These days the Met Office has rebadged its daily “high” temperatures as “extreme”, all the better of course to ramp up fears of heat as part of the Net Zero education process. Last Wednesday’s “extreme” of 20.4°C was recorded at Teddington Bushy Park. As the Google Earth photo below shows, the “extreme” temperature is helped on its way by an adjacent high wall reflecting heat onto the measuring device and a large housing development warming the nearby area. Teddington Bushy Park is a junk class 4 station with internationally-recognised “uncertainties” of 2°C. Joke class 4 station might be a more apt description. How anyone can think information taken at this site is suitable for scientific work that ultimately produces a global mean temperature is a mystery.
Under a classification system set by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) that takes account of temperature corruptions, natural and unnatural, 77.9% of Met Office sites are rated class 4 and 5 and have uncertainties of 2°C and 5°C respectively. The Met Office does its best to explain away the poor siting of most of its UK-wide 380-strong temperature station network. Class 3 – uncertainties of 1°C – and class 4 are said to produce “valid high-quality data”, something that might be in dispute by looking at the Teddington photo. The WMO is said by the Met Office not to preclude the use of data from super junk class 5. For its part, the WMO states that a class 5 is “where nearby obstacles create an inappropriate environment for a meteorological measurement that is intended to be representative of a wider area”. Nearly one in three (29.2%) of the Met Office’s sites are rated super-junk 5 and from this, apparently, the Met Office can produce average temperature figures to one hundredth of a degree centigrade.
Earlier this year, a freedom of information request from the Daily Sceptic finally revealed what has been suspected for a long time, namely that the Met Office temperature measuring system is not fit for the purpose of providing accurate measurements of temperature either at specific local sites or at national and global average scale. To date, the Met Office has not made an official statement on the growing concerns that surround its scientific work following the startling revelations. It does however produce an occasional remark that suggests it is hiding from the implications of the growing criticism. Last June it declared the highest, pardon, the most extreme temperature so far of the summer at Chertsey, another ‘record’ that came under question when it was revealed that the measuring device at Chertsey water pumping station was surrounded by a newly-built solar farm.
This is the solar farm in question and it surrounds what appears to be the temperature measuring station. To be fair to the Met Office, Google Maps puts the station a few yards away – there are sometimes small errors in precise placing of any location. But what is not disputed is that the site is next to a large solar farm with over 1,800 panels. Solar panels generate large amounts of heat in the nearby areas with scientists suggesting warming of 3-4°C. Citizen journalist Ray Sanders recently tackled the Met Office on the Chertsey location and the state-funded weather service admitted it was “aware” of the solar panels near its station. “The temperature measurements meet standards for publication and scientific use,” noted the Met Office.
Over in the United States, meteorologist Anthony Watts has spent decades investigating the temperature output of the local weather service NOAA. He recently presented evidence to show that NOAA’s temperature data was “fatally flawed” with an astonishing 96% of 4,000 plus measuring stations corrupted by poor placement. As in the U.K., many photos of unsuitable locations have been published. The one below from a site in Florida showing measurements taken near a bank of air conditioning units is a particular horror show.
Appearing on a recent Tom Nelson podcast, Watts was asked about the 40.3°C runway record temperature declared for 60 seconds on July 19th 2022 as jets were landing at RAF Coningsby in the U.K. He pointed out that such events were caused by new electronic measurements that reacted to temperature change within one tenth of a second. The previous mercury thermometers took much longer to move and would never have picked up temporary temperature movements caused by gusts of wind or passing jet aircraft.
All of these figures are collected and then adjusted and the “bottom line” is that the data have been changed to increase the warming trend. A number of attempts have been made to estimate the changes caused by numerous corruptions. “We have about 50% less global warming than the media and activists would have you believe”, Watts suggests.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. The image at the top of this article shows the location of the Met Office temperature station at Aberdeen Dyce International Airport. No further comment required!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Met Office is obsessed with global warming and record heat.
It is no longer able to function without bias as a public body and should therefore have all public funding withdrawn with immediate effect unless it guarantees that it will provide one hundred percent data assurance to the public from now on.
It isn’t exactly a tough job for a truly scientific and proud organisation to do. Just get rid of all the obsessed climate liars taking money under false pretenses and not providing to the public the information their jobs requires of them. Let us see just how professional they are, or not, as the case may be.
They know and don’t care as long as its fits the agenda. They are safe for the next 5 years as they feed the Millivolt Nut Zero obsession.
Minibrain Millivolt, in deep dodo, wants to use Storm Shadow missiles to strike deep into Russia, beyond Moscow, as part of UK lost-empire muscle flexing, but Polish members of parliament tell Blinken not to come to Poland to prolong/promote his endless wars agendas.
Germany wants to end it, asap. France is in chaos. Hungary wants to end it. Slovakia wants to end it.
Is minibrain tone deaf?, or just an idiot?
Putin said these missiles use NATO owned satellite data and are operated by trained UK specialists who either push the buttons themselves, or tell a Ukraine flunky to do it.
Putin said this means NATO will be at war with Russia, and Russia will take counter measures, as required
So here we are, with about 80% of all temp stations in the wrong place, and the government massaging the data, AS IT SEES FIT, to scare-monger the long-suffering UK people, to implement dysfunctional, super expensive wind, solar, EV, heat pump, electric stove agendas that the impoverished UK people cannot afford, and can only be financed by printing more money, which creates higher inflation.
The socialist inspired, big government, woke craziness is finally meeting the reality wall and crumpling, about 20 years overdue. Let the bloodbath begin!
What does your moral objection to Ukrainians defending themselves against a Dictator have to do with temperature measurement at low altitudes in Britain?
BTW, I reject your claim that British operatives would be pushing buttons to launch missiles from Ukrainian aircraft – that’s not the same as providing intelligence data to Ukrainians, which the US also does. Ukraine will decide which targets to attack, based on knowledge of importance and vulnerability.
(‘Storm Shadow’/’SCALP-EG’ is an air-launched cruise missile from Britain and France.
Satellite photography is a common source of location of ground features, commercial companies are key providers who examine and interpret satellite information from satellites.)
You obviously did not spend any time in the military, but I did.
Trust me, no sane UK officer would allow a Ukraine person to fire a million- dollar missile at a target deep in Russia, beyond Moscow.
The entire chain of command will be NATO
Those NATO missiles can also be fired from the ground.
They are maneuverable and hug the terrain to avoid detection, based on continuous input from NATO satellite data.
Launching centers will be manned by NATO personnel in Ukraine.
Russian satellites will immediately see something was launched from a place and will use one its maneuverable hypersonic missiles to wipe that place and people out.
Then, Russia will use another such missile to wipe out a valuable target In Ukraine, such as the center of Kiev.
The US is well aware of Russia’s capabilities.
Let us not forget, Lezinsky is a former comedian
I have long experience thinking for actually doing things, and education in epistemology.
You blew your theory in two more ways in the foregoing post:
Tinfoil hats on chaps!
😉
Thankyou.
What is the psychology behind anti-Ukrainian blatherers?
(We know what Stalin’s was – to squash independent farmers as they showed collectives how to produce food, thus harmed his ideology.)
“Let us not forget, Lezinsky(sp) is a former comedian”
He’s also clearly doing an exceptional job of leading his country in the most difficult of circumstances.
“Then, Russia will use another such missile to wipe out a valuable target In Ukraine, such as the center of Kiev.”
I think you mis-typed this sentence. It should read:
“Then, Russia will use another such missile to wipe out a valuable target In Ukraine, such as a children’s hospital”.
You are supporting a genocidal war of agression against a young democracy.
You are supporting Putin, who is a genocidal mass murderer and probably the biggest thief in history. As well as murdering countless innocent Ukrainian men, women and children he has actually committed murder on British soil. He is guilty of atrocities and war crimes such as Bucha.
You should be ashamed.
Chris
Thankyou.
And you fail logic – former work or hobby does not negate capability for other things. Some children played with dolls for example. In the twentieth century any young adults and teenagers worked fixing cars but now have careers well beyond that.
Zelenskyy uses his TV skills to communicate, to persuade others to defend Ukraine against Putin’s genocidal push. And his lawyer training.
(Yes, genocidal – former KGB official Putin wants to eliminate Ukraine, claiming it should again be part of ‘Russia’, evading that western Russia was part of Ukraine a few centuries earlier.)
Russia has been engaged in terror bombing of civilian targets since day one of its “special military operation”. They routinely lob missiles into apartment complexes, hospitals, railway stations, and other civilian infrastructure.
Golly. You don’t believe in global warming, but you do believe what Putin says?
How extremely selective…
Perfectly said…..
No, I know there is global warming, and I also know CO2 cannot be the cause, based on physics.
😉
It’s really not difficult to understand.
The hopeless NATO, frightened like a school girl, is to blame for letting this even get off the ground. What they should have done was to tell Russia that if they laid one foot into Ukraine it would be cut off. They could have used any number of excuses. (European stability, food security, whatever. Truth, lies – is doesn’t really matter.) Instead, they were played like a violin by Putin threatening to use nukes. (a complete and utter transparent joke) Meanwhile they find themselves in a ridiculous situation of their own making, not knowing what the hell to do. Putin only understands one kind of diplomacy – overwhelming power or the threat of overwhelming power. (with a face-saving escape clause) Not sanctions. This is very apparent by watching his tactics. (he doesn’t really have any in war)
He is basically a weakling in a strong man costume. NATO needs to grow a pair.
The US extended NATO beyond East Germany, after promising Gorbachev not to do so. The rest is history.
The US instigated the coup d’Etat in Kiev in 2014, but East Ukraine, especially the Donbas, disagreed.
Nuland, aka Ms “f… the EU”, was discussing with the US ambassador, on video, who would be in the Ukraine government, in charge of the “tender democracy”.
The Junta directed the Ukraine army to bombard its own citizens, killed 14000 of them and injured/maimed many more, from 2014 to 2022,
Then, in 2022, Russia decided, after the 2015 Minsk Accords had been not implemented, to protect/liberate the Russian speaking people in East Ukraine.
Zelensky is leading Ukraine into an abyss from which it will not recover, with 7 million of its younger population gone to the EU and about 7 million to Russia.
The remaining 25 million contains 10.7 million on pensions.
A demographic disaster.
sorry stop writing utter bollox.
Our entire family left Russia because of Putin and his nutcase cronies, after making sure Nemtsov, Politovskaya and many others were mown down.
I hate seeing people getting away with writing nauseous propaganda on here because they have the freedom of speech denied back home…..
a little example:-
“The US extended NATO beyond East Germany”.
NO
Poland the Baltic states and now FINLAND asked to join NATO, to prevent the same KGB run dudes now running Russia to come back to enslave them once again.
Finland lost Karelia and have long bitter memories of Russian imperialism.
Sweden On 7 March 2024, became a full member of NATO.
