Urban and exposure effects during windless nights near London, RHS Wisley

Posted: January 6, 2015 by tchannon in Analysis, Surfacestation, weather

Maybe not an expected article from me right now but as things turn up…


During a recent cold snap there were at times clear skies and a calm. Here is evidence of a profound difference between Met Office sites when site exposure and UHI thermal mass can upset natural radiative cooling.

The Farnborough site is in my estimation WMO Class 1 whereas RHS Wisley is poor, in an orchard designed to make a microclimate. Wisley however has been cited in literature and government chambers (and by Phil Jones) in relation to UHI in comparison with a record setting London site, specifically a site I have omitted from the surfacestation work. Overloaded with too much information.


Intended to be a fair encirclement.

The night of 29th to 30th December 2014 is most telling.

Farnborough which is still somewhat an urban area cools more effectively, Charlwood a little less so. The others are much worse, 2 to 4 degrees C.

Under other conditions there is generally less difference. I’ll include a spreadsheet with all the data I have if anyone wants to investigate other dates and parameters. (runs from 22 July)

There will be minor time delays between these sites, including dawn and dusk, and from air movement.

Food for thought is how strongly the wind follows the sun, airflow dominates, smothers radiation.

A word on Charlwood: the site was poor, palleted equipment site with the screen in effect buried in an unkempt hedge. Recent evidence says the vegetation has been cleaned up.

Averaging the wind data to one trace avoids cluttering the plot and seems fair.

Links to surfacestation articles



Hourly Met Office data from Datapoint under OGL
Map own work from NOAA outline data.

Spreadsheet inside a zip, OpenOffice/Libreoffice format (1.2MB)
(ask if you need help)

Post by Tim

[UPDATE 7th Jan in response to a comment]

Was I wrong to use average wind speed?

Plotting all temperature and wind in one is far too confusing, tried again and failed so here are separate plots.
(added to a post by hand instead of double uploads resized here, click for a clearer view )

Temperature only

Temperature only

Wind only

Wind only

KatyD wrote ” The wind speeds in each location were quite different, so averaging the wind doesn’t seem correct. ”

Looks like I was wrong to include Kenley, added last to try and encircle.

  1. tallbloke says:

    Hi Tim, very interesting post. Thanks for all your hard work in collating these data.

    You say “Food for thought is how strongly the wind follows the sun, airflow dominates, smothers radiation.”

    Could you expand a bit on what you’re thinking is please. At first flush, this statement seems contradictory: i.e. You say at first wind follows the Sun”, which heats the air and ground with its radiation. But then you say “airflow dominates, smothers radiation”.

    Is the apparent contradiction because you are referring to incoming solar radiation as ‘the Sun’ and outgoing longwave radiation being ‘smothered’?

  2. tchannon says:

    A complicated regime is contradictory, added the words as an afterthought as I felt something needed saying. Not sure I will do any better now.

    Cooling showing the characteristic exponential shape only appears when there is no air movement, otherwise the effect is smothered by air mass adding heat.

    However, Stevenson screens fail at low wind speed. In this case plastic screens. I don’t know how this relates to night performance since tests on screens seem primarily to focus on daytime or most often on empirical throw it outside and take whatever weather happens rather than very expensive test laboratory controlled conditions.
    I expect the Met Office attitude is that these are unimportant conditions for general usage. (a fair enough point of view)

    The dawn and dusk effects are I think poorly understood, perhaps particularly because night conditions are less investigated. Joining this are sun and moon effects where both seem able to have an effect on wind under some conditions, if much of it anecdotal. (one of the reasons why I am watching).

    Tidal effects are known including the curiosity that satellite data has shown the folklore new moon / full moon temperature effect is real higher in the atmosphere. I mention this because a little while ago I looked at the Farnborough data to do with something else only to find an unexpected variation. To my surprise this looked lunar but that makes little sense, nor could I find a satisfying match. Left as a loose end.

