Meto Update: Scientist Acquires Raw Station Data

[noggin]

So much for the green movement being a licence to print money...

OT, I know, but I couldn't let this pass. Interesting comments from the Taxpayers Alliance in this article...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-479572/Treasury-pockets-extra-10bn-green-taxes.html

I'm not saying that the sole purpose of green taxation is a money grubbing exercise, but the government is certainly making a profit out of it and one would have to be spectacularly naive to think that the government's intentions were wholly altruistic.

PS Mind you, the government doesn't seem to need a licence to print money these days.....it just does it anyway!

Edited August 4, 2009 by noggin

[Methuselah]

OT, I know, but I couldn't let this pass. Interesting comments from the Taxpayers Alliance in this article...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-479572/Treasury-pockets-extra-10bn-green-taxes.html

I'm not saying that the sole purpose of green taxation is a money grubbing exercise, but the government is certainly making a profit out of it and one would have to be spectacularly naive to think that the government's intentions were wholly altruistic.

PS Mind you, the government doesn't seem to need a licence to print money these days.....it just does it anyway!

And, also OT, one would have to be equally naive to trust a Daily Mail editorial to be putting-forward anything balanced/unbaised on anything?

[noggin]

And, also OT, one would have to be equally naive to trust a Daily Mail editorial to be putting-forward anything balanced/unbaised on anything?

So, are you saying that the Daily Mail misquoted the spokesmen from the Taxpayers Alliance, Friend of the Earth and UHY Hacker Young?

The article also contains a quotation from a Treasury spokeswoman, giving the Treasury's side of the "argument".

[johnholmes]

shall we get back to the title of this thread folks-please?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Redhill, at the foot of the North Downs, is a notorious frost hollow. As a result, when an official station it regularly recorded temp minima that were dramatically lower than other sites in the region/area.

In 2006 it was replaced by Charlwood, about 6 miles away, which was and is believed to be more representative. Could it just be....ready for this...that Redhill was closed not because the conspiracy demanded the removal of a station recording inconveniently low temp data, but because the Met Office is constantly trying to improve the quality and meaningfulness of its data?

Sorry if that gets your, um, coolist bum twitching as an idea. (Not my usual turn of phrase, but hey, let's both stir it a bit....as you say, much more fun than being boring and factual, eh? )

Since you took up the challenge Os [no you haven't got me twitching because you clearly don't know why it was closed] the answer re METO trying to improve quality is a resounding NO! It was ordered by the government to reduce 'cold weather' payments to the elderly in the region...and that widely reported with a huge ho ha down here.

Re the location of the weather station, it was based at Redhill aerodrome which is approximately 1 1/2 miles south of the NORTH DOWNS which tower at a huge 600 feet which in my reckoning does not provide any sort of shelter to the aerodrome of any note. I live about a quarter of a mile from the aerodrome and so I know the geographical layout pretty well. It is a very 'green' location and represented well the temps within the surrey and Sussex weald which is not affected by UHI etc. It seemed unusual because it was called the Redhill station but it was not placed in the small town but in a countrified location and so was subject to frost because of this reason [Redhill town centre wouldn't have reported same temps]. Charlwood isn't because it isvery close to Gatwick airport and is on the flight path so its make up is very different.

I work in Croydon and believe me many a time I have travelled to work and it has got colder as I moved in. There was no sound reason to move the site other than govt influence.

BFTP

[Methuselah]

Since you took up the challenge Os [no you haven't got me twitching because you clearly don't know why it was closed] the answer re METO trying to improve quality is a resounding NO! It was ordered by the government to reduce 'cold weather' payments to the elderly in the region...and that widely reported with a huge ho ha down here.

Re the location of the weather station, it was based at Redhill aerodrome which is approximately 1 1/2 miles south of the NORTH DOWNS which tower at a huge 600 feet which in my reckoning does not provide any sort of shelter to the aerodrome of any note. I live about a quarter of a mile from the aerodrome and so I know the geographical layout pretty well. It is a very 'green' location and represented well the temps within the surrey and Sussex weald which is not affected by UHI etc. It seemed unusual because it was called the Redhill station but it was not placed in the small town but in a countrified location and so was subject to frost because of this reason [Redhill town centre wouldn't have reported same temps]. Charlwood isn't because it isvery close to Gatwick airport and is on the flight path so its make up is very different.

I work in Croydon and believe me many a time I have travelled to work and it has got colder as I moved in. There was no sound reason to move the site other than govt influence.

BFTP

But Fred, it's still a well-known frost-hollow; and, as such, it is unrepresentative of the area's prevailing temperature...

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

But Fred, it's still a well-known frost-hollow; and, as such, it is unrepresentative of the area's prevailing temperature...

The phrase "frost hollow" makes it sound like the Redhill station was in a hole in the ground and in shade most of the day.

If you look at the photo I have of the Redhill station it is exposed to the sun 24 hours a day - it is located in the middle of a field, where the grass is cut very short.

The location is exposed, on a hill. It's not sheltered by trees.

The criticism that cold winds blow from the North Downs sounds weak when you consider that the North Downs only get cold because of the weather.

Temperature stations located 2 dozen miles from the Channel or North sea are not shut down whenever the SSTA goes above +3 / -3 degrees Celsius.

Likewise, the London conurbation suffers from severe UHI. The temperature stations in a 50 mile radius around London are not shut down, even though the wind can blow modified air from London to these stations.

Why should being located close to a set of large hills or a large city, that like the sea are affected by the weather, be any different?

To an intelligent observer it makes no sense.

[Essan]

The phrase "frost hollow" makes it sound like the Redhill station was in a hole in the ground and in shade most of the day.

Well a frost hollow can be a hole in the ground - or it can cover dozens of square miles

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/Frost-hollow.htm

In the case of Redhill I understood the sandy soil played a role as well?

Reminds me: I must pop over to Throckmorton one day and see if I can determine why Pershore records such low minima compared with all surrounding stations.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Well a frost hollow can be a hole in the ground - or it can cover dozens of square miles

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/Frost-hollow.htm

Here's Redhill

Here's the location on the map. Charlwood is at 7 o'clock above Crawley, next to Gatwick Airport.

If you flick Google maps to "terrain" you get this.

Redhill aerodrome is about 3 miles from the dark lines indicating higher terrain. Charlwood is 6.5 miles from the step up in altitude.

This is Charlwood. It's sheltered by a hedge on one side.

There is a bank of trees to its North, about 55 meters at its closest point.

Frost hollow

Frost hollow (or frost pocket) is the name for low-lying area (e.g. a valley bottom or a smaller hollow) where frosts occurs more frequently than in the surrounding area. This is normally as after a dry, clear and cold night cold air drains down neighbouring slopes into a localized pocket from which it is slow(or unable) to escape.

If you look at the terrain Redhill does not seem to be located in a valley, so rather than pool, the cold air blows over it.

image source

It's not a hollow because there is no ridge to trap the cold air. (If there is one I've not found it. Go to bingmaps, type in "Redhill aerodrome" and look at it with bird's eye view - it looks like the weather station is on a bit of raised ground compared to its surrounds). That's why I feel justified to continue to make comparisons with stations that are located next to UHI sources or near the coast.

Reminds me: I must pop over to Throckmorton one day and see if I can determine why Pershore records such low minima compared with all surrounding stations.

With the wonders of the Internet you don't need to go there. Here it is.

In the case of Redhill I understood the sandy soil played a role as well?

Wouldn't sandy soil increase summer maxima, as in the "scorching hot beach" effect? The site from a distance looks well covered in grass, though.

[Paul]

This is the thing though, google doesn't provide the answers to everything. This article from Weather Eye magazine written by Ian Currie (forecaster based in Surrey) may interest you:

[Methuselah]

Thanks for digging that up, Paul. It just goes to show that even 'intelligent observers' can be wrong?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Thanks for digging that up, Paul. It just goes to show that even 'intelligent observers' can be wrong?

Pete

I hope that is aimed at me!! [big smiley grin].

Paul thanks for that and AFT too, but my point is that 'it is' representative of the surrounding area. What is described is classic 'weald' set up [which incidentally is a clay pit in between the N and S chalky Downs]. It is rambling countryside full of what Redhill Aerodrome is all about.

By the way it was moved because of govt cold payments...honest.

Fred

[Methuselah]

Pete

I hope that is aimed at me!! [big smiley grin].

Paul thanks for that and AFT too, but my point is that 'it is' representative of the surrounding area. What is described is classic 'weald' set up [which incidentally is a clay pit in between the N and S chalky Downs]. It is rambling countryside full of what Redhill Aerodrome is all about.

By the way it was moved because of govt cold payments...honest.

Fred

I think I recall something about government jiggery-pokery with the coldweather payments myself. So, I aint about to argue.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

This is the thing though, google doesn't provide the answers to everything. This article from Weather Eye magazine written by Ian Currie (forecaster based in Surrey) may interest you:

Thanks for that. Good article as it gives the dimensions of the "shallow valley" in which the temperature station resides that is not easy to see on the Google terrain map.

Is it an explanation why it was moved? I don't know whether one station hogging a lot of the coldest nights is a good reason. It might not be Scotland, but it reflects the weather at that spot, and the trend goes up and down just as it would a few miles in another direction. I suppose it's a question of what we care more about: trends or average temperature?

As for the sand explanation this cuts both ways, so it could not have been sufficient on its own*. On cold nights the sand might trap cold air and in the evenings quickly radiate heat into a clear night sky, but during hot summer days the opposite occurs - the sand traps warm air and the surface radiates heat onto the station so that it records "artificially" high maxima. The article might have mentioned this warming influence.

*Of course this might be two reasons why the station is unsuitable, or it might be that the two cold/hot influences balance. I might not mind so much if I didn't know that the replacement station - Charlwood - was just East of Gatwick airport (UHI source) and is right next to a big hedge - a station that does not look much better sited than the one at the Redhill aerodrome. Could they not have put the Redhill station on non-sandy 50*50 patch of lawn turf?

Also, I'd like to know why the new Charlwood station wasn't placed in the middle of the field away from the hedge (it's literally 1 meter from it)?

I think this is an intelligent question to ask.

Edited August 8, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Paul]

I used to live about 5 minutes from the charlwood station and theanswer to that question is pretty simple - someone else owns the landthe other side of the hedge and there are buildings back the other way across the grass (I wouldn't call it a field, it's not that big).

I'd also say that it's actually a pretty cool spot, often measuring below what I would get on the outskirts of Crawley as despite being close to the runway it's actually some way from terminal buildings etc and effectively out in the middle of fields with just a few industrial units nearby and that's it.

Edit, just to add to the above - I found a couple of photos I took of the station a while back as someone else was asking about it's proximity to Gatwick, as you can see there are electricity cables running across the middle of the grassy area, so I'd say they also had a fair bit to do with it's placement, as it couldn't go directly beneath them:

The runway is marked here, it's a quarter of a mile away and I'd estimate that the terminal buildings etc are closing in on another mile from that point, so not particularly close at all.

[Essan]

With the wonders of the Internet you don't need to go there. Here it is.

Wouldn't sandy soil increase summer maxima, as in the "scorching hot beach" effect? The site from a distance looks well covered in grass, though.

An ariel photo tells me a lot less than the OS map does. And yes, Pershore does often record higher temps on hot days. Maybe this balances out the cold nights? I still don't think it's the best site to use for CET data. Would be interesting to compare data from with that from Pershore College(which is actaully just outside Pershore rather then several miles away). Or indeed Paul M's. I've noticed that on some occasions Pershore records higher temps than my sheltered garden, as well as significantly lower minima.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Paul

I used to live about 5 minutes from the charlwood station and theanswer to that question is pretty simple - someone else owns the landthe other side of the hedge and there are buildings back the other way across the grass (I wouldn't call it a field, it's not that big

I wondered if that was the case. That's a pity. It's very difficult to find "the perfect spot" for temperature measurement. This must especially be the case in the UK which is one of the most densely population spots on Earth. Perhaps whoever it is that owns the station should have splashed out on the field next to the one they bought. They seem to spend enough on supercomputers, you'd think they could afford to buy a two acre field in which to put a temperature station.

Gatwick is quite a way away, but as it's to the East and is a large complex one must question whether Easterlies are going to be modified by the time they reach the Charlwood station. I accept it would not be a very significant influence though, just that if you had the choice of any spot in the area (which presumably was not the case) you might not pick just East of Gatwick airport as first choice.

An ariel photo tells me a lot less than the OS map does. And yes, Pershore does often record higher temps on hot days. Maybe this balances out the cold nights? I still don't think it's the best site to use for CET data. Would be interesting to compare data from with that from Pershore College(which is actaully just outside Pershore rather then several miles away). Or indeed Paul M's. I've noticed that on some occasions Pershore records higher temps than my sheltered garden, as well as significantly lower minima.

Thanks for telling me Pershore often records high maxima in the summer - I didn't know that.

I agree it might not be the best site. I don't know who it is who pays for these sites, but since there is millions if not billions sloshing around in meteorology these days one might think buying up the perfect sites to measure temperature would be a high priority.

Of course, when the money wasn't available this wasn't possible in the past - hence the current sitings. But now there is money, surely "those in charge" can put them where they like?

[Paul]

You wouldn't have much more luck the other side of Gatwick, there's a town (Horley), the M23 and lot's of concrete, in truth if you were to be picking a cool spot for a weather station near Gatwick then it's location is perfect as just about anywhere else nearby would be much more built up.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The problem is that site location always has to be a tradeoff between getting the best possible location and practicality issues (like land ownership, setting up the site, maintaining it etc). In addition particularly in urban areas it is often impossible to find a site that doesn't have at least one or two minor location issues- as I think Paul's post refers to above.

Even if you find a perfect site you are always going to get local climate influences from topography and nearby settlements. For example, Abbotsinch (Glasgow Airport) used to be the main site that represented Glasgow, but it closed in 1999 and since then Bishopton has generally been used. Both sites are easily Met Office standard, but Bishopton is prone to radiative warming as it is nearer the west coast and higher up, while Abbotsinch can be something of a frost hollow at night, and can also be warmed by Glasgow city when a slight east wind blows.

It is true that there is a lot of money around in meteorology but you need to bear in mind that there are a lot of stations across the UK, so it isn't a case of forking out just a little bit of money for one or two stations- if the Met Office et al. were to go around buying up land for the "perfect" site locations, they'd end up incurring very heavy costs in terms of both time and money. Beyond a certain point (e.g. making sure that every official site fits the Met Office criteria at absolute minimum) the cost-benefit ratio is considered poor relative to other ways in which the time and money can be used.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

You wouldn't have much more luck the other side of Gatwick, there's a town (Horley), the M23 and lot's of concrete, in truth if you were to be picking a cool spot for a weather station near Gatwick then it's location is perfect as just about anywhere else nearby would be much more built up.

I can accept that. I return to my comment that in the UK it's very difficult to find appropriate sites because there is little spare land, and the land that is available is expensive.

This suggests to me that ground temperature readers are a good guide but are not thought of within the meteorological community as accurate enough.

So should they provide data on which to base long term public policy? Of course, I'd argue not.

TWS

The problem is that site location always has to be a tradeoff between getting the best possible location and practicality issues (like land ownership, setting up the site, maintaining it etc). In addition particularly in urban areas it is often impossible to find a site that doesn't have at least one or two minor location issues- as I think Paul's post refers to above.

This is NOT always the case. It's the case in parts of the world where land isn't cheap.

These days the cost of maintaining sites should not be a problem - after all, the data is designed to be used by policy makers. Those stations need space-age levels of attention as far as accuracy goes, and climate science has over the last 20 years received space-age levels of funding ($79 billion in America).

Even if you find a perfect site you are always going to get local climate influences from topography and nearby settlements. For example, Abbotsinch (Glasgow Airport) used to be the main site that represented Glasgow, but it closed in 1999 and since then Bishopton has generally been used. Both sites are easily Met Office standard, but Bishopton is prone to radiative warming as it is nearer the west coast and higher up, while Abbotsinch can be something of a frost hollow at night, and can also be warmed by Glasgow city when a slight east wind blows.

Isn't there the temptation to simply purge the number of temperature stations and leave only the ones that are perfect?

It is true that there is a lot of money around in meteorology but you need to bear in mind that there are a lot of stations across the UK, so it isn't a case of forking out just a little bit of money for one or two stations- if the Met Office et al. were to go around buying up land for the "perfect" site locations, they'd end up incurring very heavy costs in terms of both time and money. Beyond a certain point (e.g. making sure that every official site fits the Met Office criteria at absolute minimum) the cost-benefit ratio is considered poor relative to other ways in which the time and money can be used.

The Met O have recently spent £33 million on a new supercomputer. Lack of funds is simply not going to wash as an excuse. They choose how they want to spend their public allocation. They have to face the public criticism if it is the wrong decision.

Edited August 9, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Thundery wintry showers]

TWS

This is NOT always the case. It's the case in parts of the world where land isn't cheap.

These days the cost of maintaining sites should not be a problem - after all, the data is designed to be used by policy makers. Those stations need space-age levels of attention as far as accuracy goes, and climate science has over the last 20 years received space-age levels of funding ($79 billion in America).

Er... and lack of availability of land space as mentioned by Paul above? And truly "perfect" places are very difficult to find- even the most perfect-looking of sites will often have little nitpicks about if you look closely.

Isn't there the temptation to simply purge the number of temperature stations and leave only the ones that are perfect?

Not sure about that one.

The Met O have recently spent £33 million on a new supercomputer. Lack of funds is simply not going to wash as an excuse. They choose how they want to spend their public allocation. They have to face the public criticism if it is the wrong decision.

Question is, would that £33 million have been better spent on making all of the sites closer to being perfect than they are now? I have my doubts. A lot depends on how useful that supercmputer turns out to be as well, so it is premature to be saying they were right or wrong to spend it on the supercomputer.

[Chris Knight]

The problem is that site location always has to be a tradeoff between getting the best possible location and practicality issues (like land ownership, setting up the site, maintaining it etc). In addition particularly in urban areas it is often impossible to find a site that doesn't have at least one or two minor location issues- as I think Paul's post refers to above.

Even if you find a perfect site you are always going to get local climate influences from topography and nearby settlements. For example, Abbotsinch (Glasgow Airport) used to be the main site that represented Glasgow, but it closed in 1999 and since then Bishopton has generally been used. Both sites are easily Met Office standard, but Bishopton is prone to radiative warming as it is nearer the west coast and higher up, while Abbotsinch can be something of a frost hollow at night, and can also be warmed by Glasgow city when a slight east wind blows.

It is true that there is a lot of money around in meteorology but you need to bear in mind that there are a lot of stations across the UK, so it isn't a case of forking out just a little bit of money for one or two stations- if the Met Office et al. were to go around buying up land for the "perfect" site locations, they'd end up incurring very heavy costs in terms of both time and money. Beyond a certain point (e.g. making sure that every official site fits the Met Office criteria at absolute minimum) the cost-benefit ratio is considered poor relative to other ways in which the time and money can be used.

Not wishing to be rude, TWS, but you are making a good case for rubbishing the temperature record from ground based stations in the UK. Not the actual results, which are important meteorological data, but the stuff that filters into the long-term record, used in climatological studies. It is a difficult area, where two different philosophies have to resort to the same data, collected historically with a single purpose in mind.

[Paul]

Surely though a weather station needs to be indicative of the local surroundings, so therefore what is a perfect location to place them? If you're suggesting that they should only be placed in locations which are totally unaffected by human elements then surely that wouldn't be a true reflection of the temperature and weather conditions across the UK?

[Gray-Wolf]

Surely though a weather station needs to be indicative of the local surroundings, so therefore what is a perfect location to place them? If you're suggesting that they should only be placed in locations which are totally unaffected by human elements then surely that wouldn't be a true reflection of the temperature and weather conditions across the UK?

I'd have to agree Paul. When I first came across the 'urban heat island effect' I was doing A level Geog in the early 80's and the difference in temps was 2c.It would appear that over the years the larger cities have upped this figure (London can be 6c higher on occasions). If we think of the megalopolis of the Eastern seaboard USA then removing this data will skew the picture.

I've only seen AGW deniers taking issue with the siting of weather stations and so to remove all traces of human influence on climate would appear to service their beliefs but does not reflect the conditions across a country.

Even if it merely highlights what the impact human occupation of a site does to the local climate the data is surely valid?

[Methuselah]

I'd have to agree Paul. When I first came across the 'urban heat island effect' I was doing A level Geog in the early 80's and the difference in temps was 2c.It would appear that over the years the larger cities have upped this figure (London can be 6c higher on occasions). If we think of the megalopolis of the Eastern seaboard USA then removing this data will skew the picture.

I've only seen AGW deniers taking issue with the siting of weather stations and so to remove all traces of human influence on climate would appear to service their beliefs but does not reflect the conditions across a country.

Even if it merely highlights what the impact human occupation of a site does to the local climate the data is surely valid?

Can't argue with that, Ian...Everybody knows what the UHI phenomenon is, what it does and how it works etc. etc. This 'exercise' has the feel of post hoc data-fiddling, to me: if the data won't fit the belief then massage the data until they do...