As for “The Junta”
I would favour you getting a ban on here for lying so brazenly in public.
“As the Google Earth photo below shows, the “extreme” temperature is helped on its way by an adjacent high wall reflecting heat onto the measuring device and a large housing development warming the nearby area”
After all these beatups, Morrison should really have learnt something about the mapping facilities available and doing proper graphics. The wall is not adjacent; it is 35 metres away. The closest part of the housing is 60 m away. The station is in fact well situated in parkland.
“that ultimately produces a global mean temperature is a mystery”
And he should have got past this ignorance. Teddington is not part of GHCN, or any other global index dataset.
Nice courtyard… Surrounded on all sides by 6ft walls and buildings.
Any breeze coming from the direction of the air-conditioned buildings would get caught in the heat trap.
Funny how it is being used as an example of extreme weather by warmists if it is not used for metrology.
My issue is that climate science has promoted this incorrect information by not following proper science and quoting the uncertainty along with the measurement. At best, this station is probably ±2 if not ±5 degrees.
Those figures should be quoted EACH AND EVERY TIME a so-called climate scientist discusses a measurement. Maybe then, propagandizing journalists and scientists can be called out for quoting incomplete information, misinformation if you will.
GHCN is not a “dataset”, it is an estimate set containing estimates of what the data might have been had it been collected timely from properly selected, calibrated, sited, installed and maintained instruments.
Surely you’re not questioning the PROBITY of temperature values used in “THE SCIENCE”?
Next you’ll be casting aspersions on the PROVENANCE of said temperature constructs.
Keep it up please.
However, in the other direction not shown in your photo, only 87 ft away are several buildings, a parking lot and Newtons apple tree with associated buildings. You are being disingenuous if not outright deceitful.
All temperature measurement devices used by met offices have to be immune to direct radiation from hot objects. The sun is hitting them with radiation – the construction of the “shelters” is meant to prevent solar heating.
The sea heat content/temperatures are all rising. is this not proof that we are getting hotter? There are no building/jet exhaust heating the sensors.
Atlantic Cooling Mysteriously Fast After Record Warmth. …nobody knows why. https://www.realclearscience.com/2024/08/21/atlantic_cooling_mysteriously_fast_after_record_warmth_1053077.html
It pays to be up to date
Currents do vary over time, I’d want to know how wide the phenomenon is compared to known Atlantic currents.
You have completely missed the point of the article which is that the Urban Heat Island Effect has corrupted the land based temperature record. The Met Office knows this and still uses junk weather sites.
The UHI effect isn’t a corruption. It is a real effect.
Zero points for reading comprehension.
several negative points
I stand by what I said. The UHI effect does not corrupt the land based temperature record because it is a real effect. The land based temperature record is higher because of the UHI; not by much, but higher nonetheless. What might corrupt the land based temperature record is the UHI bias, but that is a different from the UHI effect.
What a totally moronic and anti-science comment.. We have come to expect that from you.
The UHI effect contaminates the whole of the global surface data, yet represents only a small part of the actual surface of the planet.
You CANNOT use surface data that has been progressively contaminated by urban effects to show that the global “climate” is warming.
Only the most incompetent and stupid person would think that you can.
Yes, at all points. Recall this is the “scientist” who thinks the oven door of a convection oven heats the inside of the oven.
Really? A real effect?
Like wind, mountains, elevation, sunlight, clouds?
Plop a weather data collection station next to a large building, or visa versa and it will generate “real” temperatures.
🤡🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤡
Utter BS.
The same with large areas of solar arrays, asphalt, jet engines, brush, trees, air conditioning units (heat pumps), generators, animal pens, etc., etc. Real temperatures indeed…
What’s in that MMTS Beehive anyway? Page 2.
The key message is that temperature stations rarely produce quality temperatures, especially when critters move into them.
Or when installed next to buildings, arrays, parking lots, airports or set over gravel beds, especially dark or reflective gravel.
The UHI effect is not BS. It is an unequivocally and indisputably real effect. It is a well known that thermometers in in urban environments read higher because the temperature really is higher not unlike how mountains, elevation, sunlight, clouds, etc. really do cause thermometers to read higher/lower because the temperature really is higher/lower as a result of those factors.
The UHI effect has NOTHING to do with CO2 or “global” climate.
Again.. you have destroyed the AGW farce with a single comment
And you are just too dumb to realise it.
The point is that UHI contaminates what you are trying to measure, that is, the comparison of data to past temperatures where there was no UHI being measured in most locations.
Regardless of whether it is an effect or bias, it is contamination of the data being used in the comparison.
UHI could reasonably be concluded to be a large part of the temperature increase being seen which would RUIN the CO2 cause. That is why you want to say it is a real effect. Show us some real papers that have studied the issue and determine the attribution of UHI to CO2 causes.
Otherwise, you have nothing of consequence to dismiss what is being shown.
Seems some people are playing semantic games, for some reason.
The large percentage of measuring stations in the ~4% of total land space locations (cities and airports mostly) certainly reads real local temperatures but those overwhelming # of readings greatly biases the “global” temperature calculations (a number that is good only for propaganda anyway). This has been revealed by several independent investigations that compared unaffected stations results with total station results.
Yep. This is the UHI bias (not to be confused with the UHI effect). One such independent review was from Berkeley Earth.
They said, “We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24°C/100yr (2σ error) in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average.” [Wickham et al. 2013]
Berkeley is the exact opposite of independent.
And they are intentionally incompetent at identifying urban effects.
