Charlwood WMO 03769 – (a.k.a. Gatwick) – Dodgy platforms, wire windbreaks and distorted readings. PLUS …….what Manston tells us.

51.14398 -0.22946 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 3 Installed 22/7/2022

Tim Channon posted an excellent review of this station with multiple site images and detailed analysis back in 2012. I strongly recommend firstly reading his strong conviction that this is emphatically a CLASS 5 site and prone to be very inaccurate. I totally concur with his view and have up to date information direct from the “horses mouth” of the Met Office to further confirm Tim’s and my opinions.

This Charlwood station effectively replaces the Met Office use of the Gatwick Airport station which is still operational with readings displayed on https://weatherobs.com/. Quite where this Gatwick site is I cannot find though it is largely irrelevant in not being CIMO assessed and (hopefully) not used for climate reporting purposes. A location map for Charlwood reveals its site just off the end of the runway in a field by an overgrown hedge, in a direct flight path line of the runway and to the north west of the massive urban heat island sprawl of Crawley (population 120,000)

Looking from the macro scale this clearly is not an optimum location and almost guaranteed to over record natural temperatures with any breeze from north east through to south west – if the airport doesn’t effect the readings then the ever expanding mass of Crawley urbanisation will.

Moving closer in starts to reveal more localised issues – why does the Met Office locate so many of its newer weather station sites alongside hedges that are then rarely well maintained? There is no meteorological benefit from being alongside hedges and these automatically downgrade the site. This is so often overlooked by the Met Office that it cannot be accidental as demonstrated at Faversham, Whitby and many others.

The hedge may look reasonably well maintained in this 2024 image, however, the flat 2D image does not reveal the height that hedge has grown to since the original site installation. The street view image shows that even the top of the 1.25 metre (4 feet) from the ground Stevenson Screen is not visible and is totally blocked by the hedging in front with a line of trees behind.

Then in micro detail the headline image shows a fine wire mesh fence, at least 3 metres high, surrounding all the instrumentation along with the usual unattended to grass growing up the sides. Hold this thought – go to most garden centres and there is a very sheltered but unheated outdoor area displaying shrubs, bedding plants etc and there will be (usually green) fine mesh as walling – and no wind not even a gentle breeze inside. This is almost exactly what has been created here.

Then moving into the screen enclosure and there is what is known as “Tripod Mounted” instrumentation. This portable equipment is usually used for “trial” sites, is not WMO approved nor CIMO assessable. One simple glance at all that metalwork very clearly states we have a completely unsuitable and highly compromised site.

To consider the first point with all that wind shading, yesterday 1st May, the Met Office/BBC/Nudge Unit was promoting shock horror headlines of bogus weather readings but then had to admit St James’s Park was completely unsatisfactory and issue a correction. They also declared a reading of 28.3 °C from Charlwood when the wind speed from the 10 metre high mast mounted anemometer was at times reading no wind at all – dead flat calm.

If there was little or no wind at 10 metres elevation, we can all be confident that behind a hedge, in front of a tree belt and inside a wire mesh screen there definitely was no wind. Of course the Met Office also knows that and also knows that in still air Stevenson Screens can over record by up to 2°C as was discussed regarding Heathrow. So on these grounds alone the reading of 1/5/2025 was almost certainly a significant over record BUT it get worse AND the Met Office also knows this major second problem – which is where Manston comes in..

Going back to the ongoing Manston Airport saga, in part 5 I asked for assistance in verifying facts from the Met Office. Fellow sceptic, Eric Huxter, very kindly assisted and put in a Freedom of Information request regarding why two separate screens just 58 metres apart were both Synoptic reporting weather stations and (at the time) both appeared on this list https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-synoptic-and-climate-stations

Their response to his request with 5 questions to be answered was most illuminating:

From my earlier Manston reports, the Met Office clearly stated the new Manston site was operating “Tripod Mounted” instrumentation. Eric had factually demonstrated significant differences in the two site’s simultaneous readings as follows:

The Met office are thus tacitly admitting that their tripod mounted units do not record the same as conventional units. The Met Office then deleted Manston 2 from their stations listings and removed all readings from appearing on the Weatherobs site {note: The Talkshop locked down screen captures of all of this}

So the Charlwood readings over record both on the standard Stevenson Screen issue at low wind speeds – an effect exacerbated by potentially deliberate poor siting by a hedge and then inside an unconventional wind break enclosure – and by being in close proximity to unconventional reflective metal tripod mounted equipment.

At St James’s Park it took the combined efforts of principally diligent X poster John Dodders exposing the site problems which the Talkshop, Not a Lot of People Know That , and the Daily Sceptic’s Chris Morrison supported in publicising. Eventually, the efforts worked and the Met Office reluctantly ruled out the site’s false data { but note they had awarded the Monday’s daily high to St James’s Park even after works had commenced}.

Here, at Charlwood, yet more spurious data is knowingly allowed by the Met Office to be used to corrupt the historic data record. I will shortly be reviewing those “record breaking first day of the month of May” sites in one group review – (though I have individually covered most of them) – to expose just how misleading and politicised the portrayal of Met Office “data” has become.

Worth noting is the other main event of the 1st May 2025 – “Net Zero” policies largely based on spurious climate alarm and “dodgy data” did not appear particularly high on one seats voters agenda.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/D9hQH2X

May 2, 2025 at 04:18AM

Global Climate Database Fed with Junk Data from RAF Airbase Where Helicopters Hover Over the Thermometer

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Chris Morrison

The Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) is one of the most important climate monitoring networks in the world. It is co-sponsored by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and numerous UN, EU and scientific bodies and its collects information that is used for scientific research within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ultimately, it forms the basis for promoting and implementing global Net Zero plans. Given its importance and the need to keep to the highest standards of scientific reporting, it is a surprise that the UK Met Office seems to take its temperature reporting duties rather lightly.  It provides information from eight sites, four of which are rated junk class 4 with international ‘uncertainties’ of 2°C. Barely beyond belief, another site is based slap bang in the middle of RAF Shawbury, where pilots in military helicopters make frequently low fly-pasts at all hours of the day and night.

The picture above is taken at the air base, the main RAF helicopter training centre, and it shows a helicopter next to the white Stevenson box containing the measuring device. Other clips – you couldn’t make it up – show helicopters hovering over the screen.

The image is captured from a YouTube video which shows extensive traffic at the base in close proximity to the temperature measuring station. Again we are obliged to citizen super sleuth Ray Sanders who is undertaking a forensic examination of the entire Met Office’s UK temperature station network. Sanders notes that the heat hazes from the engines and the powerful down-draughts from the rotors are clearly visible. He concludes that despite the site being one of the Met Office’s most important locations, it is “completely worthless” for climate reporting. Despite this being a ‘flagship’ site, it is said to demonstrate the “poor standards and total lack of supervision thar the Met Office is being allowed to operate to”. In fact, not only is Shawbury a key location feeding information to international bodies promoting the Net Zero fantasy, it is also one of only 37 UK station in the Met Office’s historical database. In the case of Shawbury it shows measurements stretching back to 1946.

The GCOS takes itself very seriously, noting that it supports research towards improved understanding, modelling and prediction of the climate system. Perhaps the resulting predictions might carry more weight if a little more attention was paid to the data put into the models. When it is not inventing data from 103 non-existent stations, the Met Office is doing little to improve the quality of its operations with nearly 80% of its actual sites in junk classes 4 and 5, with uncertainty warnings of 2°C and 5°C respectively.

The eight UK stations contributing to the GCOS are Stornoway, Waddington, Lerwick, Eskdalemuir, Aldergrove, Camborne, Shawbury and Rothamsted. The first four sites are class 4, with Stornoway airport attracting recent interest because the Met Office claimed to have continuous recordings there since 1873. All very remarkable since manned powered flight was not achieved until 1903, while the actual airport was not built until 1937.

