Durham DCNN 2165 & 2166 – Long term, Incomplete, Inaccurate, Dubious Metrology, Relocated, Falsely Respected, Bogus Conclusions and Unreasonable Assumptions.

54.76803 -1.58610 Met Office CIMO Assessed CLASS 5 Originally Installed 1851 with Several Relocations. Current site from 30/9/1999. Digitally archived inaccurate temperature records from 1880 at various locations.

Durham weather station seems to be “revered” in established meteorological circles and extensive use is made of its data for all manner of quasi-meteorological purposes by political activist groups in which I include elements of the UK Met Office.

As I shall demonstrate in this review, Durham is, in reality, an exceptionally poor site of known “Junk” status that has produced known dubious data records and is known to have had various historic relocations with spliced together datasets and deliberate misrepresentation. Its alleged “long term” data is demonstrably NOT suitable for inclusion in the national historic temperature record – its current inclusion being a poor reflection on the standards of a largely tax payer funded Government agency.

Firstly the current site numbered DCNN 2166 has only been in operation since 30/9/1999. Prior to then was a different site numbered DCNN2165. The relevance of this renumbering is that it indicates a known significant relocation. From the Met Office themselves:

https://artefacts.ceda.ac.uk/badc_datadocs/ukmo-midas/ukmo_guide.html#2.1

“Over time certain instruments, or the whole enclosure, may be relocated some distance away from the original site. Where the distance moved is small, the observations obtained from the new site may have exactly the same climatological characteristics as previously and it makes sense to regard them as coming from the same source or station distinguished by certain identifiers. Where the distance moved is large, or, where the exposure at the new site is sufficiently different that a detectable impact on the measured climatology is judged likely, it is appropriate that observations from the new site are labelled by a different set of identifiers.” (my bold)

The most recent actual relocation distance shown by archived UK Grid Reference indicators (that are only available from very detailed research) was not particularly great, however, climatologically quite different as indicated below with the current screen to the north east of the red kite marker.

The digitalised archive data only indicates the site change in the readings by a melding together of station identifiers in the section below – note the progressive changes from DCNN 2165 to 2166.in column C {n.b. cells widened out for clarity}

Demonstrably the Met Office is aware of this relocation and its implications, however, no indication is given in the representation of the stations’ data to the general public – (and quite possibly other meteorologists and institutions).

There is no indication either from the above site nor the actual “view data” link that shows the most recent major relocation point as the original location. This, in itself, demonstrates the deliberate splicing together of at least two known distinctly different data sets as demonstrated at Stornoway and Southampton amongst many others. This is both a scientifically unacceptable practise and blatant misrepresentation.

The headline image of the current site shows a site subject to many external and unnatural affects being on a lawn in front of the large observatory building to the north together with its gravelled road access and bordered by large hedging and trees to east and west sides. This would normally be referred to as a “sun trap” (almost a walled garden) and clearly not representative of the wider environment. The Met Office acknowledges the site’s shortcomings by its Class 5 rating with known exceptionally high levels of representative inaccuracy.

The close up image of the site demonstrates the problems – if this were a private/amateur weather station, the Met office would dismiss its readings out of hand as being far too poorly sited for inclusion in their data files and not meeting their alleged “high standards”. Why they feel such poor sites of their own are in some way superior is proof of double standards operating.

What is even further damning evidence of the inappropriate nature of this 1999 onwards site is revealed from recent Google Earth Pro historic images. Firstly the site is subject to deep shading similar to the similarly revered but inadequate site at Oxford.

The image below from 30/5/2020 shows the screen moving into shade whilst the neighbouring homes activity indicate this is not a particularly late in the day image.

However, the changing nature of the whole area around the Observatory, is most graphically demonstrated by the 1945 black and white image – this was once a rural site but obviously no longer. N.B. there is no weather station at the marked location. Durham, although a small city has hugely increased in population, urban area and transport infrastructure even since 1945 and much more so than when this station was originally installed.

Archive records somewhat imprecisely indicate yet more previous locations for the temperature readings with suggestions that in earlier days these were taken from the observatory building’s roof which was by no means an uncommon practise in earlier days. This point is even acknowledged by the Met office themselves.

