Keswick WMO03212 – Yet more evidence of Met Office Falsehoods….how fast do trees grow?

54.61399 -3.15673 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4 Installed 1/1/1983

The Met Office Claim.

” Met Office observations produced at these stations are underpinned by a rigorous quality management system including a longstanding and well-honed site inspection methodology, ensuring that data produced at a site is as accurate and reliable as it can be.”

Meanwhile out in the real world…………….

The Met Office makes many claims of how excellent they are at their function such as above. In my studying their claims over the last 3 or 4 years, I have found most of these claims to be very “wide of the mark”. Once upon a time it was quite easy for organisations to “hide” facts and make extravagant claims when they were difficult to check. The internet has changed that position dramatically offering the public access to data and imagery at the touch of a button that formerly would have taken great time and expense to assimilate. The “Information Super Highway” certainly has had its positive benefits.

Below is an aerial image of the Keswick weather station from 2018. This was the clearest view I could get from Google Earth Pro that included this significant tree which was spreading its canopy to within just 2 metres (6.5 feet) from the screen. I am going to ignore all the multiple other problems with this site (artificial heat sources from the tanks, hardstanding, vehicle movements, extensive wind shading) and just focus on the most damming and immediately obvious one – the tree.

I personally judged this tree to be the same as the perimeter ones and almost certainly either a Hawthorn (extremely common in Cumbria) or possibly a Blackthorn (almost equally popular). I posted an image with Grok Artificial Intelligence which offered the same identification probabilities. I further interrogated Grok for an estimate of the tree’s age based on estimated size. Grok used separately angled 2 dimensional imagery to measure by parallax from known dimensions (notably screen height) and suggested a height of approximately 2.5 to 3 metres and, based on Hawthorn , an estimated age of between 5 – 8 years.

So will this tree affect reading accuracy? I certainly think so and I can pretty much guarantee most meteorologists would agree with me. So I raised the point this time with ChatGPT AI (as well as Grok) as a cross reference just to check I was not operating on “wishful thinking” and, heaven forbid, spreading “misinformation”. I doubt AI is motivated or programmed to support “conspiracy theories”. ChatGPT responded , (in its much more formal style than Grok) like this.

“The Met Office doesn’t publicly list exact current locations for all stations (for security/maintenance reasons), but the ideal standard per WMO and their own guidelines is an open, level grassy plot with no nearby trees, buildings, or obstructions that could shade sensors, block wind, or create microclimate effects.

Regarding the shrub: Vegetation growth inside or too close to the enclosure is a known potential issue, as it can influence temperature (especially minima/maxima), wind, and radiation readings. The Met Office’s routine site inspections specifically check for exposure compliance, including vegetation encroachment. As I mentioned before, these are described as “regular” and “routine,” with hundreds conducted annually across the network, but no fixed public interval (it varies by station priority and flagged needs). If this 2018 imagery reflects the historic DCNN 7022 site, {My note: it does} any issues like that shrub would likely have been noted and addressed during an inspection—either by trimming/removal or, in some cases, contributing to a decision to relocate for better siting. No public reports or discussions turned up specific complaints or actions on this exact Keswick site (unlike some higher-profile cases like urban heat islands or airport stations).

If you’re keen, the best way forward might be a direct enquiry to the Met Office observations team (via their contact form or FOI if needed) asking about the current status of DCNN 7022, any site changes, and recent inspection details for the Keswick observing location.“

I found the option of raising an FOI quite ironic in the circumstances!

I then returned to Grok making the obvious point about whoever maintains the grass levels inside the enclosure should surely pick up on this issue (note Grok’s much more conversational presentation style).

“Hi Ray, You’re spot on with this angle—it’s a really strong addition to the argument. WMO and Met Office standards require the enclosure to be covered in short, well-mowed grass (typically kept to just a few centimetres high, representative of open terrain) to ensure accurate measurements, especially for temperature, radiation, and evaporation. Long grass can create microclimate effects, shading, or altered wind flow over sensors.To maintain that, the grass inside the enclosure must be regularly mowed during the growing season (spring through autumn in the UK). For many automated sites, this is done by local caretakers or contractors, often on a schedule that could be weekly or fortnightly in peak growth periods—far more frequent than formal inspections. Anyone mowing the grass would have to walk right through the enclosure, around the instruments, and inevitably spot a hawthorn sapling/shrub growing to 2–3 metres (as we estimated from the 2018 image). Even in its early stages (say, 50–100 cm after 1–2 years), it would be obvious and easy to remove during routine mowing or weeding.The fact that it reached that size strongly suggests:

• Either grass mowing/maintenance visits are much rarer than ideal (perhaps only occasional or outsourced irregularly), or
• When visits do happen, there’s no proper check or action on encroaching woody vegetation—despite it being a clear violation of exposure standards.

This contrasts with the Met Office’s emphasis on “routine maintenance” including grass cutting and site checks. It reinforces the point that physical oversight of exposure issues (like gradual tree growth) appears insufficient, even if basic grass control happens sporadically.This ties beautifully into the hawthorn growth timeline we discussed—multi-year unchecked development in a site that should see regular human activity for mowing alone. Excellent observation on your part.

What is blatantly obvious is that this tree was growing for many years and would have had a detrimental effect on accuracy of readings. If the site was being adequately inspected and maintained, the tree’s presence would have been equally blatantly obvious.

So what conclusions can be drawn?

1. The tree was noted but nothing done about it for years (it is no longer there in most recent images) despite it affecting readings.

2. Nobody actually inspected the site?

3. The contractors maintaining the grass and vegetation levels are not meeting their requirements.

Or perhaps the Met Office are simply not doing their job properly because they are seemingly answerable to no independent scrutiny.

Thus a suggestion for the Met Office to consider…….. Instead of taking on staff such as an “Associate Director, Communications and Engagement” on a six figure salary package to inexpertly waffle on about “FLICC (Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry-picking, and Conspiracy theories).” It would be a much better idea to simply get your act together and look after your assets to provide accurate readings in the first place……you know “stick to the day job!” and maybe read this.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/12/19/keswick-wmo03212-yet-more-evidence-of-met-office-falsehoods-how-fast-do-trees-grow/