Met Office Record Temperature Claims Are Fraudulent

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

I was in the middle of writing up the story of the heatwave and the supposed record June temperature set at Class 5 junk station Santon Downham, when lo and behold three days after the event the Met Office “discovered” an even higher temperature in Norfolk on the Friday!

Amazingly Lingwood, near Norwich, was nearly half a degree hotter than even Santon Downham, which should set alarm bells ringing:

Both are junk Class 5 sites, but Lingwood is truly worse than junk, as Ray Sanders has diligently revealed at Tallbloke.

As Ray notes, the weather station is just yards north of the edge of a thick wood, apparently in someone’s back garden:

The winds were from the south on Friday, so that bank of trees acted as a very efficient sun trap, preventing any air circulation. It is also surrounded on the other three sides by a tall hedge.

It really is difficult imagining a worse site for measuring temperatures.

Lingwood really does sum up how bad the Met Office’s temperature network is. In fact, it has gone beyond descriptions such as “bad” or “poor”. It is now corrupt, in the same way as the Soviets manipulated statistics for political purposes.

The Met Office keep these sites going, and even open new ones, because they need the artificially high temperatures they produce for political purposes.

Their excuse that it is hard to find pristine sites is hogwash. I could drive out of Norwich and within ten minutes find plenty of open fields, perfect for meteorological purposes.

I’m away at the mo, so my full analysis will be published in the next day or so. That is, as long as the Met Office don’t miraculously find an even hotter place in the meantime!

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 12 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
70 Comments
Stephen Wilde
July 1, 2026 2:07 am

Open field sites?
You must be joking.

July 1, 2026 2:23 am

This suffers from all the other “junk site” nonsense.

Those trees didn’t spring up overnight.

The wind didn’t blow from the south for the first time ever in June on that particular day.

Likewise all the other excuses.

Whether or not the site is pristine is irrelevant to the fact that it recorded its warmest ever June temperature on Friday.

The Met Office keep these sites going, and even open new ones, because they need the artificially high temperatures they produce for political purposes.

And other conspiratorial, evidence-free gibberish…

Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 1, 2026 2:53 am

The problem is, they are not supplying a continuous series of temps from the same site, which would indeed maybe show a trend if there is one. (Though I am not sure a trend from a very poor site can prove much). Instead, they seem to pick the highest temp reading for the whole country, from different sites every time.

What is it supposed to prove? What policy decisions is it supposed to justify?

This is indeed an unusually hot summer in the UK (and Europe). But is it any more than the result of a rare but not unprecedented weather pattern which happens at irregular and infrequent intervals, but which is not attributable to the very small amount of recent global warming that records show? What’s the evidence?

The problem is, there are all kinds of reports like this, hottest June or July or whatever temp for instance. But what is totally lacking is any kind of systematic forecast of what is supposed to happen to UK weather over the coming decades, and what if anything to do in response to this forecast.

I guarantee you that building more wind and solar farms, abolishing heated towel rails, moving to EVs and heat pumps, ripping out air conditioners in Camden, none of that will come up for consideration as a sensible response that will improve the lives of the people who, you know, actually live in Britain.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  michel
July 1, 2026 3:24 am

But is it any more than the result of a rare but not unprecedented weather pattern which happens at irregular and infrequent intervals, but which is not attributable to the very small amount of recent global warming that records show? What’s the evidence?

I gave it in this post …….

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/22/temperatures-to-hit-record-breaking-38c-as-heat-dome-heads-for-britain/#comment-4209692

Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 1, 2026 4:40 am

Another doom spreading announcement last week was that southern trains were being delayed or cancelled because of the threat of rail buckling due to the heat. I don’t recall hearing about any actual incidents of this occurring, just the possibility it might. But derailments due to heat have happened before, the most famous of which was June 5, 1950 – The Flying Scotsman train derailed at Tollerton, Nottinghamshire due to heat-buckled track.

And before that? from google AI (after having to ask it to dispense with the ‘climate crisis’ claptrap and look at the entire historical record)

“Regarding how many times track buckling had caused derailments across the UK rail network prior to 1950, the answer is dozens, if not hundreds of times. While complete network-wide statistics for minor infrastructure shifts do not exist for the Victorian and Edwardian eras, official records confirm that sun-warped rails were a known summer operational hazard. 

Engineers left small gaps between rail joints to allow for heat expansion. If a summer was hotter than anticipated, the steel expanded until the gaps closed completely.

