Met Office Creates Warming Out Of Thin Air
By Paul Homewood
Chris Morrison keeps the pressure up on the Met Office:
Interest and concern continues to grow about the numerous retrospective adjustments that the U.K. Met Office has made to its global HadCRUT temperature database. Often the adjustments cool earlier periods going back to the 1930s and add warming in more recent times. The adjustments are of course most convenient in promoting the global warming narrative surrounding Net Zero fantasies. There is particular interest in the 0.15°C cooling inserted in the 1940s and the greater warming added in more recent decades. The scientific blog No Tricks Zone (NTZ) has recently returned to the story noting the state-controlled Met Office has “corrected” the data to “align with their narrative”.
In suggesting a narrative, NTZ traces the adjustments back to the 2009 leak of ‘Climategate’ emails from academic staff at the University of East Anglia working on the HadCRUT project. In one email speculating on ‘correcting’ sea surface temperatures to partly explain the 1940s ‘warming blip’, it is noted that “if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15°C, then this would be significant for the global mean”. It would be good to “remove at least part of the 1940s blip”, it is suggested. Just as they have said they would do, comments NTZ, 0.15°C of warmth has gradually been removed from the 1940s HadCRUT global temperature data over the last 15 years.
Javier Vinos – Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Solving-Climate-Puzzle-Suns-Surprising-ebook/dp/B0CM5982VX/
Read the full article here.
The Daily Sceptic report also maintains the pressure on the Met Office for failing to respond to concerns about the poor quality of its temperature recording network, following revelations, both here and in the Daily Sceptic, that most of the Met Office’s weather stations are junk status Class 4 and 5, totally inappropriate for climatological use:
Complaints about this have been studiously ignored by the Met Office.
According to the WMO, Class 3 stations can overstate underlying temperatures by 1C. Class 4 and 5 are even worse, artificially adding up to 2C and 5C respectively.
The WMO’s station siting standards state:
The WMO could not be clearer. Temperatures recorded at Class 3, 4 and 5 sites should never be used where they are intended to be representative of a wider area, only for local purposes, such as to give temperatures at airports for aviation purposes.
Only 24 of the 380 stations used by the Met Office to calculate UK temperatures are fit for purpose, Class 1.
Why are the Met Office still using the others? Could it be that they help to inflate the warming trend?
As the WMO says, we do not live in a perfect world. Nevertheless, there is no reason why the Met Office cannot do what NOAA do, and that is to dump their existing network, which is totally unfit for purpose, and replace it with a small number of pristine, Class 1 stations. These must be visually inspected at least once a year, to ensure they are properly maintained. They should also have long records, in order to provide a long dataset.
Finally they must ensure that the environment around the site has not materially changed over the period of record. For instance, a perfect local siting may be compromised by urban encroachment during preceding decades. The WMO classification system, of course, makes no allowance for this.
It maybe that there are no stations which meet these criteria, in which the Met Office should admit that it cannot accurately measure UK temperatures in the past and therefore cannot make claims about record high temperatures or quantify how much the UK has warmed in the last century or so, if at all.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Well the ptb covered up the corruption shown in the Climategate scandal, so why should the Met Office be anything different today? They ignore all criticism and always get away with it. The media is part of the climate change scam, so never questions the Met Office, as are Whitehall and Westminster (and I won’t mention the UN or the WEF).
Did you know that almost 50% of IPCC ‘experts’ are UK government appointees?
Without the UK, this worldwide scam probably would not exist. Why? Who benefits?
That’s exactly what I have been pondering, JW. I have no experience nor knowledge relevant to climate, physics or eletrikery, other than an enquiring mind but I’m certain that AGW is a scam that the West (U.S., UK & EU etc) is losing. Why ?.
Follow the money. A purpose of perverse government is to transfer public money into private hands. Look no further than the green energy and carbon credits scams. CBDCs will enable these to be used to achieve the total, final immiseration of the people.
Thanks petgeobar. “Following the money” leads me to think that our Glorious Leaders may not be on our (the UK’s taxpayers) side. Surely not ? Our Glorious Leaders cannot be …………. traitors, can they ?. Sell ‘their’ country down the river, surely not ?. I almost couldn’t believe it. Perhaps I ought to get out more.
Hi Michael, Do you have any information as to who the “experts” are?
