Absolutely.

We should have a network of official weather stations, with live data, and historical extremes for each site.

We also seem far too keen to change and disregard sites quite readily (take Woodford/Rostherne as an example up here). Manchester Airport is on XCWeather but it isn't an official Met station anymore?

It proved remarkably difficult to get reliable data from yesterday.

All very confusing IMO.

Yes it has been a complete shambles. If a new record is declared it will be questioned relentlessly and some people will not accept it. Credibility is shot to shreds. Regardless of one's views on climate change it is obvious that temperature data should now be considered "business critical" and that implies the system must have redundancy built in and be resilient.

---

 

In this day and age we should not be relying on a set-up like that. It is beyond a joke. I really can't see that counting.

Its apparently got a four start rating and was awarded a silver rosette last year. Still no mention from the MetOffice. This whole charade is a total embarrassment. I said it earlier, they need to stop spending money on their website and start to invest in the reporting network. 

---

 

In this day and age we should not be relying on a set-up like that. It is beyond a joke. I really can't see that counting.

It looks no worse than Brogdale, and they counted that. Personally I think the 2003 Brogdale reading should be disregarded - it's clearly way out of line with neighbouring sites. If I had my way, the max for 2003 would be 38.1 at Gravesend (although even Gravesend was far from ideal) and the max for 2019 would be 38.1 at Cambridge NIAB.

 

Re the comments above about the new record being questioned, nobody seemed to quibble about the Brogdale reading even though that seems far more dodgy. (Although I noticed that The Times on Tuesday attributed the 38.5C record to Kew Gardens on the front page!)

But I agree. Spend money on a decent, extensive and reliable network of weather stations, not on redesigning the website and preaching on Twitter.

---

Data will continue to be checked and verified next few days

— marco petagna (@Petagna) July 26, 2019

I've just been down there, here's a pic taken this morning:

http://web.yurgn31.50mail.com/botanic.jpeg

No big bushes or poly-tunnels this month, but plenty of bare soil.

It's completely surrounded by buildings and trees, far too sheltered - like a sun trap, as well as the bare soil practically under it, which will heat up like concrete.

---

Data will continue to be checked and verified next few days

— marco petagna (@Petagna) July 26, 2019

Thanks for getting the update @Brain. Its a shame we have to wait this long - imagine if we had known for sure yesterday we would have been able to move on or celebrate in style.

Although he didn't answer part of your question.

---

Whats also fascinating about that Cambridge site is it is listed as Active

Therefore, if the site is not meeting the standard required how long do they go back and delete stations record (Days or weeks). 

 

---

Yes it has been a complete shambles. If a new record is declared it will be questioned relentlessly and some people will not accept it. Credibility is shot to shreds. Regardless of one's views on climate change it is obvious that temperature data should now be considered "business critical" and that implies the system must have redundancy built in and be resilient.

Brian - it will not be any consolation - but the position with regard to UK biological recording is in a similar state - possibly worse. There is no overarching body to collate and present public data and the issues of ownership and validation are fraught with difficulties. If I give you a map of the distribution of a particular species, what you are really getting is the historic distribution of reporting naturalists! Some reporters and recorders are professional, but there is a fine tradition in natural history of the expert amateur playing an invaluable part in such research. These can be a tad [putting it kindly] "closely focused" and working to their own time limitations. The unkind phrase is "like herding cats"! Given that biological data has a commercial value, for example in the planning process as carried out by environmental consultants, you will appreciate the access to reliable current data can be a hornets' nest!

I caught and reported a Large Marsh Horsefly last week. A big beast. The county "Fly recorder" validated it from photographs and I referred to a map of its distribution, which does not include any Lincolnshire record. I was told recently these maps are sometimes several years out of date! How can you say "..seems to be extending its range" when you may be several years behind the times?

https://www.naturespot.org.uk/species/large-marsh-horsefly

Roger

---

It looks no worse than Brogdale, and they counted that. Personally I think the 2003 Brogdale reading should be disregarded - it's clearly way out of line with neighbouring sites. If I had my way, the max for 2003 would be 38.1 at Gravesend and the max for 2019 would be 38.1 at Cambridge NIAB.

As you weren't in the area on that day, I'm not sure how you can say it was out of line? Given the right setup, namely a wind from a southerly quarter, Swale absolutely roasts... it's because of the mini-Foehn effect from the Downs. Manston is much higher up, on top of a plateau, while East Malling is the other side of the Downs.