You do realize they can’t even determine the correct sign with the uncertainty you quoted.
Of course he doesn’t.
Yes, bozo-x is indeed a first-magnitude 🤡.
I’m chuckling at NOAA’s question of what effect mud dauber wasp deposits would have on the thermometer’s readings.
I say act as a smoothing filter, which the British data gatherers need. (A thermal filter – its mass slows rise of sensed temperature, slows decline.)
The world meteorological standard says the electronic temperature readings must be averaged over a 2.5 minute period, by means of some specific algorithm. Australia and the UK, in particular, ignore that requirement, using momentary peaks for propaganda announcements.
Actually that isn’t true. The screens are designed to minimize excess solar heating. Sufficient air flow is needed to insure any excess temperature is moved out of the screen so that the temperature sensor (LIG or electronic) measures only the ambient air temperature from outside of the screen.
The trendology ruler monkeys have arrived to save the day for climate pseudoscience.
Yes UHI is a very real significant effect.
A distinct artificial outlier in what prevailing land temperatures in numerous localities actually are.
Therefore, readings from known UHI temperature recordings should be totally omitted from analyses of changes in climates.
Otherwise, we’re knowingly perverting the probity of the inputs we’re using for anomaly trends constructs.
By that logic we should omit all anthropogenic factors that causes changes in climate. Doing that would effectively hide all of the warming that has actually occurred.
Just be clear I’m not advocating for the unethical practice of hiding warming. I’m just pointing out that if you’re willing hide some of it why not go all the way and hide all of it?
Thanks for showing that the UHI effect, which heavily effects the surface stations..
… IS NOT RELATED TO CLIMATE or CO2
You have just totally destroyed the whole AGW scam.
Meaning, that you agree that the vast majority of anthropogenic global warming is artifactual, not CO₂ caused.
Whereas in a world where diurnal temperatures change 10°C to 25°C twice daily, people will feel and recognize 0.02°C change in temperature due to CO₂ in addition to the 2°C to 5°C UHI caused temperatures?
No I do not. If you want to know my position then ask; don’t just assume.
The diurnal temperature change on a global scale is not even remotely close to 10 C nevermind 25 C. Remember, the Earth is a sphere continuously spinning and exposing only half of its area to the Sun so there is always equal amounts of day and night thus washing out most of the diurnal effect.
First…The consilience of evidence suggests it is closer to 1.0 C. Refer to IPCC AR6 WGI Annex III table AIII.3 pg. 2145.
Second…people don’t “feel” the global average temperature.
Per Dr. Spencer’s analysis the UHI effect contributes about 0.03 C to the global average temperature.
Thanks again for showing that the UHI effect, which heavily effects the surface stations..
… IS NOT RELATED TO CLIMATE or CO2
You have just totally destroyed the whole AGW scam.
You have shown yourself, yet again to be too dumb to make a coherent argument without putting your foot in your mouth.
bellcurvewhinerman can’t be far behind if bozo-x is already here.
The diurnal temperature change on a global scale is not even remotely close to 10 C never mind 25 C.
Just in the past 10 days I have had temperature ranges of 43°F and 44°F (~ 23°C). Many days of 25°F (~14°C).
Maybe you should review some Tmax and Tmin before making your smart remarks.
Tavg does not provide a diurnal range. It is not even a measure of diurnal ranges from day to day.
I would not say it is the norm, I haven’t attempted to find out what that may be, but here where I live a 40 degree F difference between daytime high and nighttime low is not unusual. That is quite noticeable.
I have no problem at all with folks knowing that concentrations of broadscale asphalted surfaces, roofs, vast tracts of cleared foliage, etc etc are making their postcodes warmer.
But that’s what is their issue to deal with, not the atmosphere.
Would you agree that UHI and CO2 relaaed warming are not related in any way, shape or form?
They are related in that they are both anthropogenic. They are also related in that the action that cause the UHI also releases CO2. It is important to note that the release of CO2 due to UHI causing land use changes is less than the release through other causes.
OMG , the beeswax doesn’t realise that urban warming from surface stations is NOT global, but only really represents some 4% of the globes surface.
How can someone be so incredibly ignorant !!
Urban heat does not cause more CO2 release.. there is no evidence of that.
Still no empirical scientific evidence of any warming by CO2 though.
Who are “we”, 🤡 person?
If it is a bias, as you call it, then it is a contamination of data used to compare current warming to past temperature. That makes station data subject to dismissal. Normal science looks for “outliers” and they are eliminated as unfit for purpose. You can’t simply dismiss that practice by calling the evidence of UHI being anthropogenic unless you want to also dismiss CO2 being a large part of any warming.
Wrong! It means you can not make scientific comparisons to previous temperatures that did not have the artificial warming.
Slightly warmer, perhaps. “Hotter” is a hype word. All measurement is subject to uncertainly, and none of it in current use is suitable for the purpose of saying anything about the state of the climate or its trajectory.
Oh?!
If you were to sit in a closed box under full sunlight, even with vents, do you believe the temperature would not be higher than in the open air?
The idea is that the design will allow air flow through the screen which will show the ambient temperature outside the screen. In essence, the air flow will remove heating of the walls of the screen by direct sunlight.
I’ll leave it up to you to decide how faded white paint or degraded plastic enclosures will consistently reflect direct sunlight after years of no preventative maintenance. You can decide how well screens deal with spider webs, wasp nests, etc. that slow air through vents.
One should remember that manual readings provided daily assessment of some of these issues. Automated stations get inspected how often?
