Salsburgh WMO03512 – “Undesirable site – Top of a hill or steep escarpment where winds will be unrepresentative of the wider area.”

55.86158 -3.87541 elevation 277 metres amsl. Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4 Installed 1/1/1964

Salsburgh weather station is a few miles east of Airdrie in Lanarkshire and at an approximately 150 metres higher elevation being just 250 metres from the Black Hill A television transmitter at just over 285 metres amsl. The headline quote is directly from Met Office weather station siting guidelines which goes on to state:

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

It seems that those deciding this was an appropriate site for climate reporting of temperature data really did not get the memo.

The above is a typical example of the Met Office Daily Weather Extremes listing. Those familiar with these will note most sites are hyperlinked but clicking on those will frequently redirect to relatively remote sites. I highlighted this point in the example of Usk No 2 where the data was supplied from Chivenor almost 67 miles away and in a different country. I asked the Met Office at the time why they did this strange referral to sites other than those claimed to have recorded the extreme. I was advised that their system redirected to the nearest “fully equipped station offering the full range of readings”. This was not the case as there were many fully equipped sites much nearer to Usk, however, as the Met office is not subject to scrutiny I received no further response to my identification of those “fully equipped nearer sites” they could have used.

In the above case of Salsburgh (and several other sites) there is not even a link available to check any data despite this being fully equipped World Meterological Reporting (WMO) site number 03152. Why the Met Office does not offer any verification seems very strange particularly given there is no secrecy regarding its data as shown below. Perhaps the Met Office is wary of publicising just how unsuitable this site is for climate reporting data.

Viewing the site in aerial imagery reveals a remote hill top location with only TV transmitters and control buildings for company. In such a remote location a pristine location might be expected, however, the reverse is actually the case.

Despite the option of plenty of open areas to site the screen it appears the installers opted for one of the worst they could find in meteorological terms but probably most convenient for the observers – a clear indication of priorities. I dispute that this site genuinely meets Met Office Class 4 assessment and the unregulated Class 5 is more appropriate. The tape measure Met Office mentality possibly just (and only just) allows for a scant 3 metre uncompromised surrounding area as shown below with 10 metre and 3 metre radius circled areas.

In reality, the screen is surrounded from north east around clockwise to south west by a vehicular tarmaced roadway with the likely regularity and frequency of vehicle movements indicated by the 26 marked parking bays to the east. In addition there is the photographic evidence of multiple cars parking in the surrounding roadway in very close proximity to the screen.

The screen is that white box just appearing just above the roofline of the third (silver) car from the left. A different angle and date further shows how compromised the site actually is from both the slope and the surrounding buildings.

If this were an amateur’s site the Met office would rule out any of its data. Displaying staggering levels of hubris the Met Office claims

” 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 Met Office themselves admit that 112 of their weather stations only meet unregulated and inaccurate Class 5 status with inaccuracy of up to +/- 5°C. I have personally successfully contested Met Office site assessments in the past and ensured 2 of their claimed Class 1 sites at Hastings and Edenbridge were regraded Class 4. Following my further querying Cassley (it most certainly is not Class 1) the Met office declined to further correspond with me – it seems they do not like criticism no matter how justified and provably correct it may be. This Salsburgh alleged Class 4 site is like so many lower grade Met Office sites that are, in reality, incorrectly assessed and should be similarly consigned to the total junk Class 5 category …….and I include Heathrow in that group.

It should be noted that Salsburgh is one of those “Climate Averages” sites which despite being clearly unrepresentative of the wider area is being used to determine the national “average temperature and climate”. That record breaking summer hottest average temperature gaslighting was compiled using data from sites like Salsburgh. Let’s hope anyone opting to eat their packed lunch in their parked cars with the engine running to power the aircon was not too close to the screen – it really is that bad.

With such dubious quality standards of the fundamental prime readings, the Met Office demonstrates it is unfit for the production of national climate records. This unsatisfactory situation must be stopped.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/09/05/salsburgh-wmo03512-undesirable-site-top-of-a-hill-or-steep-escarpment-where-winds-will-be-unrepresentative-of-the-wider-area/