Another shocking example of decades-long invented temperature figures at non-existent UK Met Office measuring stations has come to light. The Lephinmore ‘station’ was situated in the upper reaches of the Firth of Clyde, and according to the “location-specific long-term averages” Met Office database it can supply monthly temperature readings along with rainfall amounts going back to 1960. This supply can be considered a modern scientific wonder given that the actual station closed five months before England won the World Cup in 1966.
The usual form when the Met Office is asked to provide further and better particulars on its invention techniques is for the explanation to be given that batches of figures from “well-correlated neighbouring stations” are modelled by a computer. But in the case of location-specific station Lephinmore, there are no neighbouring stations, well-correlated or otherwise.
The three nearest with any long-term records are CIMO Class 4 ‘junk’ station Dunstaffnage at 27 miles distance, Class 4 Glasgow Bishopton 29 miles away, and the Class 4 airport site 45 miles away at Prestwick Gannet. A station called “Bute: Rothesay” is said to be 18 miles away but this closed some time ago. A new station “Bute: Rothesay No 2” opened in 2012 and this is also in the Class 4 junk portfolio. The considerable distances involved and the ‘junk’ nature of all the sites with internationally recognised uncertainties of up to 2°C, would appear to rule out well-correlation for either a single ‘station’ or a fudged ‘location-specific’ claim.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the idea that an airport site can provide scientific information about likely temperature and rainfall conditions at a rural location 45 miles away is little short of risible. A Class 4 site is unable to give a true ambient air temperature in its own backyard, let alone one tens of miles distance.
This is what is claimed on the Met Office’s public access “location-specific long-term averages” database for Lephinmore. Two option are available to track 30-year average monthly totals from 1961-1990 and 1991-2020. As noted, it is truly a wonder of modern meteorological science that maximum and minimum temperature averages can be calculated from so far away to one hundredth of a degree Centigrade. And local rainfall to two decimal depth points. Such precision indeed!
Citizen super sleuth Ray Sanders has been on this case along with many other ‘smoking guns’ during the course of his forensic examination of the Met Office’s records and claims. He also presented proof of the closure of Lephinmore from February 15th 1966.
After over a year of digging into the state of the Met Office’s temperature network along with the statistics it produces and the modelling that supplies reams of invented data, Sanders is not inclined to be charitable. “An alternative view of this climate averaging system is that it is a work of complete fiction… it is an insult to the public’s intelligence and demonstrates a complete disregard for even the tiniest vestige of scientific credibility,” he suggests. Needless to say, the Met Office takes a different approach, charging that the investigative efforts of a small number of people are “an attempt to undermine decades of robust science around the world’s changing climate”. Unfortunately, the Met Office seems to live in the Net Zero-inspired world of ‘settled’ climate science. It appears blissfully unaware that real world science is only “robust” when it emerges intact after relentless and forensic examination.
The “location-specific long-term averages” database was until recently called “UK climate averages”. It invited the public to select an individual climate station to provide a selected 30-year average. But Sanders revealed that more than a third – 103 out of 302 – of the stations promoted, complete with their supposed coordinates and elevations, did not exist. A hasty rewrite then followed from the Met Office and this explained that the invented data arose from ‘locations’ which may or may not bear any relation to stations that once existed, or indeed exist today. Despite this, as the image above for Lephinmore shows, the data still appear for a named “station”.
A subsequent Science Feedback ‘fact-check’ that seemed to have been largely written by the Met Office said the average data for the closed stations was not “fabricated” but estimated using “well-correlated neighbouring stations”. It’s an explanation for the inventions but as we can see in the case of Lephinmore, the lack of nearby stations, well-correlated or otherwise, draws yet more questions.
Subsequent “undermining” questions from the few then put the cat among the pigeons in the case of Lowestoft. This station was one of only 37 supplying information for a separate “historical” database but it closed in 2010. Lowestoft does not have any well-correlated stations nearby – the nearest are over 35 miles away – a fact confirmed in a Daily Sceptic Freedom of Information (FOI) request. For Lowestoft, the Met Office then claimed that it did not use “well-correlated neighbouring stations” and a different explanation was supplied: “We used the gridded value from the closest grid point from our UK climate dataset HADUK-Grid.” But this explanation does not seem to take the curious – if not downright cynical – investigator very far, since the HADUK-Grid uses “well-correlated neighbouring station” data derived from the Met Office’s Integrated Data Archive System (MIDAS) to model infill data for closed stations.
Whatever is going on, the Met Office removed the Lowestoft invented data from 2010. Perish the thought that anyone should think this station as an infilling “well-correlated neighbouring station” – or not as the case may be – would cascade fake figures throughout databases using modelled temperature information, corrupting the ‘records’ as it went. Conveniently added at the time to the public explanation on the historic database was a short note that read: “The purpose of this webpage is to provide a sample of historical station data across the UK for general interest. It is not used for formal climate monitoring.”
