50.21853 -5.17480 Met Office CIMO Assessed CLASS 5 repeat CLASS 5 Installed 30/9/2020

I quote

“Observations from amateur stations and those not part of the Met Office’s official network cannot be considered for entry into the official records as they’re not subject to the same internationally agreed standards that are required for the official records.”

Trevince is one of the Met Office’s official network, it is an amateur site and one so poor it meets no internationally agreed standards because there are no regulatory conditions to be met for a Class 5 site. It is in fact “Class 5 (additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 5 °C)” for which the requirements are “Site not meeting the requirements of class 4.” in other words no conditions at all – JUNK………..and this was installed less than 5 years ago.

The Met Office openly gives the entire reason for running this site as:

“Personal” located in a “Field sloping gently down to SE”. They seem to be so concerned about the site’s local attributes that they cannot even be bothered to evaluate them by giving their own standard ratings to each category. Everything is blank.

It really does not seem worth me going further with any site evaluation, the Met Office itself rates it as Junk – more a waste of computer memory storage. There are, however, important questions raised by this site. Why is the Met Office being so untruthful? They falsely claim their standards are very high and “professional” when clearly this and and so many more of their sites demonstrate they are nothing more than poor quality back garden amateur sites. There may be the excuse of older legacy sites originally intended for other specific purposes being pressed into use for climate reporting but there is none of that here. This is an almost brand new, unregulated standard offering that is far worse than most genuine amateur sites.

Why the charade that this is somehow “official”. Just like Astwood Bank this is an amateur site run for “personal” reasons i.e. a hobby! The Met Office portrays itself as some high tech organisation – an elite -when the reality is a “barrow boy” outfit cobbling together data that is not worthy of the name. Bear in mind that if this site were to record a highest ever reading it would almost certainly be regarded as a representative site. Trevince is a tourist attraction – what a way to get yourself “on the map!”

Suffice it to say Trevince nor any others of this almost comedic standard will be anywhere near a serious national historic climate reconstruction.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/kAhZ47c

July 17, 2025 at 09:42AM

By Paul Homewood

The UK Met Office has just published its annual State of the UK Climate report for last year. It reads more like a political pamphlet than a scientific one.

The Press Release sets the tone at the very start:

“Record breaking and extreme weather has become increasingly commonplace in the UK as our climate has changed over the last few decades.

The latest assessment of the UK’s climate shows how baselines are shifting, records are becoming more frequent, and that temperature and rainfall extremes are becoming the norm.”

Most people think of extreme weather as events like the winter of 1963, the Great North Sea Flood, the 1987 Storm or the heavy snowfalls and floods in 1948, not a mild February or sunny day in April.

They say the most noticeable change has been the rise in temperatures, which amounts to about a degree in the last 100 years. There are many possible reasons for this:

a) Natural recovery from Little Ice Age lows

b) Urbanisation

c) Poor siting

d) Cleaner air, resulting from Clean Air Acts

e) Greenhouse gases

But taking the Met Office data at face value, a rise of one degree is much less than the official Met Office projection of a five degree rise by 2100.

It is the latter that is the basis for the whole Net Zero agenda. Who would be prepared to spend a trillion and wreck the economy just to avoid a half a degree temperature rise in the next 50 years?

To put it into perspective, Oxford is about one degree warmer than Birmingham on average. Does that make Oxford’s climate more extreme? Of course not, the whole idea is as absurd as it is unscientific.

The Met Office claims that there has been an increasing frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes. This is nonsense – while extremely hot days may be more common, these are offset by fewer extremely cold ones. Overall, the frequency of temperature extremes has not changed.

Rainfall

The Met Office also claim that “the UK’s climate has become steadily wetter since the 1980”. However, the 1970s and 80s were unusually dry decades.

Although the UK is currently in a run of wet years, there have been similarly wet periods in the past – the 1870s, 1910s and 1920s, for example.

Similarly, the Met Office claim that rainfall has become more extreme since the 1960s. But the full datasets show no such long-term trends.

Sea Levels

According to the Met Office report, sea level rise around the UK is accelerating, though no actual data is provided to support this claim.

The UK has three long running tidal gauge records – Aberdeen, North Shields and Newlyn. All three show the same pattern – sea levels have been rising no faster in recent years than in the first half of the 20^th century.

A period followed where sea level rise slowed, before returning back to earlier rates. For instance, North Shields:

Storms

Despite the hyping of winter storms by giving them all names, the Met Office report admits:

For the UK overall there are no storms in recent years which compare in severity with exceptional storms in the observations such as the ‘Burns’ Day Storm’ of 25 January 1990, the ‘Boxing Day Storm’ of 26 December 1998 and the ‘Great Storm’ of 16th October 1987.

Weather v Climate

Throughout the report, the Met Office confuse WEATHER and CLIMATE. Individual weather events are presented as evidence of a changing climate.

A good example is winter rainfall, which is said to have been increasing in the last decade or two.

The report includes a section on the North Atlantic Oscillation index (NAO), which is explained as follows:

This index is a measure of the large-scale surface pressure gradient in the North Atlantic between Gibraltar and Iceland, which determines the strength of westerly winds across the Atlantic, and is the principal mode of spatial variability of atmospheric patterns in this region. When the pressure difference is large, the WNAO is positive and westerly winds dominate with stronger and more frequent storms. When the pressure difference is small, the WNAO is negative with an increased tendency for blocked weather patterns, reducing the influence of Atlantic weather systems. The WNAO index is therefore associated with winters which are either mild and wet or cold and dry.

In recent years, the NAO has been strongly positive, just as it was in those equally wet years in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries.

The NAO is a natural meteorological phenomenon, and clearly its switching to positive mode in the last decade must explain much of the recent increase in winter rainfall. Yet the Met Office ignore this fact and instead put the blame on climate change.

The whole report is 68 pages long, which I doubt anybody will bother to read.

The real intention was to publish a Press Release with scary, apocalyptic soundbites for the media to propagate.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/j6CZczs

July 17, 2025 at 08:14AM

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/FzJHoUh

July 17, 2025 at 08:06AM

By Paul Homewood

 

 

London: 17 July 2025
For immediate release

Net Zero Watch: Clean Power 2030 projects risk becoming stranded assets

Reform’s Richard Tice has written to green energy bosses warning them that a Nigel Farage-led government would terminate green subsidy contracts associated with Labour’s Clean Power 2030 agenda. He argues that the economics do not add up and that operators do not have a social licence to operate with their intrustive infrastructure.

In response to Tice’s letter, Maurice Cousins, Campaign Director at Net Zero Watch, said:

Richard Tice is absolutely right to put developers on notice that any new investments will become stranded assets under a Reform government. The cost-of-living crisis is voters’ top priority and expensive green energy is a major driver. This is the political reality investors must confront.

But the real problem with renewables is not political risk but nature itself: the fundamentals of physics and economics, which make wind and solar inherently uneconomic. The industry has been constructed on subsidy, not on market fundamentals. After decades of windfarm handouts, consumers can no longer afford to foot the bill. Politicians can’t override physics or economics – no matter how much they subsidise failure.

Tice’s intervention comes at a time when political risk around Net Zero is rising fast, as public concern over energy bills mounts and cross-party consensus begins to fracture. For further background information of the political risks facing Clean Power 2030 and the upcoming renewables auction, see our latest briefing note here.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/EAfcgWB

July 17, 2025 at 06:04AM