These days the Met Office has rebadged its daily “high” temperatures as “extreme”, all the better of course to ramp up fears of heat as part of the Net Zero education process. Last Wednesday’s “extreme” of 20.4°C was recorded at Teddington Bushy Park. As the Google Earth photo below shows, the “extreme” temperature is helped on its way by an adjacent high wall reflecting heat onto the measuring device and a large housing development warming the nearby area. Teddington Bushy Park is a junk class 4 station with internationally-recognised “uncertainties” of 2°C. Joke class 4 station might be a more apt description. How anyone can think information taken at this site is suitable for scientific work that ultimately produces a global mean temperature is a mystery.
Under a classification system set by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) that takes account of temperature corruptions, natural and unnatural, 77.9% of Met Office sites are rated class 4 and 5 and have uncertainties of 2°C and 5°C respectively. The Met Office does its best to explain away the poor siting of most of its UK-wide 380-strong temperature station network. Class 3 – uncertainties of 1°C – and class 4 are said to produce “valid high-quality data”, something that might be in dispute by looking at the Teddington photo. The WMO is said by the Met Office not to preclude the use of data from super junk class 5. For its part, the WMO states that a class 5 is “where nearby obstacles create an inappropriate environment for a meteorological measurement that is intended to be representative of a wider area”. Nearly one in three (29.2%) of the Met Office’s sites are rated super-junk 5 and from this, apparently, the Met Office can produce average temperature figures to one hundredth of a degree centigrade.
Earlier this year, a freedom of information request from the Daily Sceptic finally revealed what has been suspected for a long time, namely that the Met Office temperature measuring system is not fit for the purpose of providing accurate measurements of temperature either at specific local sites or at national and global average scale. To date, the Met Office has not made an official statement on the growing concerns that surround its scientific work following the startling revelations. It does however produce an occasional remark that suggests it is hiding from the implications of the growing criticism. Last June it declared the highest, pardon, the most extreme temperature so far of the summer at Chertsey, another ‘record’ that came under question when it was revealed that the measuring device at Chertsey water pumping station was surrounded by a newly-built solar farm.
This is the solar farm in question and it surrounds what appears to be the temperature measuring station. To be fair to the Met Office, Google Maps puts the station a few yards away – there are sometimes small errors in precise placing of any location. But what is not disputed is that the site is next to a large solar farm with over 1,800 panels. Solar panels generate large amounts of heat in the nearby areas with scientists suggesting warming of 3-4°C. Citizen journalist Ray Sanders recently tackled the Met Office on the Chertsey location and the state-funded weather service admitted it was “aware” of the solar panels near its station. “The temperature measurements meet standards for publication and scientific use,” noted the Met Office.
Over in the United States, meteorologist Anthony Watts has spent decades investigating the temperature output of the local weather service NOAA. He recently presented evidence to show that NOAA’s temperature data was “fatally flawed” with an astonishing 96% of 4,000 plus measuring stations corrupted by poor placement. As in the U.K., many photos of unsuitable locations have been published. The one below from a site in Florida showing measurements taken near a bank of air conditioning units is a particular horror show.
Appearing on a recent Tom Nelson podcast, Watts was asked about the 40.3°C runway record temperature declared for 60 seconds on July 19th 2022 as jets were landing at RAF Coningsby in the U.K. He pointed out that such events were caused by new electronic measurements that reacted to temperature change within one tenth of a second. The previous mercury thermometers took much longer to move and would never have picked up temporary temperature movements caused by gusts of wind or passing jet aircraft.
All of these figures are collected and then adjusted and the “bottom line” is that the data have been changed to increase the warming trend. A number of attempts have been made to estimate the changes caused by numerous corruptions. “We have about 50% less global warming than the media and activists would have you believe”, Watts suggests.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. The image at the top of this article shows the location of the Met Office temperature station at Aberdeen Dyce International Airport. No further comment required!
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.
Thanks Chris. ‘The Science'(tm). The fraud rampant in ‘The Science’ is endless. We call it ‘Scientism’. A political philosophy financed and supported by fraud. Who is surprised by this deliberate criminality? From the same people who believe in hockey sticks and that plant food – only from humans – at 20 ppm causes everything. Brain. Dead. I am sure most sheeple however, are fully on side with the narrative. Should they put their diapers back on?
Met Office Temperature Cheats
Today’s challenge (on an unseasonably cold September morning): get this story covered by the MSM….
Wetter colder drier hotter……When you cover every base how can you ever be wrong? But the problem is that when everything that happens is due to your theory you are indulging in Politics, not Science. ———Here is my grand mothers evidence for Global Warming
Yesterday was the first day since summer started where I had all heatings in my flat on all day because it was too chilly without. And there’s still more than a week left of the “hottest summer on record”, as endlessly claimed by 3rd rate German media sources.
