Skip to content

Central England Temperature Summer Trends

October 6, 2015

By Paul Homewood


Further to my recent on post on UK summer temperature trends, Xmetman has produced a graph of CET summer means right back to 1659.

(Click on the link for a better image). 







The recent uptick followed by a drop off is evident.

What is astonishing though is that the 10-year running average (in yellow) is no higher now than it was at times in the 18thC, for instance in the 1730’s, and again in the 1770’s and 80’s.

As Xmetman comments:

Nothing exceptional in the way of warming during summers in Central England from 1659, the usual rise and fall as you would expect from a temperature series that is over 350 years in length. There was a surge in summer temperatures around 1990 from 15.5 to around 16.2°C, but that has since fallen back. The linear trend across the whole series is a rise of 0.34°C from 15.14°C in 1659 to 15.48°C in 2015. That equates to a rise of less than 0.1°C per century.



It is worth recalling that, according to the Met Office, there has been greater warming in summer than winter since 1960, and that this is the result of human influence on climate.


Xmetman’s full post is below, along with a lot of other good stuff.

  1. Knute permalink
    October 6, 2015 11:16 pm

    Mr Homewood

    Thanks. I know a good science selfie when I see one. You displayed the present and past. Going back further would even be better and referring to the validated nature of your data the best.

    So what about CO2 ?
    Look at this image

    Doris and Frank at home …

    Frank … Ya mean, I need to pay attention to something other than high heels.

    Doris … Yes. (shows above picture … even had placemats made)

    Frank … So 400 ppm isn’t such a big deal for a gas that has been way higher.

    Doris … Yes

    Frank … But the temperature is increasing Doris, new records and all that.

    Doris … No Frank

    Doris goes back to the Web and has a hard time finding validated, independent temp data.

  2. outtheback permalink
    October 7, 2015 4:38 am

    Where does that graph come from?
    Was all that not homogenised some time ago by some Mann?
    Who forgot to take that one out of the literature?
    Clearly this shows that this time it is manmade, what happened in the past we can not change any more but this time it IS different.

    By the way, I gather that England is bracing itself for floods as all of Wales is pissing themselves with laughter after the colonials kicked them out of the rugby.

  3. October 7, 2015 5:24 am

    You’re not supposed to mention CET – otherwise how would anyone know that the late 20th century warming was “unprecedented”?

    Or let’s ask another simple question. Is CET – a real temperature – a better proxy for global temperature than tree-rings (which don’t measure temperature). It certainly correlated with global temperature during the period of global measurements in a way that the “trick” shows us tree rings do not.

    So, the answer is yes! CET is the best proxy for global temperature!

  4. NeilC permalink
    October 7, 2015 8:16 am

    Scottish Sceptic: I am also Scottish and a sceptic and another xmetman. I agree with you that the CET is most likely the best proxy for global temperatures.

    Of course the argument from the alarmists is that it is only representative of a small part of the norther hemisphere. However there isn’t a better temperature record.

    I don’t know if you saw my post last week about the last 17 years of UK weather. One of the plots was the N-Index, which is a compilation of the components necessary for photosynthesis (gases, heat, photons (light), water and pressure. When compared to just temperature the N-Index shows how any photosynthesising organism including trees cannot be a good proxy for temperature alone.

    I will write something up in the next few days and see if Paul will post it.

  5. NeilC permalink
    October 7, 2015 1:51 pm

    Green Sand; true, but how do we get the message out that the CET started around the minima of the little ice age and temperatures have only risen 2.12 Deg C in 355 years of recovery.

  6. Keitho permalink
    October 8, 2015 5:04 pm

    It’s all so bloody obvious isn’t it. Yet here we all are throwing firebrands at their stonework in the forlorn hope that we can stop this behemoth before it crushes the life out of our fabulous civilization.

    Let’s hope the demonstrably foolish Obama’s involvement will finally knock this power grab by the left on the head. Everybody knows Obama is just a Chicago political operator so his getting involved with this AGW nonsense will taint it beyond redemption. Won’t it guys, won’t it?

    • Knute permalink
      October 8, 2015 5:25 pm

      Depends on the soft underbelly.

      On the surface CAGW is just an unpleasant ruse. But why ?

      Well certainly it’s a benefit to alt energy insiders and infrastructure improvements to carry that out. Obvious.

      What’s not obvious is that by setting up CO2 as essentially “bad for you” your establishing a basis for social justice NGOs to file what disparate injustice lawsuits for compensation. A check. If you are a disenfranchised group who can establish that you receiving more CO2 than others, you get to aim that your life suffers because your carrying the burden for others. Minority and/or poor populations live near industrial areas because housing is more affordable. Industrial areas generate more CO2 emissions.

      At this point, the success of the idea depends not on science, but on whether the public is informed and okay with writing a check for that idea. I’d expect that the check receivers are okay with the idea.

      It’s a convoluted way to arrive at reparations.

      • Knute permalink
        October 8, 2015 5:28 pm

        2 typos … sorry …

        Delete what in the NGO line item.
        Aim sb claim.

  7. October 9, 2015 7:31 pm

    Paul: Further to your reservations on the temperature at Heathrow did you know that last night (early hours of the 9th) the minimum was 6.7C, while down the road at Northolt the minimum fell to 4.6C.
    I recorded a minimum of 3C in my garden in Wanstead with a grass minimum of -2C! St James’s Park, 8.6 miles to my south-west, only fell to 7C.
    It emphasises just how variable the climate of the capital is.

    • October 9, 2015 9:37 pm


      Have you got any links?

      • October 9, 2015 9:45 pm

        Only to the Ogimet website which lists all world-wide readings from meteo agencies that participate. Go to and then select ‘Weather ranking’ on the left-hand side. You are then taken to another page where you select UK and the end of any 24-hr period you wish to look at.

        The high Heathrow reading could be down to cloud cover but I haven’t looked at any satellite sequences – but it seems strange that it is so much higher than Northolt, another air field.

        The high reading in St James’ Park is probably down to the urban heat island effect.

  8. October 9, 2015 9:45 pm

    And the site:

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: