From Tallbloke’s Talkshop

By Ray Sanders

I had originally intended writing a lengthy review of the UK’s longest running weather station, Armagh, with its almost continuous temperature records from 1790. But then I reconsidered – it is not a good site so why give undue reverence simply due to its age as so many others somewhat irrationally seem to. The object of the Surface Stations Project is to review all sites objectively and scientifically with an end outcome of supplying a reliable reconstruction of the UK’s recent temperature record from only good quality sites. In the same way that the UK’s second oldest site, Oxford Radcliffe, is very poor so is Armagh and not worthy of including in any accurate temperature reconstruction. In any science, age does not come before beauty, it is facts that matter and the fact is Armagh is not suitable.

I often add site history to my reviews for context. In this case I can offer links to the Armagh Observatory’s own website which detail its extensive site re-locations over time, multiple deficiencies, non-standard equipment and the generally unnatural nature of the site getting progressively worse (more urbanised) as time progressed. My own “untrendy” take on things – but objective and realistic.

Yet more history is offered here and there are many other sites available detailing this venerable old institution. One point I would like to emphasise is this comment made (note the absurd anemometer location)

The Royal Greenwich Observatory was relocated to Hurstmonceux in East Sussex because London was no longer a suitable location for astronomy. They now no longer use Hurstmonceux because of the same reason. Thus whilst Armagh might have possibly been a good site in 1790 (when James Six had first designed the first maximum/minimum thermometer that bears his name and also 94 years before final adoption of Stevenson Screens) it certainly has not been good for a very long time.

If all this seems very dismissive of me, then consider that the Met Office themselves have rated this site “Class 4 (additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 2 °C)“.

Climate science seems unique to me – I cannot think of any other branch of science that would accept such a remarkably high level of “additional” uncertainties due to poor siting over and above all other inaccuracies, and then quote “averages” to the second decimal part of a degree. The mean is running to two orders of magnitude more precise than the readings can ever possibly warrant on siting alone. When all the other non standard measurement points are included, urban encroachment, calibration changes and instrument changes are added in, the data requires so many “adjustments” to make the readings unrecognisable as truly genuine. Apparently good enough though for “Climate Scientists” who so often seem to cherish “adjustments” and the “creative scope” it offers them.

Conversely, the detailed points I was making with a site such as Wye indicates a long term Class 1 site, with no re-locations, instrument changes nor urbanisation effects to consider. It is those sites of scientific, observation and objective rigour that warrant inclusion and not historical artefacts that have come down to barely more than tourist attractions and computer models.

Horse-drawn carts were the principal mode of transport when Armagh was constructed. Such relics evoke nostalgia when seen on the streets now but incredibly few would use them to get around themselves. Armagh is very old but is not good enough to warrant inclusion in historic temperature reconstruction. And that is about the most I have to offer.