From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
The Met Office can no longer claim to be a serious, scientific organisation:
A new UK and England June daily temperature record of 38°C has been verified by the Met Office’s site weather assessment team, higher than the 37.7°C figure previously reported.
The 38°C figure, set on 26 June 2026, comes from the same station – Lingwood – as the previously reported provisional record. As part of the usual Met Office verification process, the site weather assessment team identified the original figure was incorrectly reported as an average through a defined period, rather than the usual daily maximum at the site. The verification process corrected this and confirmed the 38°C figure, reported with the consistent operating practices used across the country’s weather network.
Verification of the figure puts 38°C as the new highest June temperature on record in the UK, with the rigorous validation process confirming the figure.
This national meteorological service process includes a site inspection and check of the equipment. In addition, the data provided undergoes a series of quality control checks for their meteorological feasibility, including that of neighbouring station comparisons and minute-by-minute analysis.
When stations or instruments don’t meet the high national and international standards, provisional records are rejected and a verification process takes place at the next highest-ranking site.
In truly Orwellian fashion, they state that “When stations or instruments don’t meet the high national and international standards, provisional records are rejected”.
International standards?
By their own admission, Lingwood is the worst of all sites, a junk Class 5 one which meets NONE of the WMO’s criteria for temperature recording. As such, the WMO say that poor siting can add as much as 5C to the real temperature.
Lingwood’s original reading was 37.7C, meaning that the Met Office cannot legitimately claim the temperature in the surrounding area was more than 32.7C.
They then inexplicably tell us they have decided to round it up to 38C.
As Ray Sanders has commented:
“This frankly sounds absurd beyond belief. The Data Logger simply takes 4 consecutive PRT readings 15 seconds apart. (0, 15 30 and 45 seconds past the minute) and averages them. Quite how an automatic computing system can suddenly get this wrong is beyond me. More likely they have opted to alter the minutes worth of readings to adjust up the average. It all sounds far too spurious to me.”
Lingwood, you may recall, is in a private back garden, surrounded on three sides by high hedges and the fourth by a thick line of trees. It is a perfect suntrap, the sort of thing that the WMO say is not acceptable for temperature recording. Worse still, the Stevenson screen is in an overgrown part of the garden.
Not good enough for the WMO, but OK for Met Office propaganda!
We know the answer will be about meeting standards…but the standards are abysmal…and rigged..!
I see that you chose the crayon again.
Narcissists will narcissist.
I was recently in correspondence with the MO on the subject of RCP 8.5 and it’s recent demise at the hands of the IPCC as implausible. Their UKCP18 projections were largely based on… RCP 8.5. In their reply they said:
Where studies use UKCP18 products based on RCP8.5 but in the context of global warming levels that reach up to 4°C, results and conclusions can also be used as before.
And…
Whilst SSP5-8.5 is now considered implausible, it is important to note that higher levels of warming still might be reached if some feedbacks in the climate system turn out to be stronger than current estimates, or there are additional feedbacks not included in typical climate model simulations. The plausibility of future scenarios also changes over time. We cannot rule out that scenarios currently considered implausible could become more likely again in the future.
They’re still hoping, obviously. And they will – it would seem – do anything [to the data] to get there.
there are additional feedbacks not included in typical climate model simulations.
Oh. So the climate models are rubbish and not to be believed.
I replied – among other things – “there is a firm ideological belief in the MO that radiative greenhouse gases are the magic temperature control knob. That is patent nonsense, as a primer:
“The Physics of the Tropospheric Lapse Rate Refutes the Radiative ‘Greenhouse Effect’“
Do they provide any rationale for their conjecture or a probability range for their use of “might?”
The world MIGHT end tomorrow!
That’s my point. Words like “might” and “could” (that I call lawyer words) imply ‘not impossible’ but low-probability events that are ambiguous unless the author defines bounds for his usage.
No
C’mon Clyde, it’s the Met Office.
To paraphrase an American senator who doesn’t deserve the name recognition, “It not MY Met Office.”
Again, the abuse of a well defined engineering term, feedback.
Off topic – The Miliband Legacy
BP has confirmed plans to put its North Sea oil business up for sale despite the reserves it owns being “integral to the UK’s energy system”. – GB News
Chief executive Meg O’Neill said she believed the North Sea business, which has around 1,100 staff, would be “better positioned as part of another company”.
