How we laughed when the Met Office declared a UK temperature record of 40.3°C at 3.12pm on July 19th 2022, halfway down the runway at RAF Coningsby at a time when it later transpired three typhoon jets were coming into land. Mirth was unconfined when the ‘record’ that stood for 60 seconds as the temperature briefly spiked by 0.6°C was later declared by the Met Office to be a “milestone in UK climate history”. Now it appears that another nearby and busy RAF station in Lincolnshire is getting in on the ‘joke’ record business. It appears that RAF Waddington also declared a record high on the same day of 40.3°C and this has been entered into the archive run by the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA). This is despite the Met Office itself calling the Waddington reading ‘suspect’ due to an application of weedkiller. Quite why this should disqualify a temperature recording four feet from the ground when jet exhaust does not is unclear, and the excuse has a touch of the ‘dog ate my homework’ about it.
Weedkiller or not, the 40.3°C recording at Waddington has found its way into the Met Office Midas Open dataset. This is said to be one of CEDA’s most popular datasets, containing historical meteorological observations back from the present to the 18th century. Popular with future scientists no doubt who will be able to point to two 40.3°C records, happy to disregard any airport heat corruptions and the even more severe warmth that seems to emanate from an application of paraquat.
Shout out again to citizen super-sleuth Ray Sanders who is undertaking a forensic review of the Met Office’s UK temperature stations (existent and non-existent) along with an examination of the operation’s published readings and data. He recently queried the archived Waddington recording and was told that “at the time” the data point was suspect due to the weedkiller treatment. He notes that the Met Office is clearly in a quandary since it has claimed the reading is suspect but the numbers passed into the archive can only have come from it. Any doubts about Coningsby can be hand-waved away with “‘peer-reviewed scientific’ data proving that such a high temperature was also ‘recorded’ elsewhere”, suggests Sanders.
The Met Office clearly owes the public and the scientific community a full explanation. Mistakes may be made with routine numbers, “but how likely with the alleged all-time UK high?” asks Sanders.
Regular readers will recall that Ray Sanders was behind the recent discovery that the Met Office had been inventing temperature averages at 103 non-existent sites. The Met Office even went so far as to supply coordinates, elevations and purposes of the imaginary sites. Following massive interest across social media and frequent reposting of a Daily Sceptic article, the Met Office discretely renamed its database as ‘location specific’ and removed station coordinates. A subsequent ‘fact check’ from Science Feedback that appeared to have been largely written by the Met Office claimed that average data from some stations was not “fabricated” but estimated using “well-correlated related neighbouring stations”. This is said to be a scientific method that is published in peer-reviewed literature. At the time, the Daily Sceptic highlighted the case of Cawood in the West Riding of Yorkshire, a pristine class 1 site with no unnatural heat corruptions and a record of excellent readings going back to 1959. Insert Cawood into the Met Office’s renamed ‘location specific’ database and no record of 30-year temperatures is available. Instead there is a reference to four other estimated stations that no longer exist, and a fifth that is 27 miles away and at a higher elevation.
Sanders has now come up with an even worse example of these imaginary readings. Just when you thought things could not get worse, he investigates the location of Norwich. This is an area closely associated with some of the Met Office’s work, with connections to the University of East Anglia and past TV recordings from a local weather centre. There have been numerous temperature recordings in Norwich since 1873, but none are supplied under ‘location specific’ Norwich. Instead the long-term average temperature for the cell area is provided from five closed stations inventing data, despite nearby open sites. Sanders is not inclined to be charitable, noting: “The facts are quite simple, the vast majority of all the Met Office’s supposedly Climate Average data is covertly concocted by a system only accepted by a tiny cabal of anonymous peer reviewers operating a witches brew of contrived data that is a closely guarded secret.”
Temperature measurements play a vital role in promoting the politicised Net Zero fantasy, so it is no accident that green activists in state-run weather operations such as the Met Office have weaponised the data. But the collecting systems were never designed to offer the precision claimed down to one hundredth of a degree centigrade. Almost the entire Met Office temperature network is blasted by unnatural heat, while rough estimates of data are widespread throughout the system. Under the World Meteorological Organisation classification system, almost 80% of the Met Offices sites are in junk classes 4 and 5 with ‘uncertainties’ of 2°C and 5°C respectively.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans have caused most global warming over the last 100 years but the UN body cannot know this and it is actually unprovable. All of these anthropogenic scares that lead to mass science ignorance and psychosis are the product of computer models attempting to measure a chaotic and non-linear atmosphere. Many of the important influences on weather and long-term climate such as water vapour and clouds are little understood. It is impossible to measure the contribution of a greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide to any current warming (or cooling) and estimates for a doubled atmospheric amount vary widely from almost nothing in a ‘saturated’ environment to 10°C and over. An unreliable temperature record from both national and frequently upward-adjusted global datasets do little to improve what are just speculative forecasts. In the world of climate computer modelling, making small changes to data going in can lead to large changes in the forecasts going out.
But in the world of ‘settled’ climate science, possibly the most corrupted branch of science the world has ever seen – it’s Garbage in, Gospel out.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
‘Climate deniers often spread doubt as a strategy.’
The above line is meant to derail the public from scrutinising actual data or data collection by accusing a witness of foul play. Suspicion of motive is used to steer the public into binary thinking which is an energy saving method. We all do it at times but propagandists know how to weaponise it. Constant messaging also affects this process. Just inject the words ‘conspiracy theory’ or ‘climate denier’ ( or ‘settled science’) and the public shuts all open windows to keep ‘safe’ and go to ‘trusted sources’, which aligns w legacy media and politicians’ way of handling things.
“trusted sources’”
I’m really struggling with this one. Can you name a mainstream trusted source?
The BBC are a very trusted source.
I wouldn’t turn my back on any gullible idiot that did trust this hotbed of bias and political activists, but trust it they do.
Much of this has to do with the cancellation thing. Correct think only…
We all are, though sometimes I have my doubts about anyone other
than I.
