Tampering With CET
By Paul Homewood
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
Last year the Met Office made some changes to the CET record. I did not pay too much attention at the time, as the changes appeared to be minor.
However, when I was writing my review of 2022, I noticed that whereas the summer of 1995 had been 0.1C warmer than 2018’s in the original Version 1, they had changed places in Version 2. To be precise, the summer of 1995 had been cooled by 0.07C, whilst 2018’s had been warmed by 0.13C.
I have now got around to analysing the full dataset, and the chart below shows the annual adjustments made:
Positive numbers are where V2 temperatures are higher than V1.
As you can see, for most of the record up to 1970, the adjustments are small and with no obvious pattern, ups and downs offsetting each other.
Then quite suddenly the years from 1970 to 2003 have been cooled quite markedly. Then just as abruptly the temperatures have been consistently adjusted up again.
No doubt the Met Office will gloss over this with some excuse, but unfortunately it is part of a much wider tampering with temperatures globally – and the tampering is always one way,cooling the past and heating the present.
Apart from the subtle changes to overall trends, this tampering changes the comparison with recent temperatures and those in the 1970s, 80s and 90’s. The summers of 1995 and 2018 are a classic example. With 1995’s summer cooled by 0.07C, it now only ties with last summer, instead of being hotter.
And although we don’t have a V1 for last summer, it is safe to assume that V2 temperatures were inflated in a similar way to 2018, which was adjusted upwards by 0.13C.
This all rather puts the Met Office in a bad light.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Data manipulation has been going on a long time .https://notrickszone.com/2023/01/09/hadcrut-data-manipulation-changes-2000-2014-warming-trend-from-0-03c-to-0-14c-per-decade/
Because there are no real facts to support their Global Warming scam , there is a constant stream of lies to try to fool the people into accepting their agenda .
The same happened in the Netherlands, where the KNMI started erasing heatwaves in the past, and there also nobased explanation on why they had to be erased.
Well they have to justify the “climate emergency” somehow. But what can you expect when they treat Joe Public like a lemming.
With impeccable timing the BBC highlights this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-65856526
“He who controls the past controls the future, he who controls the present controls the past”
Spot on Ray . That BBC article seems to say that George Orwell was a socialist supporter.
Which he was until he joined the international Brigade and saw what a disaster communism was and it caused him to write 1984 . He also realised from his experience at the BBC how even then they told endless lies , and based the ” Ministry Of Truth ” on them . They have got even worse since then .
In 25 years’ time it will be 100 years since Orwell wrote 1984 (think! Though I know many here will know.). I won’t be around then – and I shall not be sorry. As a (just) post-war baby, learning, as a five-year-old, to deal with rationing and ragged clothes, I believe the NZC that so many of the ignorati want to wish on us will make the 1940/50s seem like Butlins (now, there’s a thought and a memory – though not one of mine!). My grandson and his parents haven’t a clue what is about to hit them in – I guess – the next ten years. I despair…
Prepare, is my advice to the (intelligent) young.
@Harry Passfield
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
― Mark Twain
To HS:
“Remember, when you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It is only painful for others. The same applies when you are stupid.”
https://www.goodreads.com › quotes
Quote by Ricky Gervais
HS: please note I do not infer that you are stupid. Far from it! We should save that for JSO….Cheers!
Who in authority can question this conduct?
Grant Shapps is the government minister ultimately responsible. I am awaiting a further response to a report I made to the Met Office (though I do NOT expect a reply) and I will be pursuing it with him in his responsible capacity.
I have the dubious pleasure of living in a marginal constituency that the Conservatives lost to Labour (Rosie Duffield) having previously held the seat basically forever and in the true blue county of Kent. {Almost unbelievably voting age students outnumber total Canterbury resident voters here}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canterbury_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
I am considering standing at the next election for the Reclaim Party (or possibly Reform if an electoral pact has been agreed similar to the upcoming byelections)
and issues such as bogus data, Net Zero madness et alia will be my primary focus.
I interpret this as fraud!
The deliberate manipulation of data to falsely claim that global temperatures are rising is an indirect method to get more funding for further research is the first issue. The second issue is the increasing cost of energy affecting all of us.
Of course it’s fraud!
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
~ Prof. Chris Folland ~ (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research)
And the “climate models” show exactly what they’re programmed to say.
It staggers me that the arrogance of the NZ/AWG-CC is such that people like Folland can accurately and exactly describe the how and what of their malign agenda – it is their “truth” but is emphatically and demonstrably NOT the “Whole Truth” – and some people will not, do not want, are incapable of following the “bread crumbs” as Det. Spooner says.
Off topic I appreciate, for me it is exactly the same with the scam of SARS COV2; reading the “testimony” of key witnesses to Dame Hallett’s charade, not just of Hancock, IMHO is worse than the worst nightmare I have ever had. As HP mentions above, I genuinely fear for my kids who think I am raving mad when I attempt to draw their attention to key data/information events/reported speeches/comments – not wild conspiracy rubbish- which without fear of contradiction explain exactly what these Globalist/Woke Marxist totalitarians wish to inflict on us, “the rest”, without any mandate. As Paul Johnson wrote some years ago – “Wake Up , Britain”. Am I now a prisoner in the open asylum that is the UK? It feels like it.
With respect to 1995, It remains one of the warmest years on record…
From the New York Times…January 1996:
“The average temperature was 58.7 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the British data, .07 of a degree higher than the previous record, established in 1990. The British figures, based on land and sea measurements around the world, are one of two sets of long-term data by which surface temperature trends are being tracked. The other, maintained by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, shows the average 1995 temperature at 59.7 degrees, slightly ahead of 1990 as the warmest year since 1866. But the difference is within the margin of sampling error, and the two years essentially finished neck and neck.”
“One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations. He said his readings showed that the average global temperature rose about as much since the base period as it did from the 1880’s to the base period – about half a degree in both cases. He stressed that these were estimates and that it would take millions of measurements to reach an accurate global average.”
The 1950-1980 base period is no longer 59°F. For some reason it now is 57°F. Remove the inconsistency with NOAA perhaps?
I’m sure the met office’s funding relies on global warming, otherwise they would have to fall back on stuff we all need like weather forecasts.
I can forecast tomorrow’s weather with just as much accuracy as the Met Office. It’ll be pretty much the same as today, might be a bit warmer/colder.
What never ceases to astonish me is the belief that the closed rules of linear statistics can be applied without question by the lemmings in the Met Office to the data generated from the non-linear systems of climate and weather. The use of linear statistical theory depends on perturbation around an assumed ‘steady state’. In non-linear systems, where the result of perturbation follows a power law, because of the non-linearity of the system, the application of simplistic Gaussian rules, leading to an ‘average’ result is heavily dependent on the length and starting point of the data series. As was shown by Mandelbrot many years ago, the assumption of linear dependence in statistical data is only valid for a ‘closed’ data population – a pack of cards always has 52 members, never 49 or 56.
With any ‘open’ data set, the assumption that it was based on linear dependence, is just that, an assumption. This is why weather reports diverge after only a few days, and accurate prediction beyond that time is not possible.
So the Met Office have been ‘cooking the books’, not because of a malign intent but because of an ignorance of the underlying mathematical limitations.
I suspect its both. Much of climate science relies on either very poor statistics or the use of inappropriate methodologies – for some time various statistical institutes made criticisms but I think they’ve been shut up now. Anybody actually interested in what’s happening would take these criticisms to heart but the Met Offuce does not.
If anyone wants to extend their knowledge of power law statistical reponse, I can recommend ‘The (mis) behaviour of markets’, Benoit R. Mandelbrot, Richard L. Hudson, CPI Bookmarque, Croydon, 2008.
The book generally deals with the failure of linear statistical models to accurately predict speculative markets behaviour, but the mathematical basis is equally applicable to any system with power-law dependence under perturbation.
