Originally Posted by: John Mason

 

 

You can, but imagination works both ways. I can just imagine Victor Meldrew repeating, "I don't believe it"!

 I certainly dont know , but it seems a bit fishy.

SHOW EXTERNAL IMAGES

I would think, as the Met office spent four days checking and scrutinising it, that the station meets all their required standards.  Whether or not they review their standards in the future, leaves to be seen. 

There’s one thing for certain, the next time we break the record, the question of the reading from the dodgy Cambridge station will be brought up again, like Brogdale.  

Originally Posted by: Rob K

 

So if NIAB recorded  38.1C and the airport 38.2C it seems foolish  to quibble over another half a degree. Unlike Brogdale which seems to record about 2C higher than it "should" by all accounts.

Jeez - just let it go, Rob.

I've already explained why Brogdale's temperatures are higher than the nearest other stations, but as you may have missed it here we go again!

• Faversham is located on the lee side of the North Downs and given winds from a southerly quarter is prone to a localised Foehn effect. This leads to relatively high temperatures given the right wind setup (which occurred in 2003 and again in 2019).
• Manston is on top of a plateau - no Foehn effects
• East Malling is on the other side of the Downs - again, no Foehn effects there

I know you won't accept it (even though the Met Office do), but please let it be an end to your moaning.

Frankly if the Met Office say a particular reading from a particular site stands, it should be good enough for everyone.

Edited by user 31 July 2019 04:49:58(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Originally Posted by: Retron

 

Jeez - just let it go, Rob.

I've already explained why Brogdale's temperatures are higher than the nearest other stations, but as you may have missed it here we go again!

• Faversham is located on the lee side of the North Downs and given winds from a southerly quarter is prone to a localised Foehn effect. This leads to relatively high temperatures given the right wind setup (which occurred in 2003 and again in 2019).
• Manston is on top of a plateau - no Foehn effects
• East Malling is on the other side of the Downs - again, no Foehn effects there

I know you won't accept it (even though the Met Office do), but please let it be an end to your moaning.

Frankly if the Met Office say a particular reading from a particular site stands, it should be good enough for everyone.

Thing is, there will always be places that will be warmer than others under certain conditions due to local topograpy. Under the right conditions frost hollows can give night minima a lot more than 2C lower than the surrounding area. Funny how nobody ever seems to question that. It's just local topography again.

Edited by user 31 July 2019 07:30:20(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Originally Posted by: Rob K

Don't have a go at me, I'm not the one moaning about it. Just quoting the article in "Weather"!

It certainly comes off as moaning, as you keep having these little digs at it. The Met Office consider it valid, simple as that. They, not anyone writing in Weather, or UKWW, or NetWeather, or uk.sci.weather for that matter, are the arbiters of what's valid or not.

And as I've said, there are specifics in the area (I've lived nearby for 35+ years, after all) which mean the Brogdale readings make sense.

There will be some rules which are unbreakable (i.e. not having a Stevenson screen with a minimum of 1.5m of grass or "representative surface" in all directions around it). Then there are some which are desireable, but not essential (as per the WMO guidelines). The WMO guidelines don't, for example, explicitly forbid having bare earth almost adjacent to a screen. They don't forbid having hedges nearby, either, with regards to temperatures.

https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_8_en-2012.pdf

Page 20 has the specifics and yes, both sites comply with regards to temperature. It could be argued that the conditions aren't anywhere near strict enough, but as it stands they are what they are - hence the record stands.

Now that I would agree with - for all the potential faults of the likes of Gravesend, Heathrow etc, it's better to have them than not at all. There are of course all manner of microclimates dotted around and the more coverage in general the better. It's a shame there isn't more effort put into creating new stations, as it all seems a bit lackadaisical.

Edited by user 31 July 2019 09:32:45(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

http://wow.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/view?&reportId=8082001&siteID=25668314

Originally Posted by: Chunky Pea

I also believe that some (though not sure if all) UK Met Office approved screens are painted black on the inside, which seems to be another unique trait. I can see the logic of this, given that black 'absorbs' heat, but this still must have some sort of an effect on temps inside the screen.

Explanation in the product description here.

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze

 

Do we know what the official width of the grass border is at the CBG weather station? On the photos it looks less than 1.5m on one side at least, however it is impossible to be sure because of the angle they are taken from.  

I'm tempted next time I go into Cambridge to take a photograph of the Botanical Gardens Weather Station. Hopefully they'd let me as I am a member of the Royal Meteorological Society.

Anyway I'd like to know just out of academic curiosity what it looks like.

Originally Posted by: Col

 

Somone did just that and posted the picture here, most likely in this very thread. Can't remember who it was but if you search back I'm sure you will find it.

It is on page 37, 4th post down. Posted by James