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.
The block graph above is compiled and published on Professor Ole Humlum’s climate4you site. It shows the net changes made since February 28th 2008 in the global monthly surface air temperature prepared by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. The significant cooling adjustment in the 1930s and 40s is clearly shown in blue, but what really stands out is how much warming has been added in the 21st century.
In the hiatus years of 2000-2014, the third version of HadCRUT recorded just 0.03°C warming per decade. In fact at this time the Met Office published a paper looking into the causes of the ‘pause’, in which it referred to “little further warming” at the time. But the warming, or ‘heating’ as many in the mainstream media now like to call it, was increased to 0.08°C per decade in version 4. The recent HadCRUT5 provides no less than 0.14°C per decade of warming, using what NTZ describes as the “computer model-infilling method”.
As NTZ notes, within the last decade, a 15-year temperature trend has been changed from a pause to a strong warming. “After all, when the observations don’t fit the narrative, it is time to change the observations,” adds NTZ.
Nicola Scafetta is a research scientist at the University of Naples and he is a recognised authority on temperature datasets and climate models. He has compiled the above graph showing the ever increasing retrospectively-applied temperature anomalies from HadCRUT3 through to HadCRUT5.
As regular readers will recall, the Daily Sceptic recently broke the story that nearly 80% of the Met Office’s 380 U.K. temperature measuring stations had internationally recognised ‘uncertainties’ between 2-5°C. Specifically, almost one in three (29.2%) in ‘junk’ Class 5 had ‘uncertainties’ up to 5°C as defined by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). Nearly half (48.7%) were sited at ‘near junk’ Class 4 sites with ‘uncertainties’ of 2°C. Shockingly, only 52 stations, or just 13.7% of the total, came without any ‘uncertainty’ rating. Class 5 station are prone to pick up all manner of human and natural caused heat corruptions, while class 1 sites simply measure the surrounding air temperature.
These station class classifications, which the Daily Sceptic obtained under a freedom of information (FOI) request, cast substantial doubt on the accuracy of all ‘heat’ records recently claimed. The data might be useful for general local weather forecasting, showing, for instance, that it is warmer in cities than the surrounding countryside. A degree or more either way is not significant, and precision is not an absolute requirement for people deciding what clothing to wear. But the Met Office, a highly politicised state-funded operation devoted to pushing the Net Zero narrative, uses them to make observations down to one hundredth of a degree (0.01°) centigrade. Recently it made great play of its suggestion that last year was just 0.06°C cooler than 2022.
Having finished compiling U.K. temperatures that it can be argued have little overall statistical significance, the dataset is then inserted into the HadCRUT operation where a global temperature is announced. This, of course, is the go-to figure for any alarmist who claims global heating/boiling and the likelihood of climate collapse. It is the bedrock support for climate models claiming all manner of interesting stories such as the Arctic summer sea ice disappearing within a decade and severe air turbulence doubling in short order. Such is the fairy dust it bestows that some activists even claim they can link individual bad weather events to long-term changes in the climate caused by humans. This then percolates down to hysterical halfwits on mainstream media pointing outside the window to the weather and making unchallenged claims that the end is nigh.
Given the pivotal role the Met Office’s local and global figures play in the Net Zero narrative, it is a surprise that it has yet to make a statement, two months after the Daily Sceptic’s U.K. class revelations, explaining and justifying its temperature statistics. Can we deduce from this that its scientists are happy that they are using such poor data to scare populations over minuscule rises in temperature? Would it not be a wise use of public money to expand its class 1 network to provide data that are unadulterated with obvious heat corruptions?
The Met Office does not return the calls of the Daily Sceptic. Mainstream media and politicians ignore the story, hoping that it will go away. The temperature data are at the heart of their Net Zero goals. It appears there is too much to lose by asking a few obvious, and necessary, questions.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Their is evidence the Met Office and others have been doing this, with impunity, for years. Time for prosecution in front of jurors. Not sure what UK laws could be used, but in US could use RICO statues.
But the wagons get circled and the fraud is protected by the Climate Industrial Complex. We can do as much exposing as we like. Chris Morrison and the Daily Sceptic can write as many articles as they can possibly write, but NO ONE IS LISTENING. We are just shameless climate deniers that think we know better than the “scientists”, except this has nothing to do with “science”. It is “official science” for political purposes. It is the greatest pseudo scientific fraud ever perpetrated. We should remember the words of President Eisenhower “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”
Indeed. Agree. Maybe someday.
testing testing 123
This has been going on for years. I can remember reading around 2007/8 on Wattsupwiththat how Hansen had adjusted the raw temperature records by removing the warm periods in the early part of the 20th century and increasing temperatures in the 60’s and 70’s to hide the cooling that had ocurred. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the relevant posts.
However, here’s an interesting article about Iceland’s temperatures and how they have been adjusted: http://euanmearns.com/re-writing-the-climate-history-of-iceland/
All this fiddling reminds me of an anomaly from a few years ago – ‘safe and effective’ I think it was called.
Being paid to lie cannot be very good for the soul.
They sold theirs a very long time ago
Definitely too much to lose by asking a few obvious and necessary questions ….. like their jobs, career prospects and a great deal of money.
I believe it was East Anglia which was commissioned by Millibacon back when Labour were in power. They found that the modelling in no way resembled the real world so they simply altered the data from the model to deliver what Millibacon asked for. Funding confirmed, Millibacon happy and here we are today with a parliament of numbskulls who all know the data they rely on to “confirm” what they want is falsified.
The Sheeple simply “maah” and carry on grazing the verdant fields of lush lies. Millibacon may well be back this year, crazier than ever. Be careful what you vote for. I’m voting Reform the only party with sane people.
wink
UK Column made a good point in their Friday show: Make the election ‘Independents Day’
Remember when Brian from UKC was campaigning to be an independent in Plymouth some years back on an anti corruption ticket. When interviewed be the BBC they gave him just 6 seconds.
Climategate blew the lid off this fraud. And as we would expect, they just carry on – fuelled by money, and the ‘powers that be’ pace Mannpig.
Sheeple don’t know any of this. The sheeple will mRNA jabbinate for weight loss, climate ‘protection’, the next fake flying scariant, and whatever else the quacks and charlatans are selling.
The climate cult (and the scamdemic cult) simply assume that most people are stupid. They are certainly not wrong.
The challenge will be keeping the propaganda levels high enough to reach the sheeple especially in nut zero induced blackouts!
Yes when living standards start taking their toll, people will pay more attention.
Many who have been looking into this issue for years have been aware of this fiddling of the stats. I have been reading about this and investigating it since 2007 since I saw Martin Durkins first film on it “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Not long after that the Government funded data adjusters were exposed as Charlatans (Climategate) keeping the true state of climate from the public, by deleting emails, manipulating data, tagging different temperature series onto each other, (Mikes Nature Trick) where as warming from tree rings seemed to stop they simply added real temperature data onto the end and declared warming was still continuing. They threatened the editors of scientific journals who published stuff not in line with the narrative of dangerous warming.
Net Zero and the trillions of pounds/dollars involved in this absurd energy transition mean there simply has to be Global Warming and if the facts don’t fit then the facts will be changed. The general public still mostly believe there is dangerous climate change afoot, which is lucky for the pretend to save the planet governments and ofcourse mainstream media are complicit in keeping the public in the dark and keeping them believing there is a climate emergency. Simple investigative journalism would expose this eco socialist fraud, but the BBC especially never investigate any climate change claims, and simply repeat the UN IPCC dogma as if it were all ultimate truth. ——-FRAUD.— But Why? ——-Sustainable Devlopment. Only by understanding this political agenda and who is imposing it on us and why can anyone realise what is really going on with the climate emergency scam.
The fundamental questions that needs to be asked of these people is why are they doing this? who tells them to do this? and what is the objective of doing this?
I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all they knew). Their names are what and why and when and how and where and who. Rudyard Kipling.
They are doing it because the one world government people at the UN and WEF need a very plausible excuse to get control of the world’s wealth and resources, and because they have a Political Agenda called Sustainable Development. The idea is in their own words that “the lifestyles of the affluent middle classes is too high”. So we in the wealthy west have to lower our standard of living which was achieved by using coal oil and gas, because it is deemed we have used up more than our fair share of it. The pseudo science likes to call this “appropriation of the atmosphere”. The very plausible excuse for this reversal of western prosperity and the anti capitalist agenda to bring about a world run on Liberal Progressive (communist) lines is “climate change” and climate policies like Net Zero. ——-We are to believe this is all about science. But it is actually just “official science” or “Post Normal Science” in support of the Political Agenda called Sustainable Development. But don’t take my word for it. The UN do not hide their objectives and state them clearly in Agenda 21 and 30.