    NLLJ (nocturnal low level jet) is a feature which I think is more common than usually assumed in professional circles, seems to turn up from all over the world when people look. As common are temperature inversion layers, almost certainly what was forming during the cooling showing in the data here.

    When there is significant air movement, a wind, radiative cooling is no longer visible as a characteristic. Air movement is dominating.

    Sunshine effect is a very different condition where air buoyancy kicks in churning the atmosphere and we have wind. Bottom cooling as in night exponential freezes the bottom of the air column, cold air falls.so it tends to stay put.

    Jelbring’s “Wind controlled climate” makes sense.

  3. KatyD says:

    I’m not clear what you mean by ‘profound difference’ between sites. The wind speeds in each location were quite different, so averaging the wind doesn’t seem correct. What is the correlation you are looking for? And I’d like to know why Charlwood scores so badly. Presumably your grading differs from the Met Office view? Is this info available. I have my own views on ‘scores’ for each site.

  4. tchannon says:


    I’ll look at what I have done and come back.


    The classifications are to WMO2010 where the Met Office are signatories but they had their own different lower standard which they seem to continue to use. The classification scale is inverted between the two.

    Charlwood is new site. The screen is essentially buried in a hedge as was confirmed by Philip Gladstone in a comment photo. He is well known for a large web resource on met stations around the world.

    A vertical obstruction next to the screen drops the class. The metal site enclosures are also a matter of concern but is a separate matter. These affect at least frost patterns and precipitation.

    The hedge will mess up screen humidity, wetness, airflow, radiation “collar”, incident insolation.

    As a site Charlwood will be much better than eg. Donna Nook. (which is I suspect not treated particularly seriously except it is published without warning as WMO synoptic)

    A full “score” for each site would be a major undertaking not feasible without visits and knowledge of maintenance, equipment details, etc. In this case only the temperature Stevenson screen was considered. Even that only tells a partial story because the state of the screen is unknown, the site itself has largely hidden matters such as ground cover, paving, a vast amount of detail. Instrumentation is another matter (I’m a former design engineer) where I know there are problems.

    I did what I could to get accurate site locations and do some kind of appraisal to a worldwide agreed standard. If you want to come up with a different list maybe the two can be put together.

  5. KatyD says:

    I understand you have concerns about the sites, but that photo of Charlwood appears to be long range / short depth of field, through the perimeter fence and not in any way proof that the sensor is ‘buried’. From the map it appears that the screen is at least 6m from the hedge, if not 11m Depending which white blob it is), and if it as least 1.5 m off the ground it will be clear of the impact of the hedge line, which appears to be neatly cut & no more than 1.5m high.

    I’m also not sure why you are so concerned about Wisley, where the trees are so far distant to make very little impact, if any, on temperatures.

    Anyhow, for what its worth, my classifications from WMO are;
    Kenley (yellow) 3
    Heathrow (green) 3
    Wisley (orange) 3
    Charlwood (blue) 2-3
    Farnborough (red) 1
    I have analysis but nowhere particular to host it.

    I still haven’t fully understood what it is you hope to challenge, that the gradual temperature increases are just gradual creep of adjacent heat producers?

  6. tallbloke says:

    KatyD: If you’d like to submit your observations here, we could add them to the relevant pages for you. Alternative analysis is welcome. People can read and make up their own minds.

  7. KatyD says:

    I’m happy to send my observations once my initial questions are answered, but there are lots of images so I need a way to upload them.

  8. tchannon says:

    Updated to article with separated temperature and wind plots.

    Just say’in, grrr… what have we done to the gods, WordPress just bit again vanishing an update, recovered from backup, is there now. Gives me the twitch updating live anyway.

  9. KatyD says:

    So, Kenley was wrong to include? Why? I’m not clear on the point you are trying to make. Is there some correlation I’m missing?

