starting this comment it hadn’t come through. It might warrant monitoring over the next few weeks or months- though tides will dull or enhance the effect I should think.
Speaking of tides:
tchannon says:
Scute,
Hundreds of MW, probably upper, however, oil is an unusual fuel so I suspect this is peak times only. They mention gas plant but seem to casually throw this in without detail. Presumably a similar power and the thermal efficiency is a little better.
More subtly, I mentioned this is lower reaches, the Thames is a small river with low flow: it is tidal.
For this reason any cooling outfall from the station nominally downstream will flow back upstream… and cooling upstream will stagnate in a pool of water.
Goodness knows the effect, for all I know, none.
So, I decided to have a look at that tidal issue. Again Bing aerial view is our friend:
Source: http://binged.it/NblzVn
Note the exposed dark mudflats. What sort of natural surface has the lowest albedo, and thus absorbs the greatest amount of solar radiation?
Dark and wet…like a mudflat on two sides of the station as seen in the Bing aerial view.
The new “hottest ever” record set in the UK was on August 1o, 2003.
I downloaded the tide data for the outlet of the Thames, Sheerness for that day from the UK National Oceanography center. Times are local to the station, +1 GMT.
21217) 2003/08/10 00:00:00 4.356 0.081
21218) 2003/08/10 00:15:00 4.101 0.063
21219) 2003/08/10 00:30:00 3.840 0.048
21220) 2003/08/10 00:45:00 3.581 0.038
21221) 2003/08/10 01:00:00 3.325 0.032
21222) 2003/08/10 01:15:00 3.065 0.018
21223) 2003/08/10 01:30:00 2.825 0.018
21224) 2003/08/10 01:45:00 2.592 0.015
21225) 2003/08/10 02:00:00 2.372 0.013
21226) 2003/08/10 02:15:00 2.168 0.013
21227) 2003/08/10 02:30:00 1.983 0.014
21228) 2003/08/10 02:45:00 1.824 0.022
21229) 2003/08/10 03:00:00 1.690 0.035
21230) 2003/08/10 03:15:00 1.567 0.040
21231) 2003/08/10 03:30:00 1.469 0.051
21232) 2003/08/10 03:45:00 1.385 0.057
21233) 2003/08/10 04:00:00 1.308 0.053
21234) 2003/08/10 04:15:00 1.245 0.044
21235) 2003/08/10 04:30:00 1.196 0.029
21236) 2003/08/10 04:45:00 1.173 0.016
21237) 2003/08/10 05:00:00 1.186 0.011
21238) 2003/08/10 05:15:00 1.235 0.010
21239) 2003/08/10 05:30:00 1.325 0.015
21240) 2003/08/10 05:45:00 1.458 0.028
21241) 2003/08/10 06:00:00 1.610 0.025
21242) 2003/08/10 06:15:00 1.805 0.037
21243) 2003/08/10 06:30:00 2.011 0.038
21244) 2003/08/10 06:45:00 2.228 0.037
21245) 2003/08/10 07:00:00 2.461 0.046
21246) 2003/08/10 07:15:00 2.686 0.046
21247) 2003/08/10 07:30:00 2.909 0.047
21248) 2003/08/10 07:45:00 3.134 0.053
21249) 2003/08/10 08:00:00 3.350 0.054
21250) 2003/08/10 08:15:00 3.577 0.067
21251) 2003/08/10 08:30:00 3.791 0.068
21252) 2003/08/10 08:45:00 4.011 0.075
21253) 2003/08/10 09:00:00 4.226 0.079
21254) 2003/08/10 09:15:00 4.436 0.082
21255) 2003/08/10 09:30:00 4.645 0.095
21256) 2003/08/10 09:45:00 4.842 0.110
21257) 2003/08/10 10:00:00 5.019 0.127
21258) 2003/08/10 10:15:00 5.171 0.149