Except for the absence of a legal agreement, mainstream media are effectively a trust formed with a goal to control narratives and reduce competition from alternative information sources.
You can always trust Big Brother.
The opposite of “doubt” is “belief.” The belief in “climate change” borders on the religious, and believers hate to have their beliefs questioned or challenged.
Especially when it potentially affects their prestige and threatens their funding.
I’d be willing to bet that even their prestige takes a back seat to their funding. Some might call it scientific prosti…erm, never-mind.
Point, set, and match. Good game.
Start with “Scientists say” which translates to you must accept authority and you will not be permitted to research back to the source to review the basis of the claim. In other words, you deplorables are incapable of understanding this so we are self-appointing ourselves as your guardians and you must do as you are told.
End with “most vulnerable” which translates to if you care about people you have to accept this even without defining who those are, where they are, what their risk level is, what the threat is. Social justice phraseology or rhetoric if you prefer. Emotionalize the issue to sway public opinion.
legacy media ????
_______________________________________________________________________________
Newly minted sometime in 2024. Make sure you point your nose skyward, arch your eyebrows and speak in reverent tones when you use the term.
Well, i was just tired of using ‘mainstream media’ as they are less and less mainstream.’legacy media’ fits the bill much better i think.
“Misleadia” is the correct term to use, tired or not
The weather reports also always give the highest daily temperature in London. This should not appear in a weather forecast, as it’s in a known urban heat sink. Out in the countryside, just a few miles outside London, the temperature will be around 3C lower at least.
I grew up in SE Virginia but my family moved to the Philadelphia area in the late 1970’s (1977/1978ish). I had never heard of the urban heat island effect before, but they knew about it and reported it on the local Philadelphia news and weather reports regularly, especially in the wintertime. I think they referred to it as a “heat dome” then. We actually lived about 30 miles west of Philly and it was always colder than the reported city temperatures.
In my experience the temperature forecast for London is always stated as being 2 or 3K above the rural areas, for very good reasons.
I used to do shift work at the fringe of London. You noticed the temperature gradient as you moved out of the built up areas.
I did my degree at Imperial College in South Kensington in the late 1970’s and I was always amazed at the huge temperature difference between Central London and rural Hertfordshire, where my parents lived.
In the East Midlands most weather forecasts do usually include “rural areas will be several degrees cooler” or similar. That’s about as far as it goes.
I live in a small town in the north. Even here, I can drive out of town into the surrounding fields and watch the temperature drop by 1C and rise again when I get to the next town.
On July 19, 2022, London experienced its hottest day ever, with Heathrow Airport recording 40.2 °C breaking the previous record of 38.7°C.
I wonder why? (Figure below including a NO2 concentration map – a good proxy to surface temperatures showing the UHI effect.
They know it’s a joke, we know it’s a joke. They know that we know they know….
But the narrative must be maintained and the pressure piled on.
“UK’s 40C heatwave ‘basically impossible’ without climate change”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62335975
Or more accurately “UK’s 40C heatwave ‘basically impossible’ without a runway”. But this is attribution territory and the cause has been fingered:
“Without human-caused climate change these would have been 2C to 4C cooler, the experts say.” N.B. An expert, in this paradigm, is somebody who doesn’t know the difference between their fundament and their elbow – but they do know how they feel.
“The findings are released by the World Weather Attribution group – a collection of leading climate scientists who meet after an extreme weather event to determine whether climate change made it more likely.”
To determine if? No, to point the finger every time without fail…
“…scientists use a combination of looking at temperature records dating back through time, and complex mathematical models that assess how human-caused climate change affects the weather.”
Not if, but to what degree.
Little makes any sense on this side of the pond. Now that Starmer has discovered his inner Churchill in Ukraine and wants to beef up defence spending and procurement…
“Britain becomes only G7 country unable to make new steel” – The Telegraph
Bonkers.
I never really understood how a statistical construct affects weather.
The fact is weather causes climate change in that it alters the 30 year running average second by second.
I’m still not convinced the Earth has a climate, let alone an average temperature – local, yes; global, no.
You may also doubt that Venus, Mars and other planets have climates. But despite your doubts they do, and so does Earth.
Average temperature of a planet is not a useful metric for many reasons. But a range of temperatures is, as well a median value and most typical values. And we can certainly say that Venus, Earth and Mars have climates with very different temperature ranges and median values.
Terrestrial surface temperatures vary between about +90 C, and -90 C. Lunar temperatures vary between about -245 C, and +125 C.
Thank God for an atmosphere, if you are human.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not make it hotter, obvious to anybody with a brain who accepts reality.
It really doesn’t matter how much shrieking alarmists try to terrify people, facts don’t change.
No GHE. Humans live in hot places, humans live in cold places. Such is life.
According to our high priest…
Humans are a ‘plague on Earth – D Attenborough https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/humans-are-a-plague-on-earth-sir-david-attenborough-warns-that-negative-effects-of-population-growth-will-come-home-to-roost-8461570.html#
From that article:
“It’s not just climate change. It’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde”
Annual food production in the world is something like an order of magnitude more mass than all eight billion humans combined. I live in a very landlocked part of the USA, where annual temperature variations of -30⁰ to +40⁰C are fairly common, and there’s empty land in all directions out to the horizon. Cattle probably outnumber humans in this general area…
The Population Bomb from the 1960s.
We must eliminate the deplorables.
You will have nothing and you will be happy for your greatly reduce lifespan.
Additional CO2 in the air causes more IR from daytime heating to be absorbed by the CO2 which causes the 2500 air molecules surrounding the one C02 molecule to vibrate a bit more. Molecular vibrations are temperature…so MF is wrong…the effect is small to the point where you can almost say MF is correct, about 1/3 of a degree per 100 ppm increase, which takes about 100 years at the present rate at which oil companies can fill the demand for hydrocarbon fuel.
“halfway down the runway at RAF Coningsby at a time when it later transpired three typhoon jets were coming into land”
More debunked furphies being perpetuated by the Daily Sceptic. The thermometer at Coningsby was not halfway down the runway. It was 240 m away.
Plus, of course, there were 5 other stations over 40C (plus Waddington) and at least 34 that broke the previous record.
Nick
You were thousands of miles away, of course you know what it was really like on the day.
In Urban South London – ie high UHI – it was 38.3, but then there is no runway nearby. Of course, Heathrow is only 8 miles down the road from here where it was, apparently,40.2C
It’s out in the sticks away from the city….
Strat as you are no doubt aware in English Law (I’m not sure about Scottish and Irish) computer evidence cannot be disputed.
The government is asking for opinions on this.
Current principles around the use of evidence generated by computer software in criminal proceedings were established over two decades ago, with the common law presumption that a computer was operating correctly unless there is evidence to the contrary. In simple terms, ‘the computer is always right’, unless someone can show it is not.
https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/use-of-evidence-generated-by-software-in-criminal-proceedings/use-of-evidence-generated-by-software-in-criminal-proceedings-call-for-evidence
The government will do as it pleases- regardless
I think they are still paying out for the post office computer faults.
nick, i am not going to question the distance measurement in you picture, but i would like to make a few observations/questions.
“do you think this location is well suited as a data collection point in the experiment.”
He does… “More debunked furphies”
For the cause, Nick is a real trooper.
If you’re a pilot it’s perfectly situated. If you want to use it for weather forecasting or climate purposes it’s absolutely useless. Weather stations on airfields are there for use by pilots and for nothing else whatsoever.
“If you’re a pilot it’s perfectly situated.”
If you are a pilot, you want to know the temperature. And if it says 40.3C, well, it’s 40.3C. If you’re interested in climate, it is still 40.3C.
Whatever. It’s a good data point for the pilot, it’s a bad data point for the “climate.”
If the official reporting station air temperature at a given airport is driven artificially high by the hot gas exhausts of jets taking off/landing/taxiing it is NOT “good data” for the pilots or anyone else.
Typically, the air temperature along a runway is not driven artificially high by the exhausts from jets due to their dilution and sideways displacement from prevailing ambient-temperature winds, however slight.
WTF are you on about? Takeoff distance is a function of air temperature, among other things. Not doing the research but I doubt a pilot needs to know the temperature any more accurately than + a couple degrees either way. An inaccurate reading may mean little to nothing to a pilot but seems to mean everything to a climate believer.
Did I make any mention of “takeoff distance” in my previous post to which you replied . . . nope, don’t think so.
Too bad you didn’t do a little research on the topic of aviation weather. Under certain, but not uncommon conditions, a temperature difference of less that 1 degree-C can mean the difference between heavy ground fog (making even taxiing aircraft impossible) and the absence of any ground fog.
BTW, I do believe in climate. It is a real thing and has been present on Earth for billions of years. You?
Now, you were saying something about WTF . . .
Hold on Nick – isn’t “climate” supposed to be what we all experience as the average of what happens over 30 years in a particular zone.
Not just one reading on a hot summer afternoon somewhere around tea time?
Would you judge “the climate” at Moyhu based on one hot summer afternoon around beer o’clock?
Your response beggars belief. You may as well set up a weather station in the middle of a steel works and say that is ok for climate purposes too.
That’s great! I love the transparant way you think! For ALL to see..
If you are a pilot, you want to know what the temperature on the runway is. The temperature in the parking lot, or in nearby woods is meaningless.
This has been explained to you many times. I wonder when you will be paid to understand it?
you want to know what the temperature on the runway is
Longer distance needed for higher temperatures, so if the reported temperature is lower than the actual, that’s not good.
Funny how NOAA decided that CRN stations needed to be free of human UHI effects for climate science.
So, totally unrepresentative of the general regional temperature.
Finally, Nick gets there.
Sorry, but did you notice that smaller “road” less than 15 meters away? That’s the taxiway, where jets travel to the end of the runway for take-off. I would presume it can be awash in jet wash.
It’s not. But anyway, the version of the furphy here is that the jets were coming in to land.
These stories are infinitely changeable. Not near the rinway? OK, near the taxiway. Or near a building. Or something.
But there were dozens of similar readings in all sorts of places, urban and rural, that day. And you can’t make up stories for all of them, that just happened hat day. Except that it was a very hot day.
In Urban South London – ie high UHI – it was 38.3, but then there is no runway nearby. Of course, Heathrow is only 8 miles down the road from here where it was, apparently,40.2C It’s out in the sticks away from the city….
Can you explain a 2 degree difference across a mere 8 miles?
Can you explain why 38.3C was recorded there, hotter than had ever been recorded in UK previously? Was there a sudden outburst of UHI?
Remember they used to have those vertical take-off and landing jets? Maybe the RAF deployed dozens of those beside weather stations all over the south of England?
That was the real temperature, Nick. You were saying…
It was still a record. Never before recorded.
Nick, you’ve proven in the past that you aren’t this stupid?
No there was not a one day increase in UH, there have always been heat waves, these heat waves sit on top of UHI that has been continually increasing for over a century.
“Was there a sudden outburst of UHI?”
Starts about 10am.. goes well past sunset.
Your point is well made that UHI has a big effect on temperatures, max and especially min.
Ok, then what is it? How do jets get to/from the east end of the runway if they need to take off in a westerly direction or land in an easterly direction?
And even 240m away, jet wash at 550 to 850C from three planes landing in quick succession might have some impact, don’tcha think?
No. Hot air rises fast.
Lol
. . . except when it is entrained in a vortex, as exists in the exhaust efflux from an operating jet turbine engine, as occurs upon takeoffs, landings and taxiing.
Matters not, a vortex is not magic and cannot fool the laws of thermodynamics.
As Nick says (as do I elsewhere on here) Hot air rises, and very hot air risesn very quickly.
Besides that there is the problem of the station thermograph trace showing the temp hovering around 40C for ~ 2 hrs!.
Now that is a very persistent “vortex” … or perhaps there were hundreds of Typhoons landing one after the other !!
