53.09737 -3.78970 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 5S Installed 1/1/1976
“To ensure consistency of measurements in the records, weather stations must meet strict criteria, in alignment with meteorological organisations across the world. This includes specific standards on the levels of grass-cover within the observations area, as well as having enough clear space for the weather station to be free from the influence of non-meteorological factors on the readings.”
How seriously should the public take such statements from their largely taxpayer funded Meteorological Office?
How does this site with acknowledged inaccuracy by siting of up to 5°C and subject to regular extensive periods of heavy shade “meet strict criteria”? A close up view reveals just how totally inadequate this site actually is.
Again from the Met Office:
Clearly evident is the lack of any site secure “compound” or “observations area”, extreme levels of shade and effectively unrestricted vehicle parking, in close proximity to large buildings and the A470 dual carriageway. Presumably all those trees in the above images are the figment of a fertile imagination – just pretend they are not there. This is quite obviously an “Undesirable site” and yet the Met Office by its own unique assessment claims it is somehow “Satisfactory”
This is a manual reporting site so how diligent are the observers? A view of the “Remarks” section of the archived record indicates an appallingly poor level of intermittent observations.
Finally the sheer arrogant hubris of the Met Office can be summed up by their following judgement.
“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.”
I genuinely doubt that most amateur meteorologists would stoop to such low standards that the Met office seems to find acceptable.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
December 11, 2024 at 07:38AM
