55.59212 -5.15423 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 5 Installed 1/1/1965 (but more likely 1859)

Arran is the largest island in the Firth of Clyde and overall the 7th largest Scottish island. It enjoys a cool but mild climate with the east coast at Brodick having the benefit of shading from the prevailing westerly winds. Typical of western isles it is a largely frost free but high rainfall area. Brodick Castle itself is now administered by the National Trust for Scotland. The weather station is typical of very many Scottish sites and highlights problems they represent in both meteorology and climatology terms. This review covers issues that, whilst not exclusive to Scotland, heavily dominate the recording system there.

Walled Gardens These are common throughout the UK but have a greater prevalence in Scotland – a point that is noted in the Wikipedia article. The deliberate purpose of a walled garden is to create a modified micro climate with increased temperature and the moderated detrimental effects to crop growing of both wind and excess water (latent heat). The temperature modifying effects can be very notable with up to a 5°C differential above the natural ambient environment. Frosts are almost entirely eliminated in western Scottish sites.

Walled gardens were a feature of wealthy land owners and it became a norm for many such people to be both patrons of arts and sciences. Weather stations were frequently installed in walled gardens in the latter 19th century as indeed this Brodick Castle site originally was. This practise has, however, continued to modern times even though the initial motivations have since long gone. Whilst this Arran site is claimed to have been installed in the 1960s the Met Office has continued these walled garden installations well into the 21st Century with examples such as at Kingston Maurward added in 2019. I have so far identified 24 of the 105 weather stations in Scotland in some form of walled or botanic gardens and I have not yet completed the identification process of all sites.

I do not feel I can over-emphasise the simple fact that measuring the temperatures in a deliberately artificial environment is totally irrelevant to any form of recording producing a national historic temperature record. To suggest these sites can possibly be used to monitor “Climate Change” is no more logical than suggesting readings taken indoors are acceptable. There are many other issues that lead on from this.

Weather forecasting. Though this is not a subject within the Surface Stations Project remit, many commenters have in the past mentioned the poor quality of Met Office forecasting in Scotland. Conversely, I have not had any particularly adverse comments regarding England and Wales forecasts. It does not seem surprising though that if readings are taken from artificial environments they will not reflect the likelihood of future events in the natural world. Given that these walled garden sites are already in more benign climates (they were rarely installed on high ground sites preferring lower altitude and often coastal locations in Scotland) it is hardly surprising they are rather useless for predictions. This leads on to the next issue:

Manual/Automatic Recording. Whilst approximately a quarter of weather stations in England and Wales report their readings on a manual basis (i.e. once every 24 hours at 09:00/10:00 a.m in arrears) almost half of all Scottish stations, such as Arran, report manually. Although there are some benefits to forecasting in knowing the previous day’s data, it is not remotely as beneficial as the almost instant reporting from automated sites that dominate the England and Wales . The number of mainland (non coastal) surface stations the Met Office takes real time readings from in Scotland is so much lower than those available to the rest of the UK that it seriously compromises forecast accuracy. From the Surface Stations project viewpoint this gets even worse.

Lack of Readings A manual site that fails to report readings is effectively non- existent. I frequently make this type of strident remark that people question. So consider the recent readings history from Arran. The CEDA archived readings are freely available to view online here. A potential of 365/6 readings should be taken annually.

https://utils.ceda.ac.uk/cgi-bin/midas_stations/station_details.cgi.py?id=937&db=midas_stations

2023 ……………………………….103 days readings

2022…………………………………62 days readings.

2021………………………………..17 days readings.

2020…………………………………ZERO days readings……. blame it on Covid 19?

2019…………………………………31 days readings.

2018………………………………….21 days readings.

2017…………………………………ZERO days readings

2016…………………………………ZERO days readings

2015…………………………………Zero days readings.

2014…………………………………64 days reading.

2013………………………………..364 days readings.