Meanwhile, doubts have started to emerge about some of the Met Office’s rainfall claims, used invariably to promote the Net Zero fantasy. Its recent claim that Worcestershire recorded its wettest February since records began in 1835 has been effectively debunked by the great, long-time climate sceptic Paul Homewood following FOI requests. He found convincing evidence from historical records that more rain fell in the area in February 1923. “Is British weather really getting wetter as they claim. Or is it just a figment of their computer’s imagination?” he asks.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
I noted this ‘news’ in relation to the article on Dr Huxter, yesterday.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/04/02/researcher-finds-proof-the-met-office-is-inflating-uk-maximum-temperature-records/#comment-4180328
Maintaining the narrative is the real mission of the MO beyond daily weather forecasting.
BBC reunites with Met Office for weather forecasts
Mr Sanders has done more than enough to show that the Met Office climate data – like its stations – is [politically driven] junk. The war in Iran has really put the alarmists on the back foot and they are determined to triple down; cue a timely article to that effect in the alarmists’ house rag…
Of course we shouldn’t drill for more oil in the North Sea – we cancelled further exploitation for a reason – Bill McGuire
We are at a critical point in the climate emergency and already struggling to meet emissions reduction targets. The UK government must hold its nerve
Bill who?
Bill McGuire is a volcanologist, climate scientist, activist, keynote speaker and writer of popular science. He is an expert on geological disasters and their links to climate change.
A class 1 nutter.
“There’s lies, damned lies, and made-up statistics…”
Of the 302 UK weather stations used to define the climate records and averages only 199 actually exist. The other 103 as Paul Homewood established are fictional with data being made up and added to the record for appearances perhaps?
It would be an interesting exercise to see what the average temperature for the UK would be, if only the real weather stations were used and data used without the ‘corrections’ and ‘adjustments’ which feature so frequently in these long term official records.
It can’t be long before the data recording of temperature becomes a very common activity across thousands of independent homes in garden based weather stations. A friend of mine has been doing that every day twice a day for the past three years. His data is accurate and unadjusted it shown a very very stable temperature exists across his three years of data.
Incidentally his records for March show the same average temperature at 49 deg F for each of the last three years. He lives in the UK Midlands.
49 deg F
I remember that 20C is 68F – from now very distant days in the past before push-button chemistry became a thing – of analysing original gravity, specific and attenuated gravity etc. (brewing). But can’t we use C? I’ll give a free pass to Fahrenheit 451 (232.78°C)
Funny. I recall MET renamed their weather stations to “climate stations.”
Scot Met just following UK Met Office practices. !!
“and according to the “location-specific long-term averages” Met Office database it can supply monthly temperature readings along with rainfall amounts going back to 1960”
More of this arrant nonsense. The MO does not claim to provide monthly temperature readings for Lephinmore going back to 1960. In fact part of the data record is displayed, and for sure it goes up to 1966. If you think it does provide that monthly data, what is their number for Jan 2020?
What the MO does is to provide a facility whereby you can click and get estimated long term averages for each month of the year at various places. It is here (why couldn’t Morrison provide a link?). It isn’t a dataset, it is an interactive facility. And they explain what it is for, on the page:
“This webpage provides long-term climate averages for specific locations across the UK. It is designed to display locations that provide even geographical coverage of the UK, but is not reflective of every weather station that has existed or the current Met Office observation network.”
It gives you, on the same page, estimates for Lephinmore, Scotland W, Scotland and UK. They aren’t claiming to have a thermmeter measuring Scotland. They are calculated estimates for each of those places.
Nick. Let me save you the bother of agitating that molecule mind. The Met Office provides a fig leaf of scientific respectability to cover for the blatant data fabrication and manipulation.
Are they paying you or are you just that fervent a believer?
(My emphasis.)
The Met Office provides a fig leaf of scientific respectability to cover for the blatant data fabrication and manipulation.
Obviously, that’s right up your street.
I suspect that Scot Met, like the UK Met Office, has basically zero data that could reasonably be used for formal climate monitoring purposes.
But they use it for that anyway.
It is nice of them to admit that fact , though. 😉
As I told Nick. This statement includes no reference to the uncertainty of the temperatures presented. To the casual user, the expectation is that the temperature being displayed in 100% accurate. We all know that is not the case, and the casual user should also be informed of the spread of possible temperatures.
The only reason for not displaying the uncertainty is the ego of the people supplying the information. It makes them appear to be white lab coat scientists hunched over thermometers readings supplying accurate and up to date information.