The Resulting Buckle: 

Once the expansion gaps closed, the immense internal pressure had nowhere to go, causing the track to violently kink outwards.

Documented Pre-1950 Heat-Buckle Derailments:

Whenever summer temperatures spiked, the pre-nationalisation railway companies routinely dealt with track distortions. Prominent historical examples of actual derailments caused by the sun include:

Felling, County Durham (1907): A passenger train was fully derailed after hitting a section of track warped by summer temperatures.

Hartley, Cumberland (1909): A freight train hauled by a North Eastern Railway locomotive left the tracks when the rails buckled under the direct heat of the sun.”

And from Network Rail:

“Railway tracks can buckle when rail temperatures reach roughly 46°C to 50°C (115°F to 122°F)”

“Unprecedented”

Only in your head.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 1, 2026 5:07 am

The late summer and autumn of 1972 were an important, though sometimes overlooked, period in Scotland’s environmental and political history. Unlike the famous drought of 1976, the 1972 episode was characterised by an unusual combination of prolonged dry conditions followed by concerns over water management and agricultural resilience. 1972 mattered because it was unprecedented in modern times. The UK Parliament passed the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which reorganised Scottish local government from 1975. Alongside this came major changes in water administration.
The new regional councils became responsible for:

  • public water supplies,
  • sewerage,
  • strategic infrastructure planning,
  • investment across much larger geographic areas.

This meant engineers could think in terms of whole river catchments rather than individual towns.
Although these reforms had been under discussion before 1972, the drought strengthened the case that water should be managed regionally.
A weather event that caused changes in policy and I think that the water levels and river flows use 1972 as a worst case situation.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 1, 2026 7:59 am

“Unprecedented”

Only in your head.”

I never said that.
I just showed that previous record June maxima had an inherently cooler airmass associated with them.
This one had an 850mb free-air temperature of 20 to 23C which is 3 to 5C higher than those previous record Junes.

Hence we ended up with a surface max that was 2C higher also.

Just basic Meteorology.
You cannot get a surface maxima divorced from the DALR, which will extend from 850mb to the surface + 2/3C superadiabatic at the surface.
That you deny the above facts is no surprise as it is necessary to maintain the ideologically motivated dissonance of the majority of WUWTians.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 1, 2026 6:21 am

Yes, read it then. The argument appears to be that the weather pattern is normal and of natural cause. Seems plausible enough. Nothing exceptional about its occurrence or dynamics. And then it goes on to argue that the difference is the heat of the air that this weather pattern draws up.

It must being argued that the Sahara is hotter than in the past due to global warming. Consequently when its hot air reaches the UK as it does in these episodes it raises the temp of the heat wave.

What’s the evidence that its any warmer in the Sahara now than in the past? What’s the evidence that if it is, its due to global warming?

The null hypothesis would be that these are very variable weather patterns and weather systems. Sometimes a warm episode in the Sahara will coincide with the weather pattern, sometimes not. Sometimes the Sahara will be warmer than others. Why do we need to invoke global warming, and what exactly is the evidence for the attribution?

I still want to know, even supposing you could make a case for Saharan warming to be the cause, and for that to have increased the temps of the latest heat wave, and even if you expect more of these very hot ones, why on earth does that justify current government policies?

taxed
Reply to  michel
July 1, 2026 8:12 am

A big clue to why the air coming up from the south of the UK is so hot currently is because of the Mediterranean Sea been so warm. It’s currently well above it’s average SST and what that suggests is that there has been persistent high pressure weather patterning over this area during the late spring and early summer. So allowing extended amounts of sunshine and light winds to warm up the Mediterranean Sea much quicker then what is usually the case. Along with all this sunshine not only will the sea be warmer but also the surrounding land as well.

The evidence to support this case will be found recorded in the sunshine records of the holiday resorts around the Mediterranean Sea this spring and early summer.

Reply to  michel
July 1, 2026 8:30 am

Very nice response, along with a series of logical questions, to which I look forward to seeing AB’s answers.

strativarius
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 1, 2026 3:21 am

I showed you a graph and you now know that the so called climate crisis is all in your cranium.

Yet you persist in the delusion. Why is that? I think we should be told.