There are no other official sites locally which are in the lee of a long chain of hills. It's that which, given the right wind direction and upper air conditions, meant the record happened. It was a very similar day yesterday: same hot upper air, same wind direction and so on. And cloudless, of course, which is why I'm not at all surprised to hear a potential 38.4C was recorded there.

As I've said again and again in defense of Brogdale, if it was dodgy the Met Office simply wouldn't list it as holding the record. Believe me, they would have audited the hell out of the site before awarding it that honour.

And for reference, here's Brogdale.

http://oi65.tinypic.com/wvv3g2.jpg

It complies with the WMO rules regarding positioning of the screen -  see section 1-1: https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_8_en-2012.pdf

(There is a section about being close to trees, but no exact distances are specified. Clearly the Met Office don't see it as a problem.)

The Botany station, in that photo, doesn't comply - there isn't 1.5m of grass on all sides of that screen.

That said, if the Met Office decide that it holds the record I won't grumble and moan about it!

---

I note both Cambridge NIAB and Cambridge Botanic have moved location since 2003. Some careful analysis would be needed before concluding that yesterday was hotter in Cambridge than it was on 10 August 2003.

Why all this slaying of the Met office because of a recording at a WOW site? You do realise that these WOW sites are not official but rather a network of amateur sites.

Indeed, here is the link to mine.
I believe the difference is the Meto Logo on the page meaning it is an official meto observation station.

http://wow.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/view?siteID=4557194 

---

 

It looks no worse than Brogdale, and they counted that. Personally I think the 2003 Brogdale reading should be disregarded - it's clearly way out of line with neighbouring sites. If I had my way, the max for 2003 would be 38.1 at Gravesend (although even Gravesend was far from ideal) and the max for 2019 would be 38.1 at Cambridge NIAB.

 

Re the comments above about the new record being questioned, nobody seemed to quibble about the Brogdale reading even though that seems far more dodgy. (Although I noticed that The Times on Tuesday attributed the 38.5C record to Kew Gardens on the front page!)

But I agree. Spend money on a decent, extensive and reliable network of weather stations, not on redesigning the website and preaching on Twitter.

Philip Eden never accepted that Brogdale reading for the reasons you highlighted

 He always asserted the record should be set as Kew Gardens which iirc was 38.1C that day

 

---

 

Philip Eden never accepted that Brogdale reading for the reasons you highlighted

 He always asserted the record should be set as Kew Gardens which iirc was 38.1C that day

 

Yes I had forgotten that Kew also matched the 38.1C at Gravesend, thus removing all doubt. I think 38.1C should be the accepted 2003 record, but I know it won;t be.

 

BTW the Brogdale 38.4C appears to be confirmed here too: https://wow.metoffice.gov.uk/observations/details/201907263foef47xtye6ucrdyyb96sccar But not official yet!

---

Meto tweet, provisional reading of 38.7 is to be verified.

 

 

---

This is all very bizarre to read!

How can we lag so far behind in terms of live weather recording/data etc? As a nation we love talking about the weather as well! 😆

As others have said this is all a bit of a shambles. Why does it always seem to be that way with us?

---

I've just noticed that you can filter the map to show only official and climate stations. And when you do that, Cambridge BG still shows up!

Others that weren't on the chart:

Buntingford No 2 37.2C max

Pitsford, Northampton 35.9C (this doesn't even appear on the Met Office official list!)

Flatford Mill - no max reading showing up!

---

This image perhaps demonstrates the regard shown for the weather station at Cambridge Botanic Garden:

http://web.yurgn31.50mail.com/CambridgeBG.jpg

BREAKING NEWS

A new provisional recording of 38.7 °C at Cambridge Botanic Garden has been received from yesterday It will be quality controlled & if validated would be the highest temperature officially recorded in the UK

 

---

This image perhaps demonstrates the regard shown for the weather station at Cambridge Botanic Garden:

http://web.yurgn31.50mail.com/CambridgeBG.jpg

 

Looks like it has only moved once. If they'll accept Brogdale they'll accept anything I think. 

 

It all feels a bit of an anticlimax though. Like winning a gold medal after the winner gets disqualified for a drugs test.

---