Locating UK Temperature Stations

[Solar Cycles]

So the purpose of the thread was not, as you said, just to "have a look at them" and be "amazed at some of the variety... these days much more than a stevenson screen, that is....."?

Well, go for it AFT...you can set up a website called 'wattsdAFTwiththat' or something, recruit an army of obsessive volunteers to rush around the country looking at the positioning of all the UK stations, and pass judgements that they are not qualified to make on things they don't really understand. You can then write a book about your findings, and become a hero to the mega-sceptic camp (i.e. those who are still arguing that it hasn't got warmer, not about the reasons for it).

Meanwhile we deluded fools who've been around for nearly 60 years will scratch our heads in amazement that we were stupid enough to believe that winters in England used to be much harder much oftener, and trees and flowers were later to bud and flower in spring, and frosts came earlier in the autumn.

Os, no one denies that it had HAD got warmer, just the forcings behind that PAST warming! As for winters gone by, I'm sure Mr Data will put you straight on that one!

[Methuselah]

Os, no one denies that it had HAD got warmer, just the forcings behind that PAST warming! As for winters gone by, I'm sure Mr Data will put you straight on that one!

Solar: how is comparing the locations of MetO weather-stations going to elucidate climate forcings?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

to AF

I will not go quite as far as Os in his comments but he has a large amount of truth in what he says.

Before you really do perhaps make a bit of a fool of yourself I suggest you read the following VERY carefully. Having done that then please do take up correspondence with UK Met about their siting of stations if you still feel some of their sites are incorrectly exposed, given the limitations they may have with site owners, and many many other factors which prevent perfect exposure.

I'm what you might call a drive-by internet commentator on this. This is not my area. This is my leisure time. I want to find the locations of UK weather stations because that's fun. If some discovered are not appropriately cited I'd like that known but I'm really not interested in, or being paid to, do a professional job on this.

I do talk with some understanding as one being responsible for carrying out inspections of proposed sites wishing to be incorporated into the official Met O list. Equally as being a member of two teams trying to assess if moving a site on an airfield to another site on the same airfield would have any significant improvement in its overall positioning.

I apologise if my reply seems a little heavy handed but I feel its time to get this thread on a positive track.

Unlike the US, the UK is very heavily built up. Lots of roads everywhere. It is more of a challenge here getting wide coverage and perfect site conditions than it is over there, so some understanding clearly is necessary on the amateur observer's part. Even so, fair commentary is fair commentary, and surely it harms nobody?

The quote below is from UK Met and WMO instructions/guidance

Selecting an appropriate site for the weather station is critical for

obtaining accurate meteorological data. Typically, the site should

represent the general area of interest, and be away from obstructions

such as buildings and trees.

This below is the full manual from WMO

WMO=World Meteorological Organisation, to which all member states are pledged to carry out its instructions/guidelines to the best of that states ability.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/documents/gruanmanuals/CIMO/CIMO_Guide-7th_Edition-2008.pdf

Thank you for this link - saved. Edit: Actually, it's 9.6mgb file so I've not saved it but thanks for making me aware of the manual which UK stations are supposed to follow.

Edited August 1, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Solar Cycles]

Solar: how is comparing the locations of MetO weather-stations going to elucidate climate forcings?

Pete, I was replying to the last bit of Ossies post!

[Methuselah]

Pete, I was replying to the last bit of Ossies post!

Okay, Solar. It must have been too early for me.

[The PIT]

Interesting too see where these stations are located. I see AF has attracted some over aggressive responses in case the idea of the thread is too find fault which is rather sad really.

As far as I'm concerned if the sites are sited incorrectly and not by official guidelines they shouldn't really be used for official measurements. Simple as that. Nothing to do with Global warming or whatever you need guidlines to provide consistent data.

[noggin]

Interesting too see where these stations are located. I see AF has attracted some over aggressive responses in case the idea of the thread is too find fault which is rather sad really.

Yes, I thought it was interesting, too. It's a shame that some people seem to have taken offence. What a load of party-poopers they are, they've certainly spoiled it for me. :lol:

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Yes, I thought it was interesting, too. It's a shame that some people seem to have taken offence. What a load of party-poopers they are, they've certainly spoiled it for me. :lol:

I feel the response is particularly nasty because I've not broken any rules, and nor would anyone who would like to contribute to the thread be breaking any rules.

I've started a constructive line of discussion which could attract a wide degree of interest and participation from non-expert people interested in meteorology, to which this forum primarily caters.

On the basis that constructive, thinking behaviour should be encouraged, perhaps some of the "naysayers" if they feel the need to post again could first offer a figleaf by contributing a site location.

I believe I gave some details how to do this on page 3.

[Solar Cycles]

I feel the response is particularly nasty because I've not broken any rules, and nor would anyone who would like to contribute to the thread be breaking any rules.

I've started a constructive line of discussion which could attract a wide degree of interest and participation from non-expert people interested in meteorology, to which this forum primarily caters.

On the basis that constructive, thinking behaviour should be encouraged, perhaps some of the "naysayers" if they feel the need to post again could first offer a figleaf by contributing a site location.

I believe I gave some details how to do this on page 3.

I wouldn't lose sleep over it AFT, it's been a very interesting thread. Pity some want to trash it!

[osmposm]

I feel the response is particularly nasty because I've not broken any rules, and nor would anyone who would like to contribute to the thread be breaking any rules.

I've started a constructive line of discussion which could attract a wide degree of interest and participation from non-expert people interested in meteorology, to which this forum primarily caters.....

I'm sorry people feel I've "trashed" or "spoiled" the thread. But AFT, since you chose to start it in the Climate Change section, I inexplicably imagined you were discussing - or wanted to discuss, or were planning to discuss - something relating to how the location of the stations might relate to matters of Climate Change. It was thus not exactly a suprise when after maintaining (as you still are) that it's just a thread of general interest and fun, you decided to question the positioning of a number of sites. I made the foolish mistake of assuming that the only way that could relate to matters of Climate Change was by implying that British temp measurements might be as unreliable as I suspect you believe American ones are.

If that is not what you are implying now, and not what you were intending to raise as a possible issue all along, and if you started it in the Climate Change forum in innocence or in error, then you have - and everyone else who was enjoying it has - my unreserved apology.

Edited August 1, 2009 by osmposm

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I looked around the forums and none seemed an appropriate place to put this thread.

Since it is related to measurement of temperature, and temperature is a measure of climate change, I figured it was best put here than any where else currently available.

I would encourage contributors to make specific comments on the stations located, and how they may contribute to the study of climate change, and to help locate new ones to provide further examples.

Any other discussion is off-topic. I'll look for some more stations later if everything settles down.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I think this is Boscombe Down.

Latitude 51.16667

Longitude -1.75

The nearby airfield doesn't seem to have one and this was close to the coordinates. And this has one of those tower things, the shadow of which, and the radars, you can see in the Google version.

If it is the weather station there, a big if that could only be confirmed by a visit or a "birds-eye view" update to the bingmaps database, or someone that knows who could confirm, not only is there a tower but it's right next to a car park. Lovely.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Bracknell

Latitude 51.38333

Longitude -.78333

This station is located in Beaufort Park

As below, this one was tricky to find. We have a choice of built up area, car park, or woodland.

I got a clue from the Bracknell website's webcam below.

So, I think this is it facing North in the trees here, North East of where the "C" flag is in the overhead shot. The car park is 17 meters away from whatever this is.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Cranwell (Lincolnshire)

53.0311

-0.5035

Anyone want to guess what that enclosure right next to it is for?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Disforth

Latitude 54.13333

Longitude -1.41667

30 meters / 100 feet from green roofed building.

While not ideal, it's one of the most reasonably sited ones I've found as yet. Disforth is, however, well outside the CET area.

[Chris Knight]

Cranwell (Lincolnshire)

53.0311

-0.5035

Anyone want to guess what that enclosure right next to it is for?

Is it a dunny for sheilas when they have a barby?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

It was mentioned in the other thread Charlwood had replaced Redhill because the latter always produced colder temperatures than expected. Well, I thought, let's find Charlwood. And I did.

Charlwood

51.15 (actual location further south)

-0.233

On this page we actually have a picture of the Stevenson screen which contains the thermometer.

Yes, it abuts the hedge. Another photo shows a plant growing up the side of the metal cage. Not too cold any more!

If this is Redhill (the one at the tiny airport) its location isn't half bad except for the car park 30 meters away.

51.22

-0.13

Doesn't seem to be anything special about it other than it's exposed - someone tell me it's not Redhill.

[Essan]

While not ideal, it's one of the most reasonably sited ones I've found as yet. Disforth is, however, well outside the CET area.

Not sure what you mean by that? There are only 3 CET stations: Pershore (Throckmorton Airfield), Rothamsted and Stoneyhurst.

Pershore recently replace Malvern - even though it's a known 'frost hollow' and consistently records lower minima.

[noggin]

Not sure what you mean by that? There are only 3 CET stations: Pershore (Throckmorton Airfield), Rothamsted and Stoneyhurst.

I had always assumed that the CET was arrived at by using all of the MetO stations within the CET area. Are you saying that the CET is based on the recordings from just 3 out of lots of stations? I ask because, to me, that would seem inefficient and also the link of mine on page 2 shows that there are lots of stations (MetO site).

Genuine question, BTW,as are all of my questions.

Here is the link again http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/networks/images/map6.gif

Edited August 3, 2009 by noggin

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Pershore recently replace Malvern - even though it's a known 'frost hollow' and consistently records lower minima.

It's amazing there are all these notorious "frost hollows" but no HIs.

Here's Pershore BTW which has a number of radiative influences including close by tarmac and the metal cage of the station itself.

[Methuselah]

On the other hand noggin, it makes for far easier comparison. It's no longer a case of searching for a needle in a haystack?

[johnholmes]

for those interested in FACT rather than anything else this link will or should provide you with links to all the data

the original Manley work

what stations he used and which subsequent ones were chosen and why, along with other links about the topic of CET and temperature readings.

http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/cet/

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Rothamsted

AL5 2JQ

This is the second Hadley CET station located, after Pershore.

Apart from the metal tower 8 meters from the Stevenson Screen (the white dot) it's a great site.

This photo was taken in the evening. We know that because the shadows are going North-East.So for part of the morning the Stevenson Screen will be in the shade cast by the tower - but this should rarely affect the maxima. The tower itself radiates heat though - if someone parked a lorry 27 feet away it would soon be moved, but a weather tower doesn't seem to raise the same eyebrows.

Wider view

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I can't find Stonyhurst - it's possible the images on the net are pre-2004.

Take a look at this from Rothamsted. (Tmins).

There is a spike and apparent step change up in min temperature in 1993? compared to those other stations.

Metal absorbs heat during the day and releases it at night. You have to wonder when the tower was put there. Does Rothamsted have its very own radiator?

Edited August 3, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Methuselah]

Doesn't metal radiate its heat somewhat rapidly, AFT? Don't cars ice over long before the ambient air-temperature falls below zero?

But, the chimney-stack hypothesis is interesting: does it mean that all pre-1993 data were anamolously low, due to airborne smuts?