I’d suggest that all those that are interested in the CET record read “The mean temperature of central England, 1698-1952” By GORDON MANLEY
Bedford College, University of London
To understand how the early data series was constructed from incomplete and dispersed limited records not withstanding the problem and non standardised nature of early thermometers. So whilst it took Manley 5 years to produce his paper, and he did a thorough academic job. However, you would not use it nor was it intended to be used to demonstrate global warming from pre industrial times but rather the paucity of reliable data available in England in the 17th and 18th century that are now being promulgated as fact by everyone from the Met to the Government
Its amazing how stable the temperatures of the earth are within the range of
that needed for all life forms . It almost seems as if God was in charge but the
Vatican scientists find this hard to believe – COLoud
It’s amazing how life has evolved based on the conditions it finds, rather than on conditions that don’t exist.
But there’s never been proof that one species like cows evolved into say an air breathing mammal such as a whale notwithstanding a fish had to evolve into a cow first.
There is no mechanism to change the DNA – A fit animal surviving still has the same DNA and the dead (unfit) animal is dead and cant breed.
Cosmic rays randomly changing the genome is fairy story plus there are no transitionals between kinds or species although there is micro evolution of species like all the different breeds in the canine species – wolves poodles hyenas foxes etc but pigs will never fly and dinosaurs wont evolve into sparrows
Darwin confused breeding with evolution since he did not have the knowledge and microscopy to see the complexity of even the ‘simplest’ life.
Survival of the fittest actually improves the existing genome – eg like the fastest deer but it will always be a deer as will its offspring .
Evolutionary hypothesis is built on the same bad science as the climate hoax.
The swimming iguanas are still iguanas and the finches can reform their beaks in a few generations .
“In the context of the last few centuries the summer 2022 in Central England/England and Wales was hot and dry. But it was not exceptionally so. The summers of 1976 and 1995 were both substantially higher”
https://mikehulme.org/the-2022-uk-summer-in-long-term-perspective/
1955 was a drought – skin peeling off with sunburn – reservoirs dry in uk’s wettest places – probably beats 1976 which I remember well .
Nope 76 still the hottest.
I suppose it depends on how long and where comparisons and drought effects.
This was a Wikipedia :
The 1955 United Kingdom heatwave and associated drought were severe weather events that occurred over all parts of the country. The drought was the seventh worst recorded in Yorkshire and worse than that of the 1976 United Kingdom heat wave.[1] It followed a period of extreme rain, mitigating its effects by water table and reservoir reduction.[2] See also
But there is not much about 55 on the net which makes me suspicious
Blindingly obvious question of the day: DO unaltered or unadulterated copies of the relevant data exist and be used to catch the b@**&rs out?
Apart from the unethical angle surely altering official records would be illeagal?
I’m sure that if I had altered MOT records when I had and MOT station the authorities would have had something to say about it!
The fraud in this is obvious. Common sense suggests that more recent data should have been more accurate from the start – after all the 1990s is only three decades in the past. The need for any adjustment should be practically nil.
The more I think about things the more I realise how precsient George Orwell was back in the 1940’s.
BBC weather folk hyping up June 2023 already…
June 2023 likely to be the UK’s hottest on record
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/66055520
Big deal. They’ve got maybe 150 Junes on record. Why would anybody believe those 150 sets contain all the possible natural average temperatures? And this June was warm because of a blocking high. If your blocking high corresponds to most of June, it’s warm. If it starts in May and goes way mid-June not so warm, if it starts mid-June it’s warmer than a mid-May start but not as warm as a 1st June start.
There was a change in station composition in 2004, which left CET annual averages with an inhomogeneity, a step change at that date. See Parker and Horton 2005, available from the Met Office CET web page. Maybe they have now fixed this issue.
CET has a fundamental flaw: an average of absolute temperatures will always have a problem when the station composition changes, which gives a change in the effective position of CET. This problem vanishes if you average temperature *changes*, rather than absolute values.
Clarification: Parker and Horton only covers the change in station composition, they don’t say anything about inhomogeneities.
It would be interesting to look at Berkeley Earth, which gives regional averages of monthly means. Sadly this is now quite difficult, you have to deal with a funny set of files, impossible to read without fancy software.
Why would they do that I wonder?
