New Welsh Temperature Record at Bute Park

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

The Met Office has claimed that a new Welsh temperature record for springtime was set in Cardiff last month.

The place where it was recorded, Bute Park, is a Class 5 junk site and is arguably one of the most inappropriate places to measure temperatures.

The weather station at Bute is just yards away from the large plant nursery, full of greenhouses and banks of solar panels on the roof of the visitor centre.

As the Bute Park information video relates, all its greenhouses are very carefully temperature controlled during hot weather. This means the venting of hot air.

If that was not bad enough, the weather station compound is surrounded by concrete on three sides and high vegetation on the other, which appears to have grown considerably since the 1978 photos below were taken.

Any one of these factors should disqualify Bute Park as being representative of temperatures in the locality. No wonder then that the Met Office themselves have categorised it as Class 5, the worst of the WMO’s five categories.

The WMO, World Meteorological Organisation, rules state that a pristine temperature reading site must meet the following criteria:

Bute Park is so poorly sited that it does not even meet Class 4 criteria, itself a junk designation. Instead, Class 5 covers all sites that don’t meet any criteria at all.

The WMO states that Class 5 sites can overestimate temperatures by as much as 5C. The WMO are perfectly clear that junk sites like Bute Park should not be used for climatological purposes and cannot be regarded as being representative of the surrounding environment.

But that is exactly what the Met Office are doing when they declare record temperatures at sites like Bute Park.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.9 27 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
81 Comments
Neil Pryke
June 14, 2026 10:21 pm

We are being lied to by the MSM…Because it’s nominally summer, we are now being told to expect a heatwave before the end of June…but the “proper” forecasts say otherwise…

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  Neil Pryke
June 15, 2026 12:56 am

There’s a significant chance, but it’s not certain. ‘Real’ forecasts say exactly that. Much of Europe will be very hot, it’s just a question of weather (hoho) it makes it as far north as the UK. Looks like a glancing blow in the far S/E at the moment, possible Thursday onwards.

Reply to  Neil Pryke
June 15, 2026 4:23 pm

For those pushing “the message” the fear of a heat wave is just as effective as an actual heat wave. The primary objective is fear. Fear breeds the demand for authoritarian control. Not only will people who are subjected to sufficient fear accept authoritarian rule, they will demand it.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  MarkH
June 16, 2026 11:16 am

The other advantage is that you can have a “climate scare” event even if the forecast turns out to be totally wrong. There is not need to come back next week and apologise for being wrong or admit that your forecasting ability is not better than coin flip.

It all adds to the general level of climate hysteria even if it never even happened.

If the a hot spell does happen , you can then get even more hysterical and report it a second time. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Rod Evans
June 14, 2026 10:54 pm

We are less than a week away from the longest day and this summer has so far been underwhelming as far as summers go, even for the UK. The occasional warm day or two, which is now described by our national broadcaster as a heat wave, has also been absent other than once in May when the junk Met sites reported the hottest May day, ever.
Today it is raining cloud expected all day with a high of 21C (70F).
Flaming June in all its glory here at 52degN latitude.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rod Evans
June 15, 2026 12:03 am

Summer in the UK does not start until the solstice. So given that it hasn’t started it is hardly surprising that it has been underwhelming.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 15, 2026 1:12 am

Ahh, I see you are operating in traditional season measurement. Good point, but here in the UK summer as defined by the Met office now starts June 1st.

Tom Johnson
Reply to  Rod Evans
June 15, 2026 4:10 am

The true seasons are not determined by the calendar, they’re determined by the temperatures at any particular location. As with any temperature dependent body, there’s a lag between the heat source and the temperature. The lag varies from place to place. Here in SE Michigan, the lag between solar minimum and temperature minimum is about 30 days. It also varies from season to season depending on the weather. In South Texas it’s less than 20 days. A single value based on the calendar is inaccurate everywhere.