  10. ntesdorf says:

    UHI effects are generally understimated, especially by Warmistas seeking positive confirmation of global warming. Sydney (pop. 5,000,000) lies 100 miles south of Newcastle, NSW (pop. 500,000) but is always 1-2 degrees C warmer due to its UHI effect. Sydney’s BOM main Station is located just west of a 21 lane motorway to the bridge heated by cars day and night.

  11. tchannon says:

    Yes it is foreshortened. Shouldn’t see a hedge, should see open ground.

    The article here is not making any point as far as creep or whatever is concerned.

    The column header rows are omitted from the data extract (I didn’t program it in)

    These are the two rows but the extract adds a new column which is spreadsheet format decimal date.
    #,#,#,Wind Gust,Temperature,Visibility,Wind Direction,Wind Speed,Weather Type,Pressure,Pressure Tendency,Dew Point,Screen Relative Humidity,Helio theory

    station ID,Date,Hour:Min,mph,C,m,compass,mph,,hpa,Pa/s,C,%,Watt

  12. tchannon says:

    Kenley weather was different. The interest is what happens on a calm clear night which is the only time radiative cooling is not swamped by other effects.

    This ought to be the same everywhere but these are rare conditions and I thought this was an opportunity to see the effect of site differences.

    Data of this kind is rare so in a way luck is preparation and opportunity coming together.maybe effects can be teased out so we can see for ourselves, hands on rather than being told.

    It might be possible to program up a much larger set of plots, takes time and energy. These are unlikely to get much attention.so a ‘get the general gist’ work is usually enough.

  13. KatyD says:

    My point about the hedge is that if its the same height then it doesn’t impact on the temp. reading – if > 10m it complies with Class 3, but if closer than 10m it is debatably a 4, so how do you get Class 5?

    Also Heathrow was not at all still or calm, so if you just take the other 3 are you just saying that this is the closest to ‘true’ temperatures for a night period? See this;


  14. tallbloke says:

    KatyD: I’ll DM an email address on twitter

  15. KatyD says:

    OK, but I don’t want to send stuff that’s irrelevant just because I haven’t understood the concept! So to recap, a ‘windless’ (is this up to say 2mph / 3mph?) night is unusual (in winter?). It can show us ‘best quality’ temperature readings for high quality (better than 3?) stations…… so that…. what conclusions can be drawn? Do you see what I mean or am I over complicating things?

  16. tchannon says:

    The screen and surrounding ground should see a hemisphere of cold sky.

    Anything ground based is hot. This is the origin of the hot collar.

    Near windless is very common briefly but falling to near zero and staying there between dusk and dawn is unusual, throw in a clear sky for rare.

  17. KatyD says:

    You have had my detailed analysis responses for some time now. I still don’t know what point you are trying to make or why your station ratings are so different from mine (based on WMO).

  18. tallbloke says:

    Patience Katy, we will get to it.

  19. tchannon says:

    The estimates are an opinion based on doing the same with many sites. There have been few objections over ~150 sites. This is to the WMO recommendation, not the Met Office’s own standard, which ought to have been updated to reflect an international recommendation. (MO were on the committee)
    A hedge etc. is not short ground cover. This has posed problems on what to do with several sites. This problem is not addressed in the recommendation. Similarly there is the problem of cropped land, variable ground cover.

    I vaguely recall wrestling with what to do with the site, put in a lot of time looking at various information. The palleted sites tend to be quick installs and since this is recent I’m puzzled on why so little site preparation was done.

    My interest is about the behaviour of sites. Wisley is in an horticultural microclimate. It has been repeatedly cited in papers and elsewhere as a reference for London sites which themselves are strange. (I’ve not published on those but for some the work has been done)

    Very little which could be classed as high resolution data is available, the Met Office are notorious for withholding so I am doing what I can. There is an open support question to do with data problems pertinent to the plots, I wait.