Meanwhile comrade Burnham has said… nothing, as has comrade mad Miatta.
Burnham is avoiding scrutiny with a clear run to September/October. He is currently engaged on a circular charm offensive – being all things to all people: I’m Andy, I’m from the North and I’m a nice bloke….
Perhaps Norway might buy it and then sell the oil to the UK with a mark up for their Sovereign Wealth Fund.
I would (if I were Norway), if only for the lolz, never mind the royalties.
Of course they can. Just like Gavin Schmidt can claim to be a climate scientist, or Mike Mann can claim to be a Nobel Laureate.
The Met Office has shown that they are totally incapable of maintaining a satisfactory set of temperature measurement sites.
Even many of their newer sites installed are total garbage and almost look like they are specifically designed to give a large warming bias.
It doesn’t really matter, does it? It’s a complete waste of time, money, and effort. The degree of hotness of a meteorological thermometer continuously changes during the day, apart from the infinitesimally small periods where energy in equals energy out, at the inflection points of maximum and minimum temperature.
Record away! Might as well also record wind speed and direction, RH, pressure, cloud cover and type, precipitation amount and type, and so on.
In general, a fat lot of good it will do anybody. Historical curiosities with no useful predictive power whatsoever.
Obviously many people think it’s worthwhile, and needs even more funding.
This is on top of the fact that temperature is *NOT* climate. Precipitation is a far larger factor in flora and fauna survival, i.e. climate, than is temperature. The savannahs of the US central plains and of central Africa are similar in climate – except that temperatures are very different. If “climate” scientists were really worried about climate their models would use precipitation-based forcing and not CO2 forcing.;
Funny how MET uses “climate station” not weather station or temperature station.
“maintaining a satisfactory set of temperature measurement sites.”
That was never the goal. The goal was propaganda.
“Lingwood, you may recall, is in a private back garden, surrounded on three sides by high hedges and the fourth by a thick line of trees. It is a perfect suntrap, the sort of thing that the WMO say is not acceptable for temperature recording. Worse still, the Stevenson screen is in an overgrown part of the garden.”
Not a particularly accurate description of the location!
More recently
Not a good siting at all!
Why is that Tim, to me this site is reasonable, not in an urban jungle not in a forest or an obvious wind trap. I am not condoning the MET’s classifications or it’s dodgy homogenization methodology, but surely this site should be acceptable priding the instruments are working properly.
As I pointed out earlier today, the changing microclimate has obviously changed over the years or decades. Those trees didn’t start out at that height and neither did the hedges. That foliage change will obviously have an impact on measured temperature.
Many sites experience land use changes and other changes in conditions they are measuring. You simply can’t trend temperatures from long term stations without also taking into account the drift that these changes cause. In order to portray these trends as accurate to the hundredths digit (which is below the resolution of the actual measurements) without taking drift into account is unscientific.
The measuring station should be at least 100 yards from any structure or other impediment. This site doesn’t even meet that simple requirement. I can’t tell directions from the picture but it would appear that the site is affected by shade trees from at least three different sides. That shading will affect the temperature in unknown ways. It might affect the soil temperatures thus affecting the station reading and it might affect the air flow to and through the station which would also have an effect on temperature readings.
This is a basic reason why trying to average intensive properties is physically impossible. Each component making up the microclimate has its own intensive property known as temperature. There is no “average” temperature to be had. The temperatures of the components in the microclimate DO NOT ADD to create a larger system. The temperature under the trees DO NOT ADD with the temperatures in the field to create a larger system. For an average to have physical meaning the components must be able to be added so as to create a larger system. I.e. the mass of two rocks in your hand add together to form a larger system equal to the sum of the masses. The temperature of those rocks DO NOT ADD to a larger system equal to the sum of the temperatures. If one of the rocks is at 60F and the other at 70F you are *NOT* holding 130F in your hand – your hand does not hurt or blister.
You can do the math operations to find an average value of the distribution of the temperatures but it has no physical meaning in the real world – only in statistical world which is where climate science seems to live.
That station *should* be located so as to represent the temperature of the entire region, not a shaded, occluded area inside the region.