I am sure you know, but this is how the IPPC works. Scientists associated with the IPCC are set tasks. They are not given freedom just to follow their noses or just see where research takes them because there are boundaries set by the IPCC and one of the most outrageous is that from the getgo in its founding documentation the IPCC named CO2 as the culprit! They start a claimed scientific experiment with a conclusion and have spent most of the past 40 years trying to get their models to fit. It is a travesty of science but that is the IPCC. This is why for example the IPCC stay well clear of looking at the contribution of water vapour in the atmosphere as possible greenhouse gas because they know they will not like the answer!
Also, is it any coincidence that “G” for government was missed out of the IPCC acronym (The Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change). I hold that was a deliberate action with the intention to pretend that the IPCC is independent of politics. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The vast majority of what their so called scientists do is not producing empirical data which is the basis for any science, but modelling. In the rest of science, modelling has a very important place. However, it must be grounded and constrained by empirical data. Science is based on empirical data and models do not produce empirical data. Where real data exists under no circumstances should modeling be used yet, that is exactly what happens in the climate fraud industry. Real statistically significant empirical data supporting conclusions they do not like are simply ignored…and they continue on with their pointless, I would suggest “fraudulent” modelling to get the answers they need….. and they still fail!!
For example there is a “perfect” grid of temperature recording stations in the US created specifically not to include bad sites or urban sites. This was put together by concerned “scientists” who understood that the temperature record was being skewed by unsuitable sites and worse, urban sites. The result? The perfect grid shows no warming, where as the one that is used includes urban sites shows warming. What happened? The perfect grid data is simply ignored.
We have the same corruption on our side of the pond where the Met Office has tampered three times with the Central England Temperature Record, altering historical data more than once. This in it’s self is a scandal of monumental significance. The same quack body hyperventilates about 0.1 degreeC temperature changes using sites, the majority of which have an error 2-5 degrees +/-! The same charlatans proclaim instantaneous temperature records using spurious unrepresentative sites. What we are seeing is the subversion of science to be a respectable tool for political coercion of the masses. That is about as far removed from science as it is possible to be. Worse still we have have a media who are majority left wing and promote the narrative. Investigative journalism no longer exists. Instead we have garbage regurgitators a plenty. Rowland, McGrath and the modern history graduate climate expert Rannard to name but a few.
Why you will ask are they so obsessed with modelling? Quite simply when modelling you dictate input. Of course if you are setting out to produce garbage you can do that in a real science experiment but still you cannot control the output. The biggest concern to any real scientist is the introduction of bias seen or unseen into their experimentation. The fact that clearly corrupted data giving the answer they want is used without concern indeed in preference to good data saying something different speaks a thousand words. Also the climate fraud industry is awash with “studies of studies”. “New study show it is worse than we thought”, says authors desperate for more funding to continue their “vital” work. I guarantee you that most if not all of those studies are actually studies of studies and are not original work. If there is claimed “original work” it will invariably be based on assumption based modelling. Also, they pick which studies to use, so bias is there from the get go and always ALWAYS you will find those studies were all about modelling not based on statistically significant empirical data obtained by repeatable and falsifiable methodologies.
In the rest of real science modelling accounts for maybe 20% of work done. The climate fraud industry is a complete unique outlier with not less than 80% of its output coming from modelling. Is it any wonder that for 40 years the IPCC and other associated charlatans have been trying to fit the CO2 square peg into their “CO2 is the temperature control knob” round hole and failing?Not once has one of them behaved scientifically and suggested that maybe it is the basis of the IPCC premise which is flawed. In no other field of science is science conducted starting from a conclusion. In no other field of science are failed modelling experiments repeated over and over again hoping for different outcomes.
So on to the IPCC “scientific reports”. Worse is to come because the bought scientists submit their work and are invited to write summaries and conclusions. Now the people working for the IPCC and actually writing the IPCC reports are not scientists and do not have a scientific education. They are political employees and at best just plain bureaucrats. These people take the input from scientists and use and abuse it to tell the story they have been instructed by their political masters to tell. The degree of rewriting has caused more than a few scientists associated with the IPCC to resign. Interestingly I just did a simple google search and found not one reference to them except for this single example.
Scientist Quits IPCC Panel Over Comments | Science
Funny that, because there have been quite a few. Media suppression of information which does not fit the narrative anyone?
There is a political agenda at work here, not science. In some cases fraud has occurred changing words like “possible evidence” with “clear evidence”. What we read are not the conclusions of scientists but a “biased reinterpretation of those conclusions”. How is it we are being given political opinions when we are being told these are scientific views? One or two authors have picked up on the sexing up thread which passes through the IPCC output. Simply put like with all the left wing invented “crises”, they have no concept of how science is done. That is why so much emotion has crept in to their output.
Word inflation is the preserve of the left and their made up causes because like all the others they just make it up as they go along thinking all people are stupid can be controlled by their bought media lapdogs pushing the climate fraud narrative. However, people who persist in challenging their fraud, the “dangerous ones” like Dr Peter Ridd. Dr Patrick Moore, Dr Susan Cockroft and Mark Steyn can be silenced by flooding the media with takedowns about them, taking away their jobs simply by bankrupting them for daring to challenge the scam of history which is the political science world of the very fat and prosperous Klymutt industrial complex.
Thanks ‘pardonme…’ for your for your I(G)PCC analysis, which I fully accept & agree with. Computer ‘modelling’ using selected data will inevitably produce a selective answer, GIGO as one of my old Lecturers explained. What I find hard to believe is the sheer scale of the Klymut Industry – from the meeja to national broadcasters to our national & local politicians. There is almost no dissenting sound from those who ought to know better. Perhaps I am too naive ? Maybe the world & HMG has changed since the days of Chamberlain, Churchill, Gaitskell et al. Maybe Sunak, Gummer, Brearley, Starmer et al are NOT on our side.
There is almost no dissenting sound from those who ought to know better.
They want to keep their jobs. Those who disagreed are gone. Actually, when they were in school, those who disagreed openly did not graduate.
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”. Eric Arthur Blaire
Amazing how every temperature that is “wrong” needs to be corrected in a way that makes the data fit the theory better. What are the chances of that?
About 1 in a million perhaps.
What’s a few degrees when you are bringing in world government?
“All is fair in love and culture war.”
Met Office can says whatever they want to; there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.
BBC can say whatever they want to; there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.
That’s the problem. Specific numbers are a distraction from the real problem. Don’t argue numbers; argue power. Untouchable government agencies is obscene.
Exactly GC, but is there nothing we can do about it ?.
By observation, no. They have been unchecked for many years.
But don’t file complaints. It may make you feel like you are doing something, but you aren’t. You are being pacified.
Way passed time to escalate. Glue yourself to Penny Endersby.
Wut? How do you have ‘strategic change’ in a weather reporting service? Give forecasts for 2050? Fk tomorrow? It’s culture war, I tell ya! National weather service has moved beyond weather!
BBC has moved beyond the news.
Indeed. Your whole damn government is unresponsive.
Pending election? You’ll get fooled again.
Uniparty.
Unmolested evidence should always be sacrosanct. If the believers want to issue molested evidence then that evidence should be clearly marked “molested” , to reduce the risk of confusion.
Additionally, the sacrosanct unmolested evidence should always be issued with the molested evidence so that the extent of the molestation is clear to all parties.
Does anybody know the status of the weather station at Shobdon airfield? I’ve not been there for a while, and my recollection is that it was surrounded by open fields. Looking at it yesterday, it seems to have an orchard on three sides. I took a photo.
Please delete if this is too far off topic.
Hi Phil, it is Class 4. Looking at google aerial view the Taxiway/roads hard standing and unnatural/variable nature of surrounding vegetation mark it down considerably. The odd passing aircraft is not really “normal” after all!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/52%C2%B014'34.7%22N+2%C2%B053'09.0%22W/@52.2427786,-2.8880731,665m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d52.24297!4d-2.88582?entry=ttu
If you, or anyone else, wants a copy of the list just pop an email address on here and I will forward it to you. I have already supplied several others on here this way, BUT, I am not allowed to openly publish it online under the terms of the FOI from which I received it. Unbelievable eh? Public information but technically controlled by government – YCMIU!
Hi Ray
I would appreciate a copy of that list.
To: Phil@the-marshalls.org.uk
Thanks, Phil
Hi Phil sent off list a few minutes ago. Could you acknowledge receipt please.