FYI: there are ~ 30 typhoons based at RAF Coningsby.
Strange. A few weeks ago you claimed convection could be ‘blocked’. Now it operates ‘very quickly’. Apparently a variable dependent on what garbage you want to promote this week.
Hmmmm . . . please show your work, and better define your term “around”. Would that be +/- 0.5 deg-C or perhaps +/- 3 deg-C over those claimed ~2 hours?
The above article clearly states in its second sentence:
“Mirth was unconfined when the ‘record’ that stood for 60 seconds as the temperature briefly spiked by 0.6°C was later declared by the Met Office to be a ‘milestone in UK climate history’.” {my bold emphasis added}. I guess you missed those references to “60 seconds” and “briefly spiked”.
So how much thrust is needed for taxiing?
Just enough to overcome the rolling “friction” of the aircraft’s tires. Physics 101.
Next question.
Nick found making shit up yet again.
Lets deal with facts there are any number of papers showing lidar studies of jet exhaust plumes at airports. The vertical rise in the plumes is not much more that 12-15m the horizontal spread is hundreds of meters.
Glenn Swartz published a paper at NOAA about the issue about Miami International airport way back in 1978 before all the climate change zealots went into full crazy mode.
http://nwafiles.nwas.org/digest/papers/1978/Vol03No3/1978v003no03-Schwartz.pdf
I don’t think anyone would be allowed to publish this sort of thing these days because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
“The vertical rise in the plumes is not much more that 12-15m”
And the thermometer sits at less thn 2m.
But the plume is directional – down the runway or taxiway or whatever. The thermometer here was 240 m orthogonal to the runway. It’s even 50 m orthogonal to the taxiway (which was not used by the jets).
Nick when you are making a fool of yourself stop digging … go and read the studies.
Even one of the few papers actually on the exact point said and lets quote it because the siting is about the same.
“These artificial, local effects have raised the night time temperatures at the airport much more than they normally would have. This effect
probably exists at many major airports around the world where the official thermometer is so close to the taxi and runways. Therefore, studies of climatic change involving such airports are “corrupted” by these anomalous readings”
You are happy to corrupt temperature data and support corrupting temperature data for random reasons (caveat as long as the result says the right thing). However when you face clear facts that contradicts you then you don’t provide any evidence you just make crap up … NICK KNOWS BEST APPROACH.
Now any real scientist would do the obvious test for falsification of jets having an effect described in the article. Run the night time temps alone and compare them to history and surrounds but hey that is science not Nick knows.
Actually, it can, but it doesn’t always. A lot depends on wind speed.
Come on Nick, they can’t be paying you enough to make this big a fool of yourself.
[what have a said about responding more than three times to another user?-ctm]
Try standing even a safe distance behind a jet engine exhaust before take off and tell us how little temperature increase you feel as all the hot air rises. Fluid flow is fluid flow, with, or without convection.
Also, vortex flow from a jet engine exhaust has a characteristic tendency to enlarge radially as it moves downstream along its bulk motion vector from the point of origin. Then too, such exhaust “plumes” can be displaced both horizontally and vertically (up/down) by ambient wind flows.
See Leon de Boer’s spot-on post above referencing the Glenn Schwartz 1978 paper.
Ha! in a balloon! Have you ever been near the tail end of a taxiing jet? I don’t think so. There’s a significant horizonal vector to the exhaust.
Newton’s Laws large aircraft going one way, hot exhaust gasses going the other way at higher velocity.
Yes, especially for over a time period of a 60 second spike in the data.
“But anyway, the version of the furphy here is that the jets were coming in to land.”
did they glide in?
Nick may I remind you almost 80% of the Met Offices stations are in class 4 and 5 of the WMO’s classification which states
Class 4 “has additional estimated uncertainties of up to 2 degrees C”
Class 5 “has additional estimated uncertainties of up to 5 degrees C”
Only 6.3% of its stations are in class 1 and 7.4% in class 2 regarded as “pristine” or “almost pristine” by WMO
According to the warmistas, they can figure out what the error is by comparing it to dozens of other sites with equal and greater error.
Amazingly enough, the errors always require recent readings to be warmed, and older readings to be cooled.
“Nick may I remind you almost 80% of the Met Offices stations are in class 4 and 5 of the WMO’s classification which states”
And may I remind you that that is as a consequence of the latitude of the UK in casting shadows and also because we are a densely populated, small country.
Err, we cant move the UK south and grow bigger to accomodate you. Sorry ….
“WMO Siting Classifications were designed with reference to a wide range of global environments and the higher classes can be difficult to achieve in the more-densely populated and higher latitude UK. For example, the criteria for a Class 1 rating for temperature suits wide open flat areas with little or no human influenced land use and high amounts of continuous sunshine reaching the screen all year around, however, these conditions are relatively rare in the UK. Mid and higher latitude sites will, additionally, receive more shading from low sun angles than some other stations globally, so shading will most commonly result in a higher CIMO classification – most Stevenson Screens in the UK are class 3 or 4 for temperature as a result but continue to produce valid high-quality data. WMO guidance does, in fact, not preclude use of Class 5 temperature sites – the WMO classification simply informs the data user of the geographical scale of a site’s representativity of the surrounding environment – the smaller the siting class, the higher the representativeness of the measurement for a wide area. Indeed, it should be noted that WMO Class 5 is not the same as a Met Office ‘Unsatisfactory’ inspection assessment, which ultimately determines the ongoing use of a site. We use the Met Office grading system to determine record verification because; it has historical relevance, covering a wide range of long-standing criteria at UK observation sites, the equipment, and the exposure in a holistic manner and has clear meaning to what is acceptable or not. It tells us how much confidence we have in the data and permits comparisons. ”
https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/observations/observation-site-classification#:~:text=These%20WMO%20classifications%20focus%20on,and%20Class%205%20the%20lowest.
Blah, Blah, Blah.
Nothing you have said results in measurement uncertainty being less.
All you are accomplishing is verifying that the stations have a large uncertainty when comparesd to results to the thousandths digit.