For the last decade it appears the Met Office has been unable to get anyone adequately trained to take readings. As I pointed out regarding Margam no 2, any station only being intermittently read is worthless for all practical purposes. Automation of weather stations is now relatively cheap and simple in no longer requiring a electricity supply (solar panel and battery in lieu) nor landline communication (internet/ satellite comms) as demonstrated at Great Cumbrae. Any expenses currently incurred for this Brodick Castle site are a waste of money – the expense of automation would restore value to the site.

Observation and archive recording Some general points regarding observations and historic recording, though not exclusive to Arran, are worth clarifying here. The skill of taking readings has significantly changed over the years. As discussed under Metrology, temperature readings were formerly taken using Liquid in Glass (LiG) thermometers whilst now the most common practise is using Platinum resistances thermometers (PRT). The review of Floors Castle included a Facebook clip showing the observer recording the readings by simply writing down the digital display from a PRT. Accurately reading a LiG, however, actually requires specific training to avoid making parallax errors . A former observer advised me that even changing from light soled sandals in summer to heavy boots in winter could affect his sight line if he did not make personal body adjustments to accommodate the change.

The possibility of reading error may seem trivial but context is important. Below is the defined accuracy of recordings over time.

• 0.1C for all temperatures that are reported today
• 1C for hourly temperatures received in SYNOP code prior to 1982
• 1F for many maximum and minimum temperatures prior to 1961
• 0.1F for most air temperatures prior to 1961 and for some maximum and minimum temperatures prior to the 1920s
• 0.5F for maximum and minimum temperatures at a few stations prior to 1961

Readings prior to 1961 were usually to the nearest 1°F (which equates to 0.55°C). Given that modern day readings are recorded to the nearest 0.1°C, this represents a significant change in accuracy level and the potential of a 1°F parallax reading error would be hugely significant. It is also worth noting how this conversion in archives creates a “step point” change with only certain Celsius points being possible on conversion.

Arran Brodick weather station was, however, originally installed in 1859 and not the archived 1964 date and back then readings were recorded to 0.5°F as shown here.

All the above demonstrates the difficulties of historical comparisons and how reporting changes over time to the second decimal place of a degree celsius is well beyond the validity of the original data. This leads onto a further issue of “climate averaging“.

Geographic spread of Weather Stations. Island sites to the west and north of mainland Scotland alone represent over 15% of all Scottish weather stations. A further 30% of sites are now located on the western coasts. Whilst there has been an historic UK wide trend of reduction in the number of weather stations initially brought about by automation requirements of the latter 20th century, this has much less applied to these isles. Surprisingly new manual additional sites have been installed on Raasay:Osgaig – 7/3/2023 and Skye:Harlosh 6/4/2023. This contrasts starkly to the situation over on the much colder eastern coast as highlighted with Fife now only retaining 3 low grade sites.

This uneven mix is likely led by forecasting requirements monitoring the predominant direction of weather fronts but slews the averaging of such site’s data to falsely indicate a progressively “warming” trend. This situation is also demonstrated in the south west of England where Devon has a very high density of weather stations that is similarly increasing with new sites at Bratton Fleming from 2021, Stoodleigh Dryhill from 2023 and Hollacombe installed just 3 months ago on 4/11/2024. The Met Office explainer for this south west England concentration equally applies to the islands and western coast of Scotland.

The ever changing selection of the physical real weather station site mix (rather than artificially concocted numbers for non-existent sites ) is one of the causes of “warming” appearing in the averages being influenced by sample selections rather than actual change.

In conclusion Arran Brodick Castle weather station is unacceptably poorly sited in artificial surroundings. Readings are not being consistently nor reliably taken rendering those that are taken worthless. Even if reading frequency were improved the data (if used for climate reporting purposes), would only further continue to degrade the dataset. The site demonstrates many of the Met Office’s failings both in its primary forecasting role and even more so, in its function of the collation of useful historic data.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/qP2r9Fp

March 3, 2025 at 09:01AM

0 out of 10 based on 0 rating

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/YncaAW8

March 3, 2025 at 08:57AM

Some Background

I will admit that the legal profession mystifies me. Every time I say anything related to environmental law, one or more lawyers will correct me. But I suppose “turnabout is fair play”, since I will usually correct any lawyers about their details describing climate change science.