I have to record who I sent it to. Believe it or not I am not allowed to publish this public information and have to record who else has access to it!!!!!!!
Just looked at that site on the various “streetview” and google Earth pro images available over the years and it is borderline Class 5 now as the site appears to have degraded over the years with extensive bordering hedge growth. I doubt the Met Office will re-assess it though.
“Only 24 of the 380 stations used by the Met Office to calculate UK temperatures are fit for purpose,”
Well actually it is now only 23 not 24. As Paul will know ( I shared the email response from the Met Office with him) Hastings station was shown as Class 1 but I challenged that assessment and have now had it confirmed it is now registered as only Class 4!
I am currently challenging Cassley station (also shown as class 1) and have been able to confirm that the entirety of Cassley (Loch Shin) Hydro electric power station, access roads/hard standing and air cooling for the generators lie within the critical measurement zone – class 3 or even 4 is more appropriate. I also intend to challenge several others in the near future.
Now here is a separate issue that I have discovered in extensive research into dubious Met Office activities. In my home county of Kent there are currently 7 Met Office weather stations. How does that compare with years gone by? Well in 1970 (when scares of an impending ice age were the latest religion) there were …..31 simultaneously operating Met Office stations in Kent.
So why the huge reduction most of which occurred in the 70s/80s? (N.b. This level of reduction occurred nationally)
Well back then most were “manual” stations that required operators to take readings at regular intervals on site. To “improve” forecasting and data quality (ho ho ho) these were automated obviating operator visits. To achieve this the Met Office had to change the thermometers to Platinum resistance units from traditional chemical ones AND provide power and telecoms to the sites. Back then telecomms effectively meant a land line connection.
{Discussion on change to PRT’s on another day.}
As a direct result nearly all the RURAL sites were closed down as no power or telecomms was readily available. I have identified 25 closed sites since 1970 of which 18 were in rural locations. As some examples the coldest temperature ever recorded in Kent ( -21.3°C) was recorded at rural Elmstone (very close to the middle of nowhere) but this site was closed in 1994, the second coldest was at Anvil Green (I know where it is but very few would ever find it) and this was closed in 1992. Even the hottest UK January record site at rural Eynsford was closed in 2008.
So not only are many existing Met Office sites becoming increasingly affected by UHI, they have removed a huge percentage of premium quality rural sites not so affected. Phoenix44 could probably ascertain the statistical distortions this change would have better than I can.
Now hold this thought, of the 18 closed rural sites I have identified I would suggest all were Class 1. Of the remaining 7 current sites only 3 are Class 1 and 2 of those I will challenge soon as being poor sites.
But just to put the icing on the cake I have also identified that a quarter of all sites appearing on this Met Office “Climate Averages” page DO NOT EXIST at all!!! Despite the fact that latitude/longitude co-ordinates and altitude are quoted a quarter are complete FICTION and do not have a recording station within many miles. As just one example Dungeness (shown) is over 25 radial miles from the nearest recording site.
The Met Office have confirmed this and are now rapidly trying to bluff their way of it
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-averages
More on this to follow soon.
p.s. forgot to add – don’t you just love it when climate averages are quoted to the second decimal place of one degree using data from sites inaccurate to 5 degrees!
The claimed precision of the AGW scam can be World Class.
Top comment, Ray! KBO!
This is surely the Met Office’s equivalent to the P.O. scandal. If only there was a sympathetic MP who would ask some questions in the House.
Fictional weather station sites to support a fictional climate emergency. Seems rather poetic.
Good work, Ray.
Government-approved cheating, no less.
Has any review been undertaken of the Met Office’s Weather Observations Website (WOW) that now has a massive number of professional grade Private Weather Stations (PWS) all over the country in both urban and rural areas? Their declared siting requirement for reporting purposes are identical to those run by the Met Office, and can individually be checked.
The US Wunderground website and the Davis Instruments equivalent are very similar to WOW.
Of course individual PWS data is most often downloaded to more than one of these websites.
It would be nice if the first figure in the article, the three HadCRUT sets comparison, was credited to its author, that would be me.
This figure is one of the 93 figures in my recent book:
Solving the Climate Puzzle.
Done!!
Thanks
Paul
Just ordered your book online. Looks a long read!
Thank you, Paul and Ray.