CET Adjustments
July 2, 2023
By Paul Homewood
I have been asked to publish the CET figure before and after adjustments.
Below are the annual means.
The full monthly data can be viewed here.
| Current | Legacy | Diff | |
| 1659 | 8.9 | 8.87 | 0.03 |
| 1660 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 0 |
| 1661 | 9.8 | 9.78 | 0.02 |
| 1662 | 9.5 | 9.52 | -0.02 |
| 1663 | 8.6 | 8.63 | -0.03 |
| 1664 | 9.3 | 9.34 | -0.04 |
| 1665 | 8.3 | 8.29 | 0.01 |
| 1666 | 9.9 | 9.86 | 0.04 |
| 1667 | 8.5 | 8.52 | -0.02 |
| 1668 | 9.5 | 9.51 | -0.01 |
| 1669 | 9 | 9.02 | -0.02 |
| 1670 | 9 | 8.96 | 0.04 |
| 1671 | 9.1 | 9.08 | 0.02 |
| 1672 | 8.8 | 8.82 | -0.02 |
| 1673 | 8.4 | 8.38 | 0.02 |
| 1674 | 8.1 | 8.12 | -0.02 |
| 1675 | 7.9 | 7.88 | 0.02 |
| 1676 | 8.8 | 8.84 | -0.04 |
| 1677 | 8.8 | 8.78 | 0.02 |
| 1678 | 8.4 | 8.45 | -0.05 |
| 1679 | 8.8 | 8.76 | 0.04 |
| 1680 | 8.9 | 8.89 | 0.01 |
| 1681 | 8.7 | 8.75 | -0.05 |
| 1682 | 9 | 9.05 | -0.05 |
| 1683 | 8.5 | 8.49 | 0.01 |
| 1684 | 8 | 7.95 | 0.05 |
| 1685 | 9.2 | 9.16 | 0.04 |
| 1686 | 10.2 | 10.15 | 0.05 |
| 1687 | 9 | 8.99 | 0.01 |
| 1688 | 7.9 | 7.86 | 0.04 |
| 1689 | 8.6 | 8.56 | 0.04 |
| 1690 | 8.9 | 8.94 | -0.04 |
| 1691 | 8.2 | 8.17 | 0.03 |
| 1692 | 7.7 | 7.73 | -0.03 |
| 1693 | 8.5 | 8.47 | 0.03 |
| 1694 | 7.7 | 7.67 | 0.03 |
| 1695 | 7.3 | 7.29 | 0.01 |
| 1696 | 8.5 | 8.52 | -0.02 |
| 1697 | 8.1 | 8.05 | 0.05 |
| 1698 | 7.7 | 7.67 | 0.03 |
| 1699 | 8.8 | 8.83 | -0.03 |
| 1700 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 0 |
| 1701 | 8.7 | 8.75 | -0.05 |
| 1702 | 9.3 | 9.31 | -0.01 |
| 1703 | 9.1 | 9.09 | 0.01 |
| 1704 | 9.1 | 9.07 | 0.03 |
| 1705 | 8.7 | 8.75 | -0.05 |
| 1706 | 9.8 | 9.82 | -0.02 |
| 1707 | 9.4 | 9.41 | -0.01 |
| 1708 | 9.7 | 9.68 | 0.02 |
| 1709 | 8.7 | 8.74 | -0.04 |
| 1710 | 9.5 | 9.49 | 0.01 |
| 1711 | 9.4 | 9.42 | -0.02 |
| 1712 | 9.1 | 9.14 | -0.04 |
| 1713 | 8.6 | 8.64 | -0.04 |
| 1714 | 9.4 | 9.44 | -0.04 |
| 1715 | 9.4 | 9.44 | -0.04 |
| 1716 | 8.4 | 8.38 | 0.02 |
| 1717 | 9 | 9.04 | -0.04 |
| 1718 | 9.3 | 9.29 | 0.01 |
| 1719 | 9.5 | 9.49 | 0.01 |
| 1720 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 0 |
| 1721 | 8.9 | 8.91 | -0.01 |
| 1722 | 9.4 | 9.37 | 0.03 |
| 1723 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 0 |
| 1724 | 9.3 | 9.28 | 0.02 |
| 1725 | 8.7 | 8.69 | 0.01 |
| 1726 | 9.4 | 9.36 | 0.04 |
| 1727 | 10 | 9.97 | 0.03 |
| 1728 | 9.5 | 9.54 | -0.04 |
| 1729 | 9.3 | 9.29 | 0.01 |
| 1730 | 10.1 | 10.07 | 0.03 |
| 1731 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 0 |
| 1732 | 9.7 | 9.69 | 0.01 |
| 1733 | 10.5 | 10.5 | 0 |
| 1734 | 9.8 | 9.82 | -0.02 |
| 1735 | 9.6 | 9.57 | 0.03 |
| 1736 | 10.3 | 10.33 | -0.03 |