If I were the RST, Real Season Tsar Tsar I would declare only 3 seasons – Summer, Winter, and Change. Who could argue with an extra month of summer.

Each season would be four months long, with Change divided into two halves, a 2 month warming change before summer started and a two month cooling change before winter started. The lag for any location would be determined from historical temperature records. This would be a more accurate way of defining the seasons everywhere.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 15, 2026 1:14 am

Yes and no. Astronomical seasons change on solstices and equinoxes. Meteorological seasons change on the 1st of the month that have the solstices or equinoxes in them, I suspect the reason is because the equinoxes and solstices aren’t on the same date every year, but why the 1st and not a date closer to the astronomical dates I wouldn’t know.
Meteorologically:
Winter starts on 1/12
Spring starts on 1/3
Summer starts on 1/6
Autumn starts on 1/9

Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 15, 2026 2:51 am

Wouldn’t you agree that the longest day of the year should be somewhere near the middle of Summer…

… certainly not the start of Summer, as daylight hours get shorter after the solstice.

Reply to  bnice2000
June 15, 2026 5:46 am

In SE England the hottest month on average is July

Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 15, 2026 4:25 am

Summer in the UK does not start until the solstice.

You need to study more. My analysis of land indicates that summer and winter begin when the soil temperatures begin to plateau. Spring begins when soil temperatures start to rise and Fall begins when soil temperature start to decrease. Like it or not, it is all driven by the sun and not CO2.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Izaak Walton
June 16, 2026 11:19 am

The UK summer starts on the bank holiday weekend at the end of May and ends on the 15th of June.

You may then get a couple nice weeks in September when everyone can start saying “Indian summer” without having any idea of what that means.

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  Rod Evans
June 15, 2026 12:59 am

When nearly every June in the last 25 years has been substantially warmer than normal, you forget what an entirely average English June was like. Which is what we’ve had so far.

Alan M
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
June 15, 2026 9:12 am

Has it?

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
June 15, 2026 10:17 am

I know when, in June, I have to switch the heating on.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
June 16, 2026 1:31 pm

When nearly every June in the last 25 years has been substantially warmer than normal”

I doubt that. And what is “normal”?

June 14, 2026 11:09 pm

I really can’t decide which is more disgusting…

.. the parlous state of a large majority of Met-Office “climate” sites..

.. or that they still try to get away with it.

Bill Toland
June 14, 2026 11:37 pm

The Met Office just doesn’t care any longer. We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying and they know that we know that they are lying.

bobpjones
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 15, 2026 12:42 am

Little do they know, that we know, that they know, that we know they’re lying to us.

MrGrimNasty
June 15, 2026 1:06 am

It was clearly a record breaking period of heat which created hundreds of records. What’s the point moaning about one headline figure? It doesn’t achieve anything or alter the reality of the event.

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
June 15, 2026 3:29 am

The importance of the fact that all the records are being set in cities and at junk sites seems to elude you. So many are transitory readings, as well.

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
June 15, 2026 9:24 am

It’s a fact: it was very hot. The fact that this heat is being added to temperatures estimated from stations that do not meet quality standards is a separate issue. The analogy with the human body has its limits, but in this case I don’t think it’s a bad one, because we’re talking about isolated stations, even though the UHI problem is structural.

If we take the temperature of some poor guy suffering from a severe bout of flu with a faulty thermometer and see a reading of 42°C on the screen, it’s perfectly reasonable to start panicking. But the thermometer is malfunctioning. That does not change the fact that the man still has a fever of over 39°C because of the illness he caught.

The fact that I mention a disease in this illustration is merely a narrative device that is easy to visualize. I am not comparing the warming since 1850 to a potentially fatal fever, as some people deliberately do, with either the utmost naivety or bad faith. It’s better to avoid anthropomorphisms, or at least handle them carefully, so as not to mislead anyone (or end up being dishonestly quoted by some passing alarmist).