If one looks at the picture the forest on one side is heavy the fields are on the other three sides. Open bare brown ground is hotter than forest and the forest acts as a windbreak as well. That could very well push up the temperatures a lot depending on wind speeds and direction in the local area of the station.
Unless that screen has an internal fan there is no possible way for it to properly assess the air temperature of the surrounding area. And, even with that I’ll guarantee it won’t read the temperature of the surrounding fields.
Actually the site has a wood on only one side – the south, with individual trees close on the other sides. The wind that day (from Norwich a/p) was from WSW to W’ly, meaning that the wood likely did not block it and it was directed along its edge with gaps in the trees to the west of the screen allowing a flow past the screen. Otherwise acres of fields on the W, N and E sides of it.
The UK MetO says :
“Rejected figures
Figures are first reported as ‘provisional’ to enable this considered verification process to take place, often utilising further data not available at the time of original recording. If this process cannot affirm the expected levels of confidence during the analysis the figures are rejected.
Such is the rigour of this verification process, some sites have been discounted from providing new records on this occasion. A broken slat on the Stevenson Screen at Wiggonholt invalidated the readings from that site and remedial work is now underway.
The site at Eastbourne was also discounted as the grass was too long and nearby interference at the site didn’t meet usual high standard and so this data was excluded from the daily extremes.
In addition, the recent temperature figures reported from Cardiff Bute Park have also been rejected following a detailed review of the site, which found the station no longer meets the standards required for national temperature records.”
EGSH 261650Z 26009KT 230V310 CAVOK 37/13 Q1013
EGSH 261620Z 26009KT CAVOK 36/15 Q1013
EGSH 261550Z 26011KT 220V300 CAVOK 37/14 Q1013
EGSH 261520Z 25010KT 210V280 CAVOK 38/12 Q1013
EGSH 261450Z 25009KT 220V280 CAVOK 36/16 Q1013
EGSH 261420Z 26009KT 230V310 CAVOK 36/17 Q1013
EGSH 261350Z 24006KT 190V300 CAVOK 37/18 Q1013
https://maps.app.goo.gl/mAnYdGnMTiidjkZs7
Why don’t you put an uncertainty of measurement on the term “likely did not block it”?
Fundamentally, you have no idea about the turbulence caused by those trees and how it affected the wind across the screen. The fact that you must declare the wind must be from a certain direction to validate the reading should automatically invalidate its classification.
“Fundamentally, you have no idea about the turbulence caused by those trees and how it affected the wind across the screen.”
Of course not, but fundamentally with my 32 years of observing/forecasting the weather I can give as good a shot as is possible
Again you carp about unknowables – and of course in your world nothing can be certain, at least in the case of something you do not want to be certain.
In the real world we have to make judgements. Yes and in science too.
See my post below about expected maxes that day.
“”Again you carp about unknowables –””
I carp because you refuse to acknowledge that uncertainty exists.
Uncertainty is not unknownble. It may be estimated as in a Type B uncertainty but it does exist.
By not acknowledging the uncertainty you are leading people to believe that a temperature can be 30 ±0.0°C.
Are you saying that a weather station can’t provide the direction of the wind for the time of record, a wind rose for the season, or the variance in wind direction and speed on the day of the record? Those all seem to be standard products for any observations from what qualifies as a weather station versus a hobbyist’s thermometer in a poorly maintained Stevenson screen.
Looks like a well maintained screen to me.
https://www.itv.com/watch/news/at-home-with-the-amateur-weather-observer-who-recorded-uks-highest-june-temperature/zrxcckl
“well maintained” has little to do with it! I can maintain a tape measure in tip top condition and it can still be as inaccurate as all git out when making measurements if I don’t allow for the micro-environment it is being used in!
I was addressing Clyde’s comment that it is “a poorly maintained Stevenson screen”.
It looks like a better site than the Central Park weather station in NYC for example.
Can you see cob webs, slot blockages, or miscalibrated thermometers from that distance?
how about the reflectivity of the station enclosure? When was it last painted with the appropriate paint?
None of those, else the reading would have been ivalidated on the inspection of the site before it was ratified.
Unless you want to take it to “conspiracy” levels.
“Again you carp about unknowables – and of course in your world nothing can be certain, at least in the case of something you do not want to be certain.”
