55.28505 -2.27955 Met Office CIMO assessed Class 5 Installed 1/1/1979 Temperature records from 1/1/1996
My first glance at Redesdale Camp surprised me – why was the Met Office rating this as the worst possible Class 5 rating when I was making my own assessment as Class 2? The above image show the inner 30 metre radius perfectly clear of any obvious concerns over artificial heat sources. I consulted Tim Channon’s detailed review back in 2012 which raised as many questions as answers but well worth reading first.
Accounting for extraneous heat sources alone this site is definitely good enough for Class 2. The next consideration is probably the topography and the aspects concerned with that. Given that this was once a Roman encampment it was likely to be a flat area which the Ordnance Survey sheet confirmed.
The screen is set at 211 metres amsl. The 220 metre contour is over 250 metres distant with the 210 metre contour 125 metres to the south. It is hard to claim it is either overly exposed, on a slope or in any form of frost hollow so that aspect seems equally unlikely to mark this site down. Shading from topography is almost certainly not an issue
The street view image is required to verify other aspects of both ground cover and potential wind sheltering.
Whilst Tim expressed concern regarding potential changes to ground cover, I personally find it hard to envisage major changes other than possible forestry replanting. This is really only sheep grazing area and relatively low grade land which is actually quite typical and therefore fully representative of large parts of upland Northumberland. Regarding the green equipment box, it doesn’t assist but is probably not a major issue.
Spinning the view around raises the issue of shading from trees to the slightly uphill western side of the screen.
Elevation finder indicates the tree line starts at 213 metres amsl being just 2 metres higher than the screen. The recent image shows plantation conifers (road screened with some deciduous as is common Forestry commission practise) that is not allowed to grow very tall before harvesting. At over 60 metres distant it is unlikely to cause any shading or unreasonable wind sheltering effects from such a relatively small wooded area.
Whilst my opinion may to some extent border on the subjective (though I do go to extensive lengths to objectively review sites) I find it impossible to accept that this site should be considered very much worse than the absurdity of Heathrow weather station being rated as Class 3 or Chertsey Abbey Mead being surrounded by solar panels and similarly class 3. Can anyone reasonably consider CIMO regulations and decide Redesdale Camp is 4 °C less accurate than these atrocious sites?
A very notable aspect about this site is the representation on the Met Office’s location specific long term averages. Despite the inevitable data homogenisation/manipulation with other sites rather than simply displaying averages from this site alone, the alleged annual mean uplift shown over the 60 year period is noticeably much lower than most other sites. I shall detail this in later posts the Met Office “homogenisation” process but for now bear in mind the comparative sites quoted for Redesdale are also mostly rural ones with limited (but some) artificial intrusions. Unsurprising then that the uplift (especially in minima) is so low.
The theme of the Met Office down-rating inland and rural sites (for example Stowe and Market Bosworth) is a recurring one of significant concern. These sites rarely (if ever) appear in the daily “Extremes” for high temperatures but similarly rarely record the regional lowest figures. The disproportionate mix of weather station types in the UK is misrepresenting the historic temperature record and needs reviewing urgently.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
May 26, 2025 at 03:48AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 