| 1737 | 9.9 | 9.95 | -0.05 |
| 1738 | 9.8 | 9.84 | -0.04 |
| 1739 | 9.2 | 9.21 | -0.01 |
| 1740 | 6.9 | 6.86 | 0.04 |
| 1741 | 9.3 | 9.32 | -0.02 |
| 1742 | 8.4 | 8.38 | 0.02 |
| 1743 | 9.8 | 9.83 | -0.03 |
| 1744 | 8.8 | 8.8 | 0 |
| 1745 | 8.8 | 8.85 | -0.05 |
| 1746 | 8.7 | 8.66 | 0.04 |
| 1747 | 9.8 | 9.84 | -0.04 |
| 1748 | 8.8 | 8.79 | 0.01 |
| 1749 | 9.5 | 9.49 | 0.01 |
| 1750 | 9.7 | 9.71 | -0.01 |
| 1751 | 8.5 | 8.47 | 0.03 |
| 1752 | 9.2 | 9.21 | -0.01 |
| 1753 | 9.1 | 9.12 | -0.02 |
| 1754 | 8.9 | 8.87 | 0.03 |
| 1755 | 8.6 | 8.58 | 0.02 |
| 1756 | 8.8 | 8.78 | 0.02 |
| 1757 | 9 | 8.97 | 0.03 |
| 1758 | 9 | 8.98 | 0.02 |
| 1759 | 10 | 10.03 | -0.03 |
| 1760 | 9.8 | 9.85 | -0.05 |
| 1761 | 10 | 10.02 | -0.02 |
| 1762 | 9.6 | 9.61 | -0.01 |
| 1763 | 8.9 | 8.95 | -0.05 |
| 1764 | 8.7 | 8.73 | -0.03 |
| 1765 | 8.6 | 8.55 | 0.05 |
| 1766 | 8.7 | 8.66 | 0.04 |
| 1767 | 8.7 | 8.7 | 0 |
| 1768 | 8.9 | 8.95 | -0.05 |
| 1769 | 8.8 | 8.81 | -0.01 |
| 1770 | 8.5 | 8.53 | -0.03 |
| 1771 | 8.6 | 8.58 | 0.02 |
| 1772 | 9.2 | 9.17 | 0.03 |
| 1773 | 9.3 | 9.29 | 0.01 |
| 1774 | 9.1 | 9.09 | 0.01 |
| 1775 | 10.1 | 10.11 | -0.01 |
| 1776 | 9 | 9.02 | -0.02 |
| 1777 | 9.1 | 9.12 | -0.02 |
| 1778 | 9.2 | 9.23 | -0.03 |
| 1779 | 10.4 | 10.41 | -0.01 |
| 1780 | 9.1 | 9.12 | -0.02 |
| 1781 | 10.2 | 10.23 | -0.03 |
| 1782 | 8 | 8.05 | -0.05 |
| 1783 | 9.3 | 9.31 | -0.01 |
| 1784 | 7.8 | 7.85 | -0.05 |
| 1785 | 8.6 | 8.58 | 0.02 |
| 1786 | 8.2 | 8.27 | -0.07 |
| 1787 | 9.3 | 9.31 | -0.01 |
| 1788 | 9.2 | 9.22 | -0.02 |
| 1789 | 8.9 | 8.93 | -0.03 |
| 1790 | 9.4 | 9.46 | -0.06 |
| 1791 | 9.3 | 9.29 | 0.01 |
| 1792 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 0 |
| 1793 | 9.1 | 9.13 | -0.03 |
| 1794 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 0 |
| 1795 | 8.7 | 8.71 | -0.01 |
| 1796 | 9 | 9.02 | -0.02 |
| 1797 | 9 | 9.03 | -0.03 |
| 1798 | 9.6 | 9.63 | -0.03 |
| 1799 | 7.9 | 7.92 | -0.02 |
| 1800 | 9.3 | 9.28 | 0.02 |
| 1801 | 9.6 | 9.63 | -0.03 |
| 1802 | 9 | 8.98 | 0.02 |
| 1803 | 9.1 | 9.09 | 0.01 |
| 1804 | 9.6 | 9.59 | 0.01 |
| 1805 | 9 | 9 | 0 |
| 1806 | 9.8 | 9.84 | -0.04 |
| 1807 | 8.7 | 8.69 | 0.01 |
| 1808 | 8.9 | 8.86 | 0.04 |
| 1809 | 9 | 8.96 | 0.04 |
| 1810 | 8.8 | 8.78 | 0.02 |
| 1811 | 9.7 | 9.69 | 0.01 |
| 1812 | 8.2 | 8.21 | -0.01 |
| 1813 | 8.7 | 8.72 | -0.02 |
| 1814 | 7.8 | 7.78 | 0.02 |
| 1815 | 9.1 | 9.07 | 0.03 |
| 1816 | 7.9 | 7.89 | 0.01 |
| 1817 | 8.9 | 8.89 | 0.01 |
| 1818 | 9.9 | 9.88 | 0.02 |
| 1819 | 9.3 | 9.27 | 0.03 |
| 1820 | 8.6 | 8.56 | 0.04 |
| 1821 | 9.6 | 9.55 | 0.05 |
| 1822 | 10.1 | 10.06 | 0.04 |
| 1823 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 0 |
| 1824 | 9.3 | 9.32 | -0.02 |
| 1825 | 9.8 | 9.76 | 0.04 |
| 1826 | 10.1 | 10.09 | 0.01 |
| 1827 | 9.5 | 9.51 | -0.01 |
| 1828 | 10.3 | 10.32 | -0.02 |
| 1829 | 8.2 | 8.18 | 0.02 |
| 1830 | 8.7 | 8.72 | -0.02 |
| 1831 | 10.1 | 10.13 | -0.03 |
| 1832 | 9.5 | 9.49 | 0.01 |
| 1833 | 9.5 | 9.52 | -0.02 |
| 1834 | 10.5 | 10.51 | -0.01 |
| 1835 | 9.6 | 9.57 | 0.03 |
| 1836 | 8.9 | 8.88 | 0.02 |
| 1837 | 8.9 | 8.85 | 0.05 |
| 1838 | 8.1 | 8.1 | 0 |
| 1839 | 8.7 | 8.71 | -0.01 |
| 1840 | 8.5 | 8.52 | -0.02 |
| 1841 | 8.8 | 8.75 | 0.05 |
| 1842 | 9.3 | 9.25 | 0.05 |
| 1843 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 0 |
| 1844 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 0 |
| 1845 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 0 |
| 1846 | 10.2 | 10.16 | 0.04 |
| 1847 | 9.3 | 9.26 | 0.04 |
| 1848 | 9.4 | 9.42 | -0.02 |
| 1849 | 9.3 | 9.32 | -0.02 |
| 1850 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 0 |
| 1851 | 9.2 | 9.18 | 0.02 |
| 1852 | 9.8 | 9.82 | -0.02 |
| 1853 | 8.4 | 8.41 | -0.01 |
| 1854 | 9.3 | 9.34 | -0.04 |
| 1855 | 8.1 | 8.09 | 0.01 |
| 1856 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 0 |
| 1857 | 10.1 | 10.11 | -0.01 |
| 1858 | 9.2 | 9.16 | 0.04 |
| 1859 | 9.6 | 9.64 | -0.04 |
| 1860 | 7.9 | 7.92 | -0.02 |
| 1861 | 9.2 | 9.15 | 0.05 |
| 1862 | 9.2 | 9.21 | -0.01 |
| 1863 | 9.7 | 9.69 | 0.01 |
| 1864 | 8.9 | 8.87 | 0.03 |
| 1865 | 9.7 | 9.72 | -0.02 |
| 1866 | 9.7 | 9.68 | 0.02 |
| 1867 | 9 | 9.03 | -0.03 |
| 1868 | 10.4 | 10.4 | 0 |
| 1869 | 9.6 | 9.62 | -0.02 |
| 1870 | 9 | 9.02 | -0.02 |
| 1871 | 9.1 | 9.07 | 0.03 |
| 1872 | 9.8 | 9.76 | 0.04 |
| 1873 | 9 | 9.03 | -0.03 |
| 1874 | 9.3 | 9.33 | -0.03 |
| 1875 | 9.5 | 9.48 | 0.02 |
| 1876 | 9.5 | 9.53 | -0.03 |
| 1877 | 9.2 | 9.19 | 0.01 |
| 1878 | 9.3 | 9.26 | 0.04 |
| 1879 | 7.4 | 7.44 | -0.04 |
| 1880 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 0 |
| 1881 | 8.6 | 8.58 | 0.02 |
| 1882 | 9.5 | 9.47 | 0.03 |
| 1883 | 9 | 9.04 | -0.04 |
| 1884 | 9.8 | 9.85 | -0.05 |
| 1885 | 8.6 | 8.58 | 0.02 |
| 1886 | 8.7 | 8.74 | -0.04 |
| 1887 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 0 |
| 1888 | 8.2 | 8.24 | -0.04 |
| 1889 | 9 | 9.02 | -0.02 |
| 1890 | 8.8 | 8.76 | 0.04 |
| 1891 | 8.5 | 8.51 | -0.01 |
| 1892 | 8.2 | 8.18 | 0.02 |
| 1893 | 10 | 10.01 | -0.01 |
| 1894 | 9.3 | 9.32 | -0.02 |
| 1895 | 8.7 | 8.7 | 0 |
| 1896 | 9.3 | 9.34 | -0.04 |
| 1897 | 9.4 | 9.44 | -0.04 |
| 1898 | 10.1 | 10.1 | 0 |
| 1899 | 9.7 | 9.71 | -0.01 |
| 1900 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 0 |
| 1901 | 9.2 | 9.15 | 0.05 |
| 1902 | 8.9 | 8.88 | 0.02 |
| 1903 | 9.3 | 9.33 | -0.03 |
| 1904 | 9 | 9.02 | -0.02 |
| 1905 | 9.2 | 9.16 | 0.04 |
| 1906 | 9.5 | 9.47 | 0.03 |
| 1907 | 8.9 | 8.88 | 0.02 |
| 1908 | 9.3 | 9.28 | 0.02 |
| 1909 | 8.6 | 8.59 | 0.01 |
| 1910 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 0 |
| 1911 | 10.1 | 10.09 | 0.01 |
| 1912 | 9.4 | 9.37 | 0.03 |
| 1913 | 9.8 | 9.83 | -0.03 |
| 1914 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 0 |
| 1915 | 9 | 8.96 | 0.04 |
| 1916 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 0 |
| 1917 | 8.5 | 8.55 | -0.05 |
| 1918 | 9.5 | 9.53 | -0.03 |
| 1919 | 8.5 | 8.53 | -0.03 |
| 1920 | 9.6 | 9.58 | 0.02 |
| 1921 | 10.5 | 10.51 | -0.01 |
| 1922 | 8.7 | 8.7 | 0 |
| 1923 | 9.1 | 9.11 | -0.01 |
| 1924 | 9.3 | 9.29 | 0.01 |
| 1925 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 0 |
| 1926 | 9.7 | 9.74 | -0.04 |
| 1927 | 9.2 | 9.24 | -0.04 |
| 1928 | 9.6 | 9.59 | 0.01 |
| 1929 | 9.1 | 9.06 | 0.04 |
| 1930 | 9.5 | 9.47 | 0.03 |
| 1931 | 9 | 9.02 | -0.02 |
| 1932 | 9.4 | 9.41 | -0.01 |
| 1933 | 9.9 | 9.86 | 0.04 |
| 1934 | 10 | 10.03 | -0.03 |
| 1935 | 9.7 | 9.74 | -0.04 |
| 1936 | 9.4 | 9.35 | 0.05 |
| 1937 | 9.6 | 9.59 | 0.01 |
| 1938 | 10.2 | 10.21 | -0.01 |
| 1939 | 9.7 | 9.7 | 0 |
| 1940 | 9.1 | 9.06 | 0.04 |
| 1941 | 9.1 | 9.12 | -0.02 |
| 1942 | 9.1 | 9.11 | -0.01 |
| 1943 | 10.1 | 10.05 | 0.05 |
| 1944 | 9.6 | 9.59 | 0.01 |
| 1945 | 10.3 | 10.29 | 0.01 |
| 1946 | 9.5 | 9.46 | 0.04 |
| 1947 | 9.6 | 9.65 | -0.05 |
| 1948 | 10 | 10.03 | -0.03 |
| 1949 | 10.6 | 10.64 | -0.04 |
| 1950 | 9.4 | 9.43 | -0.03 |
| 1951 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 0 |
| 1952 | 9.1 | 9.12 | -0.02 |
| 1953 | 9.9 | 9.87 | 0.03 |
| 1954 | 9.3 | 9.26 | 0.04 |
| 1955 | 9.3 | 9.33 | -0.03 |
| 1956 | 8.9 | 8.87 | 0.03 |
| 1957 | 10.1 | 10.06 | 0.04 |
| 1958 | 9.4 | 9.45 | -0.05 |
| 1959 | 10.5 | 10.52 | -0.02 |
| 1960 | 9.7 | 9.75 | -0.05 |
| 1961 | 10 | 9.95 | 0.05 |
| 1962 | 8.6 | 8.61 | -0.01 |
| 1963 | 8.5 | 8.52 | -0.02 |
| 1964 | 9.5 | 9.48 | 0.02 |
| 1965 | 9 | 8.99 | 0.01 |
| 1966 | 9.5 | 9.47 | 0.03 |
| 1967 | 9.6 | 9.64 | -0.04 |
| 1968 | 9.3 | 9.32 | -0.02 |
| 1969 | 9.3 | 9.32 | -0.02 |
| 1970 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 0 |
| 1971 | 9.7 | 9.72 | -0.02 |
| 1972 | 9.2 | 9.22 | -0.02 |
| 1973 | 9.6 | 9.57 | 0.03 |
| 1974 | 9.6 | 9.64 | -0.04 |
| 1975 | 10 | 10.04 | -0.04 |
| 1976 | 10 | 10.1 | -0.1 |
| 1977 | 9.4 | 9.51 | -0.11 |
| 1978 | 9.4 | 9.47 | -0.07 |
| 1979 | 8.7 | 8.85 | -0.15 |
| 1980 | 9.4 | 9.42 | -0.02 |
| 1981 | 9.2 | 9.28 | -0.08 |
| 1982 | 9.8 | 9.86 | -0.06 |
| 1983 | 10.1 | 10.1 | 0 |
| 1984 | 9.7 | 9.75 | -0.05 |
| 1985 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 0 |
| 1986 | 8.7 | 8.81 | -0.11 |
| 1987 | 9 | 9.08 | -0.08 |
| 1988 | 9.7 | 9.8 | -0.1 |
