I have heard (3rd hand but both reliable) that Barbourne is no longer,
or very shortly will no longer, be a Met Office observing site.

I don't suppose that it will stop reporting of 90-100F temperatures
when everybody else is in the 70s ;o) but at least it will be less
credible.

On 29 Jul 2003 14:38:40 -0700, A in
. com wrote:

I have heard (3rd hand but both reliable) that Barbourne is no longer,
or very shortly will no longer, be a Met Office observing site.

I don't suppose that it will stop reporting of 90-100F temperatures
when everybody else is in the 70s ;o) but at least it will be less
credible.

I doubt any who frequent this ng would be surprised if that were the case.
I was intrigued a few weeks ago, when so many doubts were raised here about
the seemingly anomalous maxima, that within a day or two it seemed to have
come into line with nearby stations.

--
Mike posted to uk.sci.weather 29/07/2003 22:45:46 UTC
Coleraine
Seeking information about the Internet and the way it works? - Subscribe to
news:uk.net.beginners

I doubt any who frequent this ng would be surprised if that were the case.
I was intrigued a few weeks ago, when so many doubts were raised here about
the seemingly anomalous maxima, that within a day or two it seemed to have
come into line with nearby stations.

Agreed, Mike. I wonder why it has taken so long. It would be very
intriguing to know both the official reason and the real reason for its
removal. If the site is now deemed inappropriate for whatever reason, exposure
or instrumentation for example, why was it ever used in the first place when
none of these factors are likely to have materially changed? Or is the
observer now thought to be unreliable? I would hate to think that could be the
case because it would cast a shadow over all of us. Let's hope it's not, but
the first question still needs an answer, and a good one.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On 30 Jul 2003 00:02:46 GMT, (TudorHgh) wrote:

I doubt any who frequent this ng would be surprised if that were the case.
I was intrigued a few weeks ago, when so many doubts were raised here about
the seemingly anomalous maxima, that within a day or two it seemed to have
come into line with nearby stations.

Agreed, Mike. I wonder why it has taken so long. It would be very
intriguing to know both the official reason and the real reason for its
removal. If the site is now deemed inappropriate for whatever reason, exposure
or instrumentation for example, why was it ever used in the first place when
none of these factors are likely to have materially changed? Or is the
observer now thought to be unreliable? I would hate to think that could be the
case because it would cast a shadow over all of us. Let's hope it's not, but
the first question still needs an answer, and a good one.

I suspect that an Investigation was needed, possibly lasting for some
time. I also suspect that the official reason will be something to do
with the exposure of the site. Which is quite possibly correct, IMHO.

As I've said before, I'd love to see if there's any correlation
between (low) wind speed and apparently anomalous temperature readings
in clear conditions. I am quite a trusting person

--
Dave

Quite astonishing it has taken officialdom to wake up to the incredibly
anomalous weather in a tiny area of the City of Worcester. A standing joke
with the locals for over twenty years by my reckoning.

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message

snip

As I've said before, I'd love to see if there's any correlation
between (low) wind speed and apparently anomalous temperature readings
in clear conditions. I am quite a trusting person

Hi, Dave,

I have been reading the posts about erroneous wooden screen readings
with great interest. The large discrepancies must put many of our urban
and valley readings into question. Should readings show whether a wooden
or plastic screen is in use?

I once read, probably Manley - it usually is with me, that exposed
airfields are the safest bet for comparable readings, but then that
would include a valley floor site such as Redhill Airport which is
hardly representative. At the other extreme, Leeds Bradford Airport
hardly represents the local urban area as it is too exposed.

A good example of a site representing the area is Braemar, IMHO. It is
set in the centre of the village on a slope. How easy it would have been
to move the screen to the valley floor for the record-seekers, but that
would not have been a true picture of the climate of the village.

The Copley site is in the village centre on a slope, not by the river at
Copley Mill frost hollow - well known to villagers as not the place to
have a garden.

What does the MO do when it comes to town and city sites? By their
nature they can be airless places with huge heat island effects, so
where do they draw the line? Was Camden Square in London a
representative site?

In many cases, the MO can not pick and choose. They take what sites they
can get. Has the exposure at the Barbourne station suddenly changed? I
suspect that some of our ng members know exactly what has happened
there! We amateur, voluntary enthusiasts should be told. If it's a
matter of record-seeking, as has been suggested, then the whole
long-term record is in doubt, which is so sad.

All sites, even well-established official MO ones, need careful local
interpretation. Not easy for Quality Control!

--
Ken Cook, Copley (5miles north of Barnard Castle), County Durham.
830ft
http://mysite.freeserve.com/copley
(MO climat. site updated before 10Z and 19Z daily)
kencookATcopleydurham.freeserve.co.uk

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:04:49 +0100, "Ken Cook"
wrote:

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message

snip

As I've said before, I'd love to see if there's any correlation
between (low) wind speed and apparently anomalous temperature readings
in clear conditions. I am quite a trusting person

sveeral snips

I have been reading the posts about erroneous wooden screen readings
with great interest. The large discrepancies must put many of our urban
and valley readings into question. Should readings show whether a wooden
or plastic screen is in use?

I once read, probably Manley - it usually is with me, that exposed
airfields are the safest bet for comparable readings,

In many cases, the MO can not pick and choose.

All sites, even well-established official MO ones, need careful local
interpretation. Not easy for Quality Control!

Yes Ken, I'd hate to be the one to try and solve the screen "exposure"
problem and paradoxically, if the supposedly "better" plastic screens
are introduced more widely, it will make comparisons between sites
more difficult unless there is, as you suggest, a screen type
indicator.

One particular problem with site comparisons would be the siting of
the anemometer at 10metres, almost 9m above the thermometer screen.
I'd bet half my beer money that at urban and valley floor sites, the
difference in mean wind speed between these two heights is greater
than at exposed airfield sites. Obtaining meaningful comparisons of
wind speed with temperature might not be as easy as I first thought.

--
Dave

"Daniel" wrote in message
om...
(A) wrote in message
. com...
I have heard (3rd hand but both reliable) that Barbourne is no longer,
or very shortly will no longer, be a Met Office observing site.

lol
Hope you have a good lawyer ;o)

I phoned the Met Office at it is still an observing site, and still in
contract with the BBC (shropshire/herefordshire/worcestor).

I thought the guy who runs it was the same one who reported the famous 37.1
in 1990, so what does that mean? Whats his name again?

In article , Dave Ludlow
writes

snip


Yes Ken, I'd hate to be the one to try and solve the screen "exposure"
problem and paradoxically, if the supposedly "better" plastic screens
are introduced more widely, it will make comparisons between sites
more difficult unless there is, as you suggest, a screen type
indicator.

One particular problem with site comparisons would be the siting of
the anemometer at 10metres, almost 9m above the thermometer screen.
I'd bet half my beer money that at urban and valley floor sites, the
difference in mean wind speed between these two heights is greater
than at exposed airfield sites. Obtaining meaningful comparisons of
wind speed with temperature might not be as easy as I first thought.


Many moons ago, when I was working in New Guinea, there was a proposal
for a new airport. To determine the wind climate of the proposed site
the aviation authority installed an anemometer. It was a proper job, on
a standard 10-metre mast. The only problem was that the site was in the
middle of a coconut plantation. The trees were 12-15 metres high!

Norman.
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St. Giles
Buckinghamshire

"Ken Cook" wrote in message
...

A good example of a site representing the area is Braemar, IMHO. It is
set in the centre of the village on a slope. How easy it would have been
to move the screen to the valley floor for the record-seekers, but that
would not have been a true picture of the climate of the village.

Perhaps not a true picture of the climate of the village or indeed the
surrounding area, but it *would* be representative of conditions in a valley
floor in the Highlands. Frost hollows may not be representative of the
general area but we still need those readings as long as the instrumentation
within them is correct as they demonstrate legitimate meteorological
conditions. Winds of 150mph on the top of Cairngorm are hardly representative
of the whole Highlands (at least the habitable part) but they are legitimate
readings.

The Copley site is in the village centre on a slope, not by the river at
Copley Mill frost hollow - well known to villagers as not the place to
have a garden.

What does the MO do when it comes to town and city sites? By their
nature they can be airless places with huge heat island effects, so
where do they draw the line? Was Camden Square in London a
representative site?

Well exactly. You could also argue the whole of London isn't
'representative' of Southern England especially when you consider the lack
of frost in central London when compared to the surrounding countryside,
but you can hardly disregard any readings taken in London!

I think it all depends on how large an area you can reasonably claim
your readings are representative of. If they are only 'representative' of
conditions in your own back garden then there is clearly a problem
Of course the only way to ascertain this is to have as dense a network
of reporting stations as possible in order to spot any anomalies.
If Barbourne is the only reporting station in Worcester then how do we
know that Worcester isn't really (as has been suggested) some kind of
a hotspot under certain conditions?

In many cases, the MO can not pick and choose. They take what sites they
can get. Has the exposure at the Barbourne station suddenly changed? I
suspect that some of our ng members know exactly what has happened
there! We amateur, voluntary enthusiasts should be told. If it's a
matter of record-seeking, as has been suggested, then the whole
long-term record is in doubt, which is so sad.

If it it's record seeking to the extent as has been darkly muttered that
there has been deliberate flasification of readings then sadly the whole
record should be trashed.
However that seems very unfair if the readings were taken in good
faith but just not in a very good location.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk