The Met Office link-buries the CET

The Central England Temperature Record has been getting some inconvenient attention as of late. Joe D’Aleo at ICECAP pointed out recently:

The Central England Temperature record is one of the longest continuous temperature record in the world extending back to the Little Ice age in 1659. December 2010 was the coldest December in 120 years with an average of -0.7C just short of the record of -0.8C recorded in December 1890 and the Second Coldest December Temperature in the entire record (352 years).

I don’t know if it is simply sloppy webkeeping or related to the fact that the CET isn’t cooperating with the AGW expectations, but the Met Office seems to be burying the data from easy public access. They haven’t eliminated it, but it is now harder to find, and what was once a direct link now points to a general purpose climate change page.

WUWT reader Steve Rosser writes:

…the UK Met Office website, it’s undergoing a refresh at the moment and the CET link seems to have been mysteriously cut.  It used to be readily accessible via the UK Climate summaries page, see below, however this link now redirects you to a global temperature page instead.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2010/

Thinking it may be a genuine mistake I e-mailed an enquiry and received a very polite response redirecting me to find it via the obscure link below.  It’s hard to argue that this location provides a sufficiently high profile for such an august dataset..

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/david-parker

It may be that the original link will reinstated over the next few days in which case this is a non story.  However, it looks suspicously like they are taking the focus away from the CET as after 2010 it’s showing an embarrasing disinclination to follow the AGW orthodoxy (+0.4 deg C since 1780).  To do so would be a betrayal of their lack of impartiality which I’d personally find very disappointing.  It would also send a message that rather than face-up and make the case for 2010 being a rogue year for UK temperatures they’d rather brush the whole thing under the carpet. I hope I’m wrong.

I checked the pages, and what he says is true. First here’s the main climate page of the Met Office: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2010/

Note the CET link highlighted in yellow:

This is the page that CET link takes you to:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/monitoring

There’s not a single mention of the CET on that page, but plenty of other datasets are mentioned.

Fortunately, the CET data page is still available, on another Met Office server here, but if you don’t know where to look, you won’t find it easily via the Met Office Climate page.

As I said earlier, this may be sloppy, or it may be intentional.

Given the mess related to the winter forecast we’ve recently seen from the Met Office, I’m inclined to invoke the

“never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple stupidity”

clause.

128 thoughts on “The Met Office link-buries the CET

  1. If they had a virtual rug, they would have swept it under..which IS what they have done…
    poor things, the facts aren’t fitting their agenda..

  2. Odd, but when you look at it from their point of view this current part of the record is not “taxing” enough.

  3. nope, this is too important and central to their argument/agenda….

    ….someone had to have asked

    and the answer they got was to move it

  4. Actually they moved the data to “hadobs” ages ago, around the time of the Climategate scandal. All that has gone missing is the specific link from the Met Office web page. I really would attribute that to, er, mess-up rather than conspiracy. Particularly as the “hadobs” site is actually a mine of very useful information with no attempt to hide it.

    It would be best that anybody interested in the data bookmarks the following link until such time as the metoffice web site link is restored.

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/index.html

  5. The difficulty in finding the actual data series is compounded by the reality that the original temperatures are not shown, only the anomalies, which seem to have a hockey stick like positive bubble until recently.
    Note that other charts, such as precipitation, now are equally harder to find.

  6. I think we’re seeing conspiracy theories when none exist.

    I don’t know what method others have been using to access information but the ones I always use haven’t changed.

    This is the record back to 1659.

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

    This is the version back to 1772-much less interesting as we miss out on the extraordinary warming from 1700

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

    Interestingly the first CET mean average in 1659 was exactly the same as the 2010 figure at 8.83C.

    Historic temperature records covering the little ice age can be found on my web site here;

    http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/

    Tonyb

  7. What a surprise. Same as the ARGO data. we paid for this buoy system, and are entitled to have access, and now it is showing cooling oceans it is difficult or impossible to access. They still state that oceans are warming.

    REPLY: The ARGO data is easily available, and they have created a downloadable analysis tool for it. I’ll do a post on this in the future to dispel such rumors. – Anthony

  8. Monthly and daily (yes, daily) CET datsets through the KNMI Climate Explorer have also not been updated since December 2010, which would happen if the Met Office shifted the webpage and didn’t advise KNMI.

    Monthly CET data through the KNMI Climate Explorer:

    http://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?UKMOData/cet+Central_England_Temperature+t+someone@somewhere

    Daily CET data:

    http://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?UKMOData/daily_cet+Central_England_Temperature+t+someone@somewhere+366

  9. CET January temperature of 1.2C, although 2C higher than for Jan 2010 (-0.9C) , is still fractionally below the average (1.27C) for the 1878-2011 period.

  10. I heard Moe, Larry and Curly took over at the Met Office.

    The MET office is doing even worse than that !!! ;)

  11. Am I right in understanding that one of the weather stations used to compile the CET is Manchester Airport which, from being a grassy field some 50 years ago, is now ine of the busiest airports in Europe?

  12. CET is linked from David Parkers page, with slightly ominous wording:


    David has helped develop and improve the 350-year Central England Temperature (CET) dataset

    (my bold).

  13. No. Hell, no.

    You may not, at this point, after all that they have done, ascribe to stupidity what should be ascribed to malice and deceit.

    It is wrong to give them the benefit of any doubt. Stupidity would include some element of chance that the ‘errors’ they make would not support the alarmist position, and that is clearly not the case. They lie, and you know they lie, and they know you know they are lying.

  14. In defense of stupid — I was a professional web site builder and manager and can attest to how easy it is to have some low level staffer mess up a linking scheme on a large complicated web site. I suggest giving them time to fix it now that it has been pointed out.