| 1989 | 10.4 | 10.54 | -0.14 |
| 1990 | 10.6 | 10.65 | -0.05 |
| 1991 | 9.5 | 9.58 | -0.08 |
| 1992 | 9.8 | 9.87 | -0.07 |
| 1993 | 9.5 | 9.52 | -0.02 |
| 1994 | 10.2 | 10.29 | -0.09 |
| 1995 | 10.5 | 10.55 | -0.05 |
| 1996 | 9.2 | 9.22 | -0.02 |
| 1997 | 10.5 | 10.56 | -0.06 |
| 1998 | 10.3 | 10.35 | -0.05 |
| 1999 | 10.6 | 10.65 | -0.05 |
| 2000 | 10.2 | 10.32 | -0.12 |
| 2001 | 9.9 | 9.97 | -0.07 |
| 2002 | 10.6 | 10.63 | -0.03 |
| 2003 | 10.5 | 10.54 | -0.04 |
| 2004 | 10.5 | 10.5 | 0 |
| 2005 | 10.5 | 10.48 | 0.02 |
| 2006 | 10.9 | 10.87 | 0.03 |
| 2007 | 10.5 | 10.5 | 0 |
| 2008 | 10 | 9.97 | 0.03 |
| 2009 | 10.2 | 10.14 | 0.06 |
| 2010 | 8.9 | 8.86 | 0.04 |
| 2011 | 10.7 | 10.72 | -0.02 |
| 2012 | 9.8 | 9.72 | 0.08 |
| 2013 | 9.6 | 9.61 | -0.01 |
| 2014 | 11 | 10.95 | 0.05 |
| 2015 | 10.3 | 10.31 | -0.01 |
| 2016 | 10.4 | 10.34 | 0.06 |
| 2017 | 10.6 | 10.58 | 0.02 |
| 2018 | 10.7 | 10.68 | 0.02 |
| 2019 | 10.4 | 10.34 | 0.06 |
| 2020 | 10.8 | 10.76 | 0.04 |
| 2021 | 10.3 | 10.26 | 0.04 |
28 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I have not studied the CET data in detail but now know it was cooled. The full UK mean temps and sun hours data were all manipulated with AGW bias in Jan 2020. Some individual months cooled by as much as 0.3c. Pre 1990 temps cooled by ~x3 as much as post 1990 temps. 28 individually selected months from the 10 warmest years were cooled making the older moths drop down the tables in some cases. The variation in hours of sunshine has been reduced too. I have recently found a 100% correlation between mean temps and hours of sunshine both are up exactly the same.
Last 5 years 10% more than 100 year average.
Last 10 years 5% over 40 year average.
The above using pre 2020 data where possible.
The whole Met office scenario stinks.
UK sunshine hours vs. temperature, last 100 years.
See Tallbloke’s Twitter-linked comment and graph at ‘June 30, 2023 at 10:12 pm’ in the above link.
Reblogged this on sideshowtog.
What is most suspicious is the adjustments to the Central England Temperature (CET) values in the 1990s and then for the last decade. The Met Office do have other datasets than the CET that give average values of all climate parameters for ‘UK’ or ‘England’ etc (that Andrew Collinson refers to in his post above), and it is the UK dataset for temperature that the Met office and BBC are referring to when they say this current June has been a ‘record one’. However, unlike the CET those other datasets have always been ‘black boxes’ because they are based on computer-generation that generates gridded values for given grid points across the country, although they are supposed to be correlated to values of actually measured data from particular stations. The CET was and should be much more straightforward than that – it was based on actual values measured at specific weather stations and intended to be representative of ‘central England’ (an area between Lancashire and London). There were three stations used at one time – Malvern, Rothamsted and Stonyhurst – and CET was a simple average of the three. This meant the CET figures were ‘transparent’ – you and I could check them against actual data recorded at actual stations. What I fail to understand is why data from actual weather stations in the 1990s or the 2000s needs any adjustment at all? What can have changed?? The other odd things is that – in general – the 1990s appears to have been cooled and the 2000s made warmer. This has to be suspect. One of the things about the CET is that, in general, it showed that the weather had become warmer over a relatively short number of years at the end of the 1980s, but that since then it has largely plateaued. If I was a cynic I would say that this was embarrassing for those who want to argue that we are in ‘climate crisis’ because it failed to show temperatures were continuing to rocket. These changes to CET values – although subtle – tend to make it now look as if temperatures have continued to increase through to 2023 and reinforces the argument of ‘climate crisis’. I will be interested to look at the impact on particular months, because one of the things the Met office never mentioned about the CET was that if you took ‘running 12 month totals’ (rather than calendar years) the warmest 12 months in the record was as long ago as May 2006-April 2007 (at 11.7C), and this has not been beaten – the current last 12 months I have seen (June 2022 to May 2023 is 11.0C).
If you go to this met office site you will see the changes made to stations used between the old and new version of CET.
Click to access HadCET_v2_guidance_notes.pdf
By changing the stations used I guess they have also had to make changes for the difference between UHI effect.
They have made known the changes, but I have yet to see their reasoning behind how they arrived at the actual new values. I would have thought they could have been more open in this issue, it does make one suspicious. Previously any changes were accompanied by a detailed account of the reasoning and calculations.
Here is the proper reference:https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/releases/HadCET_v2_guidance_notes.pdf
Here is the proper reference:
Click to access HadCET_v2_guidance_notes.pdf
Thanks, Paul, I’ll read these links with interest and see what the changes are.
