Virginstow, Beaworthy DCNN 8805 – Another example of the Met office’s stringent quality control.

50.71090 -4.29714 Met Office Assess CIMO Class 5 Installed 1/10/2015

There is simply no excuse for the Met Office to accept such poor sites as recently as in the last decade. To restate the point bluntly the Met Office themselves assessed this site as “2.6 Class 5 (additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 5 °C) and effectively meeting no siting requirements at all as in “Site not meeting the requirements of class 4.” There are 115 sites in the UK that are officially assessed as Class 5 – over 30% of all their weather stations. Yet the Met office expects the general public to believe them when they recommend, or indeed insist upon, drastic lifestyle changes based on what can only be described as Junk data. Virginstow demonstrates yet again why domestic sites are a nonsense and should never be used for climate reporting purposes.

Firstly there is no enclosure at this site and no domestic sites ever do. As it is the owners property they are free to do whatever they wish regardless of any effects this may have on readings. The situation displayed at Derrylin – where two large tents were pitched around the screen – is by no means unusual. The only odd thing about that was that it was visually recorded for public viewing. In reality all manner of activities may go on that are unknown and indeed can likely never be known or recorded and have even more dramatic effects on readings. The Met office themselves may claim to go to extreme lengths to ensure accuracy of readings but these claims were proven doubtful by the Royal Meteorological society as demonstrated with absurd readings accepted for a national high at Faversham. Any organisation willing to accept the breaking of that Faversham record in a Class 5 Botanical Gardens site deliberately designed to elevate natural temperature is clearly suspect.

Regarding Virginstow, the headline image shows solar panels within 4 metres of the screen, buildings including poly tunnels (a plastic version of the real greenhouse effect) and likely ever changing cropping. The image below delineates both 10 metre and 3 metre radius circles from the screen that are both affected by localised effects in this effectively walled garden area. This site is not even remotely close to the natural environment and represents nowhere other than its own few metres.

What most typifies the site changes are those ground mounted solar panels themselves. They were not there when the Met Office presumably rubber stamped this site as “Satisfactory” on original installation back in 2015 as is evidenced by this historic image of 2018.

How frequently the Met office actually inspects and re-assesses sites is open to question, they do not publish specific intervals, but I genuinely doubt these solely “climate reporting” units are visited very often. Therein is a major problem – the Faversham site was known to be in such a very poor state of repair that it was immediately replaced following declaration of a UK record there in 2003. At Banff Google Streetview captured an historic image of dilapidation, at Dinorwig the vegetation was so bad the screen had become invisible – the list could go on and on.

I do not wish to sound overly strident or dismissive, BUT, we are discussing the science behind climate, causes of its change and potential effects. Science really does not do cosy homily nor feel the need to be nice and inoffensive, not wishing to upset someones “feelings”. To have any credibility weather stations must meet strict criteria and demonstrably prove accuracy. Does anyone really believe that a rustic screen next to a poly tunnel and the vegetable patch in front of the new ground mounted solar panels by the conservatory etc, etc is likely to accurately reflect the natural environment?

Sites like this Virginstow one are scientific junk and have no place whatsoever in compiling the historic national climate record.