  15. vukcevic says:
    CET January temperature of 1.2C, although 2C higher than for Jan 2010 (-0.9C) , is still fractionally below the average (1.27C) for the 1878-2011 period.

    Those numbers are the minimum (Monthly_HadCET_min.txt) as the January CET mean was 1.4 deg C for 2010 and 3.7 for 2011 (Monthly_HadCET_mean.txt)

  16. The same is true of their much heralded, but quickly forgotten yearly global temperature forecasts. They were ever so easy to find until the actual temperature was way out, and then … it they were hidden if not removed entirely.

    The Met Office are just despicable and the sooner taxpayers money stopped going to this eco-political propaganda machine the better.

  17. Have noticed that NOAA records in many categories has been clipped off after 2000.
    With all the snow this year in New England, I tried to find total snowfall by year in Boston (and other prominent places) to see how we fit in. But the data just drops off after around 2000 dependent on location.
    If anyone has a link I’d be grateful. Be happy to be wrong on this.

  18. I must concur with tonyb, the link I use (and so does tonyb) is still up:

    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

    REPLY: I don’t think either of you read this story carefully. Look at the last sentence, I attribute this to blunder. Nowhere in the story was “conspiracy” mentioned. Tony B was the first to use that word in his comments. Also, please note that this isn’t about bookmarked links, but about public links on Met Office web page changing. – Anthony

  19. vukcevic at 7:14 am

    CET January temperature of 1.2C, although 2C higher than for Jan 2010 (-0.9C) , is still fractionally below the average (1.27C) for the 1878-2011 period.

    Are you looking at minima or mean? The mean for 2011/1 is 3.7 and according to my math the average 1659-2011 is 3.24.

  20. Having worked for government institutions in the UK I would suspect cock-ups and not conspiracies in most cases, including this one. I was warned by a friendly Saffer when I began working here that English civil servants don’t fix problems – they write reports outlining the problem, send the report of to a superior, then sit back, proud of themselves and secure in the knowledge that they did their duty, while the problem continues unabated. Most of us Colonials have a lifelong habit of fixing problems as we stumble into them; that behavioural trait seems to have become a genetic difference between our UK cousins and us.

  21. “never attibute malice what can be explained by simple stupidity”
    Those in power stuff bureaucracy full of stupids and red tape, so that their malice can be more easily passed off as a result of stupidity and red tape.

    I’d attribute malice myself.

  22. Anthony

    I have just noted your reply to other posts similar to mine. Changes in web pages maintained by public organisations in the UK (eg BBC) are not always directed or logical, sadly. I don’t think there is anything sinister here.

    REPLY: Which is why my last sentence says: “never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity”. For some reason, some commenters don’t seem to get this. – Anthony

  23. “David has helped develop and improve the 350-year Central England Temperature (CET) dataset”
    Philip Eden’s site describes the development and improvement, otherwise known as surreptitious falsification of the CET record, on the two pages of his website that I have linked below, q.v.

    http://www.climate-uk.com/page5.html

    http://www.climate-uk.com/CETcheck.htm

    He produces his own continuation CET record, post Manley, from sites that are more representative of those used by the late Pr.Manley up to 1971.

    http://www.climate-uk.com/index.html

    In all that I have read by him he appears to be an even handed follower of the scientific method, and never given to fits of climactic climate change hyperbole.

  24. The global temperature data above shows the change from 1980 to be 0.5K. The HadCet shows closer to 0.9K. The Arctic is … greater than 0.9K since 1980. Same with New Zealand, officially.

    Since the local is greater than the average, there must be a large area with 0.3K since 1980, or even a negative amount. Since the warmists cherry pick to show how hot some areas are, it would be interesting to identify where and to whate extent on the planet things have been minimally warming or even cooling since 1980.

    The global thing isn’t global. It can’t be with the numbers we are shown.

  25. A Bing search on “CET data page” (without the quotes) returns the proper link as the second item — first is a link to this WUWT page.

  26. However, it looks suspicously like they are taking the focus away from the CET

    Or maybe they simply moved the link until they can “adjust” it to “properly” reflect the temperatures.

  27. It is an example of many web pages that are changed without a lot of weight put on what the end user might really be looking for.

    Aviation uses a check list that is tested for content, accuracy, and relevance. True the web site content lacking something as treasured as long term temperature data is not a serious safety issue, but it shows the lack of producing any sort of check and balance to the content deemed important. For all we know, it was just redone to produce some work for bureaucratic self generated importance. There is no liability in not posting a specific link, so therefore a redirect of what was important at the time of reconstruction.

    Personal opinion: A strange way appear professional and a good way to attract criticism.

  28. REPLY: Which is why my last sentence says: “never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity”. For some reason, some commenters don’t seem to get this. – Anthony
    ========================================================

    How many mulligans do they get? Is it cheating or the simple fact they can’t play?
    Some of us are incredulous to the thought. The thought goes something like this, “How can it be that the worlds smartest climate scientists are simply too stupid to maintain a link that has been there for quite some time. If the organization can’t perform such basic tasks, how and why is it that so many lend such credibility to them.” How many mulligans do they get?

  29. This is why WUWT is so important to me. I am no climate scientist or meteorologist but my work for 40 years and life is very close to the earth and it’s weather. I was also raised to understand the scientific method and see it as very important. Many projects I do entail Environmental Impact Studies and the project hinges on the outcome of those studies. I find it facinating to observe the collection of data and the assesement process. It seems to me the observer changes the observed. Dishonesty, no, conspiracy, no but something happens with the assimilation process and human nature. I’ve followed this website since it started and it seems to be a common thread throughout and the many website which have sprung from the debate. A scientist or study group introduces a hypothesis and then everyone jumps on that hypothesis and criticizes the collection of the data. But the real problem, I think, may lie in the unspoken, unconscious ability to tweek the outcome of the effort. This temperature record is one of the most important ones of it’s kind because of it’s simple factuality. I try and pick up these simple illustrative pieces from this website and communicate them to politicians who may see value. These politicians are inundated with “studies” and tweeked information from all sides. Simple accurate information is what they need from us. Thank you again.

