The coming temperature record…

It's only hot when Glaswegians turn lobster-red after a couple of days :-)

It stops the air within the cavity from transferring heat *into* the house in summer as well as keeping the house heat in during winter.

Unless you live in an exposed area subject to driving rain, cavity insulation is generally worth it.

French long-range weather forecasts are for a much cooler first week of June. Better get that £1+/litre kerosene on order and keep the Aga on. :-)

Kero now under £1/litre

effective electricuty price of around 9p/unit

In message of Thu, 28 May 2026, Joe snipped-for-privacy@jretrading.com wrote

Does this mean that round London there is a doughnut where the rainfall is enhanced? - well it has to go somewhere .

Brian

In message <3A$ snipped-for-privacy@b-howie.co.uk>, Brian Howie snipped-for-privacy@b-howie.co.uk> writes

Possibly

"Small aerosol concentrations outside the city may possibly cause clouds to rain out, whereas above the city enhanced aerosols may suppress precipitation, increasing cloud lifetime."

Brian

Yesterday the rain radar showed precisely that.

Do you have libel insurance? Might be worth checking it's up to date.

Hard to tell from that. From Homewood's own map, it seems to be next to a large garden centre and associated plant nurseries.

LOL. Its the stock response you get from paid agents of the Green blob. I got the same the very first time I used my real name on the Internet as author of a critique of renewable energy.

Apparently I was 'well known' and a 'climate denier, paid for by Big Oil'

A bit of research shows how while factually correct, TimW, the well known climate alarmist, in the pay of Big Green, has carefully omitted to mention the tarmac and bare earth around the station or the greenhouses on the OTHER side away from the river Taff and the trees

The location is here:

Judge for yourself

Quote: The WMO states that Class 5 sites can overestimate temperatures by as much as 5°C. The WMO is perfectly clear that junk sites like Bute Park should not be used for climatological purposes and cannot be regarded as being representative of the surrounding environment. Unquote

Are you saying the WMO is wrong?

My understanding is that they weight results, if required, according to the local environment.

They are after all - like you - climate scientists. And unlike your source - who's a retired accountant writing for a right wing climate denying scare site. Quite who he expects to take any notice of that drivel is beyond me.

Well, he had significant points to make! ;-)

YOU are wrong because you don't understand the recording of weather data and you have swallowed the misquoted, out of context phrase about 5degC without understanding that either. All weather stations have their own environments, tarmac farmers fields, shade, slopes etc. The uk is a very urbanised place and we don't record the weather of an imaginary rural England without concrete and roads, we record the real weather. Nevertheless sometimes data needs to be corrected. What the WMO is saying is that a poorly sited station might need corrections of several degrees. You are misrepresenting that to imply that any site in that category is unreliable and we don't really know what the weather is doing. The Met Office is a serious operation. They know what the weather is.

TW

So, do the WMO classify sites down to Level 5 (worse than junk), and is Bute Park one of them?

The guy who researched and constructed what is known as the Central England Temperature Record was so appalled by what the Met Office was doing to the data that he refused to have anything further to do with it.

The Met Office certainly knows what side its bread is buttered.

If they changed the weighting, we could have global cooling…

You could always try looking at the facts mentioned rather than blunderbussing the messenger…

It would be the easiest case to defend. Here for instance Homewood deliberately and dishonestly misrepresents the WMO system for rating weather Station sites. They don't have a 'junk' designation - that is Homewood's invention. They don't in fact consider their numbering system to be a hierarchy, They don't forbid the use of Bute Park for climatological purposes - that's a straight lie. TW

And you could, on occasion, question your source . . .

General description: Station sited in a location that is strongly unrepresentative of the intended environment (e.g., rooftop, paved surface, enclosed courtyard, immediate proximity to heat sources or tall obstructions). Local influences dominate measurements.

Surfaces: Sensor effectively over non-natural or highly modified surface (pavement, concrete, rooftops, hot machinery, or very small patch of vegetation surrounded by hardscape).

Obstructions (distance & height guidance): If an obstruction (building, wall, tree) is taller than the sensor height (h), it is typically within the zone of influence if located at a distance ≤ 10·h (i.e., within ten times sensor height). For Class 5 these obstructions are usually within that distance and often adjacent (distance ≈ 0–2·h).

For significant aerodynamic disturbance (turbulence, sheltering), obstructions within 5·h are common; in Class 5 these are frequently present.

Large heated surfaces (roofs, asphalt) within a few meters (often < 2–3 m) are typical.

Wind sensor siting: Wind measurements are strongly compromised: nearby buildings/trees within ~10·h (often much closer) create sheltering and turbulent wakes. Wind mast may be on roof or close to obstructions, producing biased speed and direction and increased turbulence.

Temperature/humidity sensors: Radiative and conductive biases from nearby heated surfaces (pavement, walls) and reflected radiation; ventilated shields still biased if over non-natural surface. Surface heterogeneity within the typical representativeness radius is high.

Precipitation gauges: Likely affected by wind effects due to sheltering, nearby obstructions causing catch loss or wind-driven splash; rooftop or near-building placements introduce spurious catch.

Radiation sensors: Frequently obstructed or influenced by reflected/thermal emissions from nearby structures; not representative of open-sky exchange. Metadata/notes to record: explicit statement of Class 5 siting, photos from multiple aspects, distances and heights of nearest obstructions, surface type within at least 10–20 m, mounting height, and any known local heat sources.

Implication for data use: data should be treated as locally biased; unsuitable for climatological reference without correction; document and, where possible, relocate to higher-quality site.”

Says it all, really, about Class 5 sites.

OK, how about this, for the Class 5 site at Bute Park:

Class 5 (Very poor) — typical characteristics and WMO-style obstruction rules

General description: Station sited in a location that is *strongly unrepresentative* of the intended environment (e.g., rooftop, paved surface, enclosed courtyard, immediate proximity to heat sources or tall obstructions).

ISTM the site could hardly be worse. ‘Junk’ seems quite adequate as a descriptor.