False Comparisons with 1976 – Irresponsible claims from a Senior Met Office Meteorologist examined.

From GROK AI wnen asked if the above is a reasonable post from a Senior Met Office Meteorologist

No, I don’t think it’s a fully reasonable post in the way it’s presented.

The post (and similar Met Office communications) implies a straightforward “apples-to-apples” comparison between June 2026 and the 1976 summer at the same locations. However:

• Station continuity is a real issue. You (and the Surface Stations Project work associated with Tallbloke) have documented numerous cases where Met Office stations have moved, changed instruments (e.g., from mercury thermometers to PRTs), or had significant siting changes over decades. A 3–4°C difference could easily be influenced by these factors rather than purely climatic ones.
• If many of the quoted stations were not in their current locations/exposures in 1976, then the comparison is misleading without heavy caveats about homogeneity adjustments, site history, and metadata quality.

Grok went on to be very scathing about this X/Twitter post from Dan Holley and how misleading this and other recent Met Office pronouncements have been. AI does not have a “sycophantic” mode and is programmed to give balanced responses based on known information.

Balanced perspective

• The broader heat event was real — Wales and parts of England saw exceptional temperatures in late June 2026, with Cardiff setting a June record. The Met Office is right to highlight that recent extremes have been notable.
• However, when making direct historical comparisons at individual stations for public messaging, transparency about site changes, instrument evolution, and exposure (CIMO class) is essential. Omitting or downplaying that weakens the credibility of the claim.
• Senior meteorologists should be especially careful with such graphics, as they feed into public and media narratives about “unprecedented” events.

In view of this I shall detail from past research and further updates just how “apples with oranges” this misleading statement is, based on the sole comparison of siting, siting degradation and re-location. My next post will follow up on the more technical aspects of instrumentation changes proven by the excellent work on this by Talkshop associate Dr Eric Huxter.

To take each station in turn;

Manston:(RAF)

As I detailed over in 5 separate posts this site has been in numerous different locations and varying observational formats over the years with no fewer than 3 separate WMO/DCNN demarcation numbers. These numbering changes are indicative of both major site changes and differing climatology between sites. A reminder of what the Met Office themselves say;

3.6. Station identification

“Over time certain instruments, or the whole enclosure, may be relocated some distance away from the original site. Where the distance moved is small, the observations obtained from the new site may have exactly the same climatological characteristics as previously and it makes sense to regard them as coming from the same source or station distinguished by certain identifiers. Where the distance moved is large, or, where the exposure at the new site is sufficiently different that a detectable impact on the measured climatology is judged likely, it is appropriate that observations from the new site are labelled by a different set of identifiers.“

The reality is that the Manston weather station was a long way away in 1976 from its current site being then alongside the original (“old”) Control Tower. At 1 min 53 seconds in, the station identifier is visible where the old site was in this you tube clip – offered in full for all the aviation buffs! This site was at the opposite end of the over 9,000 Feet runway and, despite being an airport, at a surprisingly higher elevation.

Marham (RAF)

My original report described the extensive travels of this site which was 1500 metres away in the 1976 iteration of DCNN3024 rather than its current DCNN3023 since 1982. My title did rather sum up my view at the time.

Marham WMO 03482 – A cautionary example of how deceptive Met Office records can be.

Valley (RAF)

My original review exposed the farcical situation of the Met Office attributing data to Valley in their Historic Station Data from a different site, on a different island and from before RAF Valley was even built. The Met Office knows this is wrong but still have not corrected their major error of 11 years wrong data.

Remarks

Start date	End date	Remark type	Remark
1930-12-01	1941-06-30	HISTORICAL NOTES	RE RMRK #2 : ALL OBS NOW CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO SALT HOLYHEAD (11451). TMAX TMIN AND SUNSHINE TO 1946

Valley was relocated in 1996 but not renamed. In all probability the old original site (not possible to exactly identify at present) was better than the current one for no other reason than it would be difficult to find a worse one.

Valley WMO03302 – Fake Provenance of Met Office data. Untrustworthy, incompetent…or both?

Whitechurch and Aberporth. As far as I can ascertain Whitechurch was in its current atrocious back garden site in 1976 having been installed the year before. Aberporth most certainly was not in the same location in 1976 being in a completely different and unquestionably cooler open location back then rather than the current concrete car park cauldron it is now.

Apart from both sites terrible locations and Aberporth’s relocation there is the unusual correlation of their readings being so similar in such starkly differing locations with Aberporth (34.7°C) at a coastal firing range and Whitchurch (34.4°C) inland just over 11 miles away.

Almost equidistant between these two sites in open countryside is the tiny hamlet of Coedybryn with a Private Weather Station (PWS) – it would be considered very odd for there to be a significant variation with its temperature recording if all else was equal. However the PWS (a Fine Offset / Ecowitt weather station HP-2551 with fanned ventilation) shows a much more modest reading than its likely overheating near neighbours in naturally ventilated Stevenson Screens – an issue Dr Huxter will be covering. Are the almost 35°C readings more reliable than the 31.9°C recorded at the superior equipped PWS? I know where my money would be placed in any bets!

Cranwell (RAF)

This is a site wrongly assessed by the Met Office as Class 1 which I will shortly be challenging the Met Office to justify. As I noted in my original report it is sited hard alongside a diversion/settlement chamber that handles contaminated “washings” from the main apron and simply cannot meet quality standards required even for Class 3 with such a large compromising structure for company. In addition it was elsewhere in 1976 so again no like for like comparison. It is also worth bearing in mind that alleged “scientific” researchers such as “World Weather Attribution” clearly did precisely zero actual research if they felt that the 2022 heat event at Cranwell was a once in 1,500 year event – how many jet aircraft have been hanging around the area since 522AD?

Cranwell WMO 03379 – What “World Weather Attribution” didn’t know nor probably cared about.

Sutton Bonnington

Just to the east of East Midlands airport and the south of the former Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal fired power station, the CIMO Class 5 Sutton Bonnington weather station simply was not anywhere near its current site in 1976. My review had images of the current site – this below is the same point in 2001 with the complete absence of the Stevenson Screen.

Back then the manually observed site was within the University complex for ease of taking readings.

Sutton Bonnington DCNN 4202 – Yet another Unsatisfactory record breaker.

Wittering (RAF)

My original post pointed out that there were 2 operational sites currently at Wittering and also that there had been a relocation in the 1970s requiring renumbering. Altitude varies from 77 metres by the taxiway to 83 metres at the original threshold of the runway site.

Wittering WMO 03461 & 03462 – Two stations together.

Take your pick of which of these three sites would be best. The westerly one was 1976 vintage, both/either of the other two may, or may not, be operational. It is worth bearing in mind that many military airfield sites have significant gaps in observations due to operational requirements – in the case of Wittering there are no 1982 readings (Falklands conflict) and temperature sensor readings can be heavily influenced by aircraft movements – more below regarding Hurn.

Hurn (Bournemouth Airport)

Hurn WMO 03862 – Can this site’s readings be taken seriously? …Yes Minister.

There is no evidence of a site relocation at Hurn, it has always been in a totally unacceptable site for climate reporting in such close proximity to the control tower, taxiway and principal runway. The Met office assesses this site as CIMO Class 4 which rather suggests those sites ranked as Class 5 must be incredibly bad to the point of comical to be worse than Hurn.

The obvious point in comparing such a site 50 years apart must take into account the change in activity and nature of that activity over that time. From official CAA statistics less than 100,000 passengers passed through Hurn in 1976. In the last full year of 2025 that number had increased to over 1.4 million. There are no reliable figures for aircraft movements I could find for 1976 but it is quite obvious from the passenger numbers that there will have been at least a 10 fold increment in take offs and landings.

However, it is when considering the type of aircraft that the stark contrast is exposed. In 1976 the main aircraft were in use at Hurn were Hawker Siddeley HS748 Turboprops. In 2026 by far the most common movements are by Boeing 737 – 800. I asked GROK for a power comparison to determine likely “blast” effects.

