HADCRUT Cool The Past Yet Again
By Paul Homewood
HADCRUT have just released their latest version 4.4, and guess what? Yes, the past has been cooled again!
This is is how things have changed since version 4.3.
As usual we see temperatures earlier in the record being reduced, but more noticeably temperatures have been progressively increased since the 1990’s. The amounts are only small, and the usual defence from the Met Office is that the changes make little difference to long term trends.
However, we find that similar adjustments have now been made since the original version 4.0 was released in 2012. Note that the anomaly for 2010, (the last year that appeared on version 4.0), has increased by 0.004C on the latest revision, but by 0.029C over the four revisions since version 4.0.
The gradual changes to the temperature record can be seen with what they have done with 2010.
All of this, of course, is designed to remove the pause. Some would call it fraud.
Sources
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3-gl.dat
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/versions/previous_versions.html
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
The longer the so-called pause – the new normal? – goes on, the more popular ‘cooling the past’ becomes with state-funded organisations like the Met Office. Check the satellite records.
What we need now are copies of the emails that must have flown between the cardsharps at CRU, NOAA and GISS in order to coordinate this fraud.
July satellite figures are now published but have gone largely unremarked, with the exception of NO TRICKS ZONE, despite falling from June figures and flying in the face of a burgeoning El Nino event.
Is this yet another oceanic travesty?
Yes thanks, Roger.
I am just waiting for RSS as well to do a post
I’m not a climate scientist, but if the above is true, surely it’s documented proof of deliberate fraud by the Met Office. Is there something I’m missing? Could there be a valid explanation for changing historical temperature records?
It IS fraud. Read the 1968 Theft Act. Slingo is a liar and a thief.
Someone somewhere within the UK CRU / Met Office will be fit for another leak of info’. What’s going on with data is NOT random, does NOT fit as a normal range of on-going assessments, and is NOT happening by accident. The British have too strong a sense of right from wrong for the person with killer information to sit on it forever.
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
What goes up not only stays up but flies ever higher caught in computational updrafts.
O/T –
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/8/5/the-point-of-the-met-office.html
So, what they are saying is that the people taking the temperatures in 1910 were incompetent and the people in 2010 taking measurements and checking the data from 1910 were also incompetent. Weren’t the same people doing the checking in 2010 for the most part the same people doing the checking now?
I would call it fraud, with taxpayers’ money,
I can not wait for the latest
irrational excuseer,fairy story, oops, er, sorry, official explanation of how these adjustment were concocted.The Met Office/ HADCRUT semantic sophistry is always such a revalation, like seeing your mother-in-law with a new, but ridiculous, hairdo. Yes each strand may have it’s place, and yes many hours made have been expended on it by many people, but no amount of back-combing and laquer will hide the fact that under that surface sheen is a tangled mess that rages against the placement of tresses contrary to their natural order. Or that by tomorrow the whole construction will start to look very disheveled.
They’ll be adjusting the adjustments soon at this rate – if they aren’t already.
This continual cooling of the past may be due to the homogenisation algorithms. Temperature trends vary between different parts of the planet not just on amplitude, by in timing and even in direction. If homogenisation is towards assuming the present is correct, than this will have the impact of making data with differing trends appear more anomalous the further back in time that algorithms go. This is why, I would suggest, that GHCN stopped publishing the raw data sets in 2011, and just publish the GHCNv3 homogenised data from that date.
This hypothesis is testable, as I explained a few weeks ago.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2015/06/28/climatic-temperature-variations/
Yes. And see my post on USHCN at WUWT for a further example of what is going wrong because of the regional expectations ‘fallacy’. Proved it further for NCDC GHCN (e.g Sulina Romania and Reykjavik Iceland), BEST (station 1669000), and Aus BOM (Rutherglen) in essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke. That essay also proved HadCrut selection bias for US New England using Frank Landsner’s excellent work. One presumes the CRU station selection bias is probably universal. Paul has many posts suggesting this is likely so.
We need to find a mole in the Met Office who will do a ‘climategate’ for us.
In the past when ever I have looked into these ‘adjustments’ I have mostly found – so far – that there has been cherry-picking of extreme cases. But the point is mot. It is only that inland data that has had less than 0.004 C downward adjustments to older data. But as several audits have shown, e.g. Berkeley Earth, the older oceanic data was adjustment upward even more. Hence overall adjustments toned-down global warming. Now good arguments have been made for why old inland data generally were biased to the warmer. But let us just pretend that these adjustments were not necessary. What was the overall results for inland temperature data? Not much. Same basic trends. Certainly not the “1/3 of warming” that some misconstrue. Even if this were true, the oceanic data more than cancel it out. A slight bias? Perhaps. I have looked into this. I conclude that there is absolutely no evidence of fraud or conspiracy.
Any idea why the adjustments have be re-adjusted and the re-adjustments have to be re-re-adjusted?
It depends on what you’re looking at, where you’re starting.
Start with Hansen’s 1999 paper, “GISS analysis of surface temperature change”. Look at Figure 4 on page 36, “Global Temperature (meteorological stations)”. Spot the post-1950 low point of the 5-year running average, 1966: it’s anomaly is about -0.1 degrees. Spot the high-point: it’s 1997, and is about 0.43. That’s a difference of about 0.53 degrees.
Click to access 1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Now look at the current “Global Temperature (meteorological stations)”. The post-1950 low point is still about -0.1 in 1966. But the anomaly for 1997 is now about 0.79. That’s a difference of 0.89 degrees.
The base period for both is 1951-1980. Alterations of the temperature record between 1999 and now have doubled the temperature difference (5 y.r.a.) between 1966 and 1997.
Oh, shoot. I wasn’t quite awake yet when I did that. 😦 The 5 y.r.a. now for 1997 is about 0.6 instead of the earlier 0.43. So, the current temperature change between 1966 and 1997 (5 y.r.a.) is about 0.7 degrees.
Still, that’s nearly 0.2 degrees more than the 1999 difference.
Mr. White: Agreed that 0.004C is trivial. But take a look at the GISTEMP adjustments here: http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/giss-strange-anomalies.html
The fraudsters at GISS have knocked many tenths of a degree off historical temperatures. The result of this is to create a spurious warming trend.
It’s especially at the poles that this fraud is being carried out. When honest Icelanders recorded Jan 1900 as +0.7C, I wonder what they would make of 21st-century scoundrels tweaking this down to -0.5C? This perversion of the Icelandic record occurs across the Arctic, but this example makes the point vividly.
Here’s some evidence: http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-past-is-getting-colder.html
By all means, do your own research. In the above blogs are hints on how you and other scan check out the historical and the revised data.
My enquiries to the Icelandic Met Office resulted in a forthright response. The data which they provide down the decades is no longer under their control once it is – quote – “in the marketplace”.
“All of this, of course, is designed to remove the pause.”
And improve their past temperature predictions, in retrospect.
Reminds me of a post on a very good blog about the V3 to V4 changes that I bookmarked.
Still asking, “what would it have been if they were still using the semi-adjusted HADCRUT3 version instead of the full-adjusted HADCRUT4?”
12 month average anomaly
HADCRUT3 HADCRUT4
Dec 1998 0.55 0.52
Dec 2011 0.34 0.40
Increase/ -0.21 -0.12
The new version increases warming (or rather decreases cooling) since 1998 by 0.09C, a significant amount for a 13 year time span. Whilst the changes should not affect the trend in future years, they will affect the debate as to whether temperatures have increased in the last decade or so.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/hadcrut4-v-hadcrut3/Decrease
Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
Manipulation of HADCRUT