Loftus WMO 03275 – An example of why so many Synoptic Weather stations are unsuitable for Climate reporting.

54.56288 -0.86351 Met Office Assessed CIMO Class 4 Installed 1/1/1996

Loftus weather station lies 12 miles to the east of Middlesbrough and under half a mile from the sea cliffs of the area. This site was established as a fully equipped “Synoptic” weather station with the primary purpose of supplying readings in real time for immediate weather forecasting. The late Tim Channon did some detailed research on such synoptic stations referring to Loftus here, which he further expanded upon in greater detail referring to Cambourne. I recommend reading both these two reports on which I intend to update here for Loftus and later separately for Cambourne.

For clarification this is the Met office’s simple explanation of the essential difference between Synoptic and Climate Reporting weather stations. n.b. readings from both types of sites are used in compiling climate averages.

“ UK weather stations report a mixture of snapshot hourly observations of the weather known as synoptic observations, and daily summaries of the weather known as climate observations. For instance, hourly temperature is a synoptic observation, but daily maximum and minimum temperature are climate observations; cloud is synoptic but sunshine is climate. Climate observations are made at 0900UTC, with some stations making further climate observations at 2100UTC.  In summer these correspond to 1000BST and 2200BST respectively. Observations from around 260 UK automatic (synoptic) stations are collected in real time; climate data from these stations also comes in straight after readings are taken. Climate observations from around 140 co-operating observers at manual climate stations are also received in slower time. All climate stations record daily maximum and minimum air temperature and rainfall amount, recorded over the period 0900-0900UTC (1000-1000BST in summer).“

Synoptic stations were originally all read by human observers who, in many instances, would take observations as frequently as hourly and over a much greater range of parameters than basic climate reporting stations would. This required much more suitable access arrangements and the sites had extensive paving leading to the observation points. Roadway access was often required thus they were usually adjacent to metalled roads. These synoptic sites were always securely enclosed given the expensive nature of the equipment to avoid damage, vandalism or theft.

A requirement of automating the readings process (the first partially automated station was Eskdalemuir in 1976) was for a reliable electricity supply (mains or often generators) to power the extensive instrumentation which were far more “energy hungry” than more recent units. Back-up battery power (UPS) was also much larger than modern developments and this together with data loggers required larger cabinets to protect them. This is what Loftus looked like when Tim did his original report in 2011.

Reviewing the site, it is fair to say it was not located with subsequent CIMO Climate reporting regulations in mind – simply because it was never intended to. Exact temperature readings to be analysed to the second decimal place were not the purpose of such sites. They were intended to report as many of the immediate weather conditions as possible from air pressure to cloud cover to wind speed and direction to humidity and visibility and so on. The primary objective was remotely accessing this vital information for forecasting as rapidly as possible.

Clearly dry stone walls, extensive paving, parking areas, footpaths, roads and (as Tim emphasised) extensive ground cover changes render this site very dubious for reporting the temperature representation of the area in minutiae detail. Unfortunately, subsequent “Climate Scientists” seem to have missed the relevance of the prime data from these types of sites that were never intended for, and are unsuitable for, such detailed analysis.

Looking at the Cabinet in detail we can gauge its significant dimensions and proximity to the screen. {Note the “exhaust-like” appendage to the side is beleived to be a type of Triangulation point used by the Ordnance Survey and probably not any form of Met Office instrument.}

Image angles can often give distorted impressions, however, with the screen base set at 1.5 metres above ground it is likely this cabinet is in the region of 2.5 metres high and 1.25 metres square. Add this obstacle to the fencing, wind mast base, other instrument mounts and the stone walls and their adverse effects will affect readings accuracy.

A possible assumption could be that such a site would be consistently bad all the time so could still indicate change over time. I have often come across this argument which I find quite absurd – the whole point about corrupting factors is that they are subject to continual change in their effects and cannot “average out”. In the case of Loftus even the site very materially changes over time. All the above are historic images – here is a modern addition.

That newly installed unit to the left is described by AI as a:

“Raymetrics LR111-D300 lidar system which uses a Quantel CFR200 laser emitting 50 mJ per pulse at 355 nm with a 20 Hz repetition rate, totaling approximately 1 W of laser power. Additional components, such as the 300 mm telescope, detectors, climate control, UPS for backup, and data processing electronics, suggest a higher overall power draw. Similar lidar systems with climate control and auxiliary features typically require 500–1500 W during operation, depending on usage intensity and environmental conditions.“

LIDAR is described as

“A LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) system is a remote sensing technology that uses laser pulses to measure distances and create detailed 3D maps or profiles of objects and environments. It works by emitting laser beams, which reflect off surfaces and return to the sensor, with the time-of-flight data used to calculate distance. In the context of the Raymetrics unit at the Loftus Met Office weather station, LIDAR is employed to monitor atmospheric conditions, detecting aerosols like volcanic ash or pollution by analyzing the backscatter of laser light, aiding weather forecasting and hazard detection.“

A close up including that UPS alongside.

This is an important and beneficial addition to the immediate meteorological use of the site. However, for climate reporting not only is there now an additional structural extraneous feature, there is also a significant source of artificial waste heat that is continuously variable dependent on ambient conditions and system use.

Loftus (in common with most synoptic stations) is an important site almost certainly fulfilling its intended function very well. The purpose of the Surface Stations Project is not to comment on Met Office forecasting operations or accuracy, though purely personally speaking I do feel they do a very good job of a difficult task. My reporting function is to assess the likelihood of sites giving accurate, wide area, data representation of the climate over appropriate time scales. Loftus cannot achieve accurate area representation and I have been recently advised by “insiders” that many (even probably most) meteorologists fully appreciate that point. It equally appears to be the case that many (even probably most) so called “Climate Scientists” have become so far removed from the original data sources (or even may have never been overly familiar with such data collection) that they do not realise the flaws in the data they are analysing/manipulating to the Nth degree.

To put this detachment from reality by “some” at the Met Office into context, I refer to my findings at other sites. At Carlisle there was such concern over “cabinets” that one relatively small one was removed still leaving one larger one closer. At Bingley and Amersham the electricity sub stations were deemed irrelevant. At Winterbourne so concerning were tiny transformers that their removal was noted. But perhaps ones of the strangest of them all were at at both at Milford Haven and Nottingham where it was noted – “CONCRETE SLAB IN THE FRONT OF THE STEVENSON SCREEN REMOVED TO REDUCE HEAT SOURCES.”

It would appear the same offending “concrete slab” was removed at Loftus and propped up against that green cabinet as can be seen in the first main site image above. That is so incredibly unlikely to make the slightest difference considering all the other major problems with the site. The final context to this being the early aerial image of the site shortly after installation and those perfectly clean concrete slabs (and no this has not been photoshopped nor edited.)

In summary, Loftus does “exactly what it says on the tin” and I suggest it does so very well indeed. What it does not do (through no fault of its own) is provide data suitable to produce national historic climate averages. The majority of meteorologists fully understand this, unfortunately political activists who weaponise such untrustworthy false data and hide behind the very loose term “climate science” do not and do not care anyway. Political and ideological activism has no place in science and needs to be expunged from the Met Office immediately.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/09/19/loftus-wmo-03275-an-example-of-why-so-many-synoptic-weather-stations-are-unsuitable-for-climate-reporting/