“It is unavoidable that some sites do not meet all these requirements, particularly where a station set up for one purpose gradually takes on a different role, for example an airport site originally established for aviation observing may become a key synoptic or climate station while suffering the effects of urbanisation. A few sites are in city centres and may be unsuitably located close to large obstacles or even on the roof of a building.” {my bold}

Almost absurdly, “peer reviewed” literature actually claims Durham is a good long term site on the grounds that “The Durham University Observatory record is of interest because of its length and the lack of change in its vicinity since it began in 1841.” Seemingly those reviewing “peers” were totally unaware of the relocations and alterations to the nature of the site.

All of the above only adds to almost unbelievable archived admissions such as :

The thermometers were of questionable calibration for a period of over Eleven Years but were still accepted and now are included in all the historic data. This is from an organisation that risibly claims accuracy to the one hundred thousandth of a degree celsius such as at Cavendish despite trained observers pointing out such faux accuracy really only indicates the “stupidity of the observer“. The records show multiple instances of missing, corrupted and inaccurate data not for the occasional day or two but for extended periods of months and, as above, even many years.

The ways in which such poor data is openly used is shown in this recent article authored by a notable meterologist.

https://www.inverse.com/science/too-hot-to-sleep

Here the author has direct comparisons made of data from somewhere (unspecified but of known climatological difference) around the Durham Observatory dating between 1911 and 1920 with 20th century readings from the current site only installed in 1999 and subject to significant Urban Heat Island warming. This following statement clearly fails to meet any form of scientific integrity. Initially regarding Oxford thence Durham

“Between 1911 and 1920, the warmest night of the year averaged 16.6 degrees Celsius at Oxford. The average over the last ten years was 18.8 degrees Celsius, a rise of more than 2°C.” Furthermore the author goes on to claim regarding the Oxford site (and by association Durham) ” the urban heat island effect is probably only about 0.2°C since record-keeping began.”….and then…..”The warmest night of the year in Durham has risen from an average of 14.6°C a century ago to 16.9°C in the most recent ten-year period, a 2°C rise – very similar to Oxford.”

No mention whatsoever is made of Durham’s known relocations, known thermometer calibration issues, known misrepresentation of the wider area by poor siting of up to 5°C, and an estimate given of UHI that flies in the face of all known and observable fact. For example, I live near Canterbury, a city of comparable size and style to Durham. I recently left the city centre with my car sensor showing 6°C, by the time I reached the outskirts after one mile, the temperature had dropped to 2°C at which it stayed for the next 5 miles to home. Such city to rural differentials are the norm not the exception in mine, and others I know, real world experience. Surely it is not credible to assume that only one tenth of the noted “average warmest night” increment at Durham is down to UHI with the remaining 1.8°C given as “evidence” of “Climate Change” when all the above noted and detrimental to accuracy effects are completely ignored.

The remarkable lack of association of Durham’s readings to the wider area has even been taken to quite bizarre lengths by a pseudo scientific organisation established not for the benefit of climate science research but rather to “assist in climate litigation”. World Weather Attribution primarily based at Imperial College, London concluded literally only days after the UK 2022 very short term hot weather event that:

“At three individual stations the 1-day maximum temperatures are as rare as 1 in 500 years in St James Park in London, about 1 in 1000 years in Durham and only expected on average once in 1500 years in today’s climate in Cranwell, Lincolnshire. “

That people claiming high levels of qualifications and appeal to authority in the “climate science” arena can make such preposterous claims from the limited period and highly inaccurate data from any of those sites frankly beggars belief. That our mainstream politicians make crucially important decisions based on such fantasy claims is exceptionally damaging to the UK economy and our lifestyles.

In conclusion Durham is not the valuable, high quality reliable site that many of the meteorology and “climate Science” fraternity would have us believe. It is, in reality, currently a junk status site of extremely dubious history as I feel I have proven above.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/01/26/durham-dcnn-2165-2166-long-term-incomplete-inaccurate-dubious-metrology-relocated-falsely-respected-bogus-conclusions-and-unreasonable-assumptions/