Poolewe DCNN 0434 – A picturesque but highly modified beauty not improving with age.

57.77431 -5-59728 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4 Archived temperature records from 1/1/1963

The Met Office frequently gives slightly misleading names for its sites and this location is much better known as the internationally famous Inverewe Gardens. The Met Office currently assesses the site as Class 4 but is subject to review and/or relocation. The cause of this “highly modified beauty” also highly modifies the weather station….and not for the better.

I have an excellent AA guide book from the 1980’s, that I still use on days out. Entitled “An Illustrated Guide to Britain’s Coast”, it highlights Inverewe Gardens as follows:

“Loch Ewe lies on almost the same latitude as Leningrad and Labrador and yet Inverewe Gardens on its shore are a riot of sub tropical colour. The transformation of a barren peninsula of red sandstone into a green oasis of fertility was the vision of one man – Osgood MacKenzie.

MacKenzie, a Scottish laird acquired the peninsula in 1862. The only soil was acid black peat and the only vegetation it supported was some stunted heather and a single dwarf willow just 3 feet high. Mackenzie realised, however, that the North Atlantic Drift, which gives the the coasts of Ireland and Scotland their mild humid weather, might encourage plants to grow. So he started to plant trees as shelter belts against the strong prevailing winds, and to replace the stony soil with creels of the blue clay that was washed up on the shore. Over the next 60 years he created and continuously improved his wild and woodland gardens.

Today Inverewe Gardens are owned by the National Trust for Scotland. Paths meander through 64 acres of Monterey Pines and Magnolia, Rhododendrons and Hydrangea, Eucalyptus and exotic shrubs from all over the world. No matter what time of year it is, some plant will be in bloom”

Two points come across from the above account, firstly Inverewe Gardens have just been added to my “bucket list” of places to visit, but more relevant here is that they certainly cannot be considered “natural”. Sea lochs on the west coast of Scotland are inevitably mild throughout the year with frosts almost as rare as the Isles of Scilly. Mackenzie magnified this effect through his extensive long term adjustments – I would be fascinated to know how many tonnes of clay were moved.

Inevitably, and quite correctly, a weather station was installed at what became effectively a real world horticultural research site as much by coincidence rather than intent. The variations between this artificial environment and the natural one are well worth recording. The onsite horticulturalists definitely need accurate information.

How much such a site can contribute to not only the historic temperature record but also immediate forecasting (wind speed measurement would be somewhat irrelevant) is more open to debate. It could be argued that such sites would still indicate long term temperature changes though just from a higher base level. This argument tends to fall down in that given the continuous ongoing modifications to the site it is not possible to identify and isolate these purely localised anthropogenic effects.

For a close examination of the weather station itself, the National Trust for Scotland helpfully highlights it in a very “informative” article. https://www.nts.org.uk/stories/inverewes-weather-station

I do not feel it is being cynical to question quite how such an exceptionally artificially modified site can “improve the Met office’s forecasting accuracy” and regarding “climate modelling” the operative word is surely “modelling” rather than analysis of accurate natural environment data. I would add, as per my Malham Tarn review, that I feel National Trusts should stick to their primary remit rather than pursue “Climate Change” activism. This point is further illustrated by the suggested relocation requirement of the existing weather station pictured below.

To analyse this Trust comment (note: it is not directly attributable to the Met Office but would almost certainly be instigated by them) – firstly, the vegetation around the screen has become overgrown, secondly, this has made the readings inaccurate. Again I do not feel I am being cynical in observing that these are extensive horticultural gardens and will have all the equipment, staffing, expertise and finance to simply remove the overgrowth. Why hasn’t this been done in the past as it is their direct responsibility? Is it really logical to unnecessarily spend capital to relocate the screen to “in front of the walled garden” where its readings are only ever likely to become more unrepresentative of the natural environment.

The issue with Inverewe/Poolewe weather station is the inclusion of another known unrepresentative location in the historic temperature record AND that it is potentially being relocated to actually become even more unrepresentative. This does seem rather at odds with observational integrity for climate reporting purposes.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/01/16/poolewe-dcnn-0434-a-picturesque-but-highly-modified-beauty-not-improving-with-age/