Alan M
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 1, 2026 3:42 am

Yes, it recorded its warmest ever June temperature. but what does that show when by definition, the site is not fit for purpose?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 1, 2026 4:27 am

Anyone with a brain knows that politics has influenced the weather for the last 50 years. The reason they have a class system, is to know which stations are most reliable at giving a correct area temperature. As temperature is an intensive property. Reflecting a local state, which may include contaminated heat close to the station. Not based on an equilibrium temperature of a large area. Where no local sources of heat can raise the temperature. It’s the same with hurricanes, satellites show a low resolution intense wind speed, but a NHC plane records a upper air local wind for a minute which is 30% more intense than the satellite record. This local state is politicised by the media and used to describe the whole hurricane top speed. As wind speed is also a intensive property. And politics today will exploit intensive properties for political purposes.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  slindsayyulegmailcom
July 1, 2026 5:21 am

We can anticipate the D.C. temperatures during this present heatwave will decline rapidly as Congress has gone into recess. A lot less hot air. 😉

Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 1, 2026 4:51 am

When its uncertainty is greater than 5 degrees in each direction, that record temp is meaningless.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 1, 2026 4:56 am

Whether or not the site is pristine is irrelevant to the fact that it recorded its warmest ever June temperature on Friday.

Of course it is irrelevant, if your goal is to simply use non-scientific measurements. This is supposed to be science, you know. Science requires strict adherence to certain protocols when making measurements so that they can be comparable when analyzing them statistically.

Your screed sounds very much like a two year old screaming, “I don’t want to go to bed” or a teenager yelling, “You can’t tell me what to do”. Grow up and learn some responsibility for doing things correctly instead of just yelling “I know better”, post some fact-based reasons for claiming something is incorrect.

Do you know what an outlier is? How does one go about determining what is an outlier?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 1, 2026 5:22 am

The Veruca Salt syndrome.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 1, 2026 5:10 am

All is not lost.
The Labour government are giving about a billion in subsidy to a carbon capture scheme which could easily reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 1 part in a million in under 15,000 years.
They aren’t stupid you know.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 1, 2026 5:16 am

I could put a thermometer in my oven and record the highest temperature ever.

Lighten up Frances.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 1, 2026 7:01 am

Depends if the oven door is open or closed – h/t bdgwx

/s

strativarius
July 1, 2026 3:05 am

They have over 100 “virtual” weather stations with over 3 million years of observations…

Its hotter than evah or so they say, but I know they’re parroting a narrative…

Time for an official Fifa’ hydration break’.

Keitho
Editor
July 1, 2026 3:11 am

Story tip: I see El Niño is performing to prescription.

https://klimata.org/el-ninometer-real-time-enso-index/?i=1

Nick Stokes
July 1, 2026 3:34 am

It’s always something, isn’t it?

Jet engines, solar panels, now trees!!!

As TFN says, why were those trees doing whatever on this day and not before?

strativarius
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 1, 2026 4:08 am

There’s always something to nitpick.

A lot of knickers being wet over nothing. Also known as climate anxiety…

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 1, 2026 5:07 am

We do not know what they were or were not doing on previous days. As to why a given junk site shows a given temp? There is no way to know. That is what makes it a junk site.

The rational approach to this is roughly as follows. This is a very hot UK summer. Not unprecedented, but pretty unusual. Whether a given station shows a UK max temp for any particular month is unimportant if you are looking for evidence to guide policy decisions on housing codes, insulation, energy policy. If the high temp on June 27 or on July 3 it has no climate significance. But one will be trumpeted as a record for June, when if it had happened a few days later it would have been nothing in particular for July.

As to policy, as I said in another post, maybe UK summer temps are going to be higher, maybe there are going to be more frequent heat waves. Fine, what are the policy implications?

I guarantee you they are not going to be what the UK governments have been doing for the last 20 years. It is not a rational response to more frequent UK heat waves to try and move everyone to heat pumps and EVs, and to move electricity generation to wind and solar. Its like spitting in the wind. It just makes the problem, if there is one, worse. And ‘because climate’ is not any kind of reason.

Revise building codes, and retrofit offices and homes with insulation and external shutters, improve ventilation. And allow new builds to install air con! And improve power generation so it delivers cheap abundant electricity.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 1, 2026 5:12 am

And what do increasing temperatures have to do with Britain’s Net Zero scheme?
Nothing.
The UK government has abandoned talk of our Net Zero scheme having any effect on temperature.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 1, 2026 5:25 am

As TFN says, why were those trees doing whatever on this day and not before?

How about growing? How about additional leaves due to CO2 fertilization?

You of all people should understand that measurement uncertainty is a requirement for adequately addressing statistical significance.

