How we laughed when the Met Office declared a UK temperature record of 40.3°C at 3.12pm on July 19th 2022, halfway down the runway at RAF Coningsby at a time when it later transpired three typhoon jets were coming into land. Mirth was unconfined when the ‘record’ that stood for 60 seconds as the temperature briefly spiked by 0.6°C was later declared by the Met Office to be a “milestone in UK climate history”. Now it appears that another nearby and busy RAF station in Lincolnshire is getting in on the ‘joke’ record business. It appears that RAF Waddington also declared a record high on the same day of 40.3°C and this has been entered into the archive run by the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA). This is despite the Met Office itself calling the Waddington reading ‘suspect’ due to an application of weedkiller. Quite why this should disqualify a temperature recording four feet from the ground when jet exhaust does not is unclear, and the excuse has a touch of the ‘dog ate my homework’ about it.
Weedkiller or not, the 40.3°C recording at Waddington has found its way into the Met Office Midas Open dataset. This is said to be one of CEDA’s most popular datasets, containing historical meteorological observations back from the present to the 18th century. Popular with future scientists no doubt who will be able to point to two 40.3°C records, happy to disregard any airport heat corruptions and the even more severe warmth that seems to emanate from an application of paraquat.
Shout out again to citizen super-sleuth Ray Sanders who is undertaking a forensic review of the Met Office’s UK temperature stations (existent and non-existent) along with an examination of the operation’s published readings and data. He recently queried the archived Waddington recording and was told that “at the time” the data point was suspect due to the weedkiller treatment. He notes that the Met Office is clearly in a quandary since it has claimed the reading is suspect but the numbers passed into the archive can only have come from it. Any doubts about Coningsby can be hand-waved away with “‘peer-reviewed scientific’ data proving that such a high temperature was also ‘recorded’ elsewhere”, suggests Sanders.
The Met Office clearly owes the public and the scientific community a full explanation. Mistakes may be made with routine numbers, “but how likely with the alleged all-time UK high?” asks Sanders.
Regular readers will recall that Ray Sanders was behind the recent discovery that the Met Office had been inventing temperature averages at 103 non-existent sites. The Met Office even went so far as to supply coordinates, elevations and purposes of the imaginary sites. Following massive interest across social media and frequent reposting of a Daily Sceptic article, the Met Office discretely renamed its database as ‘location specific’ and removed station coordinates. A subsequent ‘fact check’ from Science Feedback that appeared to have been largely written by the Met Office claimed that average data from some stations was not “fabricated” but estimated using “well-correlated related neighbouring stations”. This is said to be a scientific method that is published in peer-reviewed literature. At the time, the Daily Sceptic highlighted the case of Cawood in the West Riding of Yorkshire, a pristine class 1 site with no unnatural heat corruptions and a record of excellent readings going back to 1959. Insert Cawood into the Met Office’s renamed ‘location specific’ database and no record of 30-year temperatures is available. Instead there is a reference to four other estimated stations that no longer exist, and a fifth that is 27 miles away and at a higher elevation.
Sanders has now come up with an even worse example of these imaginary readings. Just when you thought things could not get worse, he investigates the location of Norwich. This is an area closely associated with some of the Met Office’s work, with connections to the University of East Anglia and past TV recordings from a local weather centre. There have been numerous temperature recordings in Norwich since 1873, but none are supplied under ‘location specific’ Norwich. Instead the long-term average temperature for the cell area is provided from five closed stations inventing data, despite nearby open sites. Sanders is not inclined to be charitable, noting: “The facts are quite simple, the vast majority of all the Met Office’s supposedly Climate Average data is covertly concocted by a system only accepted by a tiny cabal of anonymous peer reviewers operating a witches brew of contrived data that is a closely guarded secret.”
Temperature measurements play a vital role in promoting the politicised Net Zero fantasy, so it is no accident that green activists in state-run weather operations such as the Met Office have weaponised the data. But the collecting systems were never designed to offer the precision claimed down to one hundredth of a degree centigrade. Almost the entire Met Office temperature network is blasted by unnatural heat, while rough estimates of data are widespread throughout the system. Under the World Meteorological Organisation classification system, almost 80% of the Met Offices sites are in junk classes 4 and 5 with ‘uncertainties’ of 2°C and 5°C respectively.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans have caused most global warming over the last 100 years but the UN body cannot know this and it is actually unprovable. All of these anthropogenic scares that lead to mass science ignorance and psychosis are the product of computer models attempting to measure a chaotic and non-linear atmosphere. Many of the important influences on weather and long-term climate such as water vapour and clouds are little understood. It is impossible to measure the contribution of a greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide to any current warming (or cooling) and estimates for a doubled atmospheric amount vary widely from almost nothing in a ‘saturated’ environment to 10°C and over. An unreliable temperature record from both national and frequently upward-adjusted global datasets do little to improve what are just speculative forecasts. In the world of climate computer modelling, making small changes to data going in can lead to large changes in the forecasts going out.
But in the world of ‘settled’ climate science, possibly the most corrupted branch of science the world has ever seen – it’s Garbage in, Gospel out.
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.
Dog ate Myth Office homework…
..Dog ate dog’s breakfast.
Shaggy dog stories abounding for decades – and still the public fall for it.
Someone please send urgently for Colonel Musket.
In the old days temperatures would be smoothed out due to the response times of max/min thermometers and a 30 second spike would be impossible. It took a finite time for the mercury in a thermometer to expand and push the peak marker up in the thermometer glass tube (that is why you had to keep a clinical thermometer in your mouth for a minute or so before the reading was taken).
Modern digital thermometers provide almost instantaneous readings so any passing waft of hot air would be registered.
Of course the hot air that has the worst effect is that emanating from the Met Office.
Exactly correct. Together with a former senior Met office manager I covered this issue here. Unbelievably Met Office staff think they can read temperatures in the outside to the 5th decimal place!
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2024/12/31/is-the-meteorological-offices-metrology-as-good-as-they-claim/
On that day in Sussex, ex urban area it was 36C. Hot, but not the hottest day evah….The measurements are frauds, the station locations are frauds, the adjustments of the data are frauds….as Chris said the whole thing is garbage in, canonical gospel out. Follow. The. Money.
Let’s not forget the Met office is financed by our taxes, so this is a case where WE are paying for a load of fraudulent data. Someone in government with enough scientific knowledge (if there is anyone like that, which might be doubtful) should be tasked to bring the Met Office into line and force them to provide accurate data.
Hats off to you Mr Sanders. Well done with your super sleuthing.
According to NASA ‘…average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius (1.9° Fahrenheit) since 1880.‘
According to weather reports average temperatures in my neck of the woods rise and fall by about 15 degrees over the course of six months. I believe this is due to orbital changes of our planet in relation to its star. Orbital changes have a huge effect on weather. Fiddling with the ‘greenhouse’ characteristics of 400-500ppm CO2 is trivial in comparison.
BTW most greenhouses heat up because the enclosed air cannot rise and disperse – not because of the so called ‘greenhouse effect’.
To make it sound even more ridiculous – daily temperature varies by a lot more than 1.1C and yet, puzzlingly to some, we still survive.
It’s nice for Chris that he can laugh at the ridiculousness of these readings. I’m struggling to be amused, given that these figures are seized upon by people in authority to justify policies that will make us poorer and colder, restrict our freedoms (including the freedom to travel) and generally increase the regulation of our daily lives.
Bit harsh. The tyranny is certainly not lost on Mr Morrison. Let’s call it gallows humour.
I was being ironic too! Having seen Chris’s work, I’m sure he’s as frustrated by such things as I am.
GIGO.
Being vaguely scientific I wonder what the error to this measurement is? Perhaps it is 28.9? More likely it is NA in the next column.
Without any doubt, the most corrupted branch of science is virology. It seems those who believe there’s a looming climate catastrophy also belive in deadly viral contagion. The real danger to society is people’s inability to critically think, not CO2 or viruses.
How is this farce allowed to continue.
Trust me, I am trying very hard to stop it. Unfortunately it is very hard to discuss the issue with the Met Office or their masters when they refuse to even acknowledge you. Things will change though.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2024/10/31/letter-to-peter-kyle-mp-secretary-of-state-for-science-innovation-and-technology/
Impressive Ray. You know what you’re talking about. I will share this with others. Good stuff.
As Machiavelli said all those years ago “it is much safer to be feared than loved because …love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.” The whole net zero stuff is being driven by getting us to a state of fear and hence compliance.
If anyone feels they can help with information, photos, local knowledge of weather stations etc, I can be contacted at ray.m.sanders1956@gmail.com Every little helps!
Dog shat on my homework more like.
Thanks for this, Chris and thanks Ray Sanders for your work on this. The Met office is financed by our taxes, so it should be obligated to tell us the truth instead of concocted inaccurate information which can only be accurately described as lies. It seems that the Met Office is driven by the government’s net-zero stupidity to give the false data that wrongly supports their crazy policy.