Thanks for showing that basically ALL UK weather sites are totally unfit for the purpose of measuring temperature changes over time.
In your world, planes only use taxiways for taking off, they use something else for landing?
Question is not so much whether there was an all time max, but whether over recent decades UK summer temps have warmed materially. What is the evidence for this? Answer: there is none.
As to the famous summer in question. I was there for the peak period. In the mornings it was a pleasantly fresh start to the day, about warm enough for coffee outside in the garden. Then as the day went on it got about as warm as a New York or Chicago summer day. The house, with windows shut and sun facing curtains drawn, was pleasantly cool without air con. As is usual in the UK. Nights it was pleasantly fresh.
All in all it was a couple of weeks of very nice hot summer weather.
Meanwhile the news showed two things. One was a series of draconian warnings to the effect that everyone should avoid going out, particularly the elderly, drink lots of water etc. This was evidently not only unprecedented heat but it was really dangerous. The second thing it showed was masses of Britons flocking to parks and beaches to enjoy the warm weather! Evidently they were delighted not to have to travel to the Med to get it, and did not realize they were risking their lives from the unprecedented heat they were exposed to.
The overall impression was that the political and media classes had lapsed into a collective weather hysteria which was not shared by the mass of the population.
Was the temperature at these bases unprecedented? No idea, you’d have to go into how previous temperature maxes were recorded, if they were. It was by a very small amount, if they were. More important is, does it matter?
No. The country is so placed geographically that every now and again warmth driven by weather systems comes up from the great desert to the south east. If its a bit over or under previous years its of no significance. The warm spells are generally to be welcomed. In the 1970s there was such a year, with, if memory serves, a longer hot spell. There always have been occasional hot summers in England, and probably the mass of the population wishes there were more.
I was there in summer 1975, which was indeed warm. 1976 was even warmer, setting a UK record at Cheltenham of 36.9C.
But there is the thing. No day before 1976 had recorded more than 36.9C, and the record stood for some years. Jets came and went. But now we have several places recording over 40C.
Same measuring technology?
Yes. Don’t know the answer, but the question is the right one, did max temp in 1935 mean the max temp when the reading was taken, whereas now does it mean the max temp that was recorded by a min-max device that day?
But, whatever, I cannot see that it matters much. You get the rare right combination of weather patterns and hot air from the Sahara will be brought up to the UK. That will result in heat waves, and its quite possible it will result in record temperatures in some locations. It just depends on the wind, the strength and persistence of the high pressure zone.
I don’t know whether 1976 and earlier temps were measured in exactly the same way, but I cannot see that it shows anything. The English weather is very variable. Its what you get living on an island with a great ocean to the west, the Arctic to the north, a continental land mass to the east, and a great desert to the south. And a jet stream blowing in from the west at varying latitudes carrying weather systems at varying speeds across it. So you do get both rapidly moving and almost stationary weather systems with high and low pressure systems. You do get occasional regional deluges, wet summers, cold summers, hot summers. Same with the other seasons.
You get wind droughts, you get dramatic blizzards in March… and so on.
This has no bearing on global warming. People need to stop seizing on every little event and wailing in terror. Its just a hot summer. Well, lets hope this one is!
“did max temp in 1935 mean the max temp when the reading was taken, whereas now does it mean the max temp that was recorded by a min-max device that day?”
No. Like the rest of the world, UK used min/max thermometers, which mechanically marked the daily max. Modern thermometers keep a high frequency digital record, from which the max is recovered. But as Anthony said, there is usually an old style thermometer for comparison, which wouldbe used for record verification.
There are backup mercury-in-glass maximum thermometers, which come into the verification process …
https://www.metcheck.co.uk/products/gh-zeal-3511-sheathed-maximum-thermometer.
not doubting you but are you saying the station uses two totally different measuring instruments to collect critical temp data? why not use two identical units? if i were designing the experiment i would use two identical instruments.
That is what NOAA did when they designed the CRN stations. In fact those stations use three thermometers.
total bollox.
1976 was the hottest summer.
I remember it well as we had a WELL which ran out of water in the autumn.
Never happened before and not after.
Well, there’s always the Met Office.
The warming rate in average UK summer temperatures is +0.22C per decade since 1990; a full increase of +0.8C in 35-years.
But in the south of England (see chart), where these temperatures were recorded, maximum summer temperatures have increased at a rate of +0.25C per decade over the same period; a total increase of +0.9C.
That’s pretty material, no?
As I said in my reply to Nick Stokes earlier almost 80% of the Met Offices stations are in class 4 and 5 of the WMO’s classification, the two lowest classes with additional uncertainties of up to 2 and 5 degrees C respectively.
All the temps data used for climate analysis are wonderfully reliable, except for demonstrable problems with their
PROBITY
PROVENANCE
PROSECUTION
Other than those quibbles, they’re all good to go. 🙁
And I have replied to that denialosphere get-of-jail-free myth.
So if evidence disagrees with our belief that there is no warming then we just find some other reason to discard it.
Then we shout “There is no evidence of warming!”
Most helpful.
TFN, you again totally misrepresent the positions of most AGW skeptics.
It’s not that earth is incrementally warming up as it exits a glacial era, it is.
But AGW acolytes’ claims that human activities that emit CO2 are the sole cause of accepted incremental warming are rejected outright.
Further, that mankind can do anything to control the weather globally is also treated as arrant nonsense.
But then your lot wants the world to buy your “package” that CO2 is the sole control knob of earth’s weather, and only discarding fossil-fuel energy and wholesale installation of windmills and sun mirrors can save us from an existential threat.
No sale!
Well, there’s always the Met Office.
If you need a laugh
You can always get your weather and climate data from ‘Billy-down-the-pub’, but the UKMO is pretty reliable these days.
That’s pretty material, no?
Yes, 0.8C in 35 years is material. The summer highs I don’t think are. Have to look at this in more detail and over a longer period.
Classic example of urban warming due to population increase, bad sites and agenda data manipulation.
