Met Office Under Scrutiny
July 14, 2023
By Paul Homewood
What a difference a year makes at the Met Office. In just 13 months, the 15-year temperature warming trend in the U.K. has doubled to a helpful 0.2°C. In the process it changes an inconvenient flat-lining trend, with warming of around 0.1°C, to the more Net Zero-friendly hike of nearly 0.2°C. No doubt the Met Office has a simple explanation for this sensational statistical discovery. But as we have seen in past articles, these uplifts are common at the Met Office in both the national and global record.
Full story here.
24 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I commented on this “story” on Daily Sceptic. All the met office did was add the datum for last year to the chart. The trend line looked different as a result but that’s data for you.
I saw your comment. I tend to agree. Have any actual base figures been changed?
None at all. It’s obvious from the two charts (last year and this year) that the only change is adding 2022. This causes a change in final bit of the trend line. What it really shows is that trends (or pauses) over 10 years or less are prone to significant change based on a single year. Any how nothing to do with Met Office manipulation.
What period are they averaging across? If 10yrs then thats a joke. While 30yrs is a standard single Met data point it isnt long enough to be meaningful given how long the climate cycles are. What would be more useful is identifying where we are positioned in the many natural climate cycles.
Of course the data being used is now highly suspect, due to UHI and runways and adjustments and inconsistent recording devices now prevailing. Even satellites can be prone to significant errors.
The base figures have been changed .
The Met Office uses Hadcrutt data which is being changed to try to promote the Global Warming fraud .https://notrickszone.com/2023/01/09/hadcrut-data-manipulation-changes-2000-2014-warming-trend-from-0-03c-to-0-14c-per-decade/
Go to the Daily Sceptic article. Look at the two charts from the Met Office – one from last year and the most recent one which Morrison suggests indicates some kind of adjustment or fiddling to get rid of the “pause”. You will see the data points are identical except for the addition of 2022 to this year’s chart.
M F can believe what he wants , but the fact is that the Hadcrut data , which is what the Met Office uses , has been adjusted up from 0.03C per decade , to 0.14C per decade ..
So the Daily Sceptic is right to question the lies being put out by the Met Office
I don’t think the Hardcrut data has been fiddled with but even if it has that is not the point. The accusation is that the Met Office somehow turned a 0.1 trend into a 0.2 trend between last year and this. The only change between last year and this is the addition of the figure for 2022.
Check this out:
Agreed, but the article discusses that. As it says, trend lines for rising trends should be based off low points to avoid a single, possibly anomalously high data point substantially altering a trend. it’s obviously absurd to claim that a single data point can double a long term trend.
First – the article is just wrong.
The whole point of a moving average or other trend line is to balance out random fluctuations high and low.
If you were to decide to remove outliers before calculating the trend then you would have to remove extreme high and extreme low.
If you were to adopt a bizarre practice of only including low points (how do you define low?) then you might well get quite a strong upward trend – who can say as no one has done that.
In any case there is still no question of the Met Office having done anything other than add the 2022 data and redrawn the trend line using the same algorithm they used before (presumably a trailing moving average).
Actually that’s exactly how trend lines are drawn in say finance. I didn’t say I agreed with it and I don’t agree with how climate science draws supposed trends either. Picking lows in a supposed trend is simple – im not sure why you thonk its difficult? Its only hard when theres no actual trend or far more noise than signal. Claiming nobody does it when there’s a link to people doing in the article is a bit silly. And lots of science removes outliers, particularly biology as both experimental and natural data tends to produce outliers that can be ignored. In any case, trends are for amateurs who like to see simplistic patterns that simply cannot exist in chaotic non-linear systems.
Thanks for that. I looked at the original article on my iPad which doesn’t show up links clearly. I had not considered the finance use of trend lines. This is rather different as it is guide to action – when to sell, when to buy – hence you draw the trend line on the bottom when prices are going up and on the top when prices are going down – clearly we are not in this world.