Estimated long term averages? The question is, how accurate are these estimates. Do they also provide possible uncertainties that go along with the “estimates”? Do they even mention the properly propagated uncertainty values from the stations they are using?
There is a concept of lying by omission. Why don’t they explain that the averages they are showing have large uncertainties? 49 ±5 degrees should be a more likely data point than simply 49. It wouldn’t mislead the common people using the site as to the accuracy of the average.
I believe the display shows it as “Lephinmore Station.”
Nick, you picked a nit to argue about.
What you are missing is the global picture.
The estimated average for a non-collecting site is then fed into a data base used to calculate large area averages. That should raise an eyebrow.
“The estimated average for a non-collecting site is then fed into a data base used to calculate large area averages”
How do you know? It is very unlikely. Each regional average is estimated on what is known.
The people at the Met Office don’t know the difference between science and seance.
They also say that if a single snowflake falls anywhere in the UK on Christmas Day we have had White Christmas – really scientific!
Breaking News… what a difference a conclusion makes, or not entirely…
Ed Miliband is set to green light the first major North Sea gas field project in almost a decade amid growing political pressure to boost domestic energy production.
Whitehall officials say the Energy Secretary is expected to approve the Jackdaw gas field, around 150 miles off Aberdeen, after concluding it is compatible with the UK’s carbon reduction targets.
Miliband is still understood to oppose the Rosebank oil field, which he has previously described as “climate vandalism”.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/ed-miliband-north-sea-gas-field
He really does have to be dragged kicking and screaming to a logical position.
On the DESNZ Twitter today.
The speculation today is wrong. No decisions on Jackdaw have been made – it is incorrect to suggest otherwise. The developers have confirmed the process is ongoing, and the independent regulator has recently requested further information before any final decision can be taken.
Mad Miliband is still in charge
He has recently asked a load of extra questions to the applicants that will take them at least 6 months to answer. For 6 months he gets to say ‘Its not me gov, its those nasty applicants who haven’t asked my questions’, hoping that in 6 months oil/gas prices are back to normal and he can say No.
You smarties forgot to account for climatic telecommunication, a term given due recognition by Dr Michael Mann of the USA.. You note that the formal weather station closed on 15 February 1966. This was one calendar day after Australia shed its system of units and went to decimal currency nationally. That was over 60 years or about 21,915 days ago but accurate to 1 day.
This might have been sheer coincidence, but we experienced scientists know more than you think about correlation, causation, chickens and eggs and so we keep our minds open.
For all I know, this telecommunication between decimals in Australia and temperatures in Scotland could have global scale interactions, like the chaos mathematics of that falling leaf in the Amazon forest is likely proven to have caused a tornado continents away. And will do it again.
Geoff S
Geoff, I think you mean “teleconnection”.
Jeff A,
You are quite correct.
We were laughing so much that we forgot to be accurate and used a wrong concept.
But that is OK. The UK Met Office does that all the time.
It was near enough for government work.
Geoff S
I would like to point out a misconeption about the uncertainty of poor stations.
The following document describes the amount of ADDITIONAL uncertainty that should be applied to the various class of stations.
Using a typical U.S. ASOS station, this would result in a total uncertainty of ±3°C for a class 4 station and ±6°C for a class 5 station.
“Oh no, the error can’t be this big!”
You are so unfortunate in the UK. BoM Australia homogenises out to hundreds of kilometres.
You are so unfortunate in the UK.
Is that the Friday funny? Because we really are and it’s only funny when it’s true.
My simple mind suggests that the right thing to do is remove from the historic calculations each and every location that is no longer providing data. They still have the raw data … don’t they? Some ancient scrolls somewhere?
In the ancient world failed prognosticators etc were usually strung up or similar. For failing.
The whole idea of needing long records to establish a long term “global” or “regional” average temperature is a farce. There should be enough records to create a reasonable mean with only 30 or so records. And it doesn’t matter if those 30 records are from the same measuring station or not. The standard deviation of the sample means will still determine the interval in which the mean might lie. If a station is no longer providing records just use the records it provides, don’t make stuff up in order to create a long record. For a new station just include the records it provides from the data it starts, don’t make stuff up.
I just love the hypocrisy of climate science on this issue. If dropping a few stations from a data set consisting of a thousand records ruins their calculations then the calculations are worthless anyway. It’s only going to change the interval in which the mean lies by in the hundred thousandths digit anyway (.0000x, it will only affect the “x” value)
Right. Put simply, if a station is no longer there, don’t pretend it is by infilling with “neighbors”.
Yep. If doing so actually changes the mean of the remaining data then the data is garbage anyway.
You cannot prosecute Trans-Reality Activists for fraud as they are Trans-Reality. /s
What about the latter day Dr Mengele and the NHS? In line with Volkisch policy there can be no animal experimentation (and it is declining – rights for microbial life next?) but there can be exceptions to that rule…
Details of a new UK clinical trial to assess the risks and benefits of puberty-blocking drugs in children who question their gender have been announced. – BBC
At times, they dictate what reality is – or rather what you must perceive it to be.
You understand.
“This is what is claimed on the Met Office’s public access “location-specific long-term averages” database for Lephinmore. Two option are available to track 30-year average monthly totals from 1961-1990 and 1991-2020. As noted, it is truly a wonder of modern meteorological science that maximum and minimum temperature averages can be calculated from so far away to one hundredth of a degree Centigrade. And local rainfall to two decimal depth points. Such precision indeed!”
Well they can certainly calculate temperature from surrounding working stations, and the fractions merely come from the maths (as, well, scientist do that dont-you-know!. Try using yer noggin and truncate if not needed).
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/location-specific-long-term-averages/gcur0c9pr
“This webpage provides long-term climate averages for specific locations across the UK. It is designed to display locations that provide even geographical coverage of the UK, but is not reflective of every weather station that has existed or the current Met Office observation network. More detailed information on the data available at these locations is below, and data is available for a number of climate variables, including temperature, frost, sunshine and rainfall.
The purpose of this webpage is to provide a sample of long-term average station data across the UK for general interest. It is not used for formal climate monitoring purposes.
For long-term data on the UK’s climate as a whole or by region, you can download this directly on the UK and regional series webpage. ”
He didn’t reveal anything that is not published in plain sight on the MetO’s pages as evidenced above.
None of this gridded data regression revealed is for use in synoptic climate science (as in UK climate statistics) – it is for those with a specific interest. As in, the UK MO is a government Agency and it’s day job is to supply the UK public with weather data. It’s work re global climate is a tiny part of it’s remit.
“Mr Sanders has done more than enough to show that the Met Office climate data – like its stations – is [politically driven] junk”
No, it is Sanders that is “politically driven”. And is seeming blinded by thinking all things MetO are destined for UK and global statistics, likely warmed fraudulently to boot!
I’ve err, talked, to him on here and to say the least he is abusive in his responses – which tells me all I need to know.
In fact Charles moderated him on 2 threads (calling him obnoxious (in pm to me)).
On top of that he doesn’t even know his brief, thinking a respresentative station (Benson) is being representative of the weather in the area!.
No,”Ideally exposed, representing a very large area”.
And this is what Roy Spencer Phd says …
“There has been criticism of the UK Met Office’s methodology for monitoring long-term changes in UK-average temperatures, starting with Tallbloke’s (Ray Sanders’) blog post on 31 October 2024. A major criticism that Tallbloke has is the fact that most UK stations do not meet the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) criteria for a good climate monitoring station. The UKMO doesn’t actually use the WMO quality classification system, but their own 4-tiered system. Another criticism is that many UK stations have closed in recent years, and so those stations are, in effect, estimated (“fabricated”?) from surrounding stations……
On the additional subject of replacing a closed station with estimates from surrounding stations (which NOAA also does because so many of their UNHCN stations in the U.S. have closed, a process that has also been criticized), I believe it is a little disingenuous to claim those data are “fabricated”. Rather than continuing the closed station record with estimates from surrounding stations, one could just use the surrounding stations, which is the same thing.”
“truncate if not needed”
nitpick. Round, don’t truncate. Truncation adds a negative bias.
“Well they can certainly calculate tempeature from surrounding working stations”
This is only useful if the microclimates are exactly the same. Otherwise all you are doing is spreading measurement uncertainty around to other data. How often are the microclimates exactly the same?
Analog to digital conversions in modern times only truncate.
In the past you had min (truncate), mid (round up/down) and max (round up) threshold ladders to choose from.
It is possible the measurements are using mid-point threshold ladders, but I doubt it..
Truncation is always rounding down. It adds a negative bias. This is just one contributing factor to the measurement uncertainty of any measurement using an analog-digital conversion. It can result in an asymmetric measurement uncertainty interval.
If the output of mid-point threshold ladders is always truncated it will still introduce a negative bias, just a smaller one.
The sad thing about it is that this sort of lazy thimble-riggery stopped being even a slightest bit surprising long ago.
“thimble-riggery” Don’t say that too fast in the wrong company.
It will not be long before the UK BOM is just making up all the temperature readings to achieve the desired Global Warming results.
What do you think they’ve been doing for the past 40 years?
So nothing is true or accurate then it’s time to spend $Ts to overcome a problem we don’t even know if it exists or how big it is. Common sense has left the chat.