  30. Were there digital calibrated instrumentation used back in the 1600’s to record that data? What was their benchmark? A drunken bishop recording the data on sheep skin. What is the variability in analog versus digital data? The short guy looking up at the thermometer thought is was hot. The 6 foot 2 recorder looked down and saw cold temperature. To compare apples and oranges and expect to get some conclusion based on two different technologies and methodoligies is patently absurd. Was the data for analog gotten from the original data set or passed down from three conversions? Worthless information meaning nothing.

  31. Central England is but the oldest of about two dozen single site thermometer records that mainstream climatologists would rather did not exist. All but a couple if these show any sign whatsoever of recent warming that bucks the natural trend, and yet are classic old cities that show no uptick even in the unadjusted raw data. Here are the ones that have name recognition, in a single glance: http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

    The Brits are just now making CET graphs as obscurely hard to run into as the Yanks have made their own old site records. And of course when you do finally find a chart they cut off the oldest data and use deceiving chartsmanship (akin to how the NOAA presents its version of the global average, as I have pointed out here: http://oi49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg ).

    It is a rhetorical question whether alarmists would plaster these records all over their report covers if they formed nice little hockey sticks. These records are to climatology what hand axes being found amongst dinosaur bones would be to evolutionary theory.

  32. Once again I must stress I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theory. The Met office data sets are in exactly the same place as I have always found them

    What is interesting is to see the extremely gentle rise in temperatures which can be seen here from 1659

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi

    But which through our excellent written records can be dated back to 1601. So temperatures have been rising almost imperceptibly for over 400 years as confirmed by other old data sets and records. On the link above is also inscribed the co2 emissions.

    It is vey difficult to understand quite where the alarmists are coming from with their horror that temperatures have risen marginally from the Little Ice Age.

    tonyb

  33. As long as Met Office knows we are watching every single move they make.
    As we observe institutions like Met Office dig in under an avalanche of skeptic criticism as they continue spewing zealous arguments stating the current cooling is in fact caused by Global Warming. As we observe the AGW propaganda machine operating in full swing, at least here in Europe and the current events in the Middle East being caused by…. Global Warming as well, I get this dark feeling we’re in for rationing, even prohibition of fossil fuels rather sooner than later. This feeling is supported by the Interpol scenario’s written down in this report: http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/Scenarios/Organised_crime_in_energy_supply.pdf

    We now know why the entire public domain of our cities and highways has been stuffed with observation camera’s. The camera’s will be used to catch any civilian who acquires a gallon of fuel at the corner of the street so he can take his car for a shopping tour.

    The rather drastic remarks from scientists and politicians who are currently upholding the AGW SCAM now stating that our planet is flat, our populations have grown to big and the food riots were caused by Global Warming make me fear the worst.

    We could face a tipping point soon but it won’t involve our climate.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/a_tipping_point_is_nearing.html

    The UN IPCC and institutions like Met Office is not our only problem.
    Our problem is the political establishment currently in power.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-must-go/

  34. Thanks for the reply Anthony, but the Met Office’s data has always been hard to find, and I’m usually willing to believe in underhand things the MO does, but the fact that the data is still there for all to see (rather than mysteriously disappearing) leads me to think this is just the MO being the MO. Stephen Richards echoes mine and tonyb’s posts.

  35. Why would civil servants in the Met Office team together to hide the evidence that temperatures in central England are variable?

  36. Anthony said

    “REPLY: I don’t think either of you read this story carefully. Look at the last sentence, I attribute this to blunder. Nowhere in the story was “conspiracy” mentioned. Tony B was the first to use that word in his comments. Also, please note that this isn’t about bookmarked links, but about public links on Met Office web page changing. – Anthony”

    You never used the word Anthony but plenty of others are inferring it. The links are still there. What is even better is that CET and others like it continue to give the lie to dangerous climate change.

    tonyb

  37. “never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple stupidity”.

    OK, so let’s see if it “can be explained” that way.

    If the errors and data disappearances impact pro-AGW and anti-AGW data miners equally, then your H0 is not disconfirmed. But a virtually 100% location of data points in the “inconveniences and weakens anti-AGW data search” box means that H0 is rejected at the 99.99999999% level.
    Give or take.

  38. Phil-M says:
    February 14, 2011 at 7:33 am
    Am I right in understanding that one of the weather stations used to compile the CET is Manchester Airport which, from being a grassy field some 50 years ago, is now ine of the busiest airports in Europe?

    Yes, same applies to Glasgow too though its expansion has been less, in fact for Scotland there is not single high level weather station used for Hadcrut, most are airport based which is strange considering the records started before mans first flight.

  39. After all that has happened unfortunately I agree with Jack above. There is no doubt they are trying to hide it. AS the earth cools (see AMSU temps now), these guys will only slowly disappear. It will take about another 3 years before it is proven that the deniers were right and none will lose jobs etc they will simply fade away….

  40. WHAT? Who’s hiding Data? Oh.. the MET Office you say! What’s new?

    If someone like me, who’s qualifications are not in Meteorology or climate sciences, if I were to look at the CET from 1659-2010 and realize that it was the second coldest year within the entire temperature record of 352 years, then I would begin to ask questions like!

    (Q.1) As the “second coldest December within CET record of 352 years” sounds significant and important information; why had the public not been clearly informed in the Uk’s media that it was the second coldest December within this record of 352 years?

    (Q.2) If the MET Office is publicly funded and charged with monitoring, maintaining and interpreting these temperature records for the public, then why was the public not clearly informed in the run up to the second coldest December within this record of 352 years?

