The urgent need for reliable electricity.
via CFACT
July 10, 2025 at 05:08AM
Category: Daily News
51.94800 1.95401 Met Office Assessed CIMO Class 4 Installed 1922,Temperature records from 1/3/2001
Winchcombe is a small Cotswold town with a railway station on the preserved Gloucester Warwickshire Steam Railway which has the very impressive Stanway Viaduct. Sudeley Castle itself is a Grade 1 listed Castle with extensive gardens that is now a major event centre and tourist attraction. These types of stately homes were often the sites of weather stations in the earlier days of modern meteorology and while the Met Office quotes a “start date” of 1922 there are records of a recording site here in the 19th century. It is the modern historic use of this site that is of concern.
The Met Office assesses this site as Class 4 (additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 2 °C) though this acknowledged “uncertainty” does not make them reticent to make this site a regular star performer in their Daily Extremes page as the regional and national hot spot.
Cheltenham is just two stops down the line and was the 1990 national record breaker of the 79 year standing 1911 record. The Montpelier Park manual reading was, however, highly questionable given the urban location and the packed audience for the concert taking place at the time.
To confirm the issues downgrading the site the 10 metre circled area for Class 3 below indicates the problems with tree growth to the south west of the screen acting as a wind break and creating shade problems.
Noting these trees, as ever, I consulted historic aerial imagery to see any changes over time particularly as the archived temperature records only started from the 1st March 2001. The image below is from 2003.
So no weather station at the current site and no trees either. Time to start searching…..yet again.
Again from deep in the archives that very few people would ever bother to examine, (after all why bother simply “trust” the Met Office) came this first note:
STATION HAD BEEN CLOSED FROM 31/12/1945 UNTIL REOPENING ON 01/03/2001
There is no explanation as to why this weather station had been “closed” and indeed exactly what “closed” means is somewhat obscure. Was the site taken away or was it just left there unused or what? This is very reminiscent of Faversham were the site stopped being regarded as a functioning unit in 1990 only to be “re-opened” in 1998. I assume these sites continue to exist but either nobody takes observations or if they do these observations are not recorded. All of this comes into question with the Wattisham/Wethersfield site example where otherwise unrecorded data was brought into use when convenient.
A further archive note revealed this even more confusing aspect.
| 2001-04-27 | 2009-04-01 | SITE INFORMATION | SITE WAS AT NGR 4031 2276 ELEV 109 |
This gives the coordinates of a different site suggesting operational dates from the beginning of the temperature archived period to the date when the station stopped giving manual observations. So what does the digital readings archive tell us? Despite giving coordinates of the current site (they always seem to do that despite the known former location) the manual readings stop on the 5th april 2009.
And then the next archived readings from the automated site start from 19th March 2010 presumably from the new location. NO overlap period data to verify correlation between the two sites exists. This is almost certainly because the very last thing the Met Office wanted was any evidence to demonstrate that they were in no way at all well correlated – the agenda to “prove” warming overrides all other considerations, scientific credibility just gets in the way.
So where was this former site? Well those given coordinates are very different to the current site but not fully detailed enough to get a precise identified location. UK National Grid Reference finder gives me this below when I round the eastings and northing to ending with an additional “00”
This equates to digital grid referencing of 51.946888 -1.9563069 but I cannot so far visually identify the old screen from available historic imagery – if anyone can find it within the likely local vicinity I would be very appreciative if they can let me know.
This is a summary of the situation. There was a very long standing (possibly Victorian) weather station at this site. This former manual reporting site was “closed down” between 31/12/1945 and ‘”reopened” as manual reporting presumably at the same site 1/3/2001. This site was then finally shuttered 5/4/2009. A new automatic site opened at a different location 18/3/2010 with no overlapping period data available to ascertain whether or not the two sites readings showed any correlation. There are no readily available public notes to indicate the changes. The new site appears to have had new trees planted close by on its installation that have subsequently degraded a generally poor site. A wide angle view indicates there was no shortage of space to adequately site a good quality weather station.
A near neighbour takes an interest in my work and often proof reads reviews for me. Initially he was sceptical of my work but as time has gone on he has objectively considered my posts and come around to my view. Reading this one and some recent works he asked me for that BBC report into increasing temperatures. where it stated “The number of days we see over 30C during summer has vastly increased in recent decades compared with the early 20th Century as a result of climate change.”
He commented “They {the Met Office} are just like kids playing with this aren’t they. They are getting kicks out of messing up the system to prove their phoney argument” I did not argue the point with him.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
July 10, 2025 at 04:11AM
by Will Jones
Britain’s move to a Net Zero economy will cost taxpayers more than £800 billion over the next two decades, the OBR – the UK’s fiscal watchdog – has said. But even this is based on implausibly generous assumptions, say critics. The Telegraph has the story.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said Government plans to limit climate change will cost the public purse £30 billion every year until at least 2051, as tax revenue from the sale of petrol and diesel fuel dries up.
This includes nearly £9.9 billion of spending every year on tech investments – for example updating the electricity grid – as well as £20.5 billion in revenue losses from declining fuel duty from petrol cars, as electric vehicles (EV) become more common.
Investments in green technology will initially make up most of the Net Zero cost before lost tax receipts become the bigger factor, the OBR said.
“In the next decade, expenditure accounts for the bulk of the fiscal cost, particularly public investment in residential buildings, removals and surface transport, which start to decline from 2036 to 2037,” it said.
While the sums are significant, the fiscal cost of Net Zero has been revised down from £1.1 trillion since the OBR last reviewed it in 2021. The watchdog said this was because of fuel duty freezes leading to lower lost receipts and a higher-than-expected uptake of EVs.
It also assumes the Government will spend less on the transition after the Climate Change Committee revised down the costs across the whole of the economy.
Worth reading in full.
David Turver criticises the OBR for taking the Climate Change Committee’s figures at face value, pointing out that the CCC makes numerous implausible assumptions that lower the apparent cost of Net Zero.
From the numbers they have published, we know the CCC made some highly implausible assumptions about the shifting the costs of renewables on to gas bills as well as the cost and take-up rates of heat pumps. However, the most obvious egregious errors are in the CCC’s erroneous estimates of the cost of renewables.
The CCC assumes that offshore wind in 2030 will cost less than half the value of contracts awarded for fixed bottom offshore wind in last year’s Allocation Round 6. It totally ignores the need for floating offshore wind that costs six times more than its 2030 estimate. The CCC estimates for the cost of solar for 2030 delivery were less than half the prices awarded in AR6 too. It did not even bother to estimate the cost of onshore wind, despite needing to more than double the installed capacity by 2050.
Also worth reading in full.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
via Watts Up With That?
July 10, 2025 at 04:03AM
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
The eco-loonies are back in town!
Climate Depot cover this story from the Daily Mail:
There’s nothing quite like the gentle buzz of a bumblebee to let you know summer’s approaching.
But the distinct hum could soon become a rarity – as climate change is reducing the frequency and pitch of wing vibrations, according to scientists.
Experts warned this could have consequences for the effectiveness of bee communication and their role as pollinators.
And it could be bad news for the nation’s tomatoes, blueberries and honeysuckle plants.
A team from Uppsala University in Sweden analysed colonies of buff-tailed bumblebees – one of the most numerous bumblebee species in Europe and the UK.
They used accelerometers to measure the frequency and audible pitch of the bees’ buzz, specifically focusing on the sounds they make when they aren’t flying.
Analysis showed that bees were affected by both increased temperatures and exposure to heavy metals, with their muscles contracting less during buzzing.
This led to fewer wing vibrations at a reduced audible pitch – suggesting the buzz might not be so loud.
‘People have been long interested in how insect flight muscles work, as these muscles power the most efficient flight systems in nature,’ Dr Charlie Woodrow, one of the study’s authors, said.
‘However, many do not know that bees use these muscles for functions other than flight.’
These important non-flight muscle vibrations are used in communication, defence and buzz-pollination, he explained.
‘Buzz pollination is an incredible behaviour whereby a bee will curl its body around the pollen-concealing anthers of some flowers and contract the flight muscles up to 400 times per second to produce vibrations which shake the pollen loose,’ he said.
Many common garden plants rely on buzz pollination including tomatoes, blueberries and honeysuckle.
They said their findings could help to identify the species or regions most at risk.
‘Perhaps buzzes could even be used as a marker of stress or environmental change,’ Dr Woodrow said.
‘For example, we now know that certain environmental pollutants can affect the buzzes bees produce, so they could even serve as an indicator of ecosystem health.
…
If the environment gets too warm then bees may simply choose to avoid buzz-pollinated flowers, Dr Woodrow explained.
The research was presented at the Society for Experimental Biology Annual Conference in Antwerp, Belgium.
Obviously bees don’t buzz in countries a bit warmer than Sweden then!!
And they call themselves scientists!
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
July 10, 2025 at 03:22AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 