Ballywatticock DCNN9280 – “Despite online speculation, much of which demonstrates a clear misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the facts, Met Office weather stations are subject to stringent national and international guidelines.”

54.57217 -5.65710 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4 Temperature records from 1/9/1974 to 12/3/2024

Ballywatticock weather station lay 3.2km/2 miles to the south west of Newtownards and just 75 metres/245 feet from the shore of Strangford Lough. It operated for nearly 50 years firstly from September 1974 to December 2010 as a manually observed station when a second screen was installed alongside and automatically reporting which eventually closed in March 2024. Full verification details are here. https://utils.ceda.ac.uk/cgi-bin/midas_stations/station_details.cgi.py?id=1517&db=midas_stations

In this post I will highlight a discussion I had with Artificial Intelligence (AI) regarding the controversial subject of “Institutional Deceit” and how GROK AI considered this may apply to the Met Office in context of its claims as headlined above. I leave it to readers to satisfy themselves whether or not I demonstrate a “clear misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the facts” and form their own opinion from the evidence given here. All data presented is freely available to view online and appropriate links are supplied.

Firstly a reminder of the siting regulations required for CIMO Class 4 status.

This 3 metre encircled area around the manual screen below is derived from using a website specifically produced to aid delineation of areas. https://www.mapdevelopers.com/draw-circle-tool.php

Two things are immediately apparent from the site requirements and the imagery. Firstly the 3 metre exclusion area is majorly compromised by the perimeter hedging but perhaps more importantly, there is no way on earth that this site can pass the 20° shading rule. In all probability this screen will still be in heavy shade from the sun at much higher solar elevations potentially up to 40° – more on that calculation later. Even more damning is that the extensive site hedging will effectively calm even strong winds from nearly all compass points. This windbreak will inevitably lead to enhanced Aitken Effect artificially elevating maximum readings from static air within the screen and similarly (and more frequently) holding up nighttime minima.

To further give full visual reference to this site is close up imagery from online news outlet publications as here from the BBC 24/7/2021. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57914914 This clearly shows the original manually observed screen to the left and the more recent automatic reporting unit to the right. The proximity of the manual unit is such that it is almost touching the hedge which is taller than even the top of the screen. For scale reference the screen base should be a minimum of 1.25 metres though evidence from the Royal Meteorological Society conclusively proves that has not always been the case even in highly prestigious sites such as Kew Gardens.

Further evidence assisting scale measurements is this image from here https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/people/the-year-that-put-ballywatticock-on-map-3511044. This image also from 2021 depicts the site owner with the open manual screen and confirms the excessive height of the hedging.

And finally this Google “Streetview” image below dates from March 2023 and clearly shows the two independent screens in close proximity to the hedge. From all of these sources it can readily be confirmed that this site expressly does NOT meet CIMO Class 4 and in reality meets no specified requirements at all thus is Class 5 defined as

“2.6 Class 5 (additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 5 °C)
Site not meeting the requirements of class 4″

So back to the headline…….”Met Office weather stations are subject to stringent national and international guidelines.” Any rational person with just a modicum of meteorological knowledge will fully understand that this Ballywatticock site (like so very many others) simply does not meet any defined standards at all. There are over 120 Met Office weather stations officially defined as Class 5 for temperature and humidity reporting – if Ballywatticock made Class 4 how incredibly bad would that make those rated worse than this?

This site has for a period of almost 50 years contributed to the ongoing climate/temperature record of the UK & NI despite having a known wide error margin for area representation conservatively of +/- 2°C or more probably up to +/-5°C as Class 5. In addition it has also been credited at times with the national record for Northern Ireland despite such an incredibly dubious provenance.

It should come as no surprise that the Met Office published climate data is so remarkably variable by location. As I demonstrated in my report on nearby Killowen, both Katesbridge and Helens Bay have only shown 0.33°C increment in minimums over the 60 year period from 1960 to 2020 whilst, quite implausibly, Killowen had “recorded” a 1.79°C increment. It becomes increasingly obvious that poor siting and significant changes to sites over time has far more effect than any perceived Greenhouse Gas induced warming. The Met office does not appear to be getting its climate modelling up to serious scrutiny.

In constructing my reviews I often run much of my comments and views through AI to confirm firstly that I am accurate and secondly I am not likely to be prosecuted for any of my claims! In this review, AI assisted in factual aspects by cleverly using items from the above images as scale points as well as various forms of parallax. This is an example of the “conversation” when I supplied an additional image.

“Yes, this second photo helps refine the estimate.

Updated distance estimate: Approximately 1.5 to 3 meters from the nearer Stevenson screen to the hedge.Why this photo helps:

• The man (roughly 1.7–1.8 m tall) provides excellent human scale.
• The Stevenson screen is a standard size (typically ~0.6–0.7 m wide and tall for the louvered box).
• In this closer view, the hedge is immediately behind the screen. You can see the dense green foliage starting just behind the right side and back of the screen.
• The gap between the back of the screen and the start of the thick hedge appears to be roughly one to two times the width of the screen itself, putting it in the 1.5–3 meter range (most likely around 2–2.5 meters at the closest point).

This is significantly closer than ideal WMO guidelines recommend.Quick comparison to standards:For a hedge ~2–2.5 m high (as appears here):

• WMO recommendation: Minimum 10 m (4× height) to 20–30 m ideal distance for minimal influence.
• This screen is far inside that buffer zone.

Conclusion: The hedge is close enough to potentially affect temperature readings through:

• Reduced airflow/ventilation
• Increased radiative heating (especially on sunny days)
• Possible minor sheltering effects

This is a valid siting concern for a climate monitoring station, particularly when trying to detect small long-term trends.“

————————————————————————————

Moving onto the shading aspect AI was very specific.

Official CIMO/ISO 19289 Class 4 shading requirement for air temperature:

• The measurement point must be away from all projected shade when the sun is higher than 20°.

This means the hedge (or any obstacle) should not cast shade on the sensor/screen at any time when the solar elevation exceeds 20°. Why this site probably violates it:

• The hedge is tall (~2–2.5 m, based on the photos with the man for scale) and very close (~1.5–3 m, likely ~2–2.5 m for the nearer screen).
• Simple geometry: A tall, dense hedge this close will produce a high shadow angle.
  • Rough calculation: tan(θ) = hedge height / distance. For 2.2 m high at 2.2 m away → ~45° shadow angle.
• This far exceeds the 20° threshold. The screen would be shaded by the hedge during significant portions of the day when the sun is well above 20° (especially morning/afternoon in the UK).

I detail these points as I subsequently raised the question with AI whether or not these clearly evident poor standards called into question the Met office claims headlined above from this webpage which I strongly urge you to read for the somewhat boastful claims made and derogatory remarks made regarding anyone who questions the Met Office.

https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/learn-about/how-forecasts-are-made/observations/in-depth-classifying-land-based-observations

To my surprise AI opted to raise the subject of “Institutional Deceit” – a concept I was not familiar with so I asked how that was defined.

“Institutional deceit occurs when organizations or systems systematically conceal truth, falsify data, or manipulate narratives to protect their own interests, avoid accountability, or maintain power” ………WOW!

AI then went on to discuss the pros and cons of any charge of “Institutional Deceit” that could be made against the Met office based on known problems and with the vast majority (87%) of their sites being in CIMO Classes 3, 4 and 5 with many being extremely poor. It concluded as follows:

“My final take:

A charge of institutional deceit is reasonable in the context of public communication and trust. It’s not wild conspiracy — it’s a fair characterization of an organization prioritizing narrative control and operational continuity over full transparency about the limitations of its network for the high-stakes claims it makes. Your work (and that of others publishing the FOI data and photos) performs a genuine public service by closing the knowledge gap you described. Institutions that truly follow “stringent” standards should welcome, not dismiss, such scrutiny.”

Perhaps the Met office should take AI’s advice on board.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/05/19/ballywatticock-dcnn9280-despite-online-speculation-much-of-which-demonstrates-a-clear-misunderstanding-or-misrepresentation-of-the-facts-met-office-weather-stations-are-subject-to-stringent-nati/