Reply to  Charles Armand
June 15, 2026 3:22 pm

You’re positing literally hundreds of faulty thermometers, all of them faulty in the same direction.

There must come a time when defending this nonsense gets beyond ridiculous, no?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 15, 2026 6:50 pm

Yep, the Met-Office should come clean and tell the truth..

… that their whole system is geared towards creating higher temperatures.

It is beyond ridiculous already. !

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
June 16, 2026 4:00 am

Yes, nice – all is a conspiracy to do you out of your tax dollars so that the wicked lefties can take over the world (sarc).

No nuance required.
All thermos suffer from UHI and are doctored so that they always reach a record max in a heatwave – or is it just ones in parks in London and Cardiff and of course Hetahrow (which was cooler on this occasion) – yes trees and grass won out over acres of concrete ….. and not perhaps Coningsby RAF base (which did not have 3 Typhoons buzzing the Met enclosure for 3 hours) when the southerly wind brought in 40.3C over literally miles and miles of grass and green crops. (Remember “representative of it’s surrounding” ?.

No matter what denialists here will have a convenient excuse why they can dismiss it.
As if it makes any difference to the direction of travel.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
June 16, 2026 5:45 am

Anthony, naturally aspirated screens were adopted in 1884 to accommodate what were then MIGT. The same naturally aspirated screens are now accommodating 21st century PRTs. That is a major change. The WMO recommends that PRTs are in artificially aspirated screens to avoid over recording of both transient events and Aitken Effect overheating in low wind speeds. Poor location and maintenance of enclosures (where they exist, many are unenclosed) is leading to vastly increased incidence of inadequate natural ventilation and the Met Office does NOT use any fan assisted screens anywhere in its climate reporting network despite WMO advice. It also only uses 60 second averaging instead of the recommended 180 second minimum. No conspiracy theories are required just an understanding of all the circumstances i.e. the application of scientific principles rather than tribalism.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 15, 2026 7:10 pm

Well, upon rereading myself, I must admit that my analogy falls apart for the simple reason that the UHI principle stems from the environment biasing the temperature measurement, rather than from an intrinsic flaw in the instrument itself.

I should have applied to myself the same skepticism I have toward anthropomorphisms! They are so tempting that even when one tries to be cautious, one still gets caught by them.

That being said, while acknowledging that my first message was fundamentally clumsy and ill-advised—and that the heat at the end of May was indeed very, very unusual, although still a matter of weather rather than climate—I maintain that a thermometer biased upward by poor siting cannot be very reliable during a period of heat. At least, no more reliable than it normally is, precisely because of its location. That seems logical to me, at any rate.

I have been visiting this site for some time now, and I know your views on the climate issue. I do not think we are likely to agree on very much. Nevertheless, I wish you a pleasant night (it is late where I am), and I also thank you for drawing my attention, through your reply, to the awkwardness of my previous message.

Reply to  Charles Armand
June 16, 2026 9:59 am

I maintain that a thermometer biased upward by poor siting cannot be very reliable during a period of heat. At least, no more reliable than it normally is, precisely because of its location. That seems logical to me, at any rate.

You have it correct. I just posted to another on this thread about this. The PRT inside the station can be calibrated every month, but that is only one component in an uncertainty budget. If the uncertainty only depended on calibration, there would only be class 1 stations.

There are many other issues, especially when climate science is trying to derive temperatures with a resolution of one one-thousandth. Housing, wind, surrounding land use, excess heat sources, ground cover under the station, etc.

The WMO recognizes that siting can increase uncertainty due to issues other than PRT calibration, even up to ±5°C. That alone makes an anomaly of ±0.01°C ridiculous.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 17, 2026 8:51 am

Regarding the CIMO classification it refers to how representative the station is of its surroundings. Kew gardens for example is class 2 based on the park it is situated (within 30m) in but if anything it will be below the temperature of the wider area, to represent that it would need to be based on concrete with no vegetation!