21259) 2003/08/10 10:30:00 5.290 0.173
21260) 2003/08/10 10:45:00 5.365 0.196
21261) 2003/08/10 11:00:00 5.387 0.212
21262) 2003/08/10 11:15:00 5.358 0.226
21263) 2003/08/10 11:30:00 5.272 0.230
21264) 2003/08/10 11:45:00 5.125 0.218
21265) 2003/08/10 12:00:00 4.942 0.207
21266) 2003/08/10 12:15:00 4.718 0.187
21267) 2003/08/10 12:30:00 4.475 0.171
21268) 2003/08/10 12:45:00 4.213 0.153
21269) 2003/08/10 13:00:00 3.937 0.133
21270) 2003/08/10 13:15:00 3.670 0.128
21271) 2003/08/10 13:30:00 3.404 0.127
21272) 2003/08/10 13:45:00 3.140 0.126
21273) 2003/08/10 14:00:00 2.882 0.126
21274) 2003/08/10 14:15:00 2.630 0.122
21275) 2003/08/10 14:30:00 2.394 0.121
21276) 2003/08/10 14:45:00 2.172 0.116
21277) 2003/08/10 15:00:00 1.969 0.110
21278) 2003/08/10 15:15:00 1.791 0.107
21279) 2003/08/10 15:30:00 1.628 0.097
21280) 2003/08/10 15:45:00 1.508 0.109
21281) 2003/08/10 16:00:00 1.397 0.112
21282) 2003/08/10 16:15:00 1.302 0.114
21283) 2003/08/10 16:30:00 1.223 0.116
21284) 2003/08/10 16:45:00 1.156 0.113
21285) 2003/08/10 17:00:00 1.110 0.112
21286) 2003/08/10 17:15:00 1.084 0.108
21287) 2003/08/10 17:30:00 1.094 0.111
21288) 2003/08/10 17:45:00 1.141 0.116
21289) 2003/08/10 18:00:00 1.231 0.126
21290) 2003/08/10 18:15:00 1.360 0.135
21291) 2003/08/10 18:30:00 1.528 0.147
21292) 2003/08/10 18:45:00 1.720 0.151
21293) 2003/08/10 19:00:00 1.946 0.164
21294) 2003/08/10 19:15:00 2.187 0.177
21295) 2003/08/10 19:30:00 2.436 0.189
21296) 2003/08/10 19:45:00 2.684 0.197
21297) 2003/08/10 20:00:00 2.928 0.201
21298) 2003/08/10 20:15:00 3.180 0.213
21299) 2003/08/10 20:30:00 3.433 0.225
21300) 2003/08/10 20:45:00 3.685 0.235
21301) 2003/08/10 21:00:00 3.930 0.236
21302) 2003/08/10 21:15:00 4.178 0.237
21303) 2003/08/10 21:30:00 4.425 0.237
21304) 2003/08/10 21:45:00 4.670 0.238
21305) 2003/08/10 22:00:00 4.902 0.236
21306) 2003/08/10 22:15:00 5.133 0.250
21307) 2003/08/10 22:30:00 5.337 0.261
21308) 2003/08/10 22:45:00 5.507 0.273
21309) 2003/08/10 23:00:00 5.637 0.287
21310) 2003/08/10 23:15:00 5.715 0.299
21311) 2003/08/10 23:30:00 5.741 0.313
21312) 2003/08/10 23:45:00 5.695 0.310
As you can see from the data, the low tide was about 1.08 meter at 5:15PM local time.
I looked for historical data for Gravesend, which has a tide gauge according to the London Port authority, but I couldn’t find any actual data. So I had to rely on a tide prediction program. Given that Gravesend is well upstream from Sheerness. one would expect the tide to be lower, since it has an higher elevation difference, which is why the Thames flows east. I downloaded the wxtide32 program since it had a location for Tilbury dock, not too far away from Gravesend.
The tide prediction for Tilbury Dock for 8/10/2003:
Tilbury Dock, Thames Rvr
Sheerness, England - READ flaterco.com/pol.html
+ Corrections: High(+0:20 +1.50) Low(+0:20 -1.00)
Units are meters, initial timezone is CUT
August 2003 low is 0.2m, high is 6.2m, range is 6.0m.
Predicted historical low is -2.1m, high is 8.4m, range is 10.6m.
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
07-27 07-28 New 07-29 07-30 07-31 08-01 08-02
L0523 1.0 H0001 5.7 H0043 5.9 H0123 6.0 H0203 6.1 H0245 6.2 H0327 6.2
H1140 5.6 L0606 0.9 L0646 0.8 L0726 0.7 L0808 0.7 L0852 0.6 L0934 0.7
L1753 0.9 H1220 5.8 H1258 5.9 H1335 6.0 H1413 6.1 H1453 6.2 H1533 6.2
L1837 0.7 L1918 0.5 L2000 0.4 L2043 0.3 L2126 0.3 L2207 0.3
08-03 08-04 FQtr 08-05 08-06 08-07 08-08 08-09
H0409 6.1 H0452 6.0 H0537 5.8 L0014 0.7 L0111 0.8 L0221 1.0 L0344 1.0
L1014 0.8 L1054 0.9 L1136 1.0 H0629 5.6 H0735 5.4 H0856 5.4 H1010 5.6
H1614 6.1 H1656 6.0 H1743 5.9 L1228 1.1 L1333 1.2 L1452 1.2 L1622 1.0
L2248 0.4 L2328 0.5 H1840 5.7 H1959 5.5 H2129 5.6 H2241 5.8
08-10 08-11 Full 08-12 08-13 08-14 08-15 08-16
L0500 0.9 L0600 0.8 H0034 6.2 H0121 6.2 H0204 6.2 H0244 6.1 H0321 6.0
H1112 5.8 H1206 6.0 L0648 0.7 L0730 0.7 L0809 0.8 L0844 0.8 L0918 0.8
L1734 0.7 L1830 0.4 H1253 6.1 H1336 6.1 H1415 6.1 H1451 6.1 H1524 6.0
H2341 6.0 L1918 0.3 L2001 0.2 L2041 0.2 L2119 0.3 L2153 0.4
The plot for Sunday 8-10-2003:
The low tide of 0.7m was reached late in the afternoon, about 5:34PM.
Here is what an aerial view of the station and the point looks like at low tide of similar magnitude:
As you can see (if you click image for the closeup) the boatyard to the SW is completely dry. Mudflats are around the station every direction except SE.
So, depending on wind direction that day, combined with the low tide, the station may have picked up some heated air from the mud flats. Unfortunately the station does not record wind data. Given the nearby stations (such as London City) show a shift of wind direction to northerly after about 5PM local time on that date, it is quite possible though:
All news reports I read said the high temperature in Gravesend occurred in late afternoon on Sunday August 10th. The historical data available from the Met Office is rather slim. So if somebody knows where to find the exact time the high temperature was recorded, that would help solve this mystery.
One final thing, this IR map shows that area of Kent near Gravesend to be one of the warmer places around London, warmer even than the cityscape of London itself:
So to summarize the surroundings of this station:
- City UHI nearby
- Industrial area surrounding it
- River with heated water from power plant and sewage plant dumped into it nearby
- Surrounded by water on three sides
- Surrounded by low albedo (high solar absorbing) mudflats nearby with low tide near time of Tmax
- Sited at a radar station with waste heat exhaust systems clearly visible
- Sited directly next to a sidewalk
No wonder it is consistently a high temperature record breaker! On that day August 10 2003, it was warmer than Heathrow Airport where the temperature earlier registered 37.9C (100.2F).
UK residents: Feel free to add any information you can find that will help. Still looking for the high temperature time on 8-10-2003 at Gravesend.
UPDATE: I’ve located this photo also. What looked to be a sidewalk turned out to be a big chunk of concrete. Heat sink anyone?
This photo is from a Royal Meteorological Society publication, they apparently didn’t want the world to see the other nearby issues related to the radar station.
More on that publication, and how I’ve caught the Met Office in a lie, coming soon.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow! Placing a temperature monitoring station right above a black roof!!! Brilliant bunch of lads.
Anthony, I wonder if you don’t have enough readers here to actually put together surface stations project for other nations? Bet there are some real doozies out there.
If this is a max/min thermometer setup, how do they know the time of day that the max/min was reached? Does this station have an automatic system installed in a Stevenson screen?
REPLY: yes autologging now – Anthony
Brogdale weather station ??
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19339323@N00/493954034/
Gunga Din says:
August 18, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Not sure if this info applies but it is common for large wastewater plants to have anaerobic sludge digesters. These generate methane gas which is often burnt off to the atmosphere. Something to look into for this site.
====================================
Just to clarify since GHGs are so often mentioned here, I don’t mean that the methane may be forming a “mini-green house” but thatthe methane, if is is generated and burnt off here, can make a flame many yards high. (Think as high as a house.) That’s a lot of heat.
http://www.weather-banter.co.uk/uk-sci-weather-uk-weather/121618-brogdale.html
Apparently, the Met office has already fessed up to some of the problems at the Gravesend station.
Further discussion can be found here
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/47722-is-gravesend-an-official-station/
‘Even warmer than first thought’
However, according ti the BBC “The Met office later admitted the highest-ever temperature was recorded not in Gravesend, but in nearby Brogdale, near Faversham, also in Kent, where the temperature reached 38.5C (101.3F)”, as some commenters on this thread have already pointed out.
The new record holder is located at an orchard called Brogdale Farm.
This may be it.
http://binged.it/R9frSO
If it is, there don’t seem to be major siting issues other than the high hedges (but I’m no expert on this).
