Coton-in-the-Elms Addendum – The Met Office art of “Record!” manipulation.

The above sensationalism is typical of the current spate of drama student style posts currently drivelling out of the Met Office. Records are now being “SMASHED!”, the climate has gone “BONKERS” and of course everything is “UNPRECEDENTED” like never before. I am not going to dwell on all these rather silly proclamations that have become long devoid of objective science but rather just one particular example to demonstrate a point – those notable headline points “Temperatures peaked at 35.2°C today at Coton in the Elms, Derbyshire”, 3 Calandar months with over 35°C and 6 consecutive days of 35°C or higher

One of my very earliest reviews was that of the comically bad CIMO Class 5 Wiggonholt (by the hedge on a slope with its own sunshade) and the obsessive requirement of the Met Office for “records”. I commented at the time:

“Recent Climate reporting by the Met Office appears to have switched focus from reporting “average” temperatures to highlighting the crossing of arbitrarily set “thresholds” and by suggestion “tipping points”. 

Wiggonholt managed to cross that predetermined 30°C September threshold and that was all that mattered despite the site being completely worthless for any serious form of weather or “climate” reporting. As I noted in my subsequent review of Ashington PWS, a nearby superior site with much better equipment (CIMO Class 2 and artificially aspirated screen) consistently recorded cooler and without the PRT spikiness of Wiggonholt’s naturally ventilated and overheating screen. On 1/9/2024 in comparison to that Wiggonholt figure of 30°C, Ashington recorded just 28.2°C – no possible drama there then so just ignore it.

In my initial review of similarly Class 5(S) Coton-in-the-Elms I noted the same effects with the nearby PWS recording cooler. Furthermore, Dr Eric Huxter has noted that Coton is a regular star performer in the PRT “spikiness” stakes and is a location almost pre-determined to produce artificially elevated readings. A deeper dive was needed, firstly the site:

Google aerial image and maps automatically orient north to the top, east to the right, south bottom and west left. From the online measuring tool I suggest that the screen is barely 600mm/24 inches from the enclosure perimeter fence – could they have got it any nearer if they had tried? This has been an automatic site since 17/9/2010 then changing the LIGT to a PRT. Not only is there 3 metres plus high hedging running from the southeast around to the northwest, the site has a very regularly used track running around where tractors, trailers and telehandlers variously dump and collect, literally, hundreds of silage bales. The wider angle view shows how incredibly compromised this site actually is.

So what of this recent, threshold crossing 35.2°C on 10/7/2026 to add to all the drama. I obviously would not trust the Coton site to be representing anywhere other than its own tiny wind sheltered suntrap with its PRT picking up regular bursts of extraneous exhausts that the pre 2010 LIGT would not have registered but it does go further than that.

Weatherobs gives hourly readings for Met Office automatic stations and also records the highest points reached over the previous 7 days. In this case this helpfully shows the highest point reached by the surrounding Met Office sites on the 10th June – here is one example I used.

Maximums recorded from neighbouring official sites were:

Sutton Bonnington to the east: 33.8°C, Coleshill to the south 33.5°C, Market Bosworth to the southeast 33°C, East Midlands Airport (artificially aspirated aviation standard) to the east 33°C, Keele to the north 31.9°C and Newport (Salop) to the west 33.6°C.

From the simple fact that precisely none of the neighbouring sites achieved within 1.3°C of Coton and the only correctly aspirated East Midlands Airport (a compromised UHI site in itself) was 2.2°C lower, one would have thought serious questions would be asked about the known “suspect” Class 5 Coton reading. But no the Met Office are happy to boldly announce the reading as gospel.

Digging deeper still, what was the wind speeed and direction at the time of these readings? Well all those neighbouring sites with anemometer recording wind at 10 metres above ground level indicated single digit kph from the east and east north east – the exact direction that would be 100% blocked for reaching the screen at Coton. This from Coleshill:

2026-07-10 15:40:00	E	9		33.32	11.7	26	1016	47200
2026-07-10 15:30:00	E	11		33.12	11.47	26	1016	36000
2026-07-10 15:20:00	ENE	13		33.1	11.52	26	1016	40300
2026-07-10 15:10:00	E	8		33.27	11.07	25	1016	44100
2026-07-10 15:00:00	E	10	23	33.25	11.01	26	1016	40600
2026-07-10 14:40:00	E	10		33.5	11.56	26	1016	44000
2026-07-10 14:30:00	ESE	9		33.34	11.01	25	1016	42400
2026-07-10 14:20:00	E	7		33.49	11.1	25	1016	42100
2026-07-10 14:10:00	E	7		33.16	10.91	25	1017	41800
2026-07-10 14:00:00	NE	8	22	32.58	12.61	30	1017	32400
2026-07-10 13:40:00	E	10		32.82	12.59	29	1017	37100

At 1.25 screen height behind a hedge, the air inside the screen would have been stagnant and readily overheating with the very high solar insolation and potential blasts of heat from agricultural movements at a the peak period when silage hay is being cut and stored – making hay while the sun shines.

Any other evidence to suggest the Coton readings were suspect? Well as noted in my first report there are even nearer Private Weather Stations that report to the Met Office and their readings posted on the publicly available WOW site. None of the 4 nearby PWS managed higher than 33.6°C

Even further investigation shows those stations reporting to Weather Underground who all helpfully offer readings to 5 minute resolution. Their very extensive and interactive data can be checked. No other reliable site beat Coton-in-the-Elms that day. This all so very reminiscent of that 2003 Faversham “record” that was proven by none other than the RMetS to be wrong and way out of kilter with the surrounding sites but still ratified by the Met Office.

Everything I have posted here is verifiable data with all the required links for anyone and everyone to check for themselves.Tthe Coton reading was clearly of such dubious provenance that it should never have been considered from a site the Met Office themselves assess as:-

“2.6 Class 5 (additional estimated uncertainty added by siting up to 5 °C)
Site not meeting the requirements of class 4.”

However, the Met office has its agenda to fulfill and narrative to support – so any reading, however dodgy, will do to “PROVE” their case. The Met Office is now a “captured” organisation that is unfit for the purpose of climate reporting.

Source: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2026/07/12/coton-in-the-elms-addendum-the-met-office-art-of-record-manipulation/