This is happening in Australia as well with every annual mean this century being adjusted. Both 2001 and 2011 recorded annual means below average but the BoM adjusted both means up, They can now say that no year has been below average since 2001 (thus AGW is real).
Go on like this and they’ll be closing your bank account
The recent changes made to the CET are available here:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/releases/cet_releases.html
I have only skim read the details, but it would appear they have changed one of the stations used.
I remember having a long and protracted correspondence with the met office over their claim that 2018 summer was warmer than 1976. CET showed 1976 to be the warmest, but the met office data showed 2018 to be warmer. I challenged them that their adjustments for UHI were wrong, but they insisted it was the adjustments to CET that needed changing, and they would be doing it soon. It has been a long time happening, but it may be now that 1976 was the warmer of the 2 years.
So I do not think there is a conspiracy, in fact it could turn out that they are indirectly admitting that there is another 0.1C to add to UHI for other stations.
I shall be looking at it in more detail when I can find the time.
Those tenths tampering matter. I remarked last year how 1976 had been altered down slightly.
The Met Office can now make claims about June 2023 that are significantly more dramatic, that 0.1C reverses the June 1976/2023 ranking!
The CET mean and average max for June 2023 beat 1976 by 0.1C in the latest version, would have been a dead heat in the previous version. Average min was a dead heat in latest version, 1976 just warmer in old.
June 2023 mean ranked 5th in ~360 year data.
June 2023 average max 1st in ~140 year data.
June 2023 average min joint 4th ~140 year data.
I had a look at Heathrow and it does appear the average max was higher in June 1976 than 2023, 25.1C v 24.6C – but the worst of the 1976 heat was much more confined to the SE compared to June 2023 that was just more consistently warm countrywide.
What UK June 2023 has thrown up is a statistical quirk, extreme mean/averages without any actual extreme heat.
“but the worst of the 1976 heat was much more confined to the SE compared to June 2023 that was just more consistently warm countrywide.”
With respect, I beg to differ. I was living in an East Midlands city; prolonged very high temperatures melted the roads in many places and my car tyres’ grooves were full of melted tarmac. That has never been repeated to date to anything like the same extent – and I now live 10 miles away from that city.
In the early 1980’s, May, watching a Test match during a prolonged period of very high humidity and temperatures, I well remember racing to see if my other half – out on horseback – had survived a massive thunderstorm with large hailstones and an enormous amount of rain fell – so heavy, it pushed upwards all the drain covers on the main road out of the city; never, ever seen that happen since and we have had two other monstrous hailstorms (2012 and 2022) both of which caused an immense amount of damage. Around this time , we had a prolonged period record low temperatures in Feb/March one winter when they barely got above freezing for days on end, a nearby market town was cut off by snow….”AWG/CC in action”…not.
I didn’t say there was no heat at all anywhere else.
What I said is factually correct.
Read what I said in totality.
And of course the roads haven’t melted as bad as 1976 since, they learnt and changed the grade of bitumen used.
In my memory, and at the time I wasn’t so bothered about Climate Change so didn’t make notes, Scotland had a hot dry summer in about 1969, 1970 or 1971, there was no rain worthy of the name until November. This meant no, or very few, midges. It was one of a series of dry warm summers, also cold springs with snow in Edinburgh in early June one year.
In the “worst anyone came remember” style I was working as a ghillie at the deerstalking and it was so dry we could get to places that had been impossible to get to and out of with loaded ponies due to the fact the ground was always soft, boggy and waterlogged.
This never seems to get a mention in terms of dry summers, so much so that I’m beginning to doubt my memory.
June 1976 started out very cold. I was snowed on in Cambridge around D Day. That will have knocked down the averages. The hot spell lasted more or less continuously from mid month through July and into August. Nothing like our present break in the weather this July. It was definitely consistently hotter in 1976 with higher overnight minimums too. This summer has rarely exceeded being pleasantly warm.
