Faversham DCNN 5367 – Met Office versus Royal Meteorological Society. Guess who won?

51.29700 -0.87793 Met Office Assessed CIMO Class 4 Installed 1/1/1959 Closed 1/3/1990 then Reopened 1/5/1998

Faversham weather station is run by the Brogdale Trust on the outskirts of Faversham. Established in the late 1950s as a manually recording unit it was subsequently closed down in March 1990. The National Fruit Collection (a part of Reading University which has close contact with the Met Office) was relocated to Brogdale Farm in 1998 and the weather station was reopened in association.

Superficially the site looks only to be marked down by the regularly changing agricultural use and the now notorious (in meteorological circles) Leylandii hedge. Class 4 is possibly correct though when the hedge is viewed on site it could well relegate it down to Class 5 and extreme inaccuracy. So how did Faversham start a still unresolved controversy?

The story comes in three parts , two highly publicised ones being firstly a Met Office record declaration and then secondly the subsequent investigation by the Royal Meteorological Society. The third part is what the “locals” knew which I shall cover as a “codicil” in personally being one of the said “locals”.

This case demonstrates an overpowering determination to prove “records” by the Met Office pitted against the scientific evaluation of independent meteorology. Meanwhile a few of those in the area marveled at the gullibility of both. So what happened?

On 10th August 2003, the atrociously sited Gravesend automatic weather station (subsequently closed down) registered a record breaking national highest ever temperature reading only to be subsequently beaten by the later manual report from Faversham the following day. The Met Office immediately dispatched an inspector to Faversham to verify readings and take the thermometers away for testing to determine their accuracy was adequate – they claim they were though it would be highly unlikely they were not. By very definition of “attending the site” this inspector must have seen the state the site was in. Whether or not any site report exists is not known outside the Met Office. The screen was in such a poor state of repair it was immediately replaced. The surroundings were more akin to a building site.

Both the Gravesend and Faversham readings seemed suspect in the eyes of experienced meteorologists. Two very senior members of the Royal Meteorological Society (Stephen Burt and Philip Eden) were so concerned regarding the overall accuracy of the Met Office claims for that day (not just the record breakers) that they launched an extremely in depth and on site investigation. This report was published in three parts in the RMets monthly publication. Perhaps the most relevant is part two which though now paywalled was initially free to view online. Thankfully the “Wayback Machine” Internet Archive saved a copy which can be viewed on the full link below. {n.b. these links are often slow to load}. Extracts from this are used in my review though I recommend reading the whole of the report to fully appreciate its diligence and accuracy.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191210053116/https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1256/wea.10.04B

To summarise the report, the researchers found the Faversham readings to be hugely at variance (above) with other nearby stations that they nearly always were in close accord to. On the day of the record the variance with the Met Office Wye Agricultural College station just 13 kilometres distant was a staggeringly improbable 3.8°C.

The Gravesend site was also visited and they concluded that it was also severely compromised and prone to over recording temperatures – anyone actually visiting the site would have deduced that but seemingly not Met Office staff. Indeed their research found numerous deficiencies with almost unbelievably the Kew Gardens flagship site having the screen set too low at the wrong height.

Two highly respected and internationally famous meteorologists studied the realities scientifically in great depth and concluded both the Faversham and Gravesend readings were incorrect and even cast doubt on some of the West London stations. Despite all this evidence the Met Office completely disregarded their informed opinions and gave their seal of approval to the Faversham record. Thus (yet again) a rather dubious quality site was proclaimed a record and facts were bent relentlessly further to prove a theory.

So what about the “third view” claimed to be known locally? For full disclosure I personally know Faversham extremely well. I used to live there, I was married there, my wife was born there, I still own a property there and I was in Faversham that very day the “record” was set. There were many rumours circulating straight after the event that just perhaps there may have been some “skulduggery” taking place……heaven forbid someone might just have been trying to get the site on the map!

From the RMS report ” The site is also open to the general public and interference from visitors unknown has not been ruled out” Well this is what the site looked like when they visited. Note not only the notorious hedge but also the rather large amount of building materials just lying around.

Brogdale Farm in conjunction with the introduction of the National Fruit collection was in the process of being developed into a tourist attraction, with a retail centre, business offices and even a miniature railway under construction. The local hostelries were full of tales of high jinx and rascality for weeks on end concerning workers possible tampering with the site notably stacking paving setts around the compound and parking tractors with engines running alongside.

Whilst this may seem just gossip trying to cheekily explain the event, why had Met Office inspectors so obviously turned a “blind eye” to the appallingly bad state of the site? Why was no attempt made by the Met Office to refute the RMETS detailed analysis? Were the 3 metre high hedge, the sleepers, piles of black sub-base et alia all invisible to the Met Office? Is an almost 4 degree differential from a site (Wye) normally in conformity something to just hand-wave away?

The Met Office seem more preoccupied with achieiving records and manipulating data than actually doing the day job.

Note the newly installed screen below in a new location within the compound.

Nearly all responsible independent meteorologists do not accept the Faversham record. The question is why did the Met Office?

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2024/12/28/faversham-dcnn-5367-met-office-versus-royal-meteorological-society-guess-who-won/