Let’s look at one of the most unaffected weather sites in the region, Valentia.
You can easily see (blue data) that the decade 1930-1940 was warmer on average than any other decade.
As I’ve said to you before (at least twice) – it was because Valentia has prevailing SW to W’ly winds straight off the Atlantic and that period saw the only time in the instrumental record where both the PDO and the AMO were in their +ve (warm) phase. the answer comes from knowing meteorology and in this case the fact that the oceans were warm – and not spewing out graphs that you think supports your myths on Climate.
[engage in good faith or don’t engage. Ha ha you’re not doing science doesn’t cut it ~ctm]
No, .9C would not be noticeable to anyone, it’s inconsequential.
You have never studied the heat plume of a jet exhaust.
As a point of reference, the temperature of the gas in a jet engine exhaust ranges from 600 C to 1500 C depending on the engine and that exhaust has the energy to propel a 16,000 kg mass to high speeds.
As a point of reference, a jet engine exhaust velocity ranges from 200 to 300 m/s.
Plume dispersion and dissipation are not instantaneous. Seconds to minutes after passing, the plume reaches your thermometer. It remains long enough (minutes or longer) to affect the reading.
And add to it, there were 3 typhoons.
If CO2 from a coal power plant in West Virginia can affect the M.L. CO2 readings, then is it not possible that the high temperature jet exhaust can affect a thermometer that is 0.15 mile away?
excellent post. it caused me to think of another observation to add a 5th question to my earlier post.
joe x
Reply to
Nick Stokes
March 28, 2025 5:22 am
nick, i am not going to question the distance measurement in you picture, but i would like to make a few observations/questions.
sorry, i just re-read the report, 60 seconds.
60 seconds pretty much proves it was jet exhaust contamination, regardless of what Nick is paid to believe.
What about all the other phantom jets that must have caused similar warming at the same time and in the same general area?
Where did they all suddenly spring from? Your mind?
I didn’t read the report. was it an actual 60 seconds or was it 60 seconds between readings?
Answered in my post elsewhere on here.
But further …
2) The wind was not blowing from the close-by hangars to the screen, but away. The wind was southerly blowing across literally acres of grass and south of the A/F miles and miles of agricultural land.
3) “The moment” was within the ~ 2 hrs that the temp hovered around 40C.
4) Yes.
5) Around 2 hrs.
Report says 60 seconds.
Other posts say temperature is recorded once per hour.
i missed the wind direction and the 2hr temperature information from the story…i will review.
“how long did the station remain at 40.3c?”
Tony has posted the graph. It was over 40C between 2pm and nearly 6pm. Jets can’t do that.
“You have never studied the heat plume of a jet exhaust.”
And how do you know that?
Then tell me why I never observed a jet exhaust temp spike in all my years serving in Met Offices at RAF airfields !
“And add to it, there were 3 typhoons.”
Indeed …and to add further – the thermo trace shows that the temp hovered around 4C for ~ 2 hours.
Now that is an amazing feat for any Jet exhaust!!
There’s no convincing these people, Anthony.
This is a cult we are dealing with here.
The Venn diagram that incorporates man-made climate change denialism, Trumpism, vaccine efficacy denial, ‘UPF is good for you’, etc, etc… it’s a circle.
Says one of the AGW acolytes whose cult worships at the feet of child ‘leaders’ like Greta Thunberg.
This is a cult we are dealing with here.
No, this is quite wrong. There are plenty of intelligent informed people of good faith who rationally doubt the climate crisis narrative. And who don’t share the other views you list.
If you want to make your case on the various components of the climate crisis narrative, including net zero and renewables, the first thing you have to do is understand that. Permitting yourself to feel, and express, general contempt for dissenters is going to make argument let alone persuasion impossible. You’ll just end up provoking the same dismissive comments in return and get nowhere.
And if your views get general currency in the political class of a country, as they seem to have done in the UK and US, at some point you all will have provoked what you most dread: Trump, Vance and Farage.
This is what happens when the less articulate are treated as deplorables because they hold some view that progressives think beneath contempt. They end up reminding the political class that they have votes. In the UK they reminded first Brown and then Corbyn of that, then Sunak, and they will remind Starmer and Miliband as soon as they get a chance..
If you are looking for cultish thinking on climate, I would start with the truly crazy idea that a modern industrial society can run its electricity generation on wind and solar, while simultaneously moving its transport to EVs and its home heating to heat pumps. This is believing three impossible things before breakfast, its the land of classic mass delusion. As the British are going to find out in the next few years.
Yes, I know … it’s like that idiot Marg T Green and the “Jewish space lasers” setting off the Cali forest fires.
LOL: Anything will do in order to explain away something your ideological predilection cannot contemplate. Beyond pathetic.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trump-primary-mtg-conspiracies-aliens-b2507830.html
Ever study Nyquist?
Nick,
You obviously do not understand that “halfway down the runway” refers to distance measured along the direction of the runway, and NOT to a measurement lateral (i.e., 90 degrees) to that direction.
Sad that you took the effort to post a nice overhead photo with overlaid distance scale that has no bearing on the claim under consideration . . . but why am I not surprised by that fact?
And about 30M from an asphalt taxi way, and right next to an asphalt parking lot and buildings. It’s not suitable even for government work.
Totally suitable for rampant propaganda, though.
No wonder the trolls are trying so hard to justify this site as a “climate ” site..
…. and only managing to show how utterly useless it is for that purpose.
Thanks for showing the weather site, with sheds and tar really close.
And yes, gusts from jet exhaust can easily travel 240m if the breeze is the right direction.
Pretending that jet engines do not add to nearby temperature is getting desperate.
The only possible useful comment on Stokes.
You CRETIN!
Did you ever live in the countryside?
Ever bother to travel into a city?
In summer?
I can confidently forecast this record will be frequently eclipsed in coming years. UK is too close to the ocean to get the 50+C degrees that are common in Australia’s interior but 40+ should be easily achievable as the summer solar intensity increases. The peak solar intensity in Australia is Australia is 80W/m^2 up on what the UK experiences. But the UK will eventually get close to the same peak levels now experienced in Australia.
