The Met Office have announced that the observing site at Gravesend
(03784) is to close permanently. No date was given for the closure. The
reason for the closure is that significant changes have been made to
the site by the landowner. Presumably these changes mean that it no
longer meets the standards required for an observing site.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

On Saturday, 29 September 2018 15:04:26 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:
The Met Office have announced that the observing site at Gravesend
(03784) is to close permanently. No date was given for the closure. The
reason for the closure is that significant changes have been made to
the site by the landowner. Presumably these changes mean that it no
longer meets the standards required for an observing site.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

I often wonder whether the summer maximums it records are higher than what I would expect.

Keith (Southend)

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:04:26 PM UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:
The Met Office have announced that the observing site at Gravesend
(03784) is to close permanently. No date was given for the closure. The
reason for the closure is that significant changes have been made to
the site by the landowner. Presumably these changes mean that it no
longer meets the standards required for an observing site.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

I wonder how the number of observing sites closed in the last 20 years compares to the number of new sites opened?

A dramatic difference I suspect. I recall the attempts made to re-open the Penzance site.

Graham
Penzance - Lovely day again today.

Graham Easterling wrote:

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:04:26 PM UTC+1, Norman Lynagh
wrote:
The Met Office have announced that the observing site at Gravesend
(03784) is to close permanently. No date was given for the closure.
The reason for the closure is that significant changes have been
made to the site by the landowner. Presumably these changes mean
that it no longer meets the standards required for an observing
site.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

I wonder how the number of observing sites closed in the last 20
years compares to the number of new sites opened?

A dramatic difference I suspect. I recall the attempts made to
re-open the Penzance site.

Graham
Penzance - Lovely day again today.


It's not something that I've looked into but the impression that I get
is that the number of full observing stations has decreased whereas the
number of auxiliary stations has increased. The auxiliary stations are
generally Met Office AWS, often at locations with non-standard
exposures, providing limited observations, often just temperature and
rainfall. There are no auxiliary stations near Penzance, though. The
closest are at Bude, a couple near Okehampton and one at Berry Head.
The observing network is certainly much less comprehensive than it was
40-50 years ago. The argument, of course, is that there is not the same
need nowadays.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

The argument, of course, is that there is not the same
need nowadays.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

It could be argued that - climatically - the need is far greater now than 40 years ago. Aren't some of the auxiliary stations you mention, Norman, really climatological sites? I think the distinction has broken down today with the widespread conversion to AWSs. Fine, the names don't matter but the exposures do. Last week, on another working trip to Scotland I paid a visit to the Motherwell (Strathclyde Country Park ) clim station. This was the one that provoked ridicule when a photo was distributed last summer after it's 33C temperature was rejected. A laughable site indeed, but how did it ever become approved as an observing site - and was it that bad when it was listed in the MWR?

Julian

wrote:

The argument, of course, is that there is not the same
need nowadays.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.

It could be argued that - climatically - the need is far greater now
than 40 years ago. Aren't some of the auxiliary stations you mention,
Norman, really climatological sites? I think the distinction has
broken down today with the widespread conversion to AWSs. Fine, the
names don't matter but the exposures do. Last week, on another
working trip to Scotland I paid a visit to the Motherwell
(Strathclyde Country Park ) clim station. This was the one that
provoked ridicule when a photo was distributed last summer after it's
33C temperature was rejected. A laughable site indeed, but how did it
ever become approved as an observing site - and was it that bad when
it was listed in the MWR?

Julian


Totally agree with you over the climatological need, Julian, but that
doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to justify the funding.

The auxiliary stations that I am referring to are those from which
observations are generated hourly and are included in the SMUK61,
SIUK61 and SNUK61 bulletins. Instead of having 03*** station numbers
they have 99*** station numbers.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.