I can tell you that here in Scotland it is the worst summer I have ever seen —-All summer it has been wind wind rain rain wind cloud cloud cloud cloud rain rain rain wind cloud cloud cloud…………..and today cloud and wind. We have deck chairs out the back and I think we maybe sat on them 6 times. It is funny how climate alarmists will tell me that it is Global warming, not Local Warming where I happen to live. But as soon as there is one hot day anywhere then that is all due to ——-you guessed it, Global Warming
Do people really employ such obviously stupid would-be witticisms? Any temperature that’s measured is a local temperature somewhere. But something can only be global if it happens everwhere or at least in the by-far overwhelming majority of locations. That’s especially true for a phenomenon supposedly caused by certain gases which are assumed to be evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere. If x ppm of CO₂ cause unsual warming somewhere, it must cause unusual warming everywhere or it cannot be the cause. Gas molecules are all identical, they don’t belong to different tribes with different cultures, with some of them causing warming while others don’t.
Correct all temperature is local ie wherever you put a thermometer you can record a temperature. But let’s say we have a thermometer in Sydney and another in Iceland. We take the readings from the two thermometers and do some kind of averaging of the two.The number we end up with is NOT a temperature. It isn’t the temperature of anything, it is just a statistic. The reason for that is because temperature is not actually an amount of anything. It is a “condition”
The Temperature record —A very cautionary tale. We often hear that one particular year was hotter than all other years etc etc. Often though this will be hotter by hundredths of a degree. But here is the problem. The thermometers that have been recording temperatures were never designed for such accuracy. Then ofcourse we don’t and never did have thermometers all over the planet recording temperatures. They were mostly in the wealthy western countries and NONE in the oceans. We have only had satellite data since 1979 and it is bad scientific practice to tag the temperature record from thermometers onto the satellite record and claim “the hottest year since 1860” or whatever alarmist statement is required that day. —-It is simply the case that climate has been totally hijacked for political purposes.
These weather stations may have been set up by meteorologists who also act as part time cricket umpires.
The cricket umpire’s technique of measuring light with a light meter (normally at a time when he feels the need for a reviving brew or crafty smoke) is to place the meter on the top of the stumps and then position his infallibly ample nether regions clad in black flannel as close as possible to the meter and between the meter and any possible source of light. Result: play ends, either temporarily (no doubt after ample refreshments) or for the rest of the day due to bad light.
Never, ever, employ meteorologists as umpires unless, of course, you hate cricket.
Hi all. It is things like this which need exposure in order to educate the public on the methods of their deception. I am surprised the Met Office even released the information regarding the situation and classification of their stations – the conclusions that can be drawn are damning.
I have yet to understand how you can meaningfully calculate a global mean temperature. Sorry about the pun.
The answer is still Not at all. Averaging is a way to reduce the amount of random error (“noise”) in measurements of a single quantity. But temperature measurement stations irregularly distributed all around the globe don’t all measure the same global temperature with only some amount of error in each of them resulting in different measurements. It’s genuinley warmer in Sicily than in the Orkneys. The difference is not due to random measurement errors and hence, averaging temperatures from both locations makes no sense.
There’s no wriggle room for benefit of doubt here, save giving some of the people involved in calculating and publishing these numbers benefit of doubt insofar it’s entirely possible that they genuinely don’t know what they’re doing. The option could make sense doesn’t exist here.
Indeed
Yet this nonsense concept is talked about as if it’s a real thing
As we know every specific point on the planet can change during the day by 30 degrees and more due to solar activity, this activity of finding means and averages is impossible. Perhaps they should count grains of sand in the Sahara instead. Much easier.
Try putting any slightly critical comment on the Met Office blog and it’s gone in no time at all. Oddly, we pay for it…
https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/
Let’s see…
To check the comments on that particular article you can visit https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2024/09/10/a-cool-career-studying-the-impacts-of-a-warming-planet/
Thanks. That’s the blog I put the comment on…
Still awaiting moderation…
Thanks for the article.
Put junk data into a model. Result magnified junk.
My understanding is this. Modelling is at the bottom of the hierarchy of scientific evidence as is expert opinion.
This is amply demonstrated by the fact that the climate predictions from the IPCC and others have been so comically inaccurate as to be ludicrous.
Science follows a method and invites challenge to the table and is, by its very nature, rigorous.
There is no such thing as consensus in science. Science is never ‘settled’. Absolute nonsense.
So it’s easy to spot when we’re being played. And we don’t have to be scientists to spot it.
Modelling X means run a computer program claimed to simulate X with some degree of accuracy. The output is evidence of itself – the program truly generated it – but not of anything else.
Climate models put what the input parameters tell them to.
Worth noting also, they can never be anywhere initialised correctly.
This by Kevin Trenberth, member of the notorious “Mann Gang”…
Another way of looking at these class 4 and 5 stations is that it really is that hot where they are and that the high temperature is caused by the activity of people… and that it does not matter. Everyone acknowledges that the average temperature is higher in big cities like London than in the surrounding areas. If that mattered people should stop living in the cities.
It snows in December – climate change.
It does not snow – climate change.
It rains – climate change.
It does not rain – climate change.
The weather does nothing much – climate change.
“In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel was commissioned to study the state of the U.S. climate observing systems and issued a report entitled: “Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems. National Academy Press”, online here The panel was chaired by Dr. Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Center, and Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS. That panel concluded:
Yet, ten years later, even the most basic beginning of a recovery program has not been started”
So, this site evolved:
http://www.surfacestations.org
Surely this should be picked up by the MSM by now. The Telegraph as a minimum. The word needs spreading and the sooner the better.