What’s obvious is that prior to 1970 the adjustments make no difference to averages – there’s about as many increases as decreases and of very similar sizes. My bet is the 1650-1970 average hasn’t changed at all. This is how it should get if you are “correcting” for random error. The 1970-1995 adjustments make very little sense. All the adjustments are downward at 2-3 the size of the previous adjustments. If changing stations makes that much difference then the set is pretty worthless as data. The temperature is wholly dependent on what’s included, so it’s not representative
33 years 100% in one direction, then for around 20 years 100% in the opposite direction.
Seriously, what are the odds of that happening?
Given those two outcomes hadn’t happened before in 320 consecutive years I’d say the probability is, to the nearest round figure, 0%.
What the changes do is alter recent history – and that’s important. The CET graph was starting to create a problem for the Met Office – because it showed that nearly all the increase in temperature was prior to 1990 and that since then we were generally flat-lining: on a plateau. This provided arguments for those saying we are not in a climate emergency. These new adjustments reduce temperatures in 1990s and increases them more recently and this helps bolster the ‘correct’ (ahem!) view that we are in a climate emergency and that things are getting hotter and hotter. Why else would these changes be made?
It can be revealing to cumulate the changes to show periods of bias where adjustments in one direction are on average bigger/more frequent.
What is shocking is that there was no attempt to explain the adjustments offered alongside the new data. They hoped to get away with it.
I took a look at the data myself. I differenced not only the annual data but the monthly data between the two versions. The result is best illustrated by this colour coded chart of the changes. Click for larger version. There are a number of oddities in need of explanation. Why do we get changes in annual temperatures when there is no change in any of the contributing monthly data? Why is there a pronounced seasonal pattern to recent changes? Why do significant changes only affect the recent record from 1974 onwards?
Here’s another way of looking at the annual differences: cumulate them so that periods of persistent change in on direction or the other show up more clearly, along with the timing of any switch.
We have a little oscillation in the late 17th/early 18th century. Clearly the loss of teh Americas resulted in cooling, offset by warming following Trafalgar. Every Met Man must do his duty! A period of great stability once Victoria comes to the throne. Just jiggling about semi-randomly. But come 1974 (was it joining the EEC?) we get a nosedive of remarkable linearity with very little oscillation around the trend. But then a U-turn after 2004. Why?
Paul, Would it be possible to post the before-and-after temperature anomaly profiles? My perception from previous adjustments to temperature records is that they tend to pull the profile more into line with the CO2 rate of increase.
Will do
Paul,
Thanks for plotting that data. I graphed it up and here is the result below (don’t know how to post to your blog. Feel free to post it if you think it is of interest. Cheers Joe Brannan
>
Reblogged this on sideshowtog.
Yes macro evolution and man-made climate change both fall into the same category – they are hypotheses – there is no hard scientific proof for either and it is hard to see how there could be.
Maybe we’ll ‘evolve’ to live off CO2 like trees and plants and breath out oxygen – lol
Does this address the “divergence problem” ?
I recall that late in the 1990s one problem with the hockey stick was that in decades contemporary with the Mannian model, the tree-nometers chosen for their congruence to ordinary THERMO-meters began to fail to remain congruent. The plots of temperatures and climate-inferred-from-tree-rings, diverged. This led to the clever “Nature Trick” of eliminated tree ring records from the hockey stick graph, and “hiding the decline” of the measure of congruence.
IF here and and now and two decades later, were we to match the same 1998 vintage tree ring model with the revised 2020 temperature model, would there be less divergence, more congruence?
We have previously seen how various sub sets of temperature data gets corrected to match the climate models. Again, from memory, sea surface temperature (instrumental) records from the 1940s were revised to help flatten the curve in the first half of the 20th century and make the rising slope of the 1990s seem even more extreme. Okay, but if the 1990s were NOT seeing rising temperatures QUITE as extreme, does that seem to required dis-adjusting the SST records for the controversial bucket-vs-engine intake discontinuity? Maybe the 1940s were warmer, the 1990s were cooler, and the climate is more stable than we thought?
Is there any grant money to be had from a government or multinational NGO that would be interested in testing the hypothesis of a stable (self-correcting, negative feedback) climate, using the new and better data?