Brampton No 3 DCNN 7076 – Automatically a Class 5 site that “reports” manually.

54.93515 -2.73488 Met Office CIMO assessed Class 5 Temperature data from 14/1/2001

In recently reviewing Aboyne I referred to the large numbers of poor quality Met Office sites with 87% having known inaccuracy unsuitable for inclusion the national historic temperature record. As I am approaching the half way point of reviewing all 384 Climate reporting sites it is worth noting that there are still a staggering 48 Class 5 junk sites (“Class 5 (additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 5 °C)” to be covered. Brampton No 3 is one of them.

From the Met office themselves:

“Weather station sites

Weather station sites are selected to ensure that the observations are representative of the wider area around the station and not unduly influenced by local effects.

Ideal site

• Level ground.
• No trees; buildings, or steep ground nearby that might influence the measurements.

Undesirable site

Top of a hill or steep escarpment where winds will be unrepresentative of the wider area.

Warming effect of buildings on the measurement of temperature

Sheltering or shading effects of trees on the measurement of sunshine and wind.

Frost hollow where overnight temperatures on still clear nights may be far lower than at neighbouring locations.”

Leaving aside the specifics of the CIMO regulations, the Met Office acknowledges that “Top of a hill” is “undesirable” and that there should not be any trees around to “influence the measurements”. Well rather obviously the screen is in an area enclosed to all four compass points by hedging. Less immediately obvious is that it is also at the very apex of “Capon Hill” at 117 metres with the land falling away to every compass point.

The next issue is that this site is a domestic back garden. The Met Office from the same link makes the point that

“Observations from amateur stations and those not part of the Met Office’s official network cannot be considered for entry into the official records as they’re not subject to the same internationally agreed standards that are required for the official records.”

The reality is, though, that Brampton, and many other “Official” sites are in fact amateur sites that have simply had their readings accepted by the Met Office. Amongst numerous other examples are Frittenden, Baintown and Maulds Meaburn. It appears that if an amateur station owner persists long enough the Met office will accept their site’s readings no matter how low grade the site may actually be. It is also noticeable how often some of these “adopted” sites achieve either daily regional or even national “extremes”.

As I highlighted at Maulds Meaburn there is also this potentially questionable situation where the owners also have separate automatic reporting instruments not in Stevenson screens alongside. In the review of Whitechurch I included a clip of an online interview with the owner of the site where he points out no longer having to be outside in all weathers at 9:00 am to take readings since site automation was a great boon. Again at Brampton no 3 there is the automated private unit alongside the “official” site.

How are the general public to be certain that readings from the private unit are not simply written onto the DLY3208 to avoid the trip outside in adverse weather or for any of myriad reasons? The manual recording of this site appears impeccable but what assurances can there be other than trust. Given the evident lack of good site husbandry at so many locations it is hard to feel convinced that adequate Met Office oversight occurs. What exactly does “Davis VP2 Automatic Weather Station, providing additional data to the Met office Climat Station 7076” mean?

From the CIMO regulations standpoint, the screen is much too close to the hedging and subject to shading from the tree to the south as shown below with a 10 metre radius shown.

In summary Brampton No 3 may well be excellently maintained by its private owner but even as a no doubt well intentioned amateur we have no guarantee of that. The site clearly meets no regulated standards as there effectively are none for Class 5 other than not meeting Class 4. With all due respect to the owner, this site is junk and should not be used for climate reporting purposes i.e typical of the vast majority of Met Office sites.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/04/01/brampton-no-3-dcnn-7076-automatically-a-class-5-site-that-reports-manually/