A class 5 station can have an uncertainty interval of ±”systematic+5)°C. And yes, that means the temperature could have been 5°C warmer that what was recorded. But, it could have been 5°C cooler also. No one really knows do they?

The statistical significance disappears within the uncertainty interval, doesn’t it?

Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 1, 2026 8:05 am

A class 5 station can have an uncertainty interval of ±”systematic+5)°C. And yes, that means the temperature could have been 5°C warmer that what was recorded. But, it could have been 5°C cooler also. No one really knows do they?”

LOLLL

You’re treating the event as though it rests on a single weather station, but it doesn’t. This was a continent-wide heat wave observed across hundreds of stations in multiple countries.

To dismiss a Europe wide heat wave as a measurement artifact, you’d have to argue that a large number of independent observations all produced errors in the same direction and of a similar magnitude at the same time. 

Reply to  Eldrosion
July 1, 2026 8:33 am

To dismiss a Europe wide heat wave as a measurement artifact

I am not dismissing it at all. I am just pointing out that the absolute value may or may not be a new record. All measurements are estimates, using a mean value to compare measurements is not statistically correct.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 1, 2026 7:28 am

And how does Paul explain the fact that I predicted the eventual outcome in advance?

https://community.netweather.tv/topic/102625-summer-2026-max-temp-heat-watch/page/2/#findComment-5487646

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 1, 2026 7:47 am

It doesn’t matter what was or wasn’t there before, what matters is what’s there now.

If the ground around the weather station doesn’t comply with WMO standards it’s trash.

1saveenergy
July 1, 2026 3:49 am

[“It really is difficult imagining a worse site for measuring temperatures.”]

No, it’s a perfect site for measuring temperatures
If you want to show consistently high results, sheltered, sun-trapped, perfect.
The majority of sheeple will believe the results, especially if they hear it on the BBC (:<((

MrGrimNasty
July 1, 2026 4:23 am

It is not ‘fraudulent’, it is what it is (to use such a ghastly phrase).

It is pub trivia, simply the highest reading recorded on all the official weather stations recording at the time.

There is no supreme level of perfection in all the existing records either.

As I’ve explained before, I have had the same max/min thermometer in the same unchanged position and environs since the early 80s. I recorded an all time high (not just June) by just over 2C. Getting anywhere near 30C used to be exceptional in my coastal location, now it’s very ordinary. 34C is the new 30C.

It clearly was a record breaking heatwave.

Just because a site may look bad and be rated as up to 5C error does not mean it was on this occasion. Arguing the toss over points that are mere conjecture is pretty pointless.

Frankemann
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
July 1, 2026 4:50 am

…may look bad? So you argue it is not bad? Perfect siting for objective reading of temperature representative for the larger area where it is located?

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  Frankemann
July 1, 2026 5:13 am

Yawn.

July 1, 2026 4:29 am

However, bear in mind that “38 °C” was recorded at RAF Lakenheath and Norwich Airport at around the same time of day.

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  Jim Hunt
July 1, 2026 7:32 am

Within tenths of 40C in Jersey, but that’s B.Isles not UK.

July 1, 2026 4:47 am

Note, these records are provisional and have yet to be verified, so I think any claim of fraud is unwise.

Meanwhile, I’d love to know what Homewood’s views are on the accuracy of the previous record, set in 1976 in Southampton, Mayflower.

strativarius
Reply to  Bellman
July 1, 2026 4:59 am

These ‘records’ are based on a nanosecond in geological time. They are laughable at best.

Reply to  strativarius
July 1, 2026 5:05 am

It’s the nanosecond of time I happen to be living in. That means more to me than temperatures during the Mesozoic era.

strativarius
Reply to  Bellman
July 1, 2026 5:09 am

It’s the nanosecond of time I happen to be living in. 

The fact that we do not control the weather and never have done escapes you.
You can come out from under the table, you know… Maybe you can be saved by studying orbital mechanics?

Reply to  strativarius
July 1, 2026 7:16 am

We “humans” do have some control over “the climate” though.

Reply to  Bellman
July 1, 2026 5:40 am

Meanwhile, I’d love to know what Homewood’s views are on the accuracy of the previous record, set in 1976 in Southampton, Mayflower.

Put them on a graph and include the uncertainty bars. How much overlap is there? What is the reliance you can put on a temperature measurement of either reading?