    (Q.3) In the run up to the second coldest December within this record of 352 years,
    why was the publicly funded MET Office informing the public that they would have warmer, milder winters despite having Data to the contrary.

    (Q.4) After the fact; How can the publicly funded MET Office defend informing the public of their global temperature estimates and trends in regard to the headline in December of “2010 warmest year on record”
    While Uk temperatures were at their second coldest December within the CET record of 352 years?

    (Q.5) If the MET Office suggestions to the public that global temperature rises will effect the UK changing the UK’s climate in to a much warmer climate (which I’m fine with) then how is it that, according to the CET from 1659-2010, December was the second coldest year within the entire temperature record of 352 years?

    Okay.. these maybe unqualified questions but I’d like to see a clear answer giving to them.

  41. Note that the primary shield and resource of the bully and con man is the willingness of the victim class to give “benefit of the doubt” and unwillingness to “make a fuss”.

    Standing up to them is the only way to avoid escalating abuse and utter impoverishment at their hands. Demand competence. Demand proof and data.

  42. Perhaps the Met Office will reinstate the link. However, if you believe that “we’ve got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” then it is unlikely that you will stop there. Warmists cannot get rid of the CET but if it is hidden from public view it will gradually decline in importance as far as policy on climate change is concerned.

  43. @ David Larsen:

    “Were there digital calibrated instrumentation used back in the 1600′s to record that data? What was their benchmark? A drunken bishop recording the data on sheep skin.”

    How likely is it that a bishop would be drunk? What makes you think that people in the 1600s were less conscientious and more stupid than people are today?

    What makes you think that a simple idiot-proof mercury thermometer would be in greater need of recalibration than modern day instruments?

  44. There is no doubt, its virtually impossible to get the graph anymore. try typing”Central England Temperature (CET)” in the serach box and see what you get. Its outrageous.

  45. Hm, they have the longest continuous temperature record in the world and they not even display it? Hide it somewhere? Display a truncated shortened version? Why would they hide the evidence? Cui bono?

  46. If true is this a question of burying good news or bad news?

    The following link is to Professor Manley you need to scrolldown to his paper and look for the graphs to 1974. No hockey stick until our Phil and his boys get their hands on the data then a miracle it is a hockey stick.

    [no link?]

  47. @Roy:”What makes you think that a simple idiot-proof mercury thermometer would be in greater need of recalibration than modern day instruments?”

    Quite right. As far as I am aware, even the Galileo thermometer was quite capable of +/- o.5 degree accuracy. Present day measurements are around +/- 0.45 degree accuracy, aren’t they?

    Not really much of an improvement, and as always, the clincher is frequency of calibration.

    Something people may not be aware of also, is digital measuring devices can be rather coarse compared to analogue. I get far better consistency measuring with a beam scale, than I do with a digital scale, for example (both accredited accurate to +/- 1/10th of a grain, but with experience, the beam scale can deliver far better).

    I own both beam and digital scales, and both get calibrated prior to use, as well as having regular calibration checks while being used.

  48. I tend to use this CET graph as it has a trend line AND co2 emissions.

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi

    However that first big Cet graph in this article is unusually clear and the scales are very good.

    Anyone able to put a trend line through it from start to finish and also indicate clearly that the average mean for 1659 -the first year of the record- and 2010- the last year of the record- are identical at 8.83C then repost it here in full sight into the public domain?

    tonyb

  49. Conspiracy or stupidity or bureaucratic bumbling – who knows.

    The only two things we know for sure about this are:

    1. As in inconvenient fact, it is not going to appear in any IPCC report, and

    2. The top fat cat bureaucrats in the Met Office are going to get the maximum bonuses allowed this year, regardless of actual performance.

  50. “why had the public not been clearly informed in the Uk’s media that it was the second coldest December within this record of 352 years?”

    Curiously enough, the answer to your question appears in today’s Daily Telegraph, in the form of a half page collaboratory advert sponsored and paid for by – The Carbon Trust!
    When David Cameron promised a “bonfire of the Quangos” he did so with his fingers crossed behind his back for this one. He and Clegg have close family members seriously invested in the many lucrative manifestations of the carbon scam, as have many parliamentarians of differing hues, and they have no intention of allowing this nice little earner to be discontinued through the application of fact, truth or reality. Oh, and by the way, it also is a tax raiser.

  51. I note (just above the plot) that:

    “Since 1974 the data have been adjusted to allow for urban warming.”

    1) Where can one find the original, untreated, unadjusted data?
    2) Where can I find a clear statement about the adjustments (not just for urban warming), the method used and its justification?
    3) Does the urban adjustment since 1974 (and any other adjustments) make any significant difference?
    (Maybe this is clear to everyone else, if so, apologies.)

  52. The x axis is not clear to me. It seems that every line on the x axis is 10years. Are data points given for one specific year? (Is it a yearly graph or a monthly graph?) There doesn’t seem to be much space for a monthly graph. If that’s the case, why would the December 2010 data point go on the graph, when it should be the point for the 2010 year? Just trying to understand this graph.

  53. David Larsen says: “Were there digital calibrated instrumentation used back in the 1600′s to record that data?”

    No, but common digital calibration isn’t significantly better than the methods used then.

    “What was their benchmark?”

    Boiling water and ice. Duh.

    “A drunken bishop recording the data on sheep skin…”

    I’ll not peruse this nonsense any further. Go and Google metrology, get some actual facts, then come back with your sheep skin, your Eminence.

  54. Why would the Met office try and hide this data? Thousands of people will have downloaded this data.
    There is what you would expect, typically random English weather.

  55. Stephan says:
    February 14, 2011 at 9:50 am
    It will take about another 3 years before it is proven that the deniers were right and none will lose jobs etc they will simply fade away….

