Orkney – Loch of Hundland DCNN0143 and Kirkwall WMO03017. The Met Office’s complete lack of Self Awareness. Is this actually legal?

Hundland 59.11213 -3.2293 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4 Temperature Records from 10/11/1999

Kirkwall 58.95350 -2.90144 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4 Digital Records from 1957 for this site. {Original location elsewhere has data from 1860.}

The Orkney Mainland (a.k.a. Pomona or Hrossey) is quoted having an area of just 532 square kilometres. Despite its small size the Met office sees fit to have two official weather stations. This is obviously no problem at all, however, what is remarkably strange is that the two sites are both “Location Specific Long Term Averages” stations from which the “Hadcrut gridded square” system is derived. The figures derived from these two sites are such “strangers” to each other that comparisons of them take on almost mystical properties.

The relative locations of these two weather stations at 25 km (15.4 miles) apart is shown in the map below. The elevations of the two sites are an irrelevant 2 metres difference with Kirkwall at 26 metres a.m.s.l. and Hundland at 28 metres.

What is clearly very evident from the headline images is that the two sites are dramatically different. Hundland is in a domestic back garden being manually observed and close to the loch’s side in an extremely sparsely populated area. It supplies just once daily readings subject to major “Time of Observation Bias” given many of its winter readings will likely be taken before or close to sunrise.

Kirkwall is an operational synoptic aviation site between a large car park, aircraft apron and to the south of the airport terminal building. Both sites are equally close to the coast though that could be claimed for almost anywhere on such a relatively small island. The comings and goings of the Kirkwall aviation site and its surroundings will simulate urban heat island effects as well as likely transient heat spikes.

What is very surprising is the Met Office offering (according to Lord Vallance what is no more than “entertainment value”and should not be really taken seriously!) two separate Climate Averages sites for this small island. As I detailed in my review of Castlemartin the distribution of Met office weather stations is exceptionally variable with some sites very close together with other areas completely free from any observation points. The 40 kilometre radius circled area around south west Wales was home to 10 Met office sites whilst a similar area of mid Wales had none at all nor any notional climate averages sites.

A 40 metre radius circle covers 5026.44 square kilometres which equates to 9.45 times the area of Orkney Mainland.

So what does what the Met Office passes off as “Data” from these two Orkney sites actually tell us?

Firstly Loch of Hundland. – a comparison of annual 30 year “means” from 1991 to 2020

Then 1961 to 1990

The above Met Office “data” is demonstrating 60 year annual mean maximum increments at Hundland of 0.77°C conversely mean minimum has increased by just a tiny 0.14°C. This latter figure is in line with the likely calibration accuracy levels of the instruments and effectively means nothing at all.

Comparing this to Kirkwall. 1991 to 2020

1961 to 1990

Kirkwall is showing 0.76°C in mean maximum temperatures over the period in almost exact parity with Loch Of Hundland………but also almost miraculously also shows a numerical 5 fold increment over Hundland in mean minimum increase of 0.7°C.

How is it possible that the CO2 molecules knew how to modify mean minimum temperature increments at Kirkwall by so much but neglected to do the same at Hundland? Does this anthropogenic global warming make differentials over less than 25km on a small Scottish Island just like it does in some parts of Northern Ireland but not elsewhere?

Or is it the case that the Met Office is so lacking in self awareness it cannot see that it just might be their own mis-recording system? Does the Met Office not know of the time of observation bias that is over recording cold events at Hundland as also demonstrated at Cassley, Dalwhinnie and even the Cambridge sites among literally hundreds of others? Does the Met Office not see that most of their sites are by airport facilities are displaying urbanisation and transient heat events? Does the Met Office not accept that its insistence on installing 21st Century tech (PRTs) in mid Victorian casings (naturally ventilated Stevenson Screens) might be hugely over mis-recording temperatures?

The answer to all the above question is, of course, the meteorologists there most certainly do…….the “climate scientists” may or may not also know but even if they do, simply do not care. There is an “theory” to prove and that is all that matters. After all Dan Hollis and Matthew Perry did, in 2004, chose Loch of Hundland to supply figures for 1961 to 1990 knowing full well that the site did not even exist until 1999. They simply MADE UP figures for the earlier period without even the wit to see how wrong they would be proven to be in future …….it really is that bad.

This is a grotesque level of Disinformation that is so bad it allows the Met Office to refuse to disclose how these fictional numbers were even made up on the grounds that they are not an “output” of their “Black Box” process. They will not even disclose the input stations under FOI. Many might suggest that in the private commercial world of reality, such a practise would be illegal and punishable by massive fines…..Volkswagen emissions tests?

Paul Homewood of NALOPKT recently described the Met Office as “Charlatans“. I find it impossible to disagree.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/12/27/orkney-loch-of-hundland-dcnn0143-and-kirkwall-wmo03017-the-met-offices-complete-lack-of-self-awareness-is-this-actually-legal/