The BBC reported that the Met Office went “to check the equipment and check it was running correctly” but didn’t report them issuing a new screen for the station.
However, I came across several references to a peer reviewed paper by Stephen Burt and Philip Eden, apparently detailing some problems with the Brogdale station, but I didn’t find this online.
Thanks for giving Tim’s post wider exposure Anthony, and for your input as the thread developed.
Just to answer a couple of points raised:
Brogdale college station is not a MET station. Calibration? Dunno.
The berm skirts around the inland side of the station covering around 240 degrees.
The tidal stretch is such that during low summer flow, the water can travel 17km downstream and come back 14 on the rising tide.
You’re telling me that’s the hottest place in England? I don’t believe you.
There’re clearly lots of things to keep the minumum temperature up, but to be hot, it’s got be low(check), dry (cross)and low albedo (Hmmm – it could be worse).
I suspect either the thermometer is reading high, or it’s catching the vented heat from the radar building.
Sorry for your discomfort.
Meanwhile, temps in the Grand Canyon, AZ, are in the cool 80’s daytime, and 50’s at night – they’ll remain so for the next several days as nice cool showers blanket the area during the day.
Go figure.
This in a place that is usually a 106 F. oven (average daytime highs) in August. (A nephew hiking in to camp with his geology class.) Lucky bugger.
Look, I don’t like to piut a dampener on all this but I can’t quite see wgahty the point is.
If Gravesend, say, has recently recorded a record temperature then that is that . It’s irrelevant whether Gravesend is in a rural location or if it is located in central London. It hasn’t suddenly moved from a rural location to an urban location, it’s always been wherever it is currently located.
We know that some stations record higher temperatures than others because of “siting issues”. But that’s always been the case. Urban stations tend to record higher temepratures than rural stations – particularly during hot summer days or cold winter days.
If Gravesend has recorded the highest UK temperature in 2003, say – then it is reasonable to report that fact. Gravesend must have been warmer on that day in 2003 than it was on any day in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s ….. The chances are that several other places (including rural ones) also recorded their highest temperatures.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gravesend+kent+england+temperature
And some more about the Brogdale site, from climate Audit
Chris Manuell
Posted Jun 7, 2007 at 5:02 AM | Permalink | Reply
I think the situation is even worse than is shown because many of the country
sites are surrounded by trees.
I surveyed the Brogdale Site at Faversham in England: Google Earth 51
17’49.20″N 0 52’40.30″E. This is the site that recorded the highest
temperature ever recorded in England.
The site is in Orchard land crossed by windbreaks with a conifer windbreak on
the prevailing wind side 13 metres from the Stevenson Cabinet. If you google
in “Micro climate in Orchards” you will find a lot of research has been done
to increase crop yields by raising the micro climate temperature because of
less air movement, raising the temperature by “several degrees” both during
the day and night. The night temperature is raised because the higher day
temperatures warm the soil more, which then radiates upwards as the air
temperature cools. Paradoxically it can also cause frost problems because the
cold air near dawn gets trapped within the windbreak area being heavier air
than that surrounding it, unless it can drain away down a slope.
Or maybe the radar maintenance guy chucked his coat over it.
Alan S. Blue wrote:
“Actually most concerned about the 5-10 foot berm. Does that go all the way around? I looks like it is two sides at a minimum. Any thoughts on the other two sides?”
These may be the remains of defensive earthworks at what is a commanding position on the Thames. For comparison, look at the bottom left of figure 3. Any military historians want to comment?
Err no John Finn.
If we are talking about always then it’s obvious that always does not include a triangulation mast, a radar mast, a brick building housing the electronics for these an air conditioning unit discharging its waste heat over the temeperature sensing station.
Then there is the small matter of earth bunding on three sides of the site and a brick building screening the fourth.
This official Met office site breaks all the Met office siting rules because its results can not be relied on, It really is that simple.
Anthony, are you aware of this Met Office beta site?
http://wow.metoffice.gov.uk/tabulardata?&siteID=12010
Won’t let you go back to 2003 unfortunately but has about a year’s worth of data if you want to analyse against with tide times, etc. Click Home for map showing all stations.
Now let us see a night time, night-lights satelite image so we can adjust for UHI, per GISS.
Let’s see. 51°27’51.95″N 0°18’40.97″E
River on 3 sides for >2500 ft. Power substation. Boat Dock. Lawn for 1000 feet to SW,S,SE
using a MOD500 500m pixel, this doesn’t look “built” to me. It might very well be classified as rural. A 1 km night-light — i don’t know. A black spot in a field of light.
