I think this is even more messy than it first appeared to be!  It may well be due to people getting hold of the wrong end of the stick and jumping to conclusions.  But Perhaps if the Met office had been more precise with their reports in the first place, there would have been less confusion and more confidence in their data and methodology.  

Apologies Caz, it was my fault I was looking at the locations in Cambridge 

Thanks Rob for picking it up.

Thanks for clarifying Rob!  

I completely misunderstood PL’s post!  I thought he was reporting news about the station due to verify the record temp. 

Apologies Caz, it was my fault I was looking at the locations in Cambridge 

Thanks Rob for picking it up.

However, if you can get it wrong, as someone who has worked with theses stations, you can surely see why the general public get it wrong and why people are confused.  Seems it’s an easy mistake to make and a good reason for the Met office to overhaul their system. 

I could be wrong, but I do wonder whether this "new record" from Thursday could end up a bit like late June last year when it was claimed for a time that Scotland had broken its' all time highest temperature record. Someone made mention of that in this thread the other day.

I could be wrong, but I do wonder whether this "new record" from Thursday could end up a bit like late June last year when it was claimed for a time that Scotland had broken its' all time highest temperature record. Someone made mention of that in this thread the other day.

Ah yes, the infamous 'ice cream van' incident. However notwithstanding that I do recall that the site was far from ideal anyway, a somewhat jumbled mess of junk, some kind of a boatyard I think.

Anyway, isn't this why there is the verification process in the first place, to ensure that any potential record is valid? If it takes a few days then so be it. That is far better than hastily proclaiming a new record then having to retract it when it comes to light the site isn't of an acceptable standard. Now that really would be embarassing for the Met Office.

Anyway, isn't this why there is the verification process in the first place, to ensure that any potential record is valid? If it takes a few days then so be it. That is far better than hastily proclaiming a new record then having to retract it when it comes to light the site isn't of an acceptable standard. Now that really would be embarassing for the Met Office.

I quite agree with your first point, which is why I am puzzled why the Met Office were very quick to proclaim the NIAB July record, but are prevaricating about the CUBG national record. A record is a record and should always need verification.

On your last point, it appears that embarrassment is no longer a thing that troubles organisations or public figures.  They just shrug it off and pass it to their PR people to deal with. 

From an article in the Telegraph, about how we should install French-style window shutters and so forth to keep cool:

"The 38.7C recorded at Cambridge Botanic Gardens awaits expert tests to see if it is a true reading, with results expected early next week, the Met Office said.

There are suggestions that bare soil soaking up heat around the weather station may have led to an artificially high recording."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/28/heat-proof-home-under-floor-cooling-shutters-architects-say/

I await the results with bated breath!

I hope it's verified.

More blogger onslaught on the CUBG provisional record.

More blogger onslaught on the CUBG provisional record.

Looking at all that - That is being far too pedantic and using just about any excuse possible to discount it.

It's in a proper Stevensons Screen - Yes the grass has grown a bit - but so what - the big buildings are some distance away.

Looks like Shetland will be the hottest place in the UK today - that very rarely happens especially in Summer. The last of the heat from last week is swirling around up there and they have a forecast high of 26 - very warm for them.

That has to be a record for Shetland, surely?

Looks like Shetland will be the hottest place in the UK today - that very rarely happens especially in Summer. The last of the heat from last week is swirling around up there and they have a forecast high of 26 - very warm for them.

Doubt it when temps are widely in the mid 20's down in the south - 25.6C currently at my location.

 

That has to be a record for Shetland, surely?

Got to 27.8C at Sumburgh on 6th August 1910

More blogger onslaught on the CUBG provisional record.

You would expect Horticultural Establishments, e.g Cambridge Botanic, Brogdale, RHS gardens, to have a close interest in recording weather. So it's a bit surprising that they don't have MetO approved sites and equipment, and immediately trusted readings.

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!

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!

Well said James.

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!

I would have thought that a straight comparison of all the daily max data for (say) this summer between the two Cambridge sites in question would help resolve the issue quite quickly

If the two sites are generally in good agreement then the new result at the Botanic Gardens is likely to be valid but if the BG site consistently shows higher maxima then it should be treated with great caution

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!

Can we not use satellite data to actually work this out? That's where the suspected antartic record of -93C came from and the Iranian desert record of 60C+ came from.

 

Can we not use satellite data to actually work this out? That's where the suspected antartic record of -93C came from and the Iranian desert record of 60C+ came from. 

To tenths of a degree, which is what's needed here? Satellites would need to be very good (but they can be, these days) to pick out a localised spot fitting the MetO criteria for a record in the middle of the very mixed terrain of an urban area.