I don’t find it all straightforward to identify the lows. Look at the period between 1910 and 1930 – how many lows are there?
Yes it is common practice to remove outliers in some contexts. I find it hard to justify it here but if you are going to do it then you must do it for lows as well as highs.
None of which changes the fundamental point that there is no evidence of any kind of fiddling by the met office.
Thanks for pointing out the comparison of the 2 graphs. I agree with your comments.
However, both graphs appear to be different to the one given here: admittedly without data for 2022, but showing a rather distinct ‘pause’.
https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/united-kingdom/climate-data-historical
Interesting – I think that if you “squash” the chart you link to horizontally then the actual data points will be the same as on the met office charts. The key difference is they are only using 5 year smoothing which is very volatile. When they add 2022 to this chart I am pretty sure the pause will go away.
Unfortunately there is far too much money at stake , greasing palms and buying power, for us to do much about it. Unless and until the SHTF in a major way , with black outs etc. Of course they have already covered that with the ‘Putin effect’.
The huge cost of the Met Office to taxpayers is surely good enough reason to close it down ?
And I believe that some broadcasters source their weather material from smaller independent firms which I guess charge less. My preferred marine weather forecaster is based in the Czech Republic. I must have written this before but is the Met Office due for another state of the art computer? Time now for a new plot plot of the monthly UK forecasts from the Met Office against the actual weather. Were we not alerted to predictions of v. hot weather ? — but there is still time.
Slightly O/T: I read a year or two ago that the solar system is warming slightly, reason unknown. Is this true? Does it not undermine the AGW narrative?
The Met Office simply cannot be trusted for any accurate data. As has been posted many times on here, most of their measuring sites are not representative for climate monitoring purposes.
What is really ridiculous of them, though, is they cannot even update their own public records. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-synoptic-and-climate-stations
I have notified them 4 times that Gravesend closed in 2018 but, hey, it’s still on their list.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend/news/famous-weather-station-closed-191601/
Try finding Hampton W Works – it ain’t there and neither are a few others.
So which ones are they using instead? Hell it can’t be Brogdale, Faversham (UK “record” site in 2003) on account they have forgotten it even exists!
But they do know how to take records when 4 Typhoon Jets take of from RAF Coningsby.
After all all 3 GB national records are RAF Coningsby England, Hawarden Airport Wales and the (former) RAF Charterhall, Scotland. The N.I. record was set next to a sewage treatment plant as if to prove how crap its data is.
Met office appear to be fully signed up to ‘Man-made-climate-change’, consequently base all their models on that premise. The fact that they think they can tell us what will happen in 2050 is laughable as they can hardly predict 2 days ahead. DOF is my method, look out the window.
Flag upside down on that sand castle!
If Met Office would just do weather, they might be worth keeping.
But they won’t. They can’t be reformed. So close it down. Create a new national weather service to do meteorology. A condition of employment: any mention of ‘climate’ will be a discharge offense.
But ‘they’ are focused, at present, merely on being able to say ‘things are going in the right [from the alarmist point of view] DIRECTION. Any trivial and essentially meaningless number will do.
You are in a train from Bath, nearing Reading, expecting to be in London in 30 minutes. It stops. It jerks into motion for half a mile, and stops again. Then after a long wait it backs up a hundred yards. Later it starts going forward and trundles very slowly towards what is clearly an amber light up ahead. It is already an hour late. We are at least going in the right direction. London awaits Actually what happened was the train went out of service at Reading!
It is true that most people do not know what new information, in the signal-processing sense, actually IS. Inevitably they jump to silly conclusions. If you can bear the irritation, listen to the moronic Wimbledon commentators. “Fookalokovich had first-serve percentage of 40 in the first set. It is 50% now but that is still not good enough to beat Pluckybrit. What actually happened was Mr F tanked the first set because he bet on himself to win in three, and is now acing the crowd favourite off the Court