The two certainties in northern hemisphere climate is new maximum temperature records and new snowfall records. The maximum temperature will continue the upward trend until the ice starts to accumulate again and extend across the Northern land masses. Greenland and a few northern slopes near the Arctic Ocean are the only place that are currently gaining ice extent. But the warmer oceans lead to greater snowfall and the ever increasing snowfall will first accumulateon the peaks and northern slopes then flow into the valleys.
Greenland’s Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier is already thickening and advancing. Early indication of the accumulation phase of the next glaciation cycle has begun and Earth is only 500 years year into a 9,500 year cycle of increasing solar intensity in the NH.
Shame on you! Don’t you know the sun has nothing to do with it?
The science is settled!
/major dose of sarcasm
This article is as much a joke as the climate catastrophe cult’s ill informed propaganda. First off, NO airport meteorological data is fit for the purpose of tracking climate. So any entity using said data for that purpose is either ignorant or lying. Second, landing jet fighters are NOT going to alter the airport weather readings, nor are the airport weather data reading in 60 second intervals.
Airport weather stations are designed for aeronautical safety. The temperature, dewpoint, pressure, wind speed and direction are absolutely critical factors for aircraft parameter settings for take off and landing. As such there are hourly, and sometimes less than an hour updates to the official “METAR” information, which is available online and on automated radio broadcasts from every manned and even many unmanned airports.
METAR is an acronym for METeorological Aerodrome Report. Here is the report for RAF Coningsby, which is technically EGXC as to identifier for the airport:
https://aviationweather.gov/data/metar/?decoded=1&ids=EGXC&hours=24
As you can see, the data is recorded every hour and it is not subject to intermittent and temporary fluctuations such as wind gust cooling or engine exhaust heating.
So some nutbar claiming that landing fighter jets caused a high reading are full of manure. In part because landing fighter jets have their engines at idle at touchdown and braking, but also because of the imperative that the data is accurate and reflects the actual conditions at the field so the data has a buffering system or mechanism to exclude temporary of transient fluctuations.
Again it is imperative that accurate air condition (temp, dewpoint, pressure, wind, etc) is known or devastating accidents would occur otherwise. Aircraft use pressure altimeters and you must set the calibration to the actual field conditions for both takeoff and landing. Also you must know if icing conditions exist, to engage anti ice systems, also you must be able to calculate whether you have enough runway to either take off or land and stop depending on the air conditions.
So having weather stations on the airport grounds, and sometimes several stations if the airport is humongous like at Denver is a critical safety issue for air travel. These data ARE NOT FIT for the purpose of tracking climate or for that matter local weather either as almost all airport weather data is typically a few degrees higher than surrounding temps – due to heat island of the runways, taxiways, and aprons. But it is fit for aviation safety purposes.
You are barking up the wrong tree to poo poo airport weather data on it’s own. Those data sources are critical to air travel safety. If you need to wail, do so against the powers that be for including airport data in long term weather or climate tracking. The problem is, METAR data is generated every hour at close to 69,000 sites globally, so it’s enticing to asinine number crunchers with a climate catastrophe agenda.
“First off, NO airport meteorological data is fit for the purpose of tracking climate. “
The UK Met Office begs to differ.
Heathrow temperature record today as Met Office says 40.2C recorded
We have tried to tell them.
On the other hand, it’s concerning if a few tenths of a degree of an airport temperature reading significantly impact airport safety. But all factors can have a cumulative effect, so we should stack them on a conservative basis.
Interestingly, perception even plays a role in aviation safety. It’s now believed by some that ground crews plowing only a section of the gave somewhat inexperienced pilots a false visual cue that they were higher than they actually were.
So, an aircraft passing at the time of measurement cannot affect the measurement?
Also, jet plume exhausts do not instantaneously go away.
Otherwise, I agree. It is asinine to use airport temperatures to prove an impending climate apocalypse.
The fact that jets can and do impact temperature readings has been well known for decades. The numbers given to pilots are filtered and averaged to remove the known spikes.
The Met on the other hand takes the absolute readings and is only interested in the highest and lowest spikes and dips for each day.
“The problem is, METAR data is generated every hour at close to 69,000 sites globally, so it’s enticing to asinine number crunchers with a climate catastrophe agenda.”
Weather data is recorded there continuously as the traces I have posted elsewhere show.
METARS are indeed for aviation. … And the continuous weather data for climat purposes.
Climate data is not taken from hourly METAR temps (which are reported to whole degrees anyway).
Every hour, but, but, but the record stood for 2 hours even though the log listed it once.
If the MET wants a really high temperature record which they seem to, I suggest they place the airport thermometer(s) at the end of each runway; the ends were aircraft most often take off from, depending on the wind of course.
By the way, was it unprecedented? Here is Jane Austen in September 1796:
“What dreadful hot weather we have! It keeps one in a continual state of inelegance”
Quite. Plus ca change.
Clearly the data from the Met Office are fantasy. Quite fitting actually for a country that is rapidly becoming a theme park were the only revenue is generated by tourists gawping at the remnants of a once advanced society now defunct through corruption, incompetence and ignorance.
“Anthropogenic warming”? Yeah, we made it up.
product of computer models attempting to measure a chaotic and non-linear atmosphere
Using linear, trend analysis software that are curve fitted to roughly match past records built on the primary assumption that CO2 is the “control knob.”
WOW! What a well-written and data-supported summary article by Chris Morrison/Daily Sceptic, referencing the excellent, detailed investigative work of Ray Sanders.