What they have done is remove the clear step-wise increases and smoothed them into more of a trend line. The steps are clearly visible in other records, notably the satellite data but that doesn’t fit with the theory, so the data cannot be right. I’m.sure the Met Offuce has all sorts of plausible explanations for the changes but that’s always the case when people manipulate data. Indeed, in numerous cases of fraud, some of the manipulators seem genuinely oblivious to what they are doing and believe they are simply “reinforcing” what they “know” to be true. As Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
They can adjust the data, but they can’t erase the written record:
They seem to be rounding errors ?
Version 1 only one decimal place, version 2 two decimal places.
“…rounding errors…”
Not errors, simply rounding. ALL of the ‘changes’ are this except for a few years around 1980, when they dropped the legacy by 0.1 and then rounded. As data manipulation goes – not even trying. I have not bothered to look at individual
months. THAT is where I would expect them to fiddle some summer months.
None of this has the slightest scientific interest. It is all about preparing to shout
“Hottest EVAH!”
If they actually wrote 10 instead of 10.0 this technically is a howler since 10 on its own means rounded to show number of tens. The zero is a filler.
Yes not strictly rounding errors. Perhaps I should say, “inappropriate rounding”.
At least it looks like this from the figures we are given. Perhaps the original data have more decimal places?
BTW, “10” on its own means 9.5 to 10.5.
In the absence of any statement of uncertainties, we have to assume that any value between 9.5 and 10.5 is equally likely.
When subtracting values with different numbers of decimal places, the result cannot have any more decimal places than the value in the sum with the least number of decimal places.
For example, 10.5 – 10.38 = 0.1 degrees. NOT 0.12 degrees. The second decimal place is a random number and by convention is not included.
Have they made these changes public with a detailed explanation of why they tamper with what was considered FIXED OFFICIAL data?
The obvious thing they have done is taken old data that was calculated to 2 decimal places and rewritten it to be 1 decimal place.
Now since old thermometers didn’t reliably record to 2 decimal places there seems to be some logic
If one year seems to be average 17.01 C and one year 17.02 C you can’b sure the two are really different.
typo can’t be sure the two are really different.
If it is just rounding, the differences are just spurious. Which could be the case with the pre-1970 data. But the more recent data has a trend so there is more to it than rounding.
I think we need to know about what has happened with the decimal places before we can comment to be honest.
That may be true up to 1970, where the errors appear random and equally up or down. Thus as I said before, I suspect the 1650-1970 average is the same as it was. But 1970-1995 shows changes in onkybobe direction and if much greater magnitude than those before, which is odd, followed by 1995-present where the opposite occurs. That too seems odd. And as far as I can see, the record is now artificial, with no way of knowing if it is more accurate. Thus, what is the point?
I was just musing about having three stations and averaging the results, if that’s what they do.
There must be a lot of times when the answer contains either recurring 3s or recurring 6s. So why choose three stations and how many decimal places?
The other thing I noticed was that numbers like x.x5 aren’t rounded consistently, mainly down but not always, does that mean the average numbers are held/calculated to at least 3dp?
BBC radio this morning; waiting for MO’s final report on hottest June ever and whether it was caused by climate change. LOL.
Please the CET adjustments
Thank you
<
div>Steve Allan
Sent from my iPhone
<
div dir=”ltr”>
<
blockquote type=”cite”>
So they have simply rounded to 1DP instead of 2DP?
Matt Ridley has picked up on Paul’s post
and is being quoted on TalkTV
The real story here may be error-correction bias. The previous version of CET was too cool by around 0.25C (annual average, higher in summer) after the station change in 2004. Would they have devoted so much effort if the error had been the other way?
One Tweeter highlights a 2019 blog post about Dutch adjustments
“the correction is negative on only 2 of the total of 364 days. In that case it means that the temperature has been adjusted upwards.”
https://clintel.nl/het-raadsel-van-de-verdwenen-hittegolven-een-belangrijke-update/
The empirical data should always be available to permit review and comment by others.
There is a lot of talk in here about rounding errors but a change of 0.15 degrees (1979) cannot be a rounding error. It is manipulation of an official record. As simple as that.
Other large changes are 1976,1977,1981,1982,1987 and 1988. All over 0.05 degrees.