See also Chiefio “Golden Juarez”, Nov 1, 2010
Here is an idea for some research on this site.
the power plant needs to be down for multi-day stretches for maintenance.
If we can get the temperature records from the site, then stratify the data as to whether the power station was running that day, we might see a signifant difference large enough to quantify.
The galvanized steel towers located on the site have several tons of steel close to ground level. I’m sure on hot sunny summer days they would be very hot to the touch. The embedded foundations would also absorb heat and then radiate it out. They are heat sinks of consequence located near the instruments. Their contribution would be small but cumulative to all the other problems with this site.
John Finn says:
August 18, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Look, I don’t like to piut a dampener on all this but I can’t quite see wgahty the point is.
…..
If Gravesend has recorded the highest UK temperature in 2003, say – then it is reasonable to report that fact. Gravesend must have been warmer on that day in 2003 than it was on any day in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s ….. The chances are that several other places (including rural ones) also recorded their highest temperatures.
Well John, piut it this way. As the BBC said, it was the highest max temp recorded since records began in 1875.
But the BBC was being economical with the actualite.
Wgahty if I was to tell you there was no station there until 1995? Such a location just downwind from the capital next to a couple of power stations and some cooling system exhausts was likely to produce a very high max temp.
If I was being cynical I might think maybe that’s why the MET set up a station there.
Phil Clarke wrote:
“Oh, I think the presence nearby of a large and moving body of water is bound to be a cooling influence.”
“Thermal pollution” of waterways by discharges from power stations was a hot environmental topic in the late 60s to early 70s. The power companies conceded that their plants raised the temperature of the water courses. Regulations were apparently introduced even though the environmentalists failed to prove any significant harm. Indeed the rise in temperature was often beneficial for some species of aquatic life.
Thermal Pollution Stirs Big Debate
The Miami News – Jul 9, 1970
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ygxgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4ekFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5580,4230170&dq=thermal-pollution&hl=en
Thermal Pollution Damage Termed ‘Overestimated’
St. Petersburg Times – Jan 11, 1971
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JQhSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s3UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4890,266774&dq=thermal-pollution&hl=en
Once Hot Issue Cools Off As 2 Attend Hearing
The Milwaukee Sentinel – Sep 14, 1976
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zXhQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4hEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4378,2204995&dq=thermal-pollution&hl=en
Phil Clarke says:
August 18, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Oh, I think the presence nearby of a large and moving body of water is bound to be a cooling influence. …
The Thames is a slow moving river winding through a flat landscape for many miles. I swam in it as a youngster way upstream at Lechlade one sunny afternoon in the mid seventies. The water was warm.
Near the station in question the low tide Thames is wide, comparatively shallow and slow moving. Plenty of time to soak up the Sun all morning until the high reading at the hottest point of the day at 14.30 We’ll track down some temperature reading for the river at low tide at that time of year during a warm spell to get some idea.
If you go onto this site http://www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html
you can get maps from the 19th century until the late 1990s of the area.
From what I can see, this area was called the Broadness salt marsh until the 1960s, and it is marked as being \”saltings\”, and it indicates rushes on the maps, and in fact the earliest map (1869-75) shows the whole of the isthmus as being boggy land. The inlet, which in the 19th and early 20th century was much longer, almost bisecting the isthmus in half has shortened over the period since 1960.
The first mention of a structure in the area is on the 1970s map when there is a radar station. (It is not on the previous 1966 map). The sewerage plant, which is south of the station is there much earlier – from the 1938 map onwards – though the pond that looks like it is associated with it was much bigger in the earlier maps.
Post author at the Talkshop comments…
Bemused and a bit embarrassed.
Anthony has done some additional work I’d never have considered and put things into a form better understood. Never mind, a long rule of life is never try and second guess the future.
What is so nice is how others have added unexpected snippets and resources, thank you. Photographs particularly are very telling, as is “I know the area”.
The radar site photographer Glyn Baker has more work http://www.geograph.org.uk/profile/1601 and I think it is good for everyone that usage is allowed.
The concept of the geograph site is interesting, a photo for each Ordinance Survey (official maps) grid square. Personal views of real England. Perhaps here be indexed gems.
The Brogdale photo came as a shock although after a moment’s thought perhaps it is a well orchestrated place, although yesterday I’d never heard of it.
The Met office did an investigation of the Brogdale record temp and concluded it was anomalously warm by 2C, but they couldn’t determine why.
http://www.weather-banter.co.uk/uk-sci-weather-uk-weather/121618-brogdale.html
scroll down to the last post