MONA WMO03301 – Foehns, PRT spikes, BIT and the delights of record chasing.

53.26049 -4.37604 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 2 Installed 14/10/2009

The Mona weather station is another aviation site located at RAF Mona on Anglesey which operates in conjunction with RAF Valley – the site of the only other weather station on the island. Whilst Valley has 10 years of wrongly attributed fictitious data at least Mona has a reliable record though only since 2009. How representative its data is, the issue of modern instrumentation over older types, and the “BIT” (nudge,nudge) of Met Office record chasing with Foehns is the main subject of this report.

Going by the exact definitions of CIMO regulations this Mona site does meet Class 2 on pure distance measurements. The 30 metre circled area is flat and not intruded upon by any obvious extraneous (permanent) heat sources. It is, of course, quite unnatural in being a military airfield with, as ever, impeccably well maintained grass cover. For my part I always refer to the excellent post by John Marlow on the subject of Metrology in general and how it applies to Meteorology. The advent of modern fast reacting Platinum Resistance Thermometers located at aviation sites will inevitably pick up on transient distant jet blast effects. Furthermore, the continuing absurdity of meteorological averaging will exaggerate the effect of extremes of just 60 seconds (or less) duration to elevate daily means out of all proportion to reality.

Whilst Mona may have been acceptable for historic temperature recording in the “pre-PRT” era, its current proximity to taxiways and runways will always cast suspicion on any out of character “extremes” reported here – but that never particularly concerns the Met Office one “BIT”

The Met Office seems hellbent on record chasing and publishes, on a daily basis, examples of these figures evocatively termed “extremes”. Below is Mona appearing and “outperforming” even the south east of England on 7th April. Of course the Met Office did not focus on this solely being a short lived Foehn Effect (more on that later) caused by the wind direction and the Snowdonia massif.

Firstly to show just how very localised this brief Foehn actually was, the Met Offices own (hourly) data shows how brief a “spike” this event was as indicated by the Weatherobs reports specifically for the Mona site.

The nearby Valley weather station is similarly shown on weatherobs but in this case with 20 minute resolution. Two points are worth noting that Valley did not record within 2 °C of Mona (being more coastal this probably diminished the Foehn Effect) but also that the readings were “yoyoing” up and down at the time.

Good friend of the Talkshop, Dr Eric Huxter has been involved in highly acclaimed research into such temperature spikes and devised a measurement system based on the Class 1 Rothamsted Station as a benchmark. In his latest update on temperature “spikes” he specifically noted the spurious and Foehn induced maximum recorded on the 7th April. I strongly recommend Eric’s blog detailing all his research (from which this extract below relative to Mona is taken) demonstrating how unlikely this weather event would have been recorded in the traditional thermometer era.

Eric’s blog side notes make some very important points

“The motivations for the Climate Change agenda.

The IPCC was established in 1988 to specifically investigate ‘human induced’ climate change. It is therefore no surprise that it found evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming.

ROLE

2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
(PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK, 1998)

It also had a clear political remit (albeit paying lip service to neutrality) and actively involved governments in its published assessments.

3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.
(PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK, 1998)

This has led to the Global Warming juggernaut being harnessed for political ends:

“one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy….This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, November 2010

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”
Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, Christiana Figueres, 3rd February 2015“

This brings me to the “BIT” part. The UK general public are mostly unaware that their own government is actively engaged in trying to control their “Behaviour” by a continual drip feed (aka nudge, nudge) to control their attitudes and actions. This “Nudge Unit” is now a “privatised initiative” formally known as BIT – the Behavioural Insights Team.

Its modern website demonstrating its extensive role is shown here demonstrating how “Global” it has now become – I again strongly recommend acquainting oneself with this for those unaware of its existence. https://www.bi.team/

The relevance here is that the Met Office is effectively and quite deliberately promoting political ideology by falsely portraying dubious data (as at Mona and almost all other daily “extremes” listings) as a “drip feed” for the nudge unit to induce “behavioural change” – disinformation of a major order to sell a climate change narrative and all the drastic imperatives the public MUST follow to address the “problem”

As a codicil to writing this I will add the Met Office depiction of yesterday’s disinformation of “extremes” and my review of this from last summer – none of this is accidental.

Astwood Bank Update – The Death of Met Office credibility, killed by Weapons Grade Gaslighting.

This Met Office anti science nonsense really has to stop….now.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/04/14/mona-wmo03301-foehns-prt-spikes-bit-and-the-delights-of-record-chasing/