Eskdalemuir was recently awarded Centennial Observing Station status by the WMO for providing “long-term, high-quality climate records that tell current and future generations about climate variability and trends”. Since Eskdalemuir is a junk class 4 site on WMO’s own CIMO rating system, it might be asked how such praise can be lavished on this corrupted site. “Does the WMO not know this is such a poorly rated site because the Met Office did not tell it? After all, the CIMO classifications of sites are not freely available in the public arena,” writes Sanders. Both the Daily Sceptic and Ray Sanders have obtained the listings via freedom of information requests. Waddington, another RAF airbase, attracted some interest recently when it was found to have declared a ‘record’ 40.3°C on July 19th 2022. This of course was identical to the temperature recorded by the runway at nearby RAF Coningsby as three typhoon jets were attempting to land. The record was declared ‘suspect’ by the Met Office due to an application of ground weedkiller, but this didn’t stop the improbable figure later being recorded in the archive run by the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis.

However, it is heartening to report the sight of Rothamsted in the GCOS listing. Sanders is full of praise for this site which also has a WMO Centennial Station award. In fact Sanders considers that it is possibly the Met Office’s finest station, “against which others should be judged”. Sanders makes a start on this work by comparing two temperatures recorded on the afternoon of July 19th 2022 when a heatwave struck over a wide area of southern and eastern England. Coningsby ran up its runway high, a record the Met Office later described as a milestone in climate history. Rothamsted registered a markedly lower 38.5°C. In 2019, a temperature of 38.7°C was declared at the class 5 site in Cambridge Botanical Gardens, while Rothamsted, about 45 miles away, displayed only 36°C.

The Met Office has a few good recording sites but most of the network is very poor and recent highs seem to be two-a-penny with every passing jet or helicopter breeze. Quite why the GCOS should be stuffed with recordings from very poor sites is a question the Met Office needs to answer. When the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stands up and declares that global boiling has arrived, we should at least be able to be confident that he is quoting from correct figures and knows what he is talking about.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/usWAO6z

May 2, 2025 at 04:02AM

Time to end climate model panic?

Government agencies may soon be returning to their statutory missions.

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/WwuMv4c

May 2, 2025 at 03:57AM

Climate alarmist researchers advocate ‘carbon capture’ using genetically-enhanced crops  

Photosynthesis
This ignores the fact that growth in nature prefers as much carbon dioxide as possible, up to levels way above where we are now, for photosynthesis to work efficiently. Wasting time and money on so-called carbon capture projects in the hope of changing the weather is always going to be a loser.
– – –
UC San Diego researchers say genetically-enhanced crops of plants featuring enlarged roots present an opportunity for society to achieve a needed drawdown of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

A new study from scientists at UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and School of Global Policy and Strategy (GPS) also compares this agricultural solution to other proposed methods of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as a way of showing what needs to happen to address the climate crisis on a global scale, says Phys.org.

The paper is published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

Scientists contributing to the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report have estimated that if society is to have a chance at counteracting global CO2 emissions, it must find a way to remove between five and 16 billion tons of the greenhouse gas every year.

That would need to be done in addition to the task of stopping or substantially slowing how much greenhouse gas society continues to add to the atmosphere daily.

Failure to do this in a timely manner puts the planet at risk of experiencing catastrophic changes in weather, crop failures and spread of diseases.

Despite the magnitude of the challenge, nobody has offered a theory to explain how quickly such technologies can scale under real world conditions, said study lead author Daniela Faggiani-Dias, a climate scientist at Scripps Oceanography and UC San Diego’s Deep Decarbonization Initiative.

Following an analysis, so-called carbon-enhanced crops could, within 13 years of first adoption, remove 0.9–1.2 gigatons annually, the research team said. That amount is about seven times larger than all CO2 offsets supplied today to the global market.
“There is a consensus in the scientific community that we will have to scale CDR substantially to reach net zero—on top of drastically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions,” said Faggiani-Dias.

“Yet, research on how CDR can realistically scale—considering not only technical limits, but also scale-up speed and feasible pathways—is very thin. And this is what is new about our study.

“We provide a detailed analysis of the CDR scaling challenge and propose a framework to estimate how quickly and to what extent emerging, highly uncertain technologies might scale. While our analysis focuses on carbon-enhanced crops, the framework is generalizable across CDR approaches and helps to surface key uncertainties in scale-up potential.”

Full article here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/tWXPlhY

May 2, 2025 at 03:12AM