Lawyers aren’t like us normal people. Their brains work differently. I first suspected this when one of my daughters took the LSAT and gave me examples of questions, most of which my brain was not wired to answer correctly. I became further convinced of this when she went to law school, and told me about the questions they deal with, how lawyers can impress judges just by being novel in their arguments, etc.

I know I could never be a lawyer (even after staying at a Holiday Inn Express), and I never even played one on TV. But I did co-author a paper in Energy Law Journal (relating to the Daubert Standard) on my view that science cannot demonstrate causation in any rigorous way in the theory of human-caused climate change.

Regulating CO2: Is the EPA Really Trying to Help Us?

The regulation of CO2 emissions (and some other chemicals) by the EPA has also mystified me. However many of the EPA’s ~185 lawyers worked on the 2009 Endangerment Finding, they must have known that regulating CO2 emissions from U.S. cars and light-duty trucks would have no measurable impact on global climate, including sea level rise (which was a major argument in Massachusetts v. EPA).

None.

But apparently actually trying to “fix” the climate “problem” is not the EPA’s concern.

Their reason for existence is to regulate pollutants (and it doesn’t matter if Nature produces far more of a “pollutant” than people produce). And once they start regulating it, they won’t stop with certain thresholds. They will keep lowering the threshold. This keeps everyone in jobs.

I know this is the case. I once attended a meeting of the Carolinas Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA), and the keynote speaker (from the EPA) stated, “we can’t stop making things cleaner and cleaner”. There was a collective look of astonishment in the audience, which was primarily industry representatives who try to keep their companies in compliance with state and federal environmental regulations. I assumed their real-world experience told them it is impossible to make everything 100% clean (what would it cost to keep your home 100% clean?).

And we wouldn’t want to anyway because (as Ed Calabrese has explained in many published papers), it is necessary for resilience in biological systems to be exposed to stressors. I almost never get sick, which I attribute to a pretty filthy childhood of playing in heavily bacteria-contaminated waters, not washing my hands, etc. I was sick a lot then. But not later in life. This is why the EPA’s reliance on the “linear no threshold” assumption (simply put, if a gallon of something can kill you, then one molecule is also dangerous) has little to do with our real-world experience and common sense. Kind of like the legal profession.

So, is the EPA really trying to help us? I increasingly believe they are not. They are trying to keep their jobs (and grow even more jobs; coming from NASA, I know how that works). The law (and regulations) are tools to accomplish that. Yes, the EPA has accomplished needed pollution controls through the Clean Air Act. I’m old enough to remember driving through Gary, Indiana in the 1960s, trash lining the highways everywhere, waterways choked with pollution and even catching fire.

But at what point does the Government say, “OK, we fixed the problem. Good enough. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater with damaging over-regulation.” No, that doesn’t happen. Because of the perverse way in which environmental regulations are written.

So, EPA, What About Regulating Water Vapor Emissions?

The EPA regulating CO2 emissions has a few problems, which seem to have not stopped the legal profession from doing what they do best. As I mentioned above, U.S. CO2 emissions from cars and light-duty trucks will have no measurable impact on global temperatures or sea level rise.. You could get rid of them completely. No measurable effect, Yet, here we are… regulating.

Since these are “global” problems, it has long been known that the EPA (and maybe even the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA decision) could be on shaky ground, and maybe these are matters better left to legislation by the U.S. Congress.

But what about water vapor emissions from such vehicles? Now, there is a real possibility! Burning of any fuel (especially if we have hydrogen-powered vehicles) produces water vapor. And on a local basis (in your town or city) this extra water vapor will increase the heat index in the summer. And, and as everyone knows, “it’s not the heat, it’s the humidity”.

That’s a local problem caused by local sources of pollution, and seems to be much better suited for regulation by the EPA, which is a U.S. agency, dealing with U.S. pollution concerns.

The climate scientists who publish papers about the supposed dangers of greenhouse gas emissions make sure to exclude water vapor from their concerns, claiming CO2 is the thermostat that controls climate. I have commented extensively on the sleight of hand before. The vast majority of climate scientists believe CO2 controls temperature, and then temperature controls water vapor. CO2 is the forcing, water vapor is the feedback. But this argument (as I have addressed for many years) is just circular reasoning. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (did I forget to mention it’s our main greenhouse gas?) is partially controlled by precipitation processes we don’t even understand yet. The climate modelers simply tune their models to remove water vapor (through precipitation processes) in an arbitrary and controlled way that has no basis in the underlying physics, which are not yet well understood. Often, these simplifying assumptions translate into assuming relative humidity always remains constant.

But I digress. What I’m talking about here isn’t regulating water vapor emissions for global climate concerns… it’s to reduce their impact on summertime heat, especially in cities.

But why stop at vehicle emissions? Humans exhale lots of water vapor (joggers even more!). Maybe we should limit jogging and the sale of bottled water? Not a big enough problem, you say? Or maybe that’s an FDA thing? I don’t know… I’m just a simple country climate scientist.

As attorney Jonathan Adler commented in response to my recent blog post on the Endangerment Finding,

The problem is, the concerns you raise are not relevant in making an endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act. The textual standard is precautionary and does not allow for any cost-benefit balancing or consideration of other trade offs. All that is required is that the EPA administrator can reasonably anticipate some threats from warming to health or welfare, the latter of which is defined quite broadly.

So, we are back to the regulatory fact that if a “pollutant” (whatever that means) causes any level of threat, discomfort, worry, anxiety, then the EPA is compelled to regulate it. How convenient. Well, I would argue water vapor emissions, especially in the summer in cities, are better suited to regulation under the Clean Air Act than CO2 emissions are.

So Why Hasn’t Water Vapor Been Regulated?

Clearly it’s not because water vapor is “necessary” to the functioning of the Earth system, since CO2 is necessary for life on Earth to exist. Which brings me back to my question, is the EPA really trying to help us when it comes to climate-related regulation?

I’m increasingly convinced that science has been hijacked in an effort to (among other motives) shake down the energy industry. This has been planned since the 1980s. It makes no difference that human flourishing depends upon energy sources which are abundant and affordable. It doesn’t matter how many people are killed in the process of Saving the Earth. The law demands regulation, and that’s all that matters.

I have evidence. In the early 1990s I was at the White House visiting Al Gore’s environmental advisor, Bob Watson, a ex-NASA stratospheric chemist who was just coming off the successful establishment of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. He told me (as close as I can recall), “We succeeded in regulating ozone-depleting chemicals, and carbon dioxide is next“.

Keep in mind this was in the early days of the IPCC, which was tasked to determine whether humans were changing the climate with greenhouse gas emissions. Their work was just getting started, including the scientists who would assist the process. But the regulatory goal had (wink, wink, nod, nod) already been established.

So, I don’t believe the EPA is actually trying to help Americans when it comes to climate regulation. I’m sure many of their programs (waste cleanup, helping with the Flint, MI water problem, and some others) are laudable and defensible.

But when it comes to regulation related to global climate (or even local climate, as the government tries to pack even more people into small spaces, e.g. with “15 minute cities“), my experience increasingly tells me no one in the political, policy, regulatory, legal, or environmental advocacy, side of this business really cares about the global climate. Otherwise, they would admit their regulation (unlike, say, regulating the precursors to ground-level ozone pollution in cities) will have no measurable impact. They wouldn’t be trying to pack people into urban environments which we know are 5-10 deg. F hotter than their rural surroundings.

It’s all just an excuse for more power and vested interests.

via Roy Spencer, PhD.

https://ift.tt/cSBkD7d

March 3, 2025 at 08:18AM

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/9YvWMho

March 3, 2025 at 08:08AM