I especially appreciate that neither of these attempted to “sugar coat” the misfeasance and malfeasance of the MET Office in manipulating its “recorded” temperature datasets. As exemplified by these two statements:
— “The facts are quite simple, the vast majority of all the Met Office’s supposedly Climate Average data is covertly concocted by a system only accepted by a tiny cabal of anonymous peer reviewers operating a witches brew of contrived data that is a closely guarded secret.” (Ray Sanders)
— “Temperature measurements play a vital role in promoting the politicised Net Zero fantasy, so it is no accident that green activists in state-run weather operations such as the Met Office have weaponised the data.” (Chris Morrison/Daily Sceptic)
“WOW! What a well-written and data-supported summary article by Chris Morrison/Daily Sceptic, referencing the excellent, detailed investigative work of Ray Sanders.”
The wow at my end comes from the fact that it is all bollocks.
FYI: I have posted here the real data, supported by my professional knowledge (yes, some appeal to authority indeed).
The fact that it is all lapped up eagerly here (not for the first time, or the last) by so called sceptics not bothering to be sceptical, is of course par for the course and why it is impossible to rid the myths here once begun.
The fact is that one day, while fun to look at doesn’t mean a lot to climate.
Looking at Nicks photo however, I would nominate it for UHI Example of the year! Using it along with stations that have no UHI and claiming averaging removes all measurement uncertainty is a joke.
Got any objective data to back up your claimed “facts”? Even your FYI???
The recorded maximum temperatures from electronic thermometers housed in small screens during sunny windless weather needs to be treated with a large pinch of salt.
Because the high sensitivity of electronic thermometers housed in small screens in such weather conditions makes them unsuitable for getting a true recording of the air temperature. As the temperature recording will be that of the air inside the screen rather then the outside temperature. Where due to the sun having likely been shining on the screen for several hours has heated up the air inside the screen, due to lack of air flow within the screen caused by light winds.
My study has shown that the difference between the air temperatures inside and outside the screen can be as much as 4C.
I find myself having to repost much of what I did back on this thread …..
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/28/exclusive-three-typhoon-jets-landed-next-to-thermometer-when-britains-record-temperature-of-40-3c-was-recorded/
Because of the repeated denial of what was indisputably the hottest day over the UK ever recorded, based on the hottest place being an airfield (horror – with jets no less!)
– when there are 4 stations at 39.9C (still 1.2C above the previous highest) then 3 stations at 1.1C higher, 3 at 0.9C higher etc etc.
I live in the county of Lincolnshire close to the likes of Coningsby, Cranwell, Scampton, Holbeach and Normanby Hall to name the closest record breakers.
You can also add my reading at 38.9C (by far my highest reading in my 10 years living there) at 80m in the Lincs Wolds.
Watching the models leading up to the event (at even the 240hr range) – they were scarily correct in forecasting a plume of hot air advecting from N Africa over Spain and France that was in excess of 24C at 850mb (~5000ft).
Just using basic met to predict a surface temp from that air (DALR + superadiabat) gave 40C+ ….. in fact had the wind been lighter (was F4/5) then 43C was on the cards. As it happens little was added as a super as a result – and why the temp was so homogeneous over a large area.
The 03808 (Camborne SW England) balloon ascent overnight 18/19 July recorded the UK’s highest ever (instrumental) 850mb of 25.2C —– try adding the DALR on that ….Other S English balloon ascents that night had likely seen the hottest 850’s pass over.
https://www.torro.org.uk/extremes/summary#:~:text=Highest%20850%20hPa%20temperature%3A%2025.2,Crawley%20on%2012%20January%201987.
Jets land all the time at Coningsby and 240m is more than enough distance for a hot plume from the exhaust to have risen as a thermal and/or mixed out in the gusty breeze (and they certainly don’t last for 2hrs).
“You were thousands of miles away, of course you know what it was really like on the day”.
I know however….
AS I have worked at RAF Binbrook (1974-1977), RAF Scampton (1983-85), and RAF Cranwell (1986-1991)…. and what’s more in the Met offices there.
Both as an observer passing weather data to ATC and as a Forecaster briefing aircrew.
First – never, ever have I seen a spike recorded on a thermometer from an RAF aircraft jet exhaust – that from either Lightnings, JPs or Hawks.
Basic met has it that hot air rises and V hot air bloody quickly – any exhaust trail coming from a jet landing over 200m away would be well above 2m AGL. No.
The thermo graph also shows the jump in humidity as the thermals died and mixing of drier air aloft was curtailed (a jet exhaust will have lower RH). The S’ly also veered westerly and lessened, marking the passage of the hottest air.
The Typhoons are housed in individual hardened hangars to the south of the rwy and have no need to use the taxiway past the northern hangars
https://www.google.com/maps/place/53%C2%B005'33.0%22N+0%C2%B009'56.0%22W/@53.0934675,-0.1600327,1602m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d53.092485!4d-0.165542?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMyNS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
A surface wind mean ~20 gusting 20-30kph renders any UHI effect from over a concrete pathway as zero to boot.
Temps are not compromised in any way that a scrutiny of the thermograph (as seen on the graph above) and second by second sampling from recorded data would not show up. The 40.3C at Coningsby was audited.
There was no deviation from a remarkably steady temp trace during the duration of the ~40C spell (a factor only seen during damped windy conditions on such days).
“In Urban South London – ie high UHI – it was 38.3, but then there is no runway nearby. Of course, Heathrow is only 8 miles down the road from here where it was, apparently,40.2C ”
RAF Coningsby is NOT Heathrow.
The hottest (advected air) had passed by SE England by the time of max insolation, that is why such high temps were recorded further north over E England.
Yet again we have a fine example of the persistence of a CC denialosphere myth, in that once uttered it liveth forever – the reality be damned.
I predict AI is going to put the climate ‘scientists’ out of business. It’s already doing better medium range weather forecasting than meteorologists.
Very nice Chris, written in plain English.
Yes, Ray does a great job of exposing the parlous state of the majority of UK temperature sites...
.. the the torturous manipulations that the Met goes through to produce their fake temperature series from those unfit-for-purpose sites
While the UK was distracted and looking elsewhere, lunatics and madmen took over its government and major institutions.
Nobody cares about you ruler monkeys’s .237 degree moves. It’s over. Your bs movement is over. Better for you to accept it now and move on to whatever else in life you want to whine about. Nobody cares.