The earth has no average temperature!
-50c to +50c are rough extremes and livable for life on this planet. It’s a broad spectrum of survivable temperatures that life on this planet has adapted to cope with over millenia. There are not enough thermometers in the galaxy to find an average!
That’s just mean
🤔
Clever!😉👍
A survey of Australian census results produced, statistically, the average Australian. Something like female, 38 yo, 2.4 kids, 30k income etc. Anyway, someone then searched databases for the actual average person and, if I remember, failed to find them (they then reduced variables and only foundone or two).
Similar analogy to average world temperature which doesn’t exist.
This takes me back over twenty years, when the Climategate scandal was brewing! What seemed to be happening is that NASA/GISS and UEA/CRU were making seemingly unaccountable “adjustments” to individual weather station data. To be fair, some were adjusted down, but many were adjusted with an uptick or an overall slope. (Dublin Airport was the first that came to my attention. Kathmandu is a classic overall slope adjustment..The essence of the confusion that it became unclear what was raw data (i.e. thermometers on the ground), what was adjusted data (i.e. data made by adding or subtracting figures to allow for non-climatic effects, such as physical move of the station, urban creep, painting the Stephenson screen and the yard, tarmacking previously grass runways, installing incinerators. what was “homogenized” or “kridged” (both meaning mixing up with neigbouring stations to fill in missing data in order to make tidy graphs and graphical images) and what was model output (i.e. estimates based on mathematical modelling. The situation seemed fairly chaotic, like the infamous HARRYREADME commenter found out.
It was fairly easy to go to each weather station data and subtract the original temperatures from the published temperatures, thus arriving at a graph of how much had been added or subtracted to give the final result (“homogenized”). These were called DELTA files, where DELTA = HOMOGENIZED-RAW.
It’s fairly clear and open WHAT adjustments were made; what was opaque and refractory to the investigators was WHY the adjustments were made. You can’t just take all the global data and add in a hockey-stick uptick; you need to study each station’s data separately, which is at best tedious and at worst a hopeless task. Studying the data, which was often missing for long periods, showed more about political stability in third world countries than about climate. The best continuous records were in Turkey, Japan and most of the US, especially Texas. The most fragmentary records were in the Arctic (typically seasonal fish-canning factories) and various African colonies. The longest continuous record outside China was Hoherpeissenberg, which shows the descent into and the recovery from the Little Ice Age, unless you are an alarmist, in which case it shows an abrupt catastrophic shift in the Anthropocene Epoch.
In other words the temperature record of earth is a dogs breakfast of heavily manipulated data that has been fiddled about with more than a prostitutes knickers.
You could say that, but you might run into the editor’s black pen at Elsevier Global.
Fiddling while Rome Burns 🥵
Who are they doing this for and why? It goes right back to CHINA.
Please read my note below which proves that net zero is an almighty scam and should be abolished ASAP.
One attachment • Scanned by Gmail
Hi JerryWr –
‘Just catching up on my Climate-Scam reading.
In your attachment you say “Firstly, for more information on the numbers and figures involved it is necessary to refer to my note referenced below:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=f96df54420&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-a:r-8725386989335802803&th=18f4c85a7c53cd66&view=att&disp=safe&realattid=f_lvbqnqvh0 ”
Unfortunately, the link isn’t working. Can you please advise ?
Thanks – Chris Williams
Surely this should be considered fraud? Falsifying data?
Just wondering what the point of a met office is. How about shutting it down and putting ALL the tax money towards private schools. Kids need a good start in life so they don’t end up like dummies currently working at the met office. This organisation serves no purpose, is gagged by gov’t, and either cannot or will not be transparent. Time to stop throwing my taxes down the toilet.
As a WEATHER reporting and short-term forecasting organisation derived from the days of the Air Ministry, it provided a good service to aviators, farmers and the general public. However it came off the rails when it was required to be a CLIMATE reporting and long-term pys-ops organisation, specifically set up to create alarm in the populace by drip-feeding misinformation and nudging in order to effect global political and asset transfer.
If readings from the past, taken by professionals, require adjustment now, what assurance is there that adjustments made by professionals today are any more accurate, apart from the fact that those professionals tell us.
PS I use the term “professional” advisedly, based mainly on the fact that they are well paid for their efforts.
When the ideology is not supported by facts then change the ‘facts’?