    They’re probably hoping to hang on long enough to claim credit for the cooling. Ever heard the joke about the white lines and the elephants? No? It goes like this:-
    A workman is painting white lines in the middle of the road and a guy comes up and says ‘What are those white lines for?’ Well, this isn’t really a dumb question – white lines are there for all sorts of reasons. But the workman is having a bad day, so he says ‘They’re to keep the elephants away.’ The other guy, not wanting to appear stupid, says ‘But there aren’t any elephants around here.’ To which the workman, quick as a flash, replies, ‘That shows how well they work, then, doesn’t it?’

    Analysing a joke is thankless, but in this case it’s worth pointing out that obviously the humour relies on the ascribing of a major effect (the absence of elephants) to a trivial cause (white lines), when there are clearly many other far more important factors at work. So, to re-phrase the joke:-
    Joe:- ‘Why am I paying so much for my petrol and electricity?’
    Warmist:- ‘That’s to counteract Global Warming.’
    Joe:- ‘But it’s getting colder!’
    Warmist:- ‘That shows how well the measures are working, then, doesn’t it?’

    Like I said, the warmists will try to hang on as long as they can and then it’ll be ‘Look at how clever we’ve been – we’ve fixed the Earth! Now if you just keep on subsidising those windmills and funding our research…..’

  56. Maybe they’ve hired the folks from over at the BBC, specifically, the ones that gave us this:

    From http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A387029:

    Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

    Daft as a hairbrush, the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is arguably the most insanely idiotically dense creature in existence. It believes that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you. Therefore, if you are faced by the horrid (yes, horrid, in spite of its intelleigence, or lack of) Beast you should wrap your towel around your head (you do have one, don’t you!?) to TEMPORARILY ward off the Beast’s voracious apetite and furious… fury… sorry. Yes, temporarily. The Beast WILL eventually realise its mistake and find you. Also, for further confusion on the Beast’s part, you may scratch your name somewhere. To that we will come. In vanity or for poor memory’s sake, each Beast keeps a record of its killings and eatings. This list is usually in an ante-room from the main chamber, and therefore easily accessible. This list is easily accessible and defacable, to which we are, by degrees, coming. It is easily defacable by the many rocks strewn about the lair floor invariably favoured by Beasts of Traal. Which is terribly convenient, Traal being a very rocky planet. Whilst being concealed with in your towel, grab a handy rock and scratch your name into the list. The Beast will now think it has already eaten you, giving you more time to escape. Note that no one has actually PROVED this first-hand, and neither the Guide nor any of its researchers (especially myself) take any responsibility for any personal injury sustained during the execution of the above tactics, and be warned you take this advice at your own risk.

    Hey, if you can’t see it’s getting colder, it must be getting warmer…

  57. Jorge, I worked at GE for a while until the division I was at was sold when Neutron Jack came on board. We used the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) calibration standards for all instrumentation. It was done in a lab and we controlled the environment enough to get a high standard and low tolerance variance in the instuments. What analog thermomaters were calibrated. What was the benchmark. What if the lines on the thermomaters were wider in one area and not in the other. Were all the thermomaters calibrated to the bottle of cognac or what? You have no concept of what the scientific method is let alone replication to verify if it is indeed a fact or hypothesis. Confidence intervals in minipulated data groups don’t mean anything either because there was no standard then. Let alone 10 or 50 thousand years ago.

  58. tonyb says:
    February 14, 2011 at 9:17 am
    Once again I must stress I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theory. The Met office data sets are in exactly the same place as I have always found them

    What is interesting is to see the extremely gentle rise in temperatures which can be seen here from 1659
    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi

    I think your valcualted trend and regression line is misleading. For example, the 1800-1900 LS trend is ~0.03 deg per century, i.e. virtually flat. Whereas the 1900-2000 LS trend is ~0.65 deg per century. There is more going on here than a gentle montonic rise from 1659. The rise accelerated considerably over the course of the 20th century.

  59. [“What was their benchmark?”

    Boiling water and ice. Duh.]

    Actually it used to be the internal temperature of a horse and then the arm pit temperature of a thermometer maker’s wife. The boiling water high mark appeared with the F scale of 1724. Yet though the absolute T might be off by a degree or two, the relative changes, year to year, read from the same thermometer, would only be off by a fraction of a degree since the high point calibration error is divided by 100 or 212 depending on what scale type of thermometer they were using. The quality of workmanship in the post Renaissance era isn’t exactly something you’d call medieval!

  60. I don’t know if it is politically intentioned – but I would say that the Met office website has certainly changed over the last few months…….IMHO. Perhaps this could be verified by web archiving sites (I don’t know about these things, but understand they exist?)

  61. Gee Anthony, that third chart, “Mean Central England Temperature” looks almost a dead match for the ‘Integration under the curve of the Sunspot Count’ chart I sent you over a year ago. Also much like the Jean et al chart you had in “It’s the Sun, Stupid” post. Could it be, oh no!, the sun after all ??? Oh my!

    Told you back then we were in for a big dive. Well… not me, the data.

    So that’s what a untainted temperature chart looks like. I like it!

  62. I clicked on the Met Office link above: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2010

    I entered CET into search box and got 8 results, the first said:

    Central England Temperature (CET)
    Central England Temperature is representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom, enclosed by Bristol, Lancashire and London. The monthly series begins in 1659, and is the longest available instrumental record of temperature in the world.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html

    But not as live link, the live link is in the title.

    Comes up:
    Page not found
    The page you requested does not exist. Here are some options to help you find where you want to go:

    The first three options: Get your bearings on the Met Office homepage, Use our site map, Refer to our frequently asked questions, did not have any obvious path to CET and several links followed in dead ends for it, gave up.