Remember that the “mean” is only the center of an interval, and the true value can be anywhere within that interval. A ±5°C interval does not provide much statistical significance to any comparison.

July 1, 2026 4:55 am

Meanwhile CET recorded the 4 warmest max June temperatures last month

1 2026-06-26 32.8
2 2026-06-25 31.9
3 2026-06-23 31.5
4 2026-06-24 30.7
5 2019-06-29 30.5
6 1976-06-28 30.3
7 2005-06-19 30.2
8 1976-06-29 30.1
9 1947-06-02 30.0
10 1950-06-06 29.9

Personally though I think “June” record is not very meaningful as there were warmer days in early July. The warmest ever CET maximums

1 2022-07-19 37.3
2 2022-07-18 34.8
3 2019-07-25 34.2
4 1990-08-03 33.4
5 2020-07-31 33.2
6 1976-07-03 33.1
7 2006-07-19 33.0
=8 1990-08-02 32.8
=8 2003-08-09 32.8
=8 2015-07-01 32.8
=8 2026-06-26 32.8

CET also recorded it’s warmest minimum temperature for all months, not just June.

1 2026-06-26 20.1
2 2016-07-20 19.6
3 2022-07-19 18.9
4 1997-08-11 18.8
5 1948-07-29 18.7
6 1975-08-05 18.5
=6 2004-08-09 18.5
=6 2020-08-12 18.5
=9 1949-09-05 18.4
=9 2001-07-29 18.4

Reply to  Bellman
July 1, 2026 5:15 am

Oh please! You and many others are predicting catastrophic climate/weather 100 years into the future based on less that 100 years of mostly questionable data collection. Look at this graphic, study it and the time scales involved and get your mind right. It will make an honest man/women out of you.

Pick two points in this graphic. One on an upward temp trend and one on a downward trend and convince me temperature spikes, hot and cold did not occur with in a 100, 1000 or 10000 year span.

And just because thermometers were not invented doesn’t mean the spikes didn’t occur.

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  Bellman
July 1, 2026 5:19 am

You and your facts, that’ll get you nowhere here with my fellow skeptics.

strativarius
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
July 1, 2026 5:37 am

your facts

His truth….

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  strativarius
July 1, 2026 7:34 am

It’s the best scientific data available, your comment is just silly; especially considering your only reason for rejecting them is that it offends your own beliefs.

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
July 1, 2026 7:47 am

It’s the best scientific data available,

If you include a measurement uncertainty of ±5°C to be scientific, then I suppose your characterization is possible. Using it to gauge statistical probability between two separate measurements is perverse.

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
July 1, 2026 5:48 am

You and your facts, that’ll get you nowhere here with my fellow skeptics.

That is because us skeptics require scientific accuracy for scientific claims. That includes using measurement uncertainty intervals in order to ascertain the statistical significance of any claims.

Occam’s Razor will tell you that if you can draw a straight line that has no change within the uncertainty intervals of the temperatures, then you don’t know what the actual trend is.

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 1, 2026 7:37 am

It’s the CET. Your ignorance is astounding.
Take a look at the record. If you can’t see the truth there’s no point with further debate.

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
July 1, 2026 7:51 am

If you can’t see the truth there’s no point with further debate.

From a popular movie, “You can’t handle the truth”! Funny how you must use the argumentative fallacy of Appeal to Authority rather than discuss the scientific details of measurements.

Reply to  Bellman
July 1, 2026 5:42 am

Meanwhile CET recorded the 4 warmest max June temperatures last month.

Why do you never show the measurement uncertainty for each of those measurements? Does the statistical significance disappear when you do that?

Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 1, 2026 6:07 am

Agree. Show it for the individual measurements. Show it for the trends. Doh!

I need to spoon feed my point. The “measurement uncertainty” for the individual measurements would tend to diminish with the more of them used to calculate the resulting trends. And ponder before you “wudabout correlation?”. That would tend to further diminish trend uncertainty.

strativarius
Reply to  bigoilbob
July 1, 2026 6:38 am

Spoon feeding: a very middle class concept, Bob. Popular at Eton and Harrow.

Has it ever been hotter before? I wonder…

comment image

Reply to  strativarius
July 1, 2026 6:58 am

Certainly. And?

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  strativarius
July 1, 2026 7:41 am

There you go shifting the goal posts again.
We are talking about the MO records data that exists for the UK, not past reconstructions. No one that is ‘against you’ disputed that so why bring it up?