Nothing involving measurements is *EVER* certain.
It’s highly likely, based on your words, that you have *NIEVER* been involved in a project whose result would be liable for civil or criminal liability.
From the “Era of Decentralized Observation” thread:
———————-
“If this were any other high-consequence system—like the design of a bridge, the safety of a drug, or the management of a pension fund—we would demand a clear separation between “anecdotal estimates” and “verified facts.” We would insist on knowing exactly how much of our warming trend is observation and how much is statistical correction.”
————————
GUM:
——————-
3.1.2 In general, the result of a measurement (B.2.11) is only an approximation or estimate (C.2.26) of
the value of the measurand and thus is complete only when accompanied by a statement of the uncertainty
(B.2.18) of that estimate.
——————–
———————-
E.5.1 The focus of this Guide is on the measurement result and its evaluated uncertainty rather than on the unknowable quantities “true” value and error (see Annex D). By taking the operational views that the result of a measurement is simply the value attributed to the measurand and that the uncertainty of that result is a measure of the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand, this Guide in effect uncouples the often confusing connection between uncertainty and the unknowable quantities “true” value and error.
——————–(bolding mine, tpg)
You appear to be like so many supporters of climate science today – absolutely ignorant of the basic concepts of metrology, the science of measurements.
Just curious, how many air conditioners do you own?
None.
CENSORSHIP to protect the climate troll.. why do that !!!
Actually…
You are funny, Anthony.
The wind flowed over the dry brown fields and got hotter just like on any urban heat island. The trees to the south directed the heated air past the station.
The photo I showed is relevant to the Record temperature because it was taken within a few days. Also unlike yours it shows the correct location of the Stevenson screen. Given the shade (the reason it’s classified as 5) it’s more likely to record a lower temperature than if it were situated in the middle of the adjacent field.
” it’s more likely to record a lower temperature”
Good point Phil:
In a word: Transpiration (from the trees).
This is all supposition. Another issue is that all that foliage has grown over the last 20 – 30 years. What has that done to the temperature trend? Has the growth in the trend been caused by a changing microenvironment? If drift is not adequately addressed in the uncertainty budget no one knows how statistically significant the trend is. Bottom line – pseudoscience.
Foliage does look like it’s changed much over that time.
So is it supposition that because it the trees (wood) to its south and few in the garden – yet has acres of green field to the other 3 sides – it over recorded.
The day’s airmass was inherently a 38C airmass – not a 33C airmass. And that is what was recorded there.
And CO2 caused this air mass?
Your use of a measurement without a corresponding indication of its quality aptly illustrates your lack of appreciation for scientific measurements.
Here is what the GUM, JCGM 100:2008 says in its very first paragraph.
c
Assuming a base uncertainty of ±1.0°C, then,
Class 4 -> ±3.0°C or |35°C to 41°C|, or
Class 5 -> ±6.0°C or |32.0°C to 44.0°C|.
These intervals should give you pause about comparing them to past temperatures or temperatures from another station. That is why there is an obligation for quoting the uncertainty. You cannot know what the true value is, only the interval where it might lay.
And it is impossible to know where in that interval the true value lies.
Here’s a site that’s termed an Official WMO Centennial Observing Station. Any thoughts about its trends?
It looked like this 100 years ago:
As I have already said. Foliage growth WILL cause a drift in temperature readings. If this is not taken in account when comparing temperatures, the conclusions reached will be faulty.
Field measurements taken over decades have uncertainties that are never comparable to lab derived quantities. The images you have shown appear to indicate the screen and measuring device was changed at some point in the past. That alone indicates a major change in both the values and uncertainties involved invalidating any direct comparisons.
The station screen appears to be below the fence in one picture and above the fence in the other. That means different air flow characteristics. I can’t see the ground in the second picture but it’s on a rock foundation whose top is above the surrounding ground level. In the first picture it looks like the sensor installation is at ground level based on the surrounding vegetation. That’s going to make a difference in the heat reaching the measurement station from the ground. In neither picture is the station mounted “in the clear” thus impacting air flow. It’s not just air flow into the screen that impacts temperature readings but also the air flow around the screen.
And yet the WMO lists it in a specialized category: “WMO has a mechanism to recognize centennial observing stations to promote sustainable observational standards and best practices that facilitate the generation of high-quality time series data”.
[more “so you’re saying”, snipped ~ctm]
More rancid censorship.
Those mature trees to the rear are less than 6m away and the building to the west is 7.5m away, making this weather station a WMO Class 4 at best more likely Class 5.
That means the temperature recorded is likely +2 C or more according to the WMO.
What is the direction of prevailing winds, or for this particular record, the direction the day the record was set?
From the W so blowing over the open field into the Stevenson screen.
So, you are saying that the Stevenson screen was receiving air from the adjacent field with no evident transpiration? Was that recorded by the person(s) maintaining the ‘weather station,’ or is it just something that you would like to believe? If the fetch for the ‘weather station’ was the mono-culture field sourcing the air, does it truly represent a 2-meter air parcel? Is there a Stevenson screen in the agricultural field to provide any insight on what the path of the air is? I’m reminded of one time I was in Hawaii for an August conference. The air temperature at my head was probably in the high-seventies (F), while my extremely uncomfortable feet were telling me that the white, coral sand was probably at least over 110 (F).
You asked for the “direction the day the record was set” I told you, what does that have to do with walking on a beach?
The bare ground can get to about 140 deg F. If the wind is coming from that direction with laminar flow, and suddenly encounters obstacles, the flow will become turbulent and rise to or above the height of the Stevenson Screen. Did you really need to have that explained, or didn’t you know what else to say to avoid answering my questions. Let me try again. What is your source of information about the wind direction(s)?
Who says the fields were bare soil?
And over that sort of surface at max temps the flow would not be laminar anyway – there would be turbulent convection pockets in the flow.
And that is the case for all observation sites at max temp on a hot sunny summer day.
“Did you really need to have that explained”
“What is your source of information about the wind direction(s)?”
I got it from Norwich a/ps metars – and posted them on this thread.
It’s a grassy field not bare ground!
Lingwood is one of a very large number of UK weather stations without site wind data. The nearest CIMO 2 site, Tibenham Airfield registered WSW at 13:00 GMT at 51% Minimum Assumed Ventilation. The belt of trees to the SW of Lingwoid would have significantly reduced the ventilation further helping explain the temperature anomaly here.
It wasn’t an anomaly.
It was the expected max temp from the airmass that day.
Even to air coming off a brown field – that is natural, as it is representative of the area.
The wood is to the south not SW.
The anomaly is in the Rise to Peak of 0.3C per minute <1% probability at CIMO 1 site.
What is that red circle supposed to indicate, it isn’t the weather station?
This is a totally unsuitable site for measuring local temperature.
ie.. a standard Met Office site.
Lingwood measured dismantled even further….
Met Office Confirm Lingwood Is A Junk Site–But Declare Record Temperature Anyway! | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Quote… “They have got their “38C Record Temperature” headline, which is all that matters to them.”
Yes, it was in no way an exceptional June day …..
“The new records confirmed are as below:
It’s all a conspiracy I tell you !!!!
25/06/2026
Castlederg (CIMO 5) 49m Est. 1995(PRT Era) recorded 30.8°C at 15:30 GMT 1.6°C above Previous hour with a 3.5% probability at a CIMO 1 site with 41.7% of Minimum Assumed Ventilation for PRT in Stevenson Screen.
Hawarden Airport (CIMO 4) 11m Est.1944 (LIGT Era) recorded 35.1°C, 1.8°C above maximum hour (15:00) with <2.475%probability at a CIMO 1 site with 61.8% of Minimum Assumed Ventilation for PRT in Stevenson Screen.
Yes, it was in no way an exceptional June day ….. usual anomalies from PRTs.
well give’m a break people (sarc) drove by a weather station in southern Spain located between the highway A44 and the national road N323 (near Granada)…tops 10m to each asphalt slab. So indeed: Junk is meeting international standards due to the fact that it can be found EVERYWHERE…standard nowadays obviously is defined as pure garbage.
Look on the bright side: they can only inflate the weather station books so much before further inflation is obvious even to the true believers. They can’t keep raising the records by a degree every couple of years. Sooner or later they’d have to report records of 50°C.
“Lingwood’s original reading was 37.7C, meaning that the Met Office cannot legitimately claim the temperature in the surrounding area was more than 32.7C.
It’s 5C uncertainty BOTH WAYS under certain conditions, maybe. In reality it was probably about right. I’m bored of all this conjectural analysis. It’s a record hot year by a significant margin. Regardless of squirrelly distractions.
On the basis you could be wrong, I am going to say you are. I say it with exactly the same authority.
Exactly! Given the layout of the site as I showed above I would expect it to read lower temperature than if it had been sited in the middle of the adjacent field.
“Lingwood’s original reading was 37.7C, meaning that the Met Office cannot legitimately claim the temperature in the surrounding area was more than 32.7C.”
That’s not how it works – not a blanket error.
It is a possibility say the WMO, but the MetO do their own verification of the quality of data, and for historical sites comparison with nearby sites has been ongoing for decades.
Class 3 or 4 is the best the geography/latitude of the UK can give us anyway.
A 5C differential of 33 to 38C is very noticable in feel and comparison with temps recorded over a general area shows whether reasonable or not.
Also radiosonde data gives a very accurate estimate of likely max temps.
This is from E Sussex at 0Z 25/26th (that air traveling northwards to be over E Anglia later in the day ) ….
No way would only 32.7 occur as a max considering the heat in that ascent.
The 850mb (5000ft) temp was 22C and a DALR gives 37 at the surface with 2C surface super-adiabatic on top, it could even have been warmer.
NB:
Method using addition of solar heating:
In June it changes the surface based thickness of 130mb from the environmental 00Z to a DALR at Max temp.
IE: average the temp from surface to 130mb above and then come down a DALR to the surface then add 2C).
You will find that that is essentially the same as the 850 method
Lingwood
Latitude 52.622
Longitude 1.487.
“…comparison with nearby sites has been ongoing for decades.”
Station o.3882 nearby?
Its not only the MET office who does such “malpractice”, our national Austrian weatheroffice is basically the same.
This year we had the “hotest Temprature ever in June since forever”… on a station that falls into the Class4/5 classification. At least they make a note on their website (but noone mentions it in the media).
Same for all the 40°C measurements, in vienna it was measured in the “Innere Stadt”, the Station is on a roof top, surrounded by streets and glass/metal facades which also would put at Class 4/5 teritorry.
The problem is mainly the narrative, its desired that everything is the “hotest time ever”, regardless if the data is lacking or bad quality. Whats sad is that those who actually gather the data an know its bad (and even mention it) remain silent when this data is used for, basically propaganda tier stories.
It’s like the one in Kew Gardens London, surrounded by hot greenhouses. A complete scam
A whole lot of stations in the USA have similar problems. Here is one example: Yuma arizona the official temperature gauge is in the middle of the international airport surrounded by hundreds of acres of runway, roads and building. It is a good distance from all that per the NOAA folks hundreds of feet per them. Its temperatures measure around 5 to 9 degrees F more than the rural station 5 miles away. It obviously sits in a urban heat island the weather folks simply ignore. It is useful to the airplanes as the temperature reading helps plane loading and takeoff weight calculations and landing distances which makes operations safer. It is not an accurate gauge of actual Yuma temperatures.
The commenter who furnished the pictures of the site was very helpful to understanding the possible problem with the station. It has large open bare ground fields right next to the tiny garden where the instrument is located. If prevailing winds are from that direction and not the woods the air is heated and when the winds are faint heated a lot. One has to wonder if those fields are recent as large wooded areas exist on one side and across the open fields to the left of the garden which sticks out into the open fields.
“One has to wonder if those fields are recent as large wooded areas exist on one side and across the open fields to the left of the garden which sticks out into the open fields.”
GoogleEarth images show the same layout of fields and woods back in 1999.
At Lingwood the Rise to Peak per Minute was 0.3°C, with a probability of 0.771% at a CIMO 1 site. It joins the growing list of UK stations which are used by the Meteorological Office media to rapidly broadcast national and regional peaks that are demonstrably anomalous, representing only the local micro-weather not the wider meteorology. The Meteorology Office is very adept at defending the metrology at the expense of the meteorology.
The data showed a 0.5ºC rise over 20mins.
Really?
Sorry, I mistyped, it should have been 10mins.