    The fourth option, Search for the page you’re looking for: I again put CET into box, got the same eight links as before, clicked on the first and came back to Page not found.

    Fifth option is to: Email the service desk details of this broken link. If it is from somewhere else on our site, we can fix it.

    I moved on to the sixth option: The page you requested may be available in the UK Goverment Web Archive. Check for the page you requested in the Web Archive.

    Check for page etc., live link which took me to: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html

    Live link at the bottom of the page: >Further information and data for HadCET

    – takes to new window: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/

    I haven’t tried all of the further 7 links from the search. David Parker and Tim Legg links both have a CET live link to above hadobs.metoffice, but the Layout 1 pdf, teachers downloads CC science poster – even after great magnification I couldn’t find any mention of CET.

    No mention that Arrhenius wrote further, or that Mauna Loa is a volcano, or .. etc. What this needs is a real teacher’s correction on all the points made in it – quite useful for that, could be in an Advent calendar form, open the flap and get the real gen. Not as easy as that sounds, succinct rebuts to fit the space.

    (As there’s a post on IR on WUWT front page) I notice that the Sun doesn’t send any to us.

    Anyway, looks like it’s off the main Met Office site.

  63. The acid test will be if they actually fix the link or not in the next month (allows for the ‘process’).

    As for how the link got ‘bad’ – more a symptom of using a site CMS that does not support ‘logical linking’ – i.e. you link to the object that represents the page and query the page object for its final location on the site. That way if things do move all the links track and you can put in redirects to the new location as required..

  64. There is one thing that all the honest, accountable, genuine readers of this blog will never understand, and that includes Anthony, you will never ever understand the workings of the criminal mind.

    How many of you have said, or words to the effect, “I don’t know how he / she could have done such a terrible thing ?” ?

    We make those statements because the actions of the dishonest are totally incomprehensible to the honest so we make allowances for their actions, like, they must have made a mistake, they were stupid, or some other feeble excuse and we never consider that they plotted and planed their actions right down to the last detail.

    And we make those excuses to only make ourselves feel good, to be able to rationalize their actions takes away our pain.

    The skeptics will never win this war by being honest nice people. The AGW crowd have the criminals in all the right places of power, they have the backing of Billions of dollars, and they have the backing of the MSM.

    Every little stunt they pull is just another nail in our coffin, like hiding web pages. Eventually, the CET record will disappear completely.

    How many times in the past have the criminals “burnt the books”.

    As abhorrent as it sounds, we must take the fight up to the criminals now, both barrels, using their tactics. It will be too late when we are poor, cold and hungry.

    The actions of the people in Cairo, Egypt, recently is the only way we will ever overcome this 30 year scam.

    What other way did the Egyptians have to remove 30 years of oppression ?

    Aren’t we in the same boat ?

  65. A google search for “central england temperature record” gives the correct page as the second result on the list.

    Google these days is so good at finding things, and academic research institutions are generally so awful at writing functional web pages, that it is usually much quicker to find academic stuff via google than by going to a main page and trying to navigate links.

  66. Roger Knights says:
    February 14, 2011 at 10:12 am
    meemoe_uk says:
    February 14, 2011 at 8:07 am

    I’d attribute malice myself.

    Me too.

    And me

  67. Perhaps we should be a bit skeptical about measurements prior to the early to mid eighteenth century. It looks like the first alcohol thermometers might have been made around 1630, but things that we would recognize as thermometer capable of producing results that could be calibrated against modern instruments didn’t turn up until the early 1700s

    Does anyone have any idea how measurements were made in 1659 and the following years and how they were later assigned values on modern temperature scales?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_temperature_and_pressure_measurement_technology#1500s

  68. John Finn
    Don’t know why you would want to use a century trend when we have a 350 year one.

    You missed out on the 1700-1800 trend in your list-was there a reason for that?

    tonyb

  69. > Given the mess related to the winter forecast we’ve recently seen
    > from the Met Office, I’m inclined to invoke the
    >
    > “never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple stupidity”
    >
    > clause.

    Hi there. This is your hippy-dippy climateman with your hippy-dippy climate, man. Now I imagine some of you were surprised by the really cold weather this past winter… especially if you read our winter forecast last fall, man.

    With apologies to George Carlin, RIP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2HpB5CGfLQ

  70. Note that the CET has existed with the urban heat island effect without anyone taking that into account . . . well until the late 1980. What did they do all of a sudden? Did they give the normal documented temperature, with the unimagined but natural included UHI effect, a double dose of the UHI effect because they imagined it because they believed it didn’t exist in the set before they included?

    Hah but the creation of the IPCC can be said to show up in Englands CET set. Its creation in 1988 was just in the nick of time before temperatures skyrocketed out of proportion and CO2 levels broke through the “safe and normal” 350 ppmv (of course before industrial time that was 280, but heck who’s counting.)

    It’s truly utterly amazing how many statistical coincidences happens around late 1980 all in economical favor to the alarmists. How many times does the same set of people hit the jackpot before the house starts pondering the cheat?

  71. REPLY: Which is why my last sentence says: “never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity”. For some reason, some commenters don’t seem to get this. – Anthony

    LMAO. Some commenters will get why :)

  72. “Cold Englishman says:
    February 14, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Roger Knights says:
    February 14, 2011 at 10:12 am
    meemoe_uk says:
    February 14, 2011 at 8:07 am

    I’d attribute malice myself.

    Me too.

    And me”

    And me.

  73. Chris in Hervey Bay wrote:

    “As abhorrent as it sounds, we must take the fight up to the criminals now, both barrels, using their tactics.”

    I disagree. I think that one can recognize the full extent of corruption one is up against, without yielding to similar corruption oneself. Steve McIntyre’s patient work provides a good model. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are other models worth considering.