My understanding is that the reference stations use fan directed air flow.
That is true for CRN stations. There is a fan for each sensor along with a speed sensor for each fan. If the fan is not up to spec, the temperature reading is rejected. However, this increases the uncertainty which is never changed.
Being in the shade vs being in direct sunlight is VERY noticeable. What the temperature reading difference is I don’t know.
It is why adequate air flow is so important.
It has been warming in the cities of the world, from more concrete and asphalt, that have been growing larger around the world and that is where over 90 percent of the weather stations are located, so of course they show warming.
Historical reports from ancient Rome and from Indian cities like Deli claimed many people dying in the streets because of summer heat. That’s why the wealthy spent that time near the sea or in the mountains, rather like today.
The Met Office is the leading purveyor of [fig-leaf] data to support net zero. It’s a political organisation now.
If it can get the next day’s weather wrong – and it does – its hugely expensive abacus and models obviously don’t work
That’s why they are always asking for a new and better abacus – no point if the current one is working
NOAA’s latest request is for a better super computer because their old, (a few years) supercomputer is incapable of modeling what they want to model?
Even new equipment is being sited incorrectly — thus contributing to global warming.
And what is pictured is not the Met Office Chertsey station. That is shown below, in open land 37 m from the nearest structure.
The MO prefers…
The highest temperature was recorded at Heathrow, the Met Office said….
Mind you, Chertsey is rather posh
Nick,
Your Google Maps image is out of date. Affinity own video clearly shows the solar panels (2.50):
The solar array is 3.5 km away fromthe Chertsey Abbey Mead met station
BULLSHIT..
The panels they are talking about are at the water treatment works, and surround the weather station.
You can clearly see the exact same structures as in your 2020 GE image right next to the new solar panels.
You are in a 10ft deep hole Nick.. stop digging !!
ps here is a really rough update of Nick’s outdated image, showing the weather site and the new solar panels.
Red solar panels? You made that up. The solar array is at the pumping station, 3.5 km away.
Absolute GARBAGE.
You really are digging yourself deeper into the sewer in a desperate attempt to save yourself.. and failing completely.
Look at 2:50 in the video, you can see the building of the water works.
You are now being a deliberately ignorant twit.
Yes, there is also a solar factory one at the wastewater site.
actually, not sure there is one at the wastewater site…
But this one is without a single doubt, surrounding the weather site at the water treatment works.
Installed 2021 or 22 after Nick’s google image was taken.
100 square meters of black panels installed all around the sensor at an angle that minimizes reflection and converts at best 20% of incoming solar energy to electricity. I wonder what happens to the remaining 80% when a breeze blows over the panels and onto the temperature sensor. Any thoughts,Nick?
The solar array is 3.5 km away from the Chertsey Abbey Meade weather station.
“surround the weather station”
They surround some sort of weather station, possibly used by the solar farm. But they do not surround the Chertsey Abbey Meade staion, which is the only one in the Met synoptic list. That is 3.5 km away.
You really have lost it , haven’t you Nick.
I knew you were getting old, senile and incompetent.. but now you provide absolute proof to everybody that your brain and intelligence has basically disappeared.
You are making an abject FOOL of yourself.
I refer everyone to this recent image of the water works, showing clearly the solar panels and the location of the weather site.
For the mentally deficient, I have put the stock image next to one with the solar panels and weather site indicated., I
Further proof , if anyone sane needs it, that the solar factory is at the water treatment plant.. install 2021 or 2022
Destroying what might once have been a semi-reasonable weather site.
Downgrading it to HORRENDOUS !
Centrica energises Surrey-based water treatment plant with solar farm – Solar Power Portal
Not the wastewater treatment works.
Nick,
You’re mistaken.
The Met Office’s own data tells us the weather station is located at 51.39853, -0.49671.
This puts the weather station bang in the middle of the solar panels as illustrated in the video posted above.
Accept it, Nick, you’re wrong.
Nick will never admit he is wrong.. He has zero honesty or integrity.
Redge,
You may be right. There is a solar array at the location I showed.
But it seems there is also an nother one near the weather station.
The official weather station is amongst the solar panels
At 2:51 into the videp you can see the weather station in the middle of the solar array… it is most definitely NOT 100′(~30m) from any near by structures nor in an open field
Yep, Here’s a capture of that screen.
Weather site surrounded by newly installed solar arrays…. check.
That same building with the distinctive 6 rectangular sections on top… check
The same U-turn in the roadway and the small shack near the edge of of the new array…. check.
Anyone that cannot see this is the weather site in question is either being deliberately blind or is incredibly STUPID !
Neglecting to say it is only 150m south of the water treatment plant.
And now surrounded by a solar factory, as shown in the picture in the topic notes.
And as shown in the image below (red encircles the solar panel arrays.)
… you need to look at the date of your Google Earth image… 2020 !!
Or are you determined to make a complete fool of yourself as usual.
You have only iisted one of the requirments. From the WMO siting document:
This requirement is necessary for naturally aspirated temperature stations. Prevailing winds that are interrupted by artificial or natural structures should be avoided.
Also, you fail to mention that the WMO siting document indicates that uncertainty is added to the natural uncertainty of the station. That means even a CRN station that is a class 4 would have an uncertainty of ±2.3° C.
Can’t help but lie can you Nick Stokes?
I think it is more just gross incompetence and a heavy bias to see just what he wants to see.
Stokes epitaph will read “Shill for the Eye Pea Cee Cee”.
Accepting your argument that these solar panels have no effect on measurement of global warming, please explain the effect that they are having on mitigation of global warming.