Key Specifications

Aircraft	Engines	Power/Thrust per Engine	Total Power/Thrust	Type
HS 748 (1970s)	2 × Rolls-Royce Dart turboprops	~2,100–2,280 shp (equivalent)	~4,200–4,560 shp	Turboprop
737-800	2 × CFM56-7B turbofans	24,000–27,300 lbf thrust	48,000–54,600 lbf	High-bypass turbofan

Again there will be a massive difference in effects from such more powerful engines operating much more frequently. As John Marlow commented in his excellent report on Met Office Metrology,

” For example a site on an airport may present no problems for a MiG; the quicker response of the Pt may catch a quick burst of an aeroplane’s exhaust as it passes en route for take-off or landing.   This will result in a higher Maximum Temperature recorded for that day. “

Wattisham (former RAF now British Army airfield)

Wattisham WMO03590 – “we do not attribute unmodified values from one station to another station.” Oh yes you do. 

Referring back to my report on Lingwood, it appears the Met office recently has developed a penchant for Helicopter modified environments quoting records for Royal Naval Air Stations such as Yeovilton, Merryfield, Culdrose and Gosport. A point I have raised several times is that fixed winged aircraft take off and land in designated straight line areas but helicopters can hover-taxi around affecting thermometers much more widely. The provenance of data from Wattisham is known and admitted to being often “unmodified” data from elsewhere notably Wethersfield, but now the training of helicopter pilots has further added to the distorting influences on this site.

For those with time to spare here is an interesting Youtube video showing this site is no longer one for reliable unaffected temperature readings..

Sheffield

I find it staggering that Dan Holley has never heard of Urban Heat Island Effect. Surely he cannot be excused for not knowing where Weston Park Observatory (that has been reporting since 1882) actually is.

https://www.sheffieldmuseums.org.uk/collections-stories/weston-park-weather-station

Comparing readings 50 years apart from a CIMO Class 5 site where Ice Cream vans regularly park in summer is akin to the Motherwell Strathclyde Park record fiasco.

Sheffield Weston Park DCNN 4061 – Implications.

Writtle

Writtle DCNN3644 – Demonstrating a decline in standards

This is a site that has not been relocated but it most certainly has hugely degraded in site quality. So poor was this site becoming and so concerned was I that the Met Office was about to claim a record here, that on the 21st June I posted a request for local assistance on X/Twitter.

A widespread problem with Met office sites has come about following automation. Daily visits by observers ensured that any site defects were either remedied by them (cleaning the screen etc) or by their reporting of problems. Often observers served as the site maintenance and would ensure grass was cut and obstacles removed etc. Automation reduced human visits to a bare minimum and seemingly regular inspections fell short of best practises. For example here is the Streetview image of the manually observed Writtle site from April 2009, five months before automation.

The screen is that white box just to the left front of the windmast tower. It is a scaled 27 metres from any significant vegetation to its east. Now consider the image from 2025 below from the same viewpoint.

The screen is 1.25 metres to the base hence the shrubbery is at least 2.4 metres/ 8 feet high. Aerial imagery and the google maps measuring tool clearly show the shrubs at less than 3 metres from the screen now. This proximity and height renders the site an unregulated and unreliable Class 5 site for no other reason than exceptionally poor asset management on the part of the Met Office.

Perhaps Dan Holley should spend more of his time ensuring the basic Met Office kit was up to the required standards rather than promoting junk data online to drive a false narrative.

SUMMARY

The Met Office and its senior spokespersons are pushing a false narrative. The comparison of selected sites over a 50 year time span is such an obviously flawed concept that even Artificial Intelligence can see all the absurdities and indeed dangers involved. My review here is to simply identify those issues of siting and site changes for these specific quoted locations. Clearly there are significant problems with all of these comparisons – however – how many of the general public would otherwise know any of this? The Met Office certainly are not about to admit to all manner of failings on their part.

This report will continue further as part two with the extensive and diligent scientific work of Dr Eric Huxter detailing how instrument changes and failure to address known problems further corrupts these type of comparison.

To conclude this part I shall repeat Roger’s introduction to my restarting the Surface Stations Project.

Ray Sanders is re-booting Tim Channon’s UK Surface Stations Project and will be updating old entries as well as adding new ones. The state of the station network will shock you. Ray has uncovered a lot of serious issues and we will be highlighting them in regular posts here at the Talkshop. We’re putting the MET-Office and relevant government ministers on notice: scientific data must be properly measured, collected, as well as being collated and curated in a transparent, accessible manner. We taxpayers demand our money is spent wisely and that the resulting outputs are available to be examined and used by any and all researchers.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/07/05/false-comparisons-with-1976-irresponsible-claims-from-a-senior-met-office-meteorologist-examined/