Charlwood WMO 03769 – (a.k.a. Gatwick) – Dodgy platforms, wire windbreaks and distorted readings. PLUS …….what Manston tells us.

51.14398 -0.22946 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 3 Installed 22/7/2022

Tim Channon posted an excellent review of this station with multiple site images and detailed analysis back in 2012. I strongly recommend firstly reading his strong conviction that this is emphatically a CLASS 5 site and prone to be very inaccurate. I totally concur with his view and have up to date information direct from the “horses mouth” of the Met Office to further confirm Tim’s and my opinions.

This Charlwood station effectively replaces the Met Office use of the Gatwick Airport station which is still operational with readings displayed on https://weatherobs.com/. Quite where this Gatwick site is I cannot find though it is largely irrelevant in not being CIMO assessed and (hopefully) not used for climate reporting purposes. A location map for Charlwood reveals its site just off the end of the runway in a field by an overgrown hedge, in a direct flight path line of the runway and to the north west of the massive urban heat island sprawl of Crawley (population 120,000)

Looking from the macro scale this clearly is not an optimum location and almost guaranteed to over record natural temperatures with any breeze from north east through to south west – if the airport doesn’t effect the readings then the ever expanding mass of Crawley urbanisation will.

Moving closer in starts to reveal more localised issues – why does the Met Office locate so many of its newer weather station sites alongside hedges that are then rarely well maintained? There is no meteorological benefit from being alongside hedges and these automatically downgrade the site. This is so often overlooked by the Met Office that it cannot be accidental as demonstrated at Faversham, Whitby and many others.

The hedge may look reasonably well maintained in this 2024 image, however, the flat 2D image does not reveal the height that hedge has grown to since the original site installation. The street view image shows that even the top of the 1.25 metre (4 feet) from the ground Stevenson Screen is not visible and is totally blocked by the hedging in front with a line of trees behind.

Then in micro detail the headline image shows a fine wire mesh fence, at least 3 metres high, surrounding all the instrumentation along with the usual unattended to grass growing up the sides. Hold this thought – go to most garden centres and there is a very sheltered but unheated outdoor area displaying shrubs, bedding plants etc and there will be (usually green) fine mesh as walling – and no wind not even a gentle breeze inside. This is almost exactly what has been created here.

Then moving into the screen enclosure and there is what is known as “Tripod Mounted” instrumentation. This portable equipment is usually used for “trial” sites, is not WMO approved nor CIMO assessable. One simple glance at all that metalwork very clearly states we have a completely unsuitable and highly compromised site.

To consider the first point with all that wind shading, yesterday 1st May, the Met Office/BBC/Nudge Unit was promoting shock horror headlines of bogus weather readings but then had to admit St James’s Park was completely unsatisfactory and issue a correction. They also declared a reading of 28.3 °C from Charlwood when the wind speed from the 10 metre high mast mounted anemometer was at times reading no wind at all – dead flat calm.

If there was little or no wind at 10 metres elevation, we can all be confident that behind a hedge, in front of a tree belt and inside a wire mesh screen there definitely was no wind. Of course the Met Office also knows that and also knows that in still air Stevenson Screens can over record by up to 2°C as was discussed regarding Heathrow. So on these grounds alone the reading of 1/5/2025 was almost certainly a significant over record BUT it get worse AND the Met Office also knows this major second problem – which is where Manston comes in..

Going back to the ongoing Manston Airport saga, in part 5 I asked for assistance in verifying facts from the Met Office. Fellow sceptic, Eric Huxter, very kindly assisted and put in a Freedom of Information request regarding why two separate screens just 58 metres apart were both Synoptic reporting weather stations and (at the time) both appeared on this list https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-synoptic-and-climate-stations

Their response to his request with 5 questions to be answered was most illuminating:

From my earlier Manston reports, the Met Office clearly stated the new Manston site was operating “Tripod Mounted” instrumentation. Eric had factually demonstrated significant differences in the two site’s simultaneous readings as follows:

The Met office are thus tacitly admitting that their tripod mounted units do not record the same as conventional units. The Met Office then deleted Manston 2 from their stations listings and removed all readings from appearing on the Weatherobs site {note: The Talkshop locked down screen captures of all of this}

So the Charlwood readings over record both on the standard Stevenson Screen issue at low wind speeds – an effect exacerbated by potentially deliberate poor siting by a hedge and then inside an unconventional wind break enclosure – and by being in close proximity to unconventional reflective metal tripod mounted equipment.

At St James’s Park it took the combined efforts of principally diligent X poster John Dodders exposing the site problems which the Talkshop, Not a Lot of People Know That , and the Daily Sceptic’s Chris Morrison supported in publicising. Eventually, the efforts worked and the Met Office reluctantly ruled out the site’s false data { but note they had awarded the Monday’s daily high to St James’s Park even after works had commenced}.

Here, at Charlwood, yet more spurious data is knowingly allowed by the Met Office to be used to corrupt the historic data record. I will shortly be reviewing those “record breaking first day of the month of May” sites in one group review – (though I have individually covered most of them) – to expose just how misleading and politicised the portrayal of Met Office “data” has become.

Worth noting is the other main event of the 1st May 2025 – “Net Zero” policies largely based on spurious climate alarm and “dodgy data” did not appear particularly high on one seats voters agenda.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/05/02/charlwood-wmo-03769-a-k-a-gatwick-dodgy-platforms-wire-windbreaks-and-distorted-readings-plus-what-manston-tells-us/