A much more important metric to measure.
40 years later of western climate mitigation, no notable effects at all.
At some point people will want their money back. Spending trillions for no results is a hard sell to taxpayers everywhere.
I am ashamed of the behaviour of the British Met Office having been a member of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968.
The issue of “global warming” is no longer about the science. “Global warming” is a political tool for taxation, social control and a weapon to be used against non-believers. Peddlers of this cult-like movement need to be mocked and ridiculed until enough people wake up and reject the controls being placed on their lives and the lives of their children. CO2 is beneficial for life on earth.
“Watts was asked about the 40.3°C runway record temperature declared for 60 seconds on July 19th 2022 as jets were landing at RAF Coningsby in the U.K. He pointed out that such events were caused by new electronic measurements that reacted to temperature change within one tenth of a second.”
No:
There was a very steady temperature trace showing above 40C for ~ 3hours.
So “landing jets” did not cause any spike in temperature.
These are the stations that equalled or surpassed the previous highest max temp recorded in the UK …
Additionally the 850mb temperature recorded by the 17Z 18th July radiosonde from Camborne, Cornwall, SW England was 25.2C, a new UK record for a temperature at that level and way in the climatological extremes. This was over 2C above the previous record of 22.4C at Herstmonceux, 5th Aug 2003
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYBSrx0XoAAItQe?format=png
So you are saying it was a very short lived WEATHER event.
Not climate.
My ruler monkey count is at four so far in this this thread.
Pretending that having a site 30m from air-conditioned buildings, and 20m from a major airfield taxi-way can in any way reflect the “climate” shows just how much in la-la-land you are.
And yes, that step coincided with a wind change so that it was coming directly from the air-conditioned building complex to the north.
The sudden change in wind direction shows this was very much a frontal WEATHER event.
Now.. where is the evidence of any human causation?
An honest question from “Mr. Layman”.
I was involved with the SCADA system controlling the drinking water plant I retired from, in addition to the other duties my position required.
In developing displays useful for the others operators to base decisions on, some digital inputs from electronic instruments required setting a “deadband”, that is, a value had to change by a reasonable amount before it was displayed on a “realtime” trend.
But that didn’t go into the “historical” record. It was just give the operator the info needed at the moment to decide if they needed to, say, change a chemical dose, turn another water pump on or off, etc.
But there was another program that ran to make the “historical” records. It also had “deadbands” for + or – values. Both the + and – values required to “break” the deadband could be adjusted.
(The smallest low service and high service pumps at my plant were rated at 10MGD but the worst only produced 7MGD. 5MGD was an honest and reasonable deadband for our monthly EPA reporting purposes.)
There’s only so much space on a hard drive. That program was designed to save space on the hard drive to be able to retrieve useful and meaningful data.
“He (Anthony) pointed out that such events were caused by new electronic measurements that reacted to temperature change within one tenth of a second.”
That would be a LOT of data. They’d have to pare it down. What are the deadbands used?
Could the + and – deadbands be different? That is, if the temp is 0.2 higher, it’s recorded but it it’s 0.5 lower it’s not? (Or vise versa)
Again, honest question from someone who only knows a little bit.
How do they decide what data from sensitive electronic instruments to actually record for the “historical” record?
From the ASOS manual.
Thanks.
ASOS is only the US system?
There is also MMTS and CRN.
Yes. Though different countries will do something similar. The WMO recommends a time constant of 20s for the instrument and an averaging time of 1 minute.
Article says:”… July 19th 2022 as jets were landing at RAF Coningsby in the U.K.”
I think I remember this same thing happening in Hawaii at an airport and it was accepted as a record high for the city/state.
Whatever … that was not the reason for the 40.3C at Coninsby RAF base on the 19th July 2022.
Nor was it the reason for the 40.2C recorded the same day at Pitsford school Northants.
Or for the 40.1C at Gringley-on-the-hill Nottinghamshire.
Please show us a picture of the weather station at Pitsford School Northants and Gringley-on-the-hill Nottinghamshire.
As far as I can determine, the Pitsford school site was started in 1998 by students, and is on the top of the western annexe of the main building close to solid stone walls with a wrought iron balcony directly under the screen. Stone wall may also have air-con outlets on it.
Class 6 or 7 station… at best !!! 🙂
Gringley on the Hill Wx stn … this on sceptic Tallbloke’s Blog:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/surfacestation-gringley-on-the-hill/
“UHI, none obvious. Power stations not far away, unlikely to have an effect.”
https://www.google.com/maps/place/53%C2%B024'00.0%22N+0%C2%B052'58.8%22W/@53.4062236,-0.8844082,197m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d53.4!4d-0.883?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Wind on the day blowing bottom to top.
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@53.405858,-0.885943,68.5h,0.19p,2z,7sNJNQXfBaIjGNQnTKXT4Q
Wind on day blowing from right.
You are quoting temperature measurements without any associated uncertainty. That is a patently unscientific method of claiming temperature accuracy. Depending on the class of that station and the rounding done in automated fashion, that temperature could be ±0.5°C at a minimum and ±1.0°C. Does that make it a record temperature? WHO KNOWS IS THE CORRECT ANSWER. To claim that one is absolutely SURE that the measurement is 100% accurate is NOT SCIENTIFIC by any stretch of the imagination. As an engineer, you should know better!
A few years ago there was a record high for the day set for, I think it was Boston?
WUWT had a post about it.
Someone took a “forensic” look at it.
He looked at both the location of the station and the wind direction.
Turns out it was a spike recorded at an airport station at the same time the wind had shifted and blew air from the runway to the sensor at the same time a plane was waiting for takeoff.
Airports need weather stations for the ground conditions for aircraft taking off and landing. That’s why there are so many stations at airports. They are manned and the planes need the LOCAL conditions. But the “plus” of them being manned for LOCAL conditions does not make them fit for GLOBAL conditions.
They should be deleted from “global” data and then, as my Garmin tells me when when I make a wrong turn, “Recalculating”. 😎
Does anyone follow F1 racing? It is standard practice to talk about air, and especially track, temperatures. In general the track – black tarmac – will be up to 20C hotter than the air.
Anywhere downwind of a road or car park is going to be hotter than it was 30 years ago before the road or car park was built.
Same is true in the US. The typical response to high temperatures caused by poor siting and UHI is to “adjust” surrounding countryside sites upward.
Nothing governments do can be taken at face value.
You forgot to mention the Headlines generated from the poor site.
What I see happening is people becoming increasingly skeptical about “hottest evah” announcements when their senses tell them its rainy and cool.
My town reports the temperature at the airport. I live on a farm 20 miles from town and the temperature is consistently 4-5 degrees cooler. Rarely does the opposite occur, but it does happen, usually in the winter. I think part of the reason the temperatures are going up is the heat island effect. The daytime highs are staying where they’ve always been, but the night time temps don’t get as cool as they used to.
IIRC, the U.S. has a law (Data Quality Act?) relating to the accuracy of data used in Federal funding of scientific studies. Sue NOAA, NASA, etc. for violations of that law.
That same law has penalties for changing Federal data.
Somehow, NOAA bafflegabs the Inspector General and they aren’t prosecuted.
One would think that after thirty some years of the “hottest evah” claims, even anthropogenic believers would complain about corrupt shoddy record keeping.
The Met Office, the purveyors of climate doom, and the defenders of temperature “records” in the comments here continue to conflate ephemeral weather events with climate and climate change. They are not the same thing at all.
Arguing about proper location of temperature sensors is secondary to the fact that a “record” temperature in a single location—from tens of thousands on the planet—on a single day is neither proof of a global trend nor even a local trend. It is proof of nothing more than natural variation.
Weather and temperature vary dramatically over the surface of the earth on any day, and in a given location over the course of a single day. It’s beyond ludicrous that anyone would point to a brief, passing event and claim it was proof of some long-term trend. Records are set almost every day in one direction or another: “hottest day in June in the UK,” “coldest August day on record in Switzerland,” etc.
Pointing to a single car on a road on a given day going much faster or slower than the average speed of the rest of the cars and claiming it was proof of a change in average speed of traffic over time is self-evidently ridiculous, yet that’s exactly what the Met Office and the boneheaded media do with temperature “records”.
A scientist presenting convincing evidence of globally warming temperatures would take a large sample of observations over a long period—dozens of years—from tens of thousands of locations over the entire earth from calibrated instruments situated well away from anything that itself is changing over the same period and influencing temperature, like human construction. The NOAA has done it with their USCRN. Let’s see someone do it for global temperature so we can ascertain an actual trend instead of the computer-model trends substituted for measured ones.
It is why the standard deviation needs to be reported when averaging is done. Note, not the standard deviation of the mean, that only tells you how accurately you have calculated the mean. The real dispersion of the measurements surrounding the mean is the standard deviation and is representative of how well the mean describes the data.
I must be near death, the temperature in our abode, thanks to my ultra-skinny (I’m always cold) wife is an “extreme” 24C. The ultra-skinny is not by personal choice but a result of medical conditions, she was ‘always cold” four sizes ago. 20C would be perfect. It is currently 16C outside and they are promising rain and thunder showers.
“He pointed out that such events were caused by new electronic measurements that reacted to temperature change within one tenth of a second. The previous mercury thermometers took much longer to move and would never have picked up temporary temperature movements caused by gusts of wind or passing jet aircraft.”
So data not smoothed in any way?
And remember the case near Antarctica when a single value was trumpeted as a new record?
People do err – Nav Canada found airport readings for pilot use were sloppily reported, it sorted that once realized (had been occurring for some time).
Electrical methods have been known to drift, even mercury-in-glass thermometers. Anthony Watts should be able to advise on meteorological instruments.
(Where I live, there are occasional cries of ‘my water bill jumped up, they are overcharging me’. In most cases the water meter had deteriorated to read low. (I guess build-up of contaminants, noting that the system is flushed each year. But I do not know the design – its seals if any, its bearings, ….)
Both NOAA and MET know the serious problems in their systems. They have had years to correct those problems. They have done nothing. All the top executives at both outfits should be fired immediately. Tell the new executives all of the problems with the system, rank the problems. Ask the new executives if they are aware of these problems. If they still claim to be unaware tell them to become aware while you search for their replacement. In any case aware or unaware the new executives have one week to remove all class four and class five stations for official use. They can do whatever they want with the station but it can’t be used for official purposes. All reports claiming CAGW must be pulled and reviewed independently with a majority of skeptic reviewers. If the report holds up we keep it if it doesn’t we trash it. If all of this isn’t done in a prompt manner the new executives will be replaced, we are already searching for your replacement.
Actually, NOAA now have USCRN, which the used to homogenise the wider ClimDiv network to remove most of the urban bias.
That is why the only warming in the US data since 2005 has come from the 2016/17 El Nino and now a slight spike from the 2023 El Nino.
No evidence of any other warming.
It’s quite simple to carry out a statistical analysis of the high temperatures recorded at different sites on the same day, which I did when the RAF Coningsby ‘record’ came out. What I found was a statistically significant bias towards temperatures measured at RAF stations, airfields and airports.
It doesn’t need a climate genius to determine the reason why this bias was likely to have occurred. I come from Lincolnshire, where RAF Coningsby and many other airfields are based. Apart from the powerful jets using them, these bases all have big black runways, taxi-ways and large buildings, with a huge amount of concrete surrounding them.
It staggers me that any real scientist would fail, at the very least, to question the validity of temperatures measured at such sites. The evidence that they’re highly likely to be producing unreliable data is overwhelming and how anyone with an ounce of scientific integrity could argue otherwise is impossible to comprehend.
At best it’s incompetence and at worst it’s fraud.
“At best it’s incompetence and at worst it’s fraud.”
Well said, MarkW2. 🙂
I work on and fixed electronics all my life. Anyone who tells you the weather station have an error of + or -.5 F is giving you what the unit was when it was new. Without regular recalibration no measurement system stays in spec for any length of time. If they were honest and concerned about quality data there would at least two device at each location separated by a 100 ft and a second location with two measuring devices nearby within a mile. Each device would need to be on different calibration schedule. Comparison between all four to find what the biases and drift are. That is not about to happen because it would Collapse their climate change house of cards. Oh averaging the four measurement will not help either.
+100
BTW, CRN stations have 3 sensors and guess what they do, AVERAGE the readings!
Under a classification system set by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) that takes account of temperature corruptions, natural and unnatural, 77.9% of Met Office sites are rated class 4 and 5 and have uncertainties of 2°C and 5°C respectively.
nope nope nope.
the classification of LeRoy
has only been field tested ONCE and the principle investigator told me that
the maxiumum bias is .1C
this comports with japanese studies by roadways
and with noaa studies
class 4 and 5 refers to the maxium variance from the mean
so a site has a true average of 0C
if the siting is 4 or 5 the recorded average will be .1C.
during the day there may be second where the temp is 4C but this happens so infrequently
that the average is not affected.
But modern thermistors pick up such transients as potential maximums.
Bullshit. Another idiot who knows nothing of real-world metrology.
“Another idiot who knows nothing of real-world metrology.”
Well, he was the sycophantic mouthpiece for BEST… so ignorance is sort of built-in. !
Point made.
Yep, Mosher is quoting the resolution of the temperature, not its uncertainty! A station can be 10 degrees off one way or the other, but still have a resolution of 0.1 degrees!
Any load of illiterate, incoherent BS from mosh. !!
The only part with readable English or close to reality was the part he quoted… without quote marks.
“if the siting is 4 or 5 the recorded average will be .1C.”
What load of total codswallop. !!
Even a class 2 site can easily measure 2 or so degrees warmer than the area around it.
And if you think tin sheds and air-con outlets only add 0.1C you truly do need to get back to something resembling the real world.
That is horse hockey from the start. It is obvious you have NO EXPERIENCE with making field measurements.
Do you really believe the standards issued by the WMO are pulled from someone’s arse with no scientific study whatsoever? If so, that is damning evidence of just how terrible the whole edifice of temperature measurement actually is.
Here is a table from the ASOS station manual issued by NOAA.
Are you going to tell us that NOAA overstates the uncertainty of temperature measurements? TRY AGAIN.
The UAH_TLT data set, which measures the average temperature of the lower troposphere across land and oceans, has just set its 14th consecutive new monthly temperature record. It’s right there in the sidebar of this site.
Only now do we discover that this is entirely due to the apparent proximity of a land surface station to solar panels and the landing of a jet at Heathrow airport in 2022.
I bet the mainstream media don’t even mention this!
Yes, It has been a strong long-lasting El Nino, hasn’t it.
Where is the evidence of human causation ??
Where is the evidence of warming from CO2 ??
No human causation, no CO2 causation = NO AGW !!
You have FAILED yet again.
No mate, the El Nino petered out in May. We’ve been in ENSO neutral conditions since June.
So I think it was definitely the result of that plane landing at Heathrow in 2022. Jet efflux must have hit the Stevenson’s screen and triggered this latest bout of global warming.
I think that’s the most obvious explanation.
In the TOTAL ABSENCE of any evidence of human or CO2 causation….
…you have now admitted that this is not AGW.
You have driven yet another nail into the zombie AGW coffin.
And no, mindless one, the El Nino event has not dissipated…
… even the most mind-numbed moron should be able to see that.
So that mean you are less intelligent than a mind-numbed moron. !
Automated airport runway weather reporting systems serve an important safety purpose, as aircraft take-off performance is significantly affected by ambient temperature, humidity, and winds. That said, this data serves zero legitimate purpose for the determination of climate conditions, as the primary goal is to capture micro-climate conditions created by very localized heat-island effects.
…this data serves zero legitimate purpose for the determination of climate conditions…
Depends where they’re sited. The weather station at the airport I worked at for +30 years is positioned >400m away from any area where aircraft taxi, sheltered from that part of the apron by cargo sheds (themselves ~300m away) and is at right angles to the main runway’s most frequent westerly wind direction.
It is a perfectly reasonable site for monitoring climate data.
Oh look, a complete fantasy comment.. no way you worked.. ever.
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
The reason they put weather sites at airports is because they need to know the current conditions for aircraft. That means the need to be near the runway.
You are LYING through your teeth.