  20. KatyD says:

    My interest is in understanding your argument, wondering on what basis it is made and the accuracy of your analysis. And I love graphs. Firstly its difficult to understand the claims you are making, hence my request for clarification. Then its difficult to challenge your argument when you don’t give definitive reasoning – for example why do your claims about the quality of sites differ from my simple analysis, which is based on the WMO methodology? I have sent you my detailed assessments, but have now spent time uploading them to post on here (I hope they work, its time consuming stuff). If you have alternative versions of site analysis it would be good to see them for comparison. If, for example, your challenge to the Met Office is valid then perhaps you can share it?

    To get to some of your claims – here are some more charts from your info. Firstly you say the night was still, yet the difference in wind speed across the five sites was pretty broad – see The temperatures plotted against wind speeds across the five nights are

    On a map basis, with line lengths representing wind speed, for the 5 stations, this map shows the differences, i.e.. for two sites the wind was considerably higher.

    Across all five sites on one of the evenings, this chart explores the differences in more detail

    So in terms of comparative wind speeds, Heathrow should also be excluded from the analysis as well as Kenley, as it too had high wind speeds. So Wisley, Charnwood & Farnborough were relatively comparable on the evenings you reference. (if these charts don’t show, perhaps you could correct the code)

    I don’t understand your comment “The palleted sites tend to be quick installs and since this is recent I’m puzzled on why so little site preparation was done.” – which sites? How do you know that ‘little prep was done’?

  21. KatyD says:

    OK, here are the links to the four charts (feel free to correct & insert them above)

    wind speeds http://tinypic.com/m/io3c6s/2
    temp v wind speeds http://tinypic.com/m/io3c7t/2
    map of locations http://tinypic.com/m/io3cdf/2
    comparative graphs http://tinypic.com/m/io3ckw/2

  22. tallbloke says:

    Hi Katy,
    The URL’s of the images don’t match the URL’s in your previous comment. Are they in the same running order?

    As you discovered, you just put the URLs, without trying to use markup. WordPress will pull in and display most images, but tinypic comes with a lot of baggage, so they can’t display directly.

  23. KatyD says:

    Yes, they should be in the same running order, can I insert them using the direct jpg ref? eg. http://i58.tinypic.com/33z6uxt.jpg

  24. KatyD says:

    no, nor [IMG]http://i58.tinypic.com/33z6uxt.jpg[/IMG] ?

  25. KatyD says:

    OK so I’ve tried markup (a href) in the first try, img, url & jpg options so I don’t think I can insert the images.

  26. tallbloke says:

    Not with tinypic, due to their request handling protocols. They want you to see the ads.

  27. KatyD says:

    So can you copy & insert them for me?

  28. KatyD says:

    OK, I’ll just have to put links as before….

    This is my research, please look at the links;
    Here are the WMO classifications (from http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/SitingClassif/SitingClassif.html)

    Class 1 http://tinypic.com/m/io3cww/2
    Class 3 http://tinypic.com/m/io3cxd/2
    Class 4/5 http://tinypic.com/m/io3cxg/2

    Classification Summary from WMO

    Class 1 – 5% clear sun angle, 100m no reflective surfaces, max. 100mm vegetation.
    Class 2 – 7% sun angle, 30m reflective (10% allowed), 100mm vegetation.
    Class 3 – 7% sun, 10m reflective, 250mm vegetation.
    Class 4 – 20% sun, 10m reflective.

    Maps of Charlwood & Wisley
    Charlwood http://tinypic.com/m/io3cio/2
    Wisley http://tinypic.com/m/io3cpu/2
    Both sites, with info from 9pm 30th Dec http://tinypic.com/m/io3d74/2
    My own assessment of the five sites – (temperatures only), is as follows (colours reference the map in previous comment);

    Farnborough (red) 1
    Charlwood (blue) 2-3
    Wisley (orange) 3
    Kenley (yellow) 3
    Heathrow (green) 3

    You said (on Wisley page) “Main question about Class 3 or 4 is I think whether there are >5% objectionable items in the annulus between 5 metres and 10 metres. I rather doubt the WMO guidelines had these kinds of problems in mind, such as cordon trained fruit trees or fences”. But that just doesn’t appear to be the case.