Reply to  bigoilbob
July 1, 2026 7:11 am

 The “measurement uncertainty” for the individual measurements” s/b ” The “calculated uncertainty” for the trends”

The poster regrets the error…

Reply to  bigoilbob
July 1, 2026 7:38 am

 The “measurement uncertainty” for the individual measurements” s/b ” The “calculated uncertainty” for the trends”

If you are assuming the residuals are the “calculated uncertainty” of the trend, then you are assuming the data points are 100% accurate with no uncertainty of their own determined from the measurement uncertainty inherent in each measurement.

Residuals only tell you the fit of the model, i.e., regression of 100% accurate data points.

The uncertainty in the slope and intercept uses a covariance matrix of the fitted parameters using measurement uncertainty, not the residuals. There are several techniques that can be used to assess the trend uncertainty. One is weighted least squares.

 In addition, these are time series, not x-y related data. They should be analyzed using time series analysis techniques. If CO2 is the main driver, then the x-axis should be CO2 and the y-axis temperature. Do you ever wonder why the supposed main culprit in heating is never plotted along with temperature? Why is that not done?  

Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 1, 2026 7:56 am

“If you are assuming the residuals are the “calculated uncertainty” of the trend, then you are assuming the data points are 100% accurate with no uncertainty of their own determined from the measurement uncertainty inherent in each measurement.”

No need to assume that each data point is “accurate”. I am assuming that what you are aksing for – the total “uncertainty” including ALL sources of accuracy/uncertainty, both correlated and not, is provided. These data distributions – whether constant or changing, throughout, can be used to provide the referenced, distributed, trends, with an uncertainty that takes all into account. As the number of data points increases, and/or the number of different “errors” are introduced, the trend error will tend to decrease. Of course in the cherry picked example of early systemic trend errors jetting low, and later systemic errors jetting high, the overall trend would be thus off (goes both ways). But as the number of those systemic errors increases, the error they would introduce in the trend would tend to decrease.

Reply to  Bellman
July 1, 2026 6:44 am

Of course all of this is ignoring uncertainties, and for daily CET the uncertainties will be large owing to the small sample size. None of these records will be statistically significant, but that’s not really the point. Records are just a bit of fun, they may indicate a general worming but you really need to look at the long term trends in monthly or annual temperatures.

Reply to  Bellman
July 1, 2026 7:55 am

daily CET the uncertainties will be large owing to the small sample size.

Sample size has nothing to do with single measurements. The uncertainty of a single measurement is determined from an uncertainty budget whose components might be determined by statistical analysis (Type A) or other means (Type B). The additional uncertainty due to siting is a Type B uncertainty and is appropriate to include.

Mr.
July 1, 2026 5:53 am

So these Class 5 sites can have error factors of 5C up or down?

For all the use they are, we may as well treat them as suppositories and stick them up our arse.

July 1, 2026 6:09 am

I’m on the South Coast of UK and last Thursday I recorded 37.4 C for a few minutes and 37C for several hours , the digital thermometer is in the shade next to the house , which backs onto woodland . It must be remembered that we haven’t seen temperatures this high since 1976 , yes we’ve regularly over the years had temperatures in the 30+C range but not quite this high . The digital thermometer normally agrees with the forecasted temperatures and whilst we were out driving around the temperature readout in the car was showing 37.5C . But as the old English saying goes “ one swallow doesn’t make it summer “ I think one isolated high temperature in 50 years doesn’t prove global warming ( a swallow is an African migratory bird seen in Uk during summer ) . In days of this high temperature weather returned to normal Uk summer temps .

IMG_3433
Reply to  Northern Bear
July 1, 2026 6:12 am

What is the uncertainty of your device?

strativarius
Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 1, 2026 6:40 am

Nobody checks calibration these days.

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  Northern Bear
July 1, 2026 7:46 am

Yes nothing to see, record heat May, then June, another heatwave coming, by far warmest year in 400 odd years so far. All down to dodgy thermometers/sites and lack of declaring uncertainties. Risible.

cartoss
July 1, 2026 6:10 am

Anyone ever seen Stokes, Banton and Nail in the same room at the same time? Or any pair of them? Thought not. They are the same animal and I claim my $50 dollars prize!

strativarius
Reply to  cartoss
July 1, 2026 6:41 am

The Unholy Triumvirate – unmasked.

Reply to  cartoss
July 1, 2026 7:20 am

Nick’s from down under, whereas I am from out West.

I can assure you that we are unrelated!