Been very busy so only just finding a moment to chip in on the record debate.
IMO, bare soils heating up more than most natural surfaces isn't a valid reason to discard a reading, as after all, it's not like it will have only affected the exact location of that station. The general vicinity will have been that hot too, i.e. there probably was some record-breaking heat in the locality.
That the nearby Cambridge stations came so close before cloud interrupted things, and with the temp having been rising determinedly until that happened, lends some credibility to the notion of temps reaching at least another half a degree higher should the Botanical Gardens have held onto the sun for another half hour, say.
There's also the extraordinarily widespread nature of temps hitting 35*C and above that afternoon. Perhaps a record in its own right? Under such conditions it would be surprising if there wasn't at least one spot within that hit an all-time record high.
Sometimes I wonder what the national record would be if unusual microclimates were permitted. For example, there are sheltered spots in the heath lands of the New Forest with large expanses of very sandy soils that have probably exceeded 40*C on multiple occasions.
Same goes for records in other countries. Fun to imagine, but understandable that the intention of the observation network is to capture the records for the environments in which people spend most of their time. Though I do wonder about mountain weather stations in that regard!
Originally Posted by: Stormchaser