    The reason I have assessed Wisley as a 2-3 is based on checking against the classifications and the site details. The trees and fences do not impact on the temperature reading as they are beyond the hemisphere of influence, and further away than 10m (around 12m min.). Indeed the fruit trees are well pruned and would need to be at least 3.5m high before they had any shading impact, my calcs suggest more like 6.3m when in leaf (& autumn evening sunshine). See the sunpath diagram superimposed on the Wisley site (also my tree height calc. which you have in my submitted docs).

    Charlwood site details – pic http://tinypic.com/m/io3cm1/2
    Charlwood site details – map http://tinypic.com/m/io3ga1/2
    Wisley site details – pic http://tinypic.com/m/io3gaa/2
    Wisley site details – map with sunpath http://tinypic.com/m/io3gaf/2

    So I ask again, what are your assessments for classification of Wisley & Charlwood? Why are they so different from my assessments? Can you give me the details of your “open support question to do with data problems pertinent to the plots”?

    For Charlwood the screen is not “essentially buried in a hedge”, it is at least 5m away & probably 11 (see Charlwood map) – you say “I did what I could to get accurate site locations and do some kind of appraisal to a worldwide agreed standard. If you want to come up with a different list maybe the two can be put together”, but you don’t list your appraisal.

    Your supposition “Here is evidence of a profound difference between Met Office sites when site exposure and UHI thermal mass can upset natural radiative cooling” doesn’t quite ring true somehow.

  29. tchannon says:

    A few message up you said I have had your detailed analysis for some time. Not that I am aware of and we have not been in contract so I assume something got lost.

    Rog said tinypic is problematic. It is, nothing personal nor are you the first. Later I will have a look at what can be done. Means time and work.

    For me it is unusual and interesting for someone to speak up.

    Data problem?
    Since the article was published a deep analysis of Datapoint data revealed slightly subtle but serious problems. This took a long time and a good deal of coding doing cross checks. The data used is bad and it does affect those plots. This is with Met Office support.
    Whether this is my error or the Met Office is unknown.

    I have to wait on the Met Office. When I know more I’ll say one way or the other.

    The question now is how much that will alter things, hopefully it has no major effect. There is no ETA on a fix or whether correct data will be available. This probably has a low priority with support.

    We agree on
    WMO-No. 1064
    © World Meteorological Organization, 2010

    Wisley like some other private old stations in eg. horticultural settings has a brick sun tower with metal ladder. (Brogdale is another). Always worth thinking on why there is a sun tower. And there is a hut. These places are intentionally microclimates.
    Although not a direct issue the soil, impaction and trees or shrubs matter (or rabbit warrens, Brogdale) for at least some of the year because they draw a great deal of moisture out of the soil at the same time as lofting it. This case though is winter where presumably the leaves have fallen.
    Irrelevant for an estimate of all the year.
    This site has varied over the years and will continue to do so.

    I think we disagree but not hugely.

    Here is a quickly done detail with added distances give or take

    If you have access to AutoCAD, Draftsight or similar I can upload the scaled file used.

    Charlwood, image shifted slightly on export and pixellated, no matter, look carefully.

    See the scrub against the enclosure and screen close to the enclosure? The hedge is also unkempt. Many of hedges thereabouts are neglected. I’m guessing someone gets paid to flail that one.
    Ever dealt with vegetation? Cut below the wanted height, grows.
    The tall wire mesh enclosure is a problem too.

    If they have leased the land what was against putting the enclosure near the middle of the field other than having to install a short power feed?

    Pragmatically none of these are precision sites.

    I don’t know whether you view is correct or not.

    I’m doing the best I can and what others have not done. Whole thing is ongoing to whereever things lead. Originally there was very little station data and no reasonably high resolution data which I am trying to produce. The Met Office are notorious data withholders. BADC data is closed, nothing on open gov and all that leaves is aeronautic data at awkward publish points and lower resolution. Outages tend to frequent. Letter sites only.

    I hope that answer some of you questions.

  30. KatyD says:

    Not really. What is your estimation of the classification for Charlwood & Wisley, on the scales of the WMO? Assuming you can see the images on the links I sent (which I can’t embed in this blog – did you try clicking them?), you have my reasoning – my estimation is that there’s very little wrong with the siting of the thermometers, even with the trees or the hedge or the tower – the thermometer is between 1.5 & 1.75m above ground and should therefore work fine in both locations. They both get a 3 from me.

    Unless you say what your ‘slightly subtle but serious problems’ are then that makes this article even less useful, yes?

    I have now pretty much replicated all the pertinent info I emailed through to Roger 15 days ago, he said ‘ Will get to them soon’ & yesterday said ‘I’ll give Tim a gentle prod soon.’ So I think the issue is your end.

  31. tchannon says:

    > What is your estimation of the classification for Charlwood & Wisley, on the scales of the WMO?
    See original works. So far I am unconvinced there is a material error.and since your objections are directly attached to the article others can form their own opinion.

    I think you need to re-read quite a lot of material. You just responded after 5 or so hours of nighttime which seems rather short for gaining an understanding.

    WMO-No. 1064 is a bit difficult to read, arguably ambiguous. The matter of ground cover was mentioned often in the surfacestations work and in some instances an estimation of proportions was shown. This was not done for the two cases you are highlighting because of the bitty nature and small distances over aerial images I’ve offered you the images used so that you can do so.

    The top of the screen is below ground cover at Charlwood as your image shows* and directly via a photograph “Charlwood is new site. The screen is essentially buried in a hedge as was confirmed by Philip Gladstone in a comment photo. ”
    To which you responded on the 7th January ” but that photo of Charlwood appears to be long range / short depth of field, through the perimeter fence and not in any way proof that the sensor is ‘buried’. From the map it appears that the screen is at least 6m from the hedge, if not 11m Depending which white blob it is), and if it as least 1.5 m off the ground it will be clear of the impact of the hedge line, which appears to be neatly cut & no more than 1.5m high.”

    * I have no idea whether WordPress will allow this. If it works initially a bot might be along to disable it.

    The photograph confirms the screen location. Or try this, rotate as necessary.
    The scrub was present regardless of whether it is there today. The image does though raise a new problem, evidence of field cropping the other side of the hedge.

    As I have already written neatness at one particular time sets a transient minimum.

    There is no sudden ‘Oh it is class 1’ nor is there a fine graduation so there will be marginal cases.

    Do you have the dates of my acknowledgement or direct evidence of contact? It’s just as likely something went awry from Roger if that was contact.
    I don’t know what happened.


  32. KatyD says:

    How strange you tell me I need to re-read a lot of information, and wonder why I post at night! I spent several days trying to understand your (at times difficult to read) postings in early Jan. I sent a full dossier of information to Roger on 8th Jan which he said was sent to you. I now spent much additional time uploading the images to the hosting page (14 of them), then rewrote what I previously sent to Roger so that you & others could see it online.

    It appears to me that you don’t have a good database of your estimates for each of the stations. I’ve found your list of them, then have to scroll through endless bizarre chats before trying to pinpoint your estimations. Surely a spreadsheet would be simple to do online?

    In addition, each part of the WMO classifications can be assessed separately, as they describe (ref. “Each parameter being measured at a site has its own class, and is sometimes different from the others.”). These are; Air temp & humidity, precipitation, surface wind, roughness, environmental classification, global & diffuse radiation, direct radiation & sunshine duration. So for example the temperature rating, which you seem particularly interested in, can have a different rating to the assessment for rainfall. So your assessment ought to have separate assessments of each parameter which, if required, can then be avaraged.