  74. Chris in Hervey Bay says:
    February 14, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    How many of you have said, or words to the effect, “I don’t know how he/she could have done such a terrible thing?”?

    It’s a good question. I’d been watching some WWII documentary and was struck by how, practically, a whole nation had got caught up in justifying denigration of others as subhuman and knew they were invading countries to destroy and steal and meanwhile they were living a life of calm civility among themselves – going to concerts, trips with the children, picnics.

    I asked the question on a discussion board some time ago and got an interesting answer. That around 6% of people are sociopaths, and when these get into positions of power they first of all attract like, and then mostly people who are not, but who are in some way damaged by experience and which unresolved makes them believe that what they are involved in, sociopathic behaviour, is the norm. The rest is brainwashing of the young to make them believe it is the normal way of things, which happened in Germany and Russia and China, and happening in AGW, and the rest trying to survive as best they can in a system which hates them.

    We make those statements because the actions of the dishonest are totally incomprehensible to the honest so we make allowances for their actions, like, they must have made a mistake, they were stupid or some other feeble excuse and never consider that they plotted and planned their actions right down to the last detail.

    I think there’s a difference between giving someone the benefit of the doubt, who hasn’t done something out of stupidity?, when we recognise this could be possible in ourselves. We’re much more likely, I think, to first think it is a mistake, or an aberration, and I imagine most of the time it is. The alternative to that, istm, is to get paranoid very quickly.. sells newspapers. Fear is easily generated, and we end up too frightened to let our children walk a couple of miles to school and with draconian laws treating everyone who comes into contact with them as if they’re all child molestors.

    I’ve travelled a lot around the world and I think the default position of mankind is goodness, hospitality, in that we’re creatures of co-operation; from family life generally to societies. It’s when this ‘balance’ is really disturbed that other possibilities in our natures can come to the fore for ill and create havoc, and that’s a different kind of excusing by thinking these ‘stupid’ – it doesn’t matter how malicious, how planned in deceit, how ostensibly clever, powerful, it’s very difficult to take these people as ‘normal’. Frightening, yes, but not normal. But then, some people think subjugation to royalty is normal, that getting medals for murdering in wars is normal; must be, society applauds it, honours it, dresses up for it…

    But is it actually anyone’s fault for being what they are?

  75. Surprise surprise. This is exactly what the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) did a few months ago. A “revamp” of the website, and all of a sudden easy access to the map-clickable 100-year and 150-year temperature station series was buried under 4 layers of obscure directions. Of course the data is still there (they wouldnt dare destroy data would they???) but it is now difficult to find and difficult to analyse.

    Combined with the revelations that some of the original temperature records in New Zealand were “lost” by NIWA, it makes you wonder when three closely connected government bodies, each charged with the collection, safe keeping and distribution of climate data, all do similar things at the same time?

  76. neither blunder nor conspiracy.

    They just don’t give it priority as a data record, naturally, given what it shows, yet they can’t deny its existence either

    I find some websites put their “contact us” in the obscurest locations, so they can deal with fewer possible emails and queries.

  77. I checked the CET links I used for my January 2011 postings. Indeed, both postings were based on the data found at http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat, which was the same Met link used for the 2010 postings at C3 that other commenters have mentioned.

    2011 postings on CET are here:

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/are-modern-temp-changes-unprecedented-2010cet.html and http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/worlds-oldest-temperature-record-no-significant-warming-since-1995-cooling-instead.html

    BTW, if any WUWT reader ever has need for a C3 graph/chart without the yellow text box or chart title just send me an email request (see banner at top of C3 home page for email address).

    Jim @ C3

  78. This is politics. As FDR (?) famously said, “In politics, if it happened, it wasn’t an accident.”
    Occam’s Razor is now on the side of malice as an explanation, abetted by bureaucratic CYA skills, honed for untold generations.

  79. Ken Smith says:
    February 14, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    I disagree. I think that one can recognize the full extent of corruption one is up against, without yielding to similar corruption oneself. Steve McIntyre’s patient work provides a good model. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are other models worth considering.
    ———————————————————————————————————–

    Ken, it’s OK to disagree, though I’ll just point out a couple of things.

    I do admire Steve McIntyre’s patient work and his gentle ways, I read all his posts and have done so for years. He does wonderful work but it is not well recognised outside the blogosphere. All his great work has not been recognised by the public at large. At the moment, he is just chipping away at a very, very large block.

    As I said above the criminals, (and that’s what they are, are stealing, not only our money but eventually our life style) have got control of the media.

    When the MSM have headlines that show, Steve McIntyre proves beyond doubt climate change is not man made, and news stating scientists are being arrested for fraud, and charged and locked up, I, then will believe that the sceptics have had an effective campaign against this fraud.

    The way I see it, Steve makes terrific bullets but we have no one to fire them. The only thing we have is the blogosphere, and after 30 years it is shown to be no way as effective as the MSM.

    How many times have you heard any politician say “Steve McIntyre said……” ?

    Yes, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are other models worth considering.

    Also consider, they had the support of a large proportion of the population and support of some of the media outlets. They could afford to sit back and let others do the work where the rubber hits the road. By saying that, it should take no credibility away from their leadership.

    We don’t even have a popular leader !

    We have the troops, at least here in Australia we do. A recent news poll showed 89% to 11% against a “Carbon Tax”.

    My point is still, unless we get organised, as those in Egypt did, the sceptics will succumb to this green, socialist cancer.

  80. Chris in Hervey Bay says:
    The only thing we have is the blogosphere, and after 30 years it is shown to be no way as effective as the MSM.

    I’m pretty sure the “blogosphere” hasn’t been around for 30 years – and I would argue that it’s proven QUITE effective at countering the MSM, given the change in the discussion in the past 10 years or so.

    30 years ago, you wouldn’t have even KNOWN there was a different perspective.

