Hull University “SudsLab” Versus Met Office Hull East Park. A demonstration of PRT “Spikes” in action, how to avoid them and how useful they can be.

53.773027 -0.372444 Hull University’s own CIMO Estimate of Class 4 . Installed 2022.

I have reviewed the Met Office’s Hull:East Park weather station on two occasions, once at the start of the Surface Stations Project here and just recently updating on the site’s ongoing deterioration. This report is to further study the data of the 4th August 2026 in direct comparison with the Hull University “Sudslab” weather station. This report will demonstrate several shortcomings within Met Office operations and observations that are overcome by the University and the dramatic difference this demonstrates in accuracy and historic comparability.

Firstly I would like to thank Dr Alexander Osborne of Hull University for his previous assistance in supplying details of their site and equipment. The SudsLab project relates to sustainable drainage systems and utilised an extensive range of monitoring equipment. Measuring air temperature is a part of their extensive environmental observations and the unit has its own weather station, as above, near the University’s sports facilities.

Dr Osborne himself estimated the site as meeting the requirements of CIMO Class 4 with a 3 metre minimum “exclusion” zone of compromising problems. This does not make this site particularly useful for temperature representation of the wider area in a long term climate reporting sense but the equipment will certainly be representative of the urban locality and purpose for which it is intended. This is the local image Dr Osborne provided when I first inquired.

The ground cover, perimeter fencing and additional roadside barriers do not make this a highly desirable site, however, it still manages to be better than the atrocious Class 5 Met Office site in the Animal Education Centre of East Park. This University site does not use a Stevenson design for screening the temperature sensors from solar radiation, rather it uses what are termed “Gill Type” shields. These types are very common worldwide. The radiation screening is formed by “stacked plates” one above the others with the sensors mounted underneath and the original design dates from the late 1970s.

A specific advantage to Gill Type shields is that they are relatively easy to add artificial ventilation to unlike Stevenson screens which require much more elaborate devices. Artificial ventilation is an imperative in low wind speeds to avoid known “Aitken” effects . Firstly stagnation of air (especially in Stevenson screen “boxes”) can lead to rapid overheating in high solar radiation conditions. Similar stagnation can cause insulation effects causing overnight temperature readings inside to not fall as low as the outside ambient air. This latter effect was demonstrated by the video clip offered by the observer in my Floors Castle report.

Dr Osborne notified me of the exact model used by the SudsLab by supplying this link. of their “Fan-aspirated” model.

This particular model of weather station operates using a Platinum Resistance Thermometer (PRT) supplying almost continuous instant readings which are averaged out over a 300 second period to provide single 5 minute timestamped average readings. This conforms to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) recommendations for PRT averaging periods as specified here n.b. the USCRN uses this same standard.

To summarise the Hull University site:

1.It reasonably meets CIMO Class 4 {additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 2 °C},

2. It uses artificially ventilated screening to avoid Aitken Effects.

3. It uses WMO recommended time averaging of 5 minutes.

In direct contrast to the Met Office Hull:East Park Site:

1.Is Class 5 which meets no regulatory standards at all.i.e Class 5 (additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 5 °C) Site not meeting the requirements of class 4.

2.. It does NOT have any form of artificial ventilation thus in its exceptionally wind sheltered location will regularly encounter Aitken Effects.

3. It allegedly only uses 60 second averaging of 4 consecutive readings at 15 second intervals. However, as demonstrated in the Surface Weather Assessment Team report for the Lingwood weather station hottest ever June temperature, the Met Office now appears to validate records from just ONE individual PRT instant reading rather than period averaging..

Can these major differences be identified by the observations profiles of comparative periods?

Talkshop associate Dr Eric Huxter has long been researching the suitability of PRTs for temperature observations relative to Met Office siting standards and operational procedures. Using Rothamsted Research’s Class 1 site as a benchmark he has produced detailed evidence over 1 full years Met Office observations to demonstrate significant problems with the accuracy of many Met Office sites. Taking on board his use of comparisons I opted to elaborate on my last post regarding Hull East Park to run a side by side comparison with the University site.

The official Met Office site in Hull does not report wind speed nor direction, thus to clarify the prevailing conditions I checked with the “Hull Weather” site which indicated local wind directions from the south east and wind speeds averaging under 1 metre per second / 2 mph.At this low wind speed a sheltered naturally aspirated Stevenson screen will definitely not have adequate ventilation for reading accuracy and will almost certainly overheat. N.B. 3 metres per second is the recommended wind speed.

For the 4th August 2026 I had previously established that the two private “Hull Weather” sites and the University site were in very close agreement (within 0.3 °C) for the daily maximum but that these were significantly lower (between 1.1°C to 1.4 °C) than the Met Office reported figures. Dr Huxter had established from the Met Office the exact time of the official peak of 30.4°C as 15.38 GMT – [n.b.I had previously incorrectly reported the timing as simultaneous with the University and “Hull Weather” high.}

The University uploads its 5 minute readings to the Met Office WOW site. The Met Office’s own station’s “high definition” readings are not freely available to the general public on demand and, even if paid for, are only available to “approved” buyers – I am certainly unlikely to be in that approved category. On the hour transmissions are, however, available hourly on the Weatherobs site. as below. It should be noted that weatherobs reports in GMT whilst WOW reports in BST hence one hour difference to adjust for.

Given the Met Office site reported at 15.38 GMT the relative hourly readings either side are 15:00 and 16:00 GMT as below:

15:00 …………………..28.2°C

15:38…………………..30.4°C …………………..an increment of 2.2°C over 38 minutes.

16:00…………………..30.0……………………..a slow decline of 0.4°C over 22 minutes.

These are the official comparative University readings (please note the one hour difference due to BST)

Converted to the same format as the official figures.

15:00…………………………………………28.5°C …………… 0.3°C warmer than East Park.

16:15…………………………………………29.1°C PEAK…… 0.6°C warmer than the hour.

15:35/40…………………………………….28°C to 28.1°C…..2.3°C to 2.4 °C lower than East Park.

16:00………………………………………..28.1°C ……………1.9.°C cooler than East Park.

Whilst the “official” unregulated standard site showed remarkable volatility in readings and spiked up to 1.3°C higher from being 0.3°C cooler before indicating a 2.2°C spike from its own hourly reading, the better sited, better ventilated and correctly averaged university location displayed a much more realistic pattern of behaviour in the clear-sky weather, low wind conditions.

This is not conclusive proof by any means but it certainly reinforces the point that Met Office readings are becoming unreliable and inaccurate. However, it seems the important, indeed crucial point to bear in mind, was that the reading crossed that evidently very important “threshold” of 30°C that is one of the points driving the current Met Office climate change narrative.

This is typical of the currently endless “Behavioural Insights Team” style opinion forming being pushed by the Met Office displayed here by its “Media Advisor” Marco Petagna. This and others (including the official Met Office “X” feed) are continually pushing threshold crossing regardless of the dubious veracity of their data.

The Met Office now appears to have abandoned scientific rigour and become a propaganda arm of government influence. This needs to be corrected very swiftly.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/08/12/hull-university-sudslab-versus-met-office-hull-east-park-a-demonstration-of-prt-spikes-in-action-how-to-avoid-them-and-how-useful-they-can-be/