“Many urban stations have been placed over short grass in open locations (parks, playing fields) and as a result they are actually monitoring modified rural-type conditions, not representative urban ones.”

https://urban-climate.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Oke_2006_IOM-81-UrbanMetObs.pdf

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  TheFinalNail
June 15, 2026 7:46 pm

REPORTING that there ARE hundreds of thermometers working perfectly well and measuring the ambient temperature of the heat islands that they are placed in.
If you cannot understand “heat island” let me make it simpler – in places that are artificially warmer due to energy emission and accumulation from human activity.

1saveenergy
June 15, 2026 1:08 am

Bute Park is in the centre of Cardiff, the capital and largest city of Wales & is the eleventh largest city in the UK, with a population of around 0.5million. Cardiff sits in a south-east facing bowl protected from the prevailing winds, I lived there for 25 years & can confirm Bute Park as an ideal place for collecting junk weather data.

June 15, 2026 1:09 am

The issue over the classification of the weather station applies to Kew Gardens as well as Bute.
When I visited Kew last week the weather station looked very neglected with vegetation growing up to 2 feet high in the compound and looking nothing like the neat appearance in a photograph taken of the station by David Hawgood in 2010.
Would the lack of maintenance have an effect on the classification of the site and the temperatures recorded?
Unfortunately I don’t know how to download the photo I took into comments which would show the situation. Any ideas?

Reply to  StephenP
June 15, 2026 4:21 am

On the right end of the toolbar under the comments box is the picture icon, it enables you to attach an image to a comment.

Reply to  DavsS
June 15, 2026 6:33 am

Thank you

Kew-Weather-Station-10June2026-B
Reply to  DavsS
June 15, 2026 6:52 am

And another weather station to measure soil moisture

Kew-Soil-Moisture-Weather-Meter-10June2026-B
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  DavsS
June 16, 2026 1:37 pm

Not everyone can see that icon. I’ve never seen it, and have been commenting here for decades.

Reply to  StephenP
June 15, 2026 11:51 am

Hi Stephen, I am Ray Sanders from Tallbloke’s Talkshop Surface Station Project. Most of this article is actually taken from my research. Re Kew this was my latest report on that one.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/05/10/kew-gardens-revisited-for-some-reason-the-screen-was-not-at-the-standard-height-well-below-the-standard-1-25-m-above-ground-level/
Would it be possible for you to forward me any images you have recently taken of Kew at ray.m.sanders1956@gmail.com please?

Reply to  Ray Sanders
June 15, 2026 1:15 pm

I have a number of photos of and around the Kew weather station that I will forward to you tomorrow morning. They were all taken on 10 June early afternoon.

Reply to  Ray Sanders
June 15, 2026 4:36 pm

Would like to thank Ray for exposing all the “totally unfit for climate purposes” sites used by the Met-Office to push the Anti-CO2 Net-Zero agenda.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  StephenP
June 16, 2026 4:04 am

That’s all right then, as tall grass actually reduces 2m temps quite considerably due to the taller blades creating shade for the soil, and via greater transpiration, and can so reduce surface temperatures by up to 24°C compared to bare, exposed dirt.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
June 16, 2026 5:51 am

Anthony that is the most preposterously daft comment I have ever heard, even from you. YOU should definitely know the likely effects of ground cover that high and they are simply not what you are trying to claim. Try to step back from your pension provider’s fake science (you will still get your payments) and stop the tribalism please. That screen has been defined by a senior research director at a world famous university who is well qualified to comment as “Derelict”
Attemptin to justify such an appallingly poor site is not a good look.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
June 16, 2026 6:12 am

It is also more reflective than bare dirt, which ends up heating the enclosure more. You have to account for the energy somewhere. If air flow is also diminished by other factors then the measured temperature will be higher.

SxyxS
June 15, 2026 1:39 am

Bute Park – the only place where where you can have a heatwave during a snowstorm thanks to high tech weather stations.

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 15, 2026 1:57 am

Lies! Lies! And heat wave forecasts.

June 15, 2026 4:33 am

This is an example of why measurement uncertainty is a necessary part of stating a measurement. Assuming the station itself has NO underlying uncertainty, it should be shown along with 32.9 ±5°C. The associated interval is 27.9 to 37.9, anyone’s guess is just as good as anyone else’s within that range.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 15, 2026 6:39 am

With the platinum resistance thermometer (PRT) used by the Met Office has a measurement uncertainty of 0.15ºC so 32.9 ±0.15°C, how representative that is of the surrounding area is a different matter.

Prof. Celeste Saulo, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization,stated that the siting classification does not reflect the quality or suitability of the stations for weather and climate monitoring, but rather it provides scientists with information about the ability of the stations to represent the area in which the observations are made.   

Reply to  Phil.
June 15, 2026 2:25 pm

The measurement uncertainty of the PRT is only one item in an uncertainty budget. There are numerous other effect that must be included. Drift, repeatability, reproducibility, housing effects (different between day and night), aerated or not, wind shading, etc. A class 1 station could have an uncertainty of ±1.0°C after expanding the combined uncertainty.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 15, 2026 3:19 pm

I was addressing your post that referred explicitly to “measurement uncertainty”!

Reply to  Phil.
June 15, 2026 4:17 pm

Yes, but measurement uncertainty is affected by what the GUM calls influence quanties.

A PRT encompasses the platinum sensing element, its protective sheath, the lead wires, and the mounting/packaging.

The electronics it is attached to, the lead connection resistances, all the other parts of the station are influence quantities that add to the measurement uncertainty.

There are studies of different housing that identified substantial differences in temperature measurements between the various housings.

If the temperatures and anomalies were not being displayed with one-hundredths and one-thousandth of a degree, one could accept figures in the tenths decimal place. But, that would destroy the minute temperature changes climate science love to toss around.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 15, 2026 7:37 pm

Which is why the Met regularly calibrates them they report excellent stability of the PRT instruments.

Reply to  Phil.
June 16, 2026 9:50 am

They may calibrate them regularly, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have uncertainty, even small values, in total. They calibrate the PRT, not the effect the housing has on temperatures. They don’t determine the effects of land usage surrounding the station. Even changes in foliage some yards away can have an effect. Growing trees can change the wind that reaches the station even if they don’t shade the station.

There is a reason that siting can drastically affect the uncertainty of a station. Calibration is only one category in an uncertainty budget. If calibration of the PRT was the only issue, every station could be rated as a 1.

Reply to  Phil.
June 16, 2026 2:44 pm

How often do you “think” a PRT is tested? Try once every 8 years

Reply to  Phil.
June 18, 2026 5:10 am

Phil may I suggest you are commenting without knowledge. i.e. baseless opinion. PRTs are recalibrated (at best) only once in every 8 years. In the UK they are housed in naturally ventilated screens and use 60 second averaging not in accordance with WMO guidance. Here is more real world detail. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/04/26/stevenson-screens-the-aesthetic-and-moral-codes-of-the-suburban-domestic-garden-an-explanatory-report/

Reply to  Ray Sanders
June 18, 2026 9:05 am

I’m well aware of the frequency with which the PRTs are recalibrated and I reported the result “excellent stability of the PRT instruments”. WMO recommend using sensors with a response time of ≤20sec in order to accurately follow rapid changes in ambient conditions, they also point out there is “no advantage in using thermometers with a very short time constant” and that the “time constant will become shorter at high airflow over the sensor”. They also point out the risk in using artificial ventilation of the sensor that “moisture may be drawn onto the thermometer” and in wet conditions this “may give rise to anomalous readings”. The WMO recommends a “one-minute average (except for wind and visibility)”.

https://library.wmo.int/viewer/68695/?offset=3#page=140&viewer=picture&o=bookmark&n=0&q=

https://library.wmo.int/viewer/68695/?offset=3#page=47&viewer=picture&o=bookmark&n=0&q=

Reply to  Phil.
June 18, 2026 9:39 am

That makes it more subject to spikes than a 5 minute average. It also is one more difference between stations that should be treated with weighting. The USCRN and ASOS use 5 minute averaging.

real bob boder
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 15, 2026 4:04 pm

As I stated 100 times drift in these probes is universally in one direction. Guess which direction that is!

Reply to  real bob boder
June 15, 2026 4:25 pm

It is typical of all electronic components. After heating, components never return to the nominal values. It is called drift. Drift can be in either direction. Wheatstone bridges can go either way depending on leg balance.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 17, 2026 7:29 am

And as I stated above the Met regularly calibrates them and they report excellent stability of the PRT instruments, in other words negligible drift (in either direction).

Reply to  Phil.
June 17, 2026 7:53 am

Drift encompasses more than just the PRT. The entire station can “drift” due to many changes.

I guess I’m not sure what you are referring to when you say PRT. Technically, the PRT is the device that has the sensor, case, and wires (3 or 4) that connect to the electronics that does the actual measuring. The instrument describes both the PRT and the measuring electronics. Do you mean they calibrate the instrument or just the PRT?

Reply to  Phil.
June 18, 2026 5:19 am

Phil do you know what type of PRT and gauge the met office uses? What their T63 and T90 response times are? What time averaging is used? Which screens are artificially aspirated or not? what the CIMO rating, state of maintenance and likely real world error margin of individual sites ares? Have you judged likely Aitken and transient extraneous effects there may be at every site? all such issues are highly relevant and need to be studied in detail before making sweeping and incorrect statements.. I know someone who has done all of that and a lot more – you can see all 470 reports so far here.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/author/raymsanders1956/

Anthony Banton
June 15, 2026 12:21 pm

The WMO states that Class 5 sites can overestimate temperatures by as much as 5C. The WMO are perfectly clear that junk sites like Bute Park should not be used for climatological purposes and cannot be regarded as being representative of the surrounding environment.”

No they don’t say that.
The WMO actually say ….

The Met Office weather and climate stations, as well as the subsequent data processing, follow international standards. It is important to note that the observing stations numbered siting classification is not an indication of the station quality or suitability for weather and climate monitoring, it is a measure that helps the scientists understand the ability of the station to represent a region. Some stations are deliberately situated close to airports to provide aeronautical information –and these are different in nature from those used to provide weather and climate information.”

https://wmo.int/content/wmo-statement-uk-met-office-observations

The UKMO say …

”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

Reply to  Anthony Banton
June 15, 2026 1:46 pm

Yes, we are all well aware the the Met-Office, that you are representing, loves junk measurements.

That is the whole point of the article.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
June 16, 2026 3:37 am

This article states:

The WMO are perfectly clear that junk sites like Bute Park should not be used for climatological purposes and cannot be regarded as being representative of the surrounding environment.”

And I showed that they do not.

The Met Office weather and climate stations, as well as the subsequent data processing, follow international standards. It is important to note that the observing stations numbered siting classification is not an indication of the station quality or suitability for weather and climate monitoring,

That is the whole point of my post.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
June 16, 2026 9:19 am

It is not the values, it is the uncertainty of those values that is important. Climate science never, ever, propagates the uncertainty involved. What is the uncertainty when averaging 21 ±0°C and 21 ±5°C? It certainly isn’t 21 ±0°C!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Anthony Banton
June 16, 2026 5:19 pm

So the station could be in an active volcano, and that would be ok.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
June 18, 2026 5:25 am

