The United States Climate Reference Network – Why does the Met Office not work like this?

I had intended to follow up on my last post regarding the recent spate of UK hottest June ever temperatures to review the Met Office latest claims. However, the Met office has declined to release exact details of all the records to be reviewed pending their review process thus no independent scrutiny becomes possible. In hindsight it really is almost pointless trying to argue with the might of the Met Office on these records – they are the sole keepers of their own data which they will review themselves only – marking their own homework regardless of how incredibly bad it may be as demonstrated at Shirburn Model Farm. This is a totally unacceptable situation that does not need to exist.

In lieu I would like to demonstrate why none of these “records” should be disputed by simply establishing an open, honest and easily verifiable network of weather stations allowing access to any data you would like, when you like and in any way you would like – the USCRN.

Wikipedia has an explanatory page on the USCRN that is remarkably straightforward to understand and reflects the entire ethos of its subject of honesty and simplicity.

The link for full access to the USCRN is here for readers to study in detail. I would simply like to highlight a few extracts and contrast them with the standards of the UK Met Office. {All bolds are mine for emphasis}

“ The purpose of the USCRN program is to provide forecasters and researchers with a reliable series of quality-controlled observations. Stations are placed in long-term sites around the nation which are protected from the land-use changes that reduce the data quality of other stations. Stations can also be combined to create indices of contiguous United States weather conditions. Resources to visualize USCRN data can be found here. Stations can also be combined to create indices of contiguous United States weather conditions. Resources to visualize USCRN data can be found here.“

The first point is that all sites (the earliest started in 2000 in North Carolina) easily meet CIMO Class 1. In contrast, of almost 400 sites in the UK, only 18 meet this standard and some of those have been proven to be false claims as at Hastings, and Edenbridge and Cassley and Syerston. It is evident that only by my questioning the status of these sites that the Met Office took action to re-assess them correctly. How many more site assessments are similarly bogus? I will shortly be calling a few more into question.

The Talkshop’s Surface Stations Project has reviewed almost every UK site (this will be fully completed by year end) and demonstrates the vast majority of Met Office sites are compromised very badly in this regard. Indeed some are almost comedy parodies of acceptable sites being in deliberately created micro-climates or in close proximity to extraneous heat sources. Some are so preposterous it is almost impossible to believe anyone could place a temperature sensor there BUT the Met Office has proved willing to accept records from them. For example Cambridge University Botanic Gardens was removed from the Central England Temperature Series due to urban heat island distortion to readings…….in 1931! It was perversely granted UK national record status in 2019 when the UHI effect had dramatically worsened..

The second and possibly even more important point is the stated aim is to protect these sites from changes to the surrounding environment as it is perfectly well known (even to the Met office) that such changes distort readings inevitably upwards. Conversely, consider the likes of Pershore (RAF Throckmorton) where readings have been rendered useless by surrounding area changes but of course they regularly produce daily/regional “extremes” which seems to the desired result. When I fully index the SSP I will introduce categories of deteriorated sites – those included run well into three figures.

This is a remarkably informative section and demonstrates the highest commitment to quality.

“The primary purpose of the USCRN network is to monitor air temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture/soil temperature. In addition to these parameters, each station measures ground surface (IR) temperature, solar radiation, wind speed, relative humidity, wetness from precipitation, and several values that monitor the operating condition of the equipment. Some of the secondary parameters contribute to improving the confidence in the observational measurements, and provide insight into the reliability and performance of the primary sensors.

Highly accurate measurements and reliable reporting are critical. Station instruments are calibrated annually and maintenance includes routine replacement of aging sensors. The performance of each station’s measurements is monitored on a daily basis and problems are addressed as quickly as possible, typically within days. Each station transmits data hourly to a geostationary satellite. Within minutes of transmission, raw data and computed summary statistics are made available on the USCRN web site. This page describes the details of the data stream.

Instruments are calibrated annually – so how does that compare to the realities of the UK Met Office? Talkshop associate John Marlow was responsible for the opening of the “Historic Station” at Dunstaffnage. Below is John’s description of the alarming reality.

“Thermometers.

The Met Office provided me with a parcel of the various Mercury in Glass (MiG) thermometers that were needed.   Having been, in my previous employment, attached to the Quality Assurance section; presented with a set of Slip-Gauges and given the task of calibrating or rejecting all measuring instruments used in the Research and Production Department    I was surprised that there were only Manufacturer’s Calibration Certificates for the two new thermometers, nothing for the rest.    When I asked the Met Office if there were calibration certification for the other Thermometers there were several seconds of silence on the telephone, then the reply, “I will see if I can find any and send them to you”.   After about a week Certificates arrived for about half of the Thermometers.   One was a Manufacturer’s Calibration Certificate dated 1936 – I remember it well as it is the same year as my birth; a 34 year interval since it was last calibrated.

Quality Assurance of Met Office Data.

Fortunately the Laboratory had purchased a HP Digital Crystal Thermometer of sufficient accuracy to calibrate the thermometers.   Usually a crystal is cut in such a direction so that the frequency remains stable over a wide difference in temperatures.   In this instrument the cut is in a different direction and it results in a device that changes the frequency with a change in temperature with superb repeatability.

All the thermometers were calibrated with one thermometer rejected as it was outside the ±0.1°C limits.

At the time it did not strike me that the Met Office had such a cavalier attitude to accuracy to all their data.   They would have been happy to accept the readings of defective thermometers.“

The Met Office is very coy about publicising their calibration protocol claiming manufacturer’s commercial confidence, however, from the Cambridge University Botanic Gardens published verification details it is confirmed that Platinum Resistance Thermometers are only re-calibrated once every EIGHT years. From the Shirburn Farm report it confirms Liquid in Glass Thermometers are re-calibrated every FIVE years as seen from this certificate below.

The USCRN would not re-calibrate both instrument types annually just for fun – thus it is evident that the Met Office are not meeting the highest standards by a very long way. However it goes much, much deeper than this when instrument housing, monitoring and averaging is concerned.

“Every USCRN observing station is equipped with a standard set of sensors, a data logger, and a satellite communications transmitter. Some of the measured parameters (e.g. temperature, precipitation, and soil conditions) have multiple sensors for redundancy and independent validation. Off-the-shelf commercial equipment and sensors are selected based on performance, durability, and cost.

USCRN’s climate-related variables and associated sensors currently include:

Air Temperature	Three platinum resistance thermometers housed in fan aspirated solar radiation shields
Precipitation	An inlet-heated, wind-shielded weighing rain gauge (configured with three load cell sensors), precipitation (wetness) detector, and an auxiliary tipping bucket gauge.
Wind Speed	A 3-cup anemometer at the same height as the air temperature shield intakes.
Solar Radiation	A silicon pyranometer
Surface (Skin) Temperature	A precision infrared temperature sensor pointed at the ground surface
Relative Humidity	A capacitive thin-film polymer humidity sensor providing accurate and stable measurement even in environments with high humidity
Soil Temperature & Moisture	Moisture sensors with built-in thermistors installed at specific depths: 5, 10 20, 50 and 100 cm.

This highlighted item is crucial. As I point out very many times, Stevenson Screens are low grade Victorian designs that are well known to both over record overnight lows and daytime highs in low wind speed. The solution to this problem is to mechanically ensure adequate ventilation over the sensor i.e. by using “ fan aspirated solar radiation shields” The World Meteorological Organisation effectively insists on this condition, however, quite disgracefully the Met Office has no fan aspirated screens in its climate monitoring network. Add in poor siting, Urban Heat Island and Rural Heat island effects and poor maintenance of vegetation around and in the enclosure and accuracy/representation of the wider environment rapidly deteriorates even more.

Any more differences? Many more – consider this huge difference in reading protocol. The Met Office takes temperature readings from PRTs every 15 seconds. The 15, 30, 45 and 60 second readings are added then divided by 4 to produce 1,440 minute average readings per day. This is not a rolling averaging system but a fixed time stamp system. Such a short period averaging allows for incredibly brief heat pulses to skew readings upwards far above anything a former LIGT would pick up which in still air would have required up to 5 minutes to fully respond. Just two separate single minute readings can establish the daily average temperature. The WMO recommends 5 minute averaging of PRT readings.

“Air Temperature

USCRN stations are equipped with three independent thermometers which measure air temperature in degrees Celsius. The station’s datalogger computes independent 5-minute averages using two-second readings from each thermometer. These multiple measurements are then used to derive the station’s official hourly temperature value.”

Not 15 second readings but every 2 seconds AND these are averaged over 5 minutes independently and all three cross checked before combining to give a reliable hourly reading that is historically comparable to former LIGT readings.

Pause and hold this thought, the USCRN has deliberately gone to as near perfection as can be reasonably expected to ensure historic comparability whilst retaining the very highest standard of immediate accuracy. This was done for all the right reasons and proves scientific integrity.

Quite amazingly for those used to the absurd levels of secrecy wrapped around weather data by the Met Office, the USCRN offers all of its data as rapidly as it can and, to use a cliché, make it available “24/7/365”.

“Each station transmits data hourly to a geostationary satellite. Within minutes of transmission, raw data and computed summary statistics are made available on the USCRN web site.“

Not only is this data available in summary form, it is also available in its raw form for the recipient to use as they wish – no predetermined structure is imposed, no judgment offered on how things “must” be portrayed. Simple and accurate data obtained from best observation practises.

Perhaps the most poignant question is answered by the USCRN themselves.

Why the USCRN is Needed

In the past, long-term U.S. weather stations have faced challenges with instrument and site changes that impact the continuity of observations over time. Even small biases can alter the interpretation of decadal weather variability and change, so a substantial effort is required to identify discontinuities and correct station records.

The NRC (1999)  study further concluded that action was needed to:

• stabilize the existing observational capability;
• identify critical variables that were inadequately measured;
• build proper observing requirements into operational programs as a high priority; and
• improve critical parts of operational observing programs. and
• improve critical parts of operational observing programs.

The important point to finally understand is that the USCRN is producing markedly different long term climate data to other organisations I could mention. As stated above, access to the raw data allows for users to portray as they wish. USCRN also offers portrayals back into history before their own existence based on their data comparability. Below is just one random example offered by their site – bear in mind this is from NOAA not some conspiracy theory blog. Not exactly something to terrify the children in the class room with is it? May 1896 looks remarkably similar to May 2026 with not much going on in between – perhaps a very slow and gentle rise as would be expected in recovering from exiting the Little Ice Age.

In conclusion over the next few days and weeks the Met Office will covertly and behind closed doors “determine” what records they want the public to “believe” are correct despite using sites and instruments in a demonstrably poor manner to produce a required end result. They could, of course, simply emulate the USCRN and offer free, reliable and accurate data suitable to compare with past data to produce a realistic portrayal of any genuine changes in the climate and avoid any controversy…….so why don’t they?

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/06/27/the-united-states-climate-reference-network-why-does-the-met-office-not-work-like-this/