57.03734 -3.22039 Met Office CIMO assessed Class 5 Installed 1/1/1882
Normally historic features in the UK are cherished for their longevity and treated as emblems of our national heritage. In this weather station’s case there is a very active royal connection with probably everyone in the UK familiar with the name of the Balmoral Castle being the late Queen Elizabeth II’s favourite Royal residence. So it seems rather strange the Met Office treat this site with such disregard despite what they may claim.
The Met office acknowledges the long term nature of this and other stations by highlighting them on a dedicated webpage entitled “Recording observations for over 100 years”
Without the slightest hint of irony the Met Office proclaims “We manage an extensive network of surface observing stations. Six of these sites, Eskdalemuir {Class 4}, Rothamsted {Class 1}, Balmoral {Class 5}, Armagh {Class 4}, Morpeth (Cockle Park){Class 4}, and Llysdinam {Class 5}, have now been awarded Centennial Station status by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), recognising their global importance for collecting long records of accurate observations and for providing a unique history of recent climate.” {CIMO Classifications added in my bold}
With the notable exception of Rothamsted at Class 1, three of these sites have been assessed by the Met Office themselves to standards established by the WMO themselves as having “additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 2 °C” . The remaining 2 are similarly assessed as having “additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 5 °C.” I find the sheer hubris of claiming ” long records of accurate observations and for providing a unique history of recent climate.” quite staggering. The definition of “accurate” seems to be quite flexible to the Met Office and WMO. The rigours of science seem to be lost with these organisations.
To study the current site and its “long records” the Met Office goes on in the above self-congratulatory web page to detail re-location of the site over a very considerable distance.
By what logic did the Met Office decide to move a weather station from “an excellent site in open parkland,” to “an area of kitchen garden” i.e. a deliberately engineered micro-climate whose principal purpose was to artificially elevate temperatures. The modern day site from 1961 (not 1882 nor 1958) is, (as seems to be almost compulsory) set hard alongside a large hedge fencing the area away from the golf course and no where near its previous sites. By basic definition this site definitely does not have the claimed over 100 years long record being in completely climatologically different locations over time. The inevitable shade effects, proximity to buildings and changing ground cover render this site outside any regulatory standard hence the lowest possible rating.
The Met Office may claim Balmoral is an important long term site but it is actually now complete Class 5 inaccurate junk. What almost certainly started its existence as excellent has been downgraded to worthless. This is another trend developing here, Morpeth (Cockle Park) has been similarly degraded by the Met Office, Eskdalemuir certainly does not seem to be improving and Llysdinam probably never was reliable from the outset. It seems imperative that Rothamsted is left alone by the Met Office.
How does the Met Office portray the data from this long term historic site? They would surely include it in their “Historic Stations” web page – after all it very specifically states “List of all the historic stations”. “All” is a fully comprehensive term so why no Balmoral? In fact Rothamsted, Llysdinam and Morpeth also do not appear – is it just me that finds their omission extremely strange?
However, if the above seems an unfortunate oversight it would obviously be possible to refer to the Met Office’s Location Specific, Long Term averages web page to view the relevant climate averages and how they have changed over time from this site of {remember the claim} “global importance for collecting long records of accurate observations and for providing a unique history of recent climate.”
No chance – The Met Office seems not to want you to know anything at all about the data from this site of such “global importance” and rather gives you the concocted data from Braemar seven miles away.
I shall leave it up to readers to draw their own conclusions but for my part it seems the Orwellian quote I used for the Braemar review is becoming ever more apt – “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past. “
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
May 3, 2025 at 06:43AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 