  81. While we’re at it, there are some US datasets that appear to have stopped updating…
    * ENSO data at http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst.for
    * experimental 6-month climate forecasts at http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images3/glbT2mMon.gif
    * 6 month ENSO forecasts…
    — raw at http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images3/nino34SSTMon.gif
    — PDF-corrected at http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images3/PDFcr_nino34SSTMon.gif

    I can duplicate the first item “the hard way”. By the way, Nino34 has weakened slightly from -1.48839 last week to -1.15485 this week.

  82. Notwithstanding any previous comment, sure looks like someone is measuring the UHI effect. Remember: stupid is as stupid does!

  83. Tony says:
    February 14, 2011 at 7:19 pm
    Chris in Hervey Bay says:
    The only thing we have is the blogosphere, and after 30 years it is shown to be no way as effective as the MSM.

    I’m pretty sure the “blogosphere” hasn’t been around for 30 years
    ———————————————————————————————————

    Quite right Tony, the blogosphere hasn’t been around 30 years.

    While we “nit pick” our own writings, the whole climate change scam marches on.

    In Australia, I can not see where the blogosphere has had any effect in countering the MSM or the thoughts of our politicians.

    Every day on our TV news, we are bombarded with rubbish like the drought, the floods, the hot, the cold, dead coral, dead fish, the Barrier reef will be gone, sea side homes flooded by sea rise, the list goes on and on. So where did the blogosphere counter that ?

    The government still carries along its merry way, we will have a carbon tax this year and the alternative government has said bugger all about it. So where did the blogosphere counter that ?

    Tony, my whole point is, we are not organized.

  84. HOMER: Gee, Lisa, looks like tomorrow, I’ll be shoveling 10 feet of global warming.

    LISA: Global warming can cause weather at both extremes, hot and cold.

    HOMER: I see. So you’re saying warming makes it colder. Well, aren’t you the queen of crazy land! Everything’s the opposite of everything

  85. Presumably the MET’s preferred scenario – adjustment, homogenisation followed by an unexplained loss of raw data (if that can be arranged without forensic evidence).

  86. Transalted into Australian, the saying

    “Never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple stupidity”

    reads

    “If there’s a cloice between a conspiracy and a cock-up, choose teh cock-up every time.”

  87. okie333 says:
    February 14, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    “The Daily CET Anomaly page at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/indicators.html is also down.”

    It gets curiouser and curiouser Okie!

    The daily CET max / min / mean graphs are still being updated on our governments web-archive site here…

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/indicators.html

    Perhaps they really are trying to hide the decline again???

  88. To Chris in Hervey Bay .

    Hi Chris, you have some true points. I myself have tried to make some little difference in the debate http://www.hidethedecline.eu but the impact of sinlge persons sometimes seems tiny, and thus not really motivating to keep up the effort.

    Some kind of further organization perhaps is the answer. However, we do have a handful of effective webvoices like Watts, Joanne Nova etc. but its true: Medias are slow to follow sceptic views.
    Its tricky to point out some kind of “leader” since this is science and a such would need scientific skills as well as a good politically clever person. However, perhaps this strategy of some kind of spokesman was succesful for alarmists using Al Gore. Like it or not but he really reached a lot of people.

    Heartlans inst, SPPI we have some rather good basis though.

    K.R. Frank

  89. I’m with Anthony on this one and Frank Zappa would appear to agree also.

    “Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”

  90. Chris in Hervey Bay says:
    In Australia, I can not see where the blogosphere has had any effect in countering the MSM or the thoughts of our politicians.

    While it may not be making much difference there, I’d say it’s at least starting to have an effect in the US. But ANY change of that level takes time. The MSM has been around for quite some time – it will take quite some time to make ANY advances against such a well-established propaganda machine. I think you might want too much too quickly on that front.

    Every day on our TV news, we are bombarded with rubbish like the drought, the floods, the hot, the cold, dead coral, dead fish, the Barrier reef will be gone, sea side homes flooded by sea rise, the list goes on and on. So where did the blogosphere counter that ?

    By the fact that ANYONE is even AWARE that a debate exists. 30 years ago, even THAT wouldn’t have happened

    Tony, my whole point is, we are not organized.

    I won’t argue with that point at all.

  91. The Met office have now changed the links so that you go directly from the CET link on the uk/2010/ page to the CET page on the hadobs site.

    Interesting that the people at the Met Office read WUWT and act on it!

    [of course they do ]

  92. You guys are all a bunch of flat earthers with no knowledge of how the climate works. If you don’t understand it please don’t post.

    REPLY: Gosh, he said “please”, well that make it OK then /sarc – Anthony

  93. As a matter of information, there is a marvellous website http://www.archive.org/web/web.php which enables you to see snaphots of public websites going back approximately 10 years. There are 18 snapshots of the Met Office website between 2001 and 2007. It is very useful for checking information on websites that might have been changed.

    Regards

  94. Frank Lansner says:
    February 14, 2011 at 11:35 pm
    To Chris in Hervey Bay .

    Some kind of further organization perhaps is the answer. However, we do have a handful of effective webvoices like Watts, Joanne Nova etc. but its true: Medias are slow to follow sceptic views.
    Its tricky to point out some kind of “leader” since this is science and a such would need scientific skills as well as a good politically clever person. However, perhaps this strategy of some kind of spokesman was succesful for alarmists using Al Gore. Like it or not but he really reached a lot of people.

    Visualize Al Gore as a single whale and the skeptic blogoshpere as uncounted schools of Piranha and Great White Sharks. Do not underestimate the influence of the skeptical blogosphere. Billions of dollars, Euros, and other currencies have gone unsuccessfully into an effort to suppress, marginalize, and effectively silence critizism from skeptics. Reducing the number of targeted skeptics only makes the task of marginalