KEW Gardens DCNN 5260 – Open to question. (plus further notes on St James Park London.)

Above image from Google Earth Pro dated 5/7/2018

Above image from 6 years later in July 2024.

Spot the difference?

{51.48196 -0.29433 Met Office CIMO Assessment varies over time + “Excellent” Records from 1/1/1910}

Firstly, the Kew Gardens site from 1910 to date should not be confused with a separate site named just “Kew” and located at the site variously known as “Kew Observatory” or the “King’s Observatory” which existed from 1/1/1857 to 31/12/1980.

If you have spotted any significant difference between the two above site images, please let me know in the comments below. For my part, I cannot immediately see any change either in the site or its immediate surroundings. However, evidence supplied under Freedom of Information request from the Met Office, clearly shows that they have considered there have been highly significant recent changes.

In 2021 the Met Office assessed the site as CIMO Class 4 with an error margin due to siting of 2°C. (note another “flagship site” at RHS Wisley was deemed similarly inaccurate)

The 2022 Classification was the same lowly ranked status.

But, in just the same way as the Edenbridge (Bough Beech) site was alleged to have seen a significant (but incorrectly adjudged) improvement, the Kew site suddenly achieved Class 2 status in 2023. RHS Wisley retained its previous poor status.

So what is the real status of Kew, why the sudden upgrade and is any of this really relevant?

Well regarding the latter question, it clearly seems to be crucially relevant to the Met Office and its close associates. ” Why is Heathrow so hot?“

“Prof Williams explains……….(Heathrow) airport is based in London, which is also very built-up, and so the urban heat island also affects surrounding areas.If you compare Heathrow to nearby Kew – which is eight miles away – there is hardly any temperature difference between the two.”

{N.B. the straight line distance is actually 6.4 miles from screen to screen)

This statement made in 2022 equates Heathrow data (bizarrely classed as CIMO Class 3 – to be reviewed soon ) to being accurate because it agrees with another site (then rated as CIMO Class 4) and even closer to one of the world’s openly acknowledged most intense Urban Heat Island. It is often said that whilst “great minds think alike” it could be better argued that validating Heathrow by using Class 4 Kew (and also Class 5 Northolt on other occasions) is more akin to “fools seldom differ”. It would appear the uprating of Kew could possibly be motivated by non-meteorological pressures.

A reminder of CIMO Class 2.

Superficially it might look as if Kew should be Class 2 until viewed with regard to shading and the changing uses of the immediate vicinity not dissimilar to Oxford.

The large trees surrounding the screen naturally create extensive early morning and late evening shade. And then there are significant (to say the least) “seasonal structures” regularly deployed in the immediate vicinity as the above “helter-skelter” demonstrates. Again this may be a “flagship” site but the Met Office do not seem able to restrict activity in the immediate vicinity highly likely to affect readings. This exposure to occasional extraneous events, however, rarely seems to concern the Met Office who often proclaim “records” at sites otherwise known to be affected by public events. The 1990 Cheltenham “record” taken during an event held in Montpelier Park is one such example and the subject of a future post.

Adding in the obvious and fully acknowledged urban heat island effect, being directly under a major flight landing path, with extensive surrounding areas under very large glass structures and with various fairs and events held on this area it is difficult to justify Class 2. The original Class 4 assessment seems much more appropriate.

*****A Footnote regarding St James’ Park*********

I recently reviewed the St James’ Park London site

St. James’s Park London WMO 03770 – Officially Unsatisfactory and Unrealistic conclusions.

The Met Office have since replied to my inquiry regarding their “UNSATISFACTORY” rating of the site and what actions they were taking to remedy the situation. This is their response

“Dear Mr Sanders, thank you for your enquiry.

With regard to the observation site at St James Park, London, vandalism was reported by the park staff in March 2024, and a formal inspection was therefore made on 28th March 2024. The inspector reported the Screen had been damaged as a result of vandalism and the site was graded Unsatisfactory pending repair.

The screen was replaced on 4^th April 2024 by a member of our field engineering staff and the screen can be considered Satisfactory since this repair date. However, the grade on our database will get an update when the site is next formally inspected in 2025.

Kind regards,

Weather Desk”

In my review I commented on the screen being insecure and prone to “rascality”. It is very unfortunate that such vandalism occurs but in this case with such minimal (almost non-existent) security and in such a public place it is sadly almost inevitable that these things will occur. I would suggest Kew may be equally susceptible.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2024/10/24/kew-gardens-dcnn-5260-open-to-question-plus-further-notes-on-st-james-park-london/