    If you had such a clear picture it would be easier for those people, like me, who are fascinated by data, to see exactly what it is you are getting at. I’m still left unable to see what the purpose of your experiment is, what you hope to gain from the outcome, and what methods you will then use to publish the material you find.

    And to answer your comment – the screen does NOT appear to be below the ground cover – it is at least 1.5m above ground, and 6m beyond the hedge line, therefore in my estimation is perfectly fine for siting to test temperature of the hemisphere it ‘sees’.

  33. tallbloke says:

    Katy D: which he said was sent to you.

    I don’t think so. I said I would. But I didn’t, because I know Tim has his head into other stuff at the moment.

  34. KatyD says:

    So I’m basically wasting my time on this? You said to me “Thanks for the reminder I’ll give Tim a gentle prod soon” (ie. implying you’d sent him the original). I’ve pretty much said here what I sent to you on 8th. So all the material is now available for discussion. I have suggested some potential improvements to your methodology and challenged your assessments.
    Over to you.

  35. tchannon says:

    Okay, I’m snowed under but have managed to put together a first dossier to MO support. We still have to deduce whether the problem is mine. Always a bit strange being on the other end of fixing things which for me goes back 40 and more years in various fields, usually as the end stop for tough ones. Mountain of tales in that lot including unbelievable root causes of faults, could never dream it up.

    There was no intent of producing a database. For some things I have but published, I’m reluctant because people demand perfection, completeness and ignore warnings.

    The work was on the then current WMO list of synoptic stations. All but one were done even where it was a blank, plus a few incidentals. This is a small subset of UK stations. The fullest list I have has over 20,000 entries and essentially none with accurate locations. If you ask for help there is rarely any response.
    The main point was exactly locating it, showing aerial images and attempting an estimate for one parameter only. Doing more would be much harder and even more time consuming. I go further, without site access some is not feasible but many sites are in military or other restricted areas.Changes are frequent.

    Revisiting the whole list is putting the locus onto maintenance when I have major new things going on out of sight involving other people. I don’t do papers but others do. I tend to be behind the scenes.

    Perhaps notice how I create new resources which tend to fit as missing jigsaw pieces. Gradually with luck a picture starts to emerge. Often this means prioritising, ignoring what is good enough for the time being. A lot of this involves creating new, new paths do not appear by magic.

    I don’t doubt there are mistakes in the station posts, some have been pointed out and corrected.
    The matter of ground cover figured often but for the two stations of interest to you I did not show any detail, too bitty and dubious given the images. The subject has I think been incidentally discussed and I think I asked, without much response. It could be a new blog subject, right now though is a poor time.

  36. KatyD says:

    You’ve answered very few of my questions. ie. what is the purpose of your experiment, what you hope to gain from the outcome, and what methods you will then use to publish the material you find.

    Dossier? / support? / fields? / tales? / work? / which parameter? / a picture emerging?

  37. tchannon says:


    I think of most of my content as information, perhaps from looking at something to see what might appear.

    Occasionally there is an objective inasmuch there ever can be with the unknown. This differs from eg. engineering design where the objective is a satisfactory product of some kind, always new or evolutionary in some way. These are the myriad of small steps many make forwards. One thing builds on another, enabling. The more abstract objective of looking doesn’t necessarily yield anything.

    The article at the top is just that. Not long ago there was no information on the met sites so I made one. There was no high resolution data for these sites so I put the facility together. More recently I have put the two together to see if anything can be learnt. I could say much more about what is presented but I prefer to say less and let others make their own minds up rather than pushing to have people agree with me. You are disputing and that is good.

    In addition there was no ready insolation data for a specific site so I created the tool and did it. That has also been put in the mix.

    There are many other things where bit by bit more can be examined and sometimes a useful insight or additional thing appears.

    I have done things useful to others and started things. Isn’t that a good enough objective?

    Gain? Insight, perhaps from input by others.

    I don’t publish papers if that is what you mean.