WMO’s Weather Station Classifications
July 7, 2023
By Paul Homewood
AS promised, this is the link to the WMO’s guide which lists classifications for weather stations.
Go to page 44:
17 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
oldbrew on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… Gamecock on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… glenartney on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… julianflood on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… Edmund Burke on Storm Ravages World’s La… Gamecock on Greta’s Halo Slips ann farmer on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… JohnAM on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… Micky R on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… marksullivanhome on Greta’s Halo Slips
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Remembered from when the Cambridge Botanic Gardens recorded its highest temperature.
I take the point that not every site can be perfect. The dispute arises when the Met Office persist in using sites that are either in sun traps or in close proximity to external heat sources (eg in the first case the Cambridge University garden site and in the second any aerodrome runway/taxi-ing area).
Or indeed any other location where they know that readings are being taken where temperatures are distorted for whatever reason. (And that means down as well as up!)
It’s taking an awful long time for the message to get through to the Met Office that their sole function in this field is to record reliable “base” temperatures. If these temperatures indicate ‘global warming’, so be it. If they don’t, so be it.
It’s not part of the job to “lean on” these figures in order to demonstrate a temperature increase which may in reality be spurious.
And it is certainly no part of the job to issue scary press releases implying that we have just had the hottest day since June 122,967 BC!
Toeing the line is what pays for fancy new offices and super computers.
Thanks for that.
Do we have the criteria for categories 1, 2 and 3? I thought I saw them somewhere.
Clearly to publish temperature figures, without making the reader aware of the high possibility of error, based on readings from cat. 4 stations is well below the standards we should expect from a public body, especially from one that politicians and the general public regard as above reproach.
Yes 1 2 and 3 are on the previous pages of the guide – page 44 I think
Quite right, MM. The BBC (any weather reporting entity) should be made (I’m surprised it’s not a professional standard) to include the station classification when readings are reported.
Professional standards? The BBC? The Met Office? Not words that should be linked.
Super-hot explosive battery fires happening too often, council says (msn.com)https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/super-hot-explosive-battery-fires-happening-too-often-council-says/ar-AA1dxrC3?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ef3102d4e4984ab48b66fa2c14381ba4&ei=19 Super-hot explosive battery fires happening too often, council sayshttps://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/super-hot-explosive-battery-fires-happening-too-often-council-says/ar-AA1dxrC3?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ef3102d4e4984ab48b66fa2c14381ba4&ei=19 A series of fires have been caused by a common household battery which can trigger explosions, and firefighters believe some people are deliberately hiding them in recycling and scrap. http://www.msn.com This may be of interest ________________________________
Searching around I found this site.
https://www.baranidesign.com/faq-articles/2020/3/18/what-is-the-wmo-requirement-for-data-reporting-time-interval-of-weather-stations
I haven’t had time time look at it in detail, much less fully understand it, but it’s about the amount of time between readings of electronic temperature recordings. At first glance it appears that taking readings at 1 minute intervals lays the data open to being a bit unreliable. So we have siting of the recording equipment to worry about and now whether the equipment itself is appropriate. It shouldn’t matter much to the likes of anybody who needs a fairly accurate idea of what temperatures are out there but when you are basing whole political agendas on the accuracy of such data, and of such small changes etc, then I would think it matters very much
That’s surely the point!
The Met Office (and goodness knows how many other previously reputable organisations) have been suckered into believing that a) there is something unique about the current global temperatures (even though Hansen himself said that GAT “is not a useful metric”) and that mankind is in a position to do something about it (even though the IPCC admitted that the chaotic nature of climate makes prediction impossible).
And since there is no evidence that variations in CO2 concentrations affect weather or climate but rather the opposite if anything, there can be no reason to impoverish ourselves on the planet’s account!
And since 90% of the data appears to be “manufactured” and bears no resemblance to the real world …..
Well said, Mike.
Climate science has decayed to dogma. Climate scientists don’t think; they recite the party line.
When looking for CRN classifications in the US, I got an article that declared data from class 4 or 5 stations is useful, and Watt, et al, are wrong to dismiss ‘data’ from anything but class 1 and 2 stations. I can’t even imagine how one could become so distorted as to think crap station readings are useful.
It is becoming more clear to some , [ not enough ] , people that the whole thing is about taking control of everything .https://www.technocracy.news/un-agenda-2030-a-recipe-for-global-socialism/
The IPCC is a Marxist organisation who started the Global Warming fraud .
The WEF is the same and wants to take every ones money and stop most people from being able to drive .[ 75% reduction in cars wanted ]
The WHO wants to take control of all countries emergency plans to bring in lockdowns when they want .
Probably the WMO has now come under their control so will have to promote the climate change lies .
The Met Office has been pushing their lies for some time so must be on board .
When will the media ever start to tell the truth ?
Talk about insulting your customers Intelligence as I pay a Gas and Electric bill of £375 per month having increased by over £250 in about a year and a half.
I received and email from British Gas it said
“Thanks for being part of net zero week” with a load of blurb about there so called net zero tips to save you energy and get lower bills.
Do British Gas not get that Net zero policies and vast investments and subsidies for what they call renewable energy are driving up my energy bills .
Wind and solar infrastructure would need to be able to self repair to be renewable.
But part of my bill now is to pay for there Net Zero advertising .
I thought about sending a strongly worded complaint about this but they would probably ban me as a customer and maybe tell the rest of the energy cartel to do the same. Who knows maybe the banks would follow in this free democracy.
Yes it is much worse in China , Russia North Korea but when politicians are bought and controlled by globalists they will not make policies in the public interests,
‘“Thanks for being part of net zero week” with a load of blurb about there so called net zero tips to save you energy and get lower bills.’
In the US, we have regulated monopoly power companies, which say the same sorts of things. I don’t know if following applies to British Gas, but beware.
US regulated monopoly power companies have guaranteed rates of return. They will get their profit margin. Regulators have periodic reviews of their accounts, and rates are adjusted accordingly. ‘Tips to save you energy and get lower bills’ is pure BS. IF you save energy, the utility’s rates will be adjusted so they still make their return. You WILL NOT get lower bills. Use less, your rates go up.
Thanks for posting Paul.
I read the relevant section regarding siting for temperature, in view of the fact that I seem to be in dispute with others about the site at Porthmadoc.
From reading the specification, my understanding is that the trees in the background to the site do not conflict with the site being given a class one status, as they do not restrict incoming sunlight.
Curious as to whether there were any other reasons for lowering its classification , I found that the proximity of the trees would interfere with raingauge, and possibly wind measurements as well.
So it looks like the classification by the met office is correct, but one can still make the argument, as I have, that the temperature measurements should be acceptable.
If I am correct in my assessment, why were the met office not able to pass on to you the same information? I would have thought for them it would have been a good argument to use!
I noticed with interest that Floors Castle weather station CANNOT be Status 1-3 because it is in a garden and fails the natural vegetation test.
O/T Links
– New Steve Loftus factcheck on the 4 UK nations water companies performance
– Steve Loftus factcheck : Offshore Wind isn’t cheap