52.04166 -1.01323 Met Office CIMO assessed Class 4 (?) and “Unsatisfactory” Installed 18/4/2012

Stowe automatic weather station was installed in the grounds of the large independent Stowe School. Locating weather stations in school grounds was very common in the past as with large open playing fields they naturally were good representative sites. Stowe school is by any standards expensive being in excess of £45,000 (+VAT) per annum in full boarding and tuition fees. The facilities on offer are exceptionally well appointed as is the weather station site. But for some unexplained reasons the Met office do not seem to think so.

The Met Office claims this site is CIMO Class 4 with all its associated inaccuracy.

I genuinely cannot understand why this site should be so lowly rated. Is the Met Office claiming this site is no better than DYCE? Surely this cannot be correct. This is the definition of Class1

Firstly delineating the 100 metre radius from the site does not reveal anything other than open fields. It meets Class 1 on these grounds.

The issue of slope is determined by “(a) Flat, horizontal land, surrounded by an open space, slope less than ⅓ (19°);”

The Met Office quotes the site elevation as 145 metres amsl which agrees with the Ordnance Survey segment below.

It is worth noting the highest spot height by the famous landmark “Wolfe’s Obelisk” peaks at just 3 metres higher than the screen and is 320 metres away. The two nearby modern Astroturf hockey pitches (obviously completely flat) are indicated at 138 metres amsl and are over 420 metres distant. There is no close up street view available but the nearest viewpoint shows an almost perfectly flat vista.

Shading seems to be a non-existent issue. The nearest tree line is 120 metres away which in relatively flat country presents no problem at all. Which just leaves ground cover, all of which looks as natural as modern Buckinghamshire is ever likely to get. If the Met Office can accept being surrounded by solar panels as at Chertsey: Abbey Meads (which they claim meets Class3) as satisfactory then Stowe is perfection.

Now we have the mystery of the Met office rating system. When I inquired last year, the Stowe screen was classed by the ill-defined and unique Met Office rating system as “Unsatisfactory” . No explanation of why is available, however, it surely cannot be due to location. If there was/is some technical issue with the screen that can surely be readily resolved. I shall ask the Met Office to explain this issue, however, it should not realistically affect the CIMO classification.

I am at a complete loss to understand why the Met Office downgraded this site or did they? Other data received from FOI indicates that in 2021 the site was actually Classed as Class 1 after all!

The above is the listing of English stations from 2021. Note the errors:- Cippenham Sewage Works is now Class 4 and is so poor it can only be a default “Human error“, High Mowthorpe is now correctly rated Class 3 – again a likely original default error.

Was Stowe originally included as Class 1 from similar default and human error but now adjusted down to Class 4? Or is this just another example of Met Office ineptitude – who actually knows? Objectively the site looks as good as it gets which is unsurprising given the status of the school site.

It seems remarkably odd the Met Office should be marking down one the few good sites it actually has. Could there be a reason? The site is obviously rural and not subject to any immediate Urban Heat Island effects. It noticeably registers cooler than its near neighbours. Again from FOI request, I obtained annual averages temperatures for all official Met Office weather stations in England for the years 2021,2022 and 2023. I compared Stowe with the venerable Oxford Radcliffe site some 20 miles away.

Average daily Temperature…….2021…………………2022…………………….2023

Stowe…………………………………….9.9…………………….10.9………………………10.6

Oxford……………………………………11.1…………………..12.1………………………11.6

Not only is the Urban Heat Island effect clearly showing up, it is also very easy to see how overall national averages data can be manipulated solely by site selection. As I pointed out in my review of the closed Elmstone site, the removal of these rural stations appears to be a significant cause in the reported overall national average temperature increases. Is the Met office regretting the recent addition of Stowe and looking to “sideline” it?

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/reEAGbI

January 11, 2025 at 07:15AM

It took decades to reach these Black Belt levels of incompetence: to  weaponize the committees, neutralize the media, and to teach the people that fires are caused by hamburgers and stopped by solar panels.

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/V2Huox0

January 11, 2025 at 07:02AM

By Paul Homewood

After two years of fabricated alarmism about the apparent shift upwards in global temperatures, scientists have now established that the main culprit has been the reduction in sulfate emissions from shipping!

Abstract

The summer of 2023 saw an anomalous increase in temperatures even when considering the ongoing greenhouse-gas-driven warming trend. Here we demonstrate that regulatory changes to sulfate emissions from international shipping routes, which resulted in a significant reduction in sulfate particulate released during international shipping starting on 1 January 2020, have been a major contributing factor to the monthly surface temperature anomalies during the last year.

We do this by including the appropriate changes to emission databases developed for the Climate Model Intercomparison Project version 6 (CMIP6) in Community Earth System Model (CESM2) simulations. The aerosol termination effect simulated by the updated CESM2 simulations of W m⁻² and 0.08 K±0.03 K is consistent with observations of both radiative forcing and surface temperature, manifesting a similar delay as the one observed in observational datasets between the implementation of the emission changes and the anomalous increase in warming. Our findings highlight the importance of considering realistic near-future changes in short-lived climate forcers for future climate projections, such as for CMIP7, for an improved understanding and communication of short-term climatic changes.

https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1527/2024/

This really should not have come as a surprise to anyone, which strengthens the impression that the climate establishment have deliberately ignored sulfate emissions, in order to focus the public’s minds on greenhouse gases.

It has long been recognised that sulfate pollution was a factor in the global cooling between the Second World War and the 1970s. As countries began to clean their air, temperatures naturally rose. Even the Met Office admitted this was probably why UK temperatures rose in the 1980s and 90s.

Cornell University have more detail on their researchers’ study:

Mandated reductions in sulfate emissions from international shipping routes in 2020 are partly responsible for the record high temperatures, the researchers found. Reducing the amount of aerosol particles in the atmosphere reduces cloud coverage; thus, clouds’ ability to reflect solar radiation back to space is diminished. The paper’s findings suggest future policy decisions around abrupt reductions in tropospheric aerosols should take into account their surface temperature impact.

Past research indicated that such change would lead to a minor increase in the global temperature due to a reduction in cloud formation, but Visioni and co-author Ilaria Quaglia, postdoctoral researcher in the Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (Cornell Engineering), used Earth system model simulations to prove the significance of the sudden drop in sulfate shipping emissions.

These changes in the shipping industry had been discussed for years, Visioni said, with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) making a decision in 2014 to begin enforcing stricter sulfate emissions by 2020. Fuels with lower sulfur are much more expensive, so it took some time for the industry to adjust, he said.

The regulation required ships to use fuel with a sulfur content of no more than 0.5%, down from the previous limit of 3.5%. This reduction led to a more than 80% decrease in total sulfur oxide emissions from shipping.

And while there was some talk of this tradeoff within the shipping industry, he said, there was little attempt to call widespread attention to the potential effect.

The Cornell researchers looked at monthly global temperature anomalies over the period 2020-23, removing the assumed linear contribution from greenhouse gases and seasonality, in order to determine the shipping industry’s impact on temperature anomalies. They found that removing sulfur dioxide from shipping fuel likely increased the planet’s temperature by 0.08 degrees Celsius.

“The unprecedented heat became a normal warm year once you accounted for that,” Visioni said.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2025/01/shipping-emissions-mandate-led-spike-global-temperatures

That last sentence is worth repeating:

“The unprecedented heat became a normal warm year once you accounted for that,”

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/syGmJhQ

January 11, 2025 at 04:42AM

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/24uSCMs

January 11, 2025 at 04:01AM