On this MetOffice website page the map of the official observing stations gives the location of the CUBG site as:

Let's not forget that cold temp record's were also set in the 90's, 10's. 😏 

And so did the 80's so the 00's you could argue we were unlucky.

From an article in the Telegraph, about how we should install French-style window shutters and so forth to keep cool:

"The 38.7C recorded at Cambridge Botanic Gardens awaits expert tests to see if it is a true reading, with results expected early next week, the Met Office said.

There are suggestions that bare soil soaking up heat around the weather station may have led to an artificially high recording."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/28/heat-proof-home-under-floor-cooling-shutters-architects-say/

I await the results with bated breath!

The historical aerial imagery of the site posted earlier do not inspire confidence.

Indeed. The selective quotes were taken from this page on the DTG website and refer to this station. It's not exactly standard exposure - note the air con unit on the same roof in the background!

If that turns out to be the case it will be a complete and utter debacle. I've reviewed a number of photos and have drawn no conclusions.

Seems like quite a tale of woe of malfunctions & mishaps over the years. Quite a shambles to be honest. Surely this isn't normal for most weather stations?

For clarification: This DTG station isn't an official station. It's a experiment set up by a group of software engineers in the University Computer Laboratory. It is unreliable in my opinion.

It has nothing to do with the Botanic Gardens site.

However, some climate sceptic bloggers are using the DTG readings as a means of discrediting the Botanic Gardens site reading!

I completely misunderstood PL’s post!  I thought he was reporting news about the station due to verify the record temp. 

Its funny how the very recent heat records have been broken during the less than brilliant summers and not during the two good summers of this decade, 2013 and 2018.

Yes, I do realise that it is nothing to do with Cambridge Botanic Gardens or even an official station. I was simply commenting upon the rather shambolic manner it appears to have been run and wondering whether other stations have similar problems.

I wonder if those deniers know they are not even talking about the same station or they are deliberately spreading misinformation. I wouldn't really liike to say.

IMO they would be better off asking questions about the station that made the report.

I think this is even more messy than it first appeared to be!  It may well be due to people getting hold of the wrong end of the stick and jumping to conclusions.  But Perhaps if the Met office had been more precise with their reports in the first place, there would have been less confusion and more confidence in their data and methodology.  

Apologies Caz, it was my fault I was looking at the locations in Cambridge 

Thanks Rob for picking it up.

However, if you can get it wrong, as someone who has worked with theses stations, you can surely see why the general public get it wrong and why people are confused.  Seems it’s an easy mistake to make and a good reason for the Met office to overhaul their system. 

I could be wrong, but I do wonder whether this "new record" from Thursday could end up a bit like late June last year when it was claimed for a time that Scotland had broken its' all time highest temperature record. Someone made mention of that in this thread the other day.

Ah yes, the infamous 'ice cream van' incident. However notwithstanding that I do recall that the site was far from ideal anyway, a somewhat jumbled mess of junk, some kind of a boatyard I think.

Anyway, isn't this why there is the verification process in the first place, to ensure that any potential record is valid? If it takes a few days then so be it. That is far better than hastily proclaiming a new record then having to retract it when it comes to light the site isn't of an acceptable standard. Now that really would be embarassing for the Met Office.

I quite agree with your first point, which is why I am puzzled why the Met Office were very quick to proclaim the NIAB July record, but are prevaricating about the CUBG national record. A record is a record and should always need verification.

On your last point, it appears that embarrassment is no longer a thing that troubles organisations or public figures.  They just shrug it off and pass it to their PR people to deal with. 

I hope it's verified.

More blogger onslaught on the CUBG provisional record.

Looking at all that - That is being far too pedantic and using just about any excuse possible to discount it.

It's in a proper Stevensons Screen - Yes the grass has grown a bit - but so what - the big buildings are some distance away.