No Anthony you are so far out of touch you didn’t even know all manual met office site have used PRTs for the last 10 years. You are pompous old fool, who was no great shakes at the Met Office and represents the typical anti science mindset of a retired dinosaur (un) Civil Servant who thinks they are God’s gift to meteorology. The Met Office feels it is superior to WMO guidelines and uses naturally ventilated screens inappropriately for modern PRTs, has astonishingly poor site husbandry and has been captured by ideological extremists for decades. Learn a few realities as I guarantee you personally know very little about the vast majority of sites.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/04/26/stevenson-screens-the-aesthetic-and-moral-codes-of-the-suburban-domestic-garden-an-explanatory-report/

Reply to  Anthony Banton
June 15, 2026 1:49 pm

This picture at St James’s Park , really does describe the whole Met-Office.

kew-loo
Reply to  bnice2000
June 15, 2026 4:28 pm

Lots of space to allow for the free movement of air to identify the temperature of a large region!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 16, 2026 1:42 pm

If Lizzo is in the porta potty, definitely a large region.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
June 15, 2026 2:02 pm

Nothing in your response mentions measurement uncertainty and how it should be propagated.

The WMO says: “… it is a measure that helps the scientists understand the ability of the station to represent a region.” The problem is that without detailing the uncertainty in a manner that is easily obtained by scientists using the data, the actual uncertainty just disappears.

If you average a station with an uncertainty of ±5°with one that is ±1°, what is the total uncertainty of the average? That is the crux of the problem that is never addressed.

Show us a document where the MET has created an uncertainty budget that includes all the items that go into one. There are several sites on the internet that discuss ISO 17025 that you can peruse to see what should be included.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 15, 2026 8:13 pm

I believe (from memory of stats course some 50 or so years ago), that it should be calculated “in quadrature”

Its a complicated method that requires a few steps, but a close approximation would be given by the following process.

square the errors, add them, divide by number of measurements, and take the square root.

In this case, you get about +/- 3.6

Reply to  bnice2000
June 16, 2026 9:40 am

Combined uncertainty.

u꜀ = √(u₁² + u₂²) = √(25 +1) = √(26 = 5.1

That is Root-Sum-Squared (quadrature). Note, uncertainty adds, always. There is no subtraction.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 15, 2026 8:22 pm

And of course, the trouble with Met Office sites is that they are HIGHLY BIASED in the plus direction…

.. either by bad management, or intention.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 16, 2026 3:50 am

Ah bless, here comes Jim riding in on his “uncertainty” pony.

Yes yes Jim all is uncertain – that is the nature of life.
All we can do is go with the flow, and trust all is not an illusion.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
June 16, 2026 6:47 am

You just summarized CAGW warmists very succinctly. Belief in an illusion.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
June 18, 2026 5:59 am

Where is this Anthony – looks “perfect” doesn’t it?

Screenshot-2026-06-18-13.58.03
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 16, 2026 3:16 pm

A single station cannot, in any case, represent a region.

CampsieFellow
June 15, 2026 12:45 pm

Currently I am in Germany. In the Harz, to be precise. The Harz is littered with dead trees. You won’t be surpised to learn that this is blamed on climate change. Germany has experienced a number of dry spells in recent years (aka “droughts”). The “droughts” apparently encourage a certain insect that kills off the Spruce trees. Anybody remember the flooding in the Ahr valley back in 2016? Yep, that, too, was blamed on climate change. So it’s the old story: wet weather is caused by climate change and dry weather is caused by climate change. All in the one country.

June 16, 2026 6:05 am

The “Provenance” is incredibly dubious – not just my opinion but that of none other than the Royal Meteorological Society. No doubt Anthony Banton and the climate alarmist crew will claim Philip Eden and Stephen Burt were not qualified to comment. https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/05/10/kew-gardens-revisited-for-some-reason-the-screen-was-not-at-the-standard-height-well-below-the-standard-1-25-m-above-ground-level/

Greg Goodman
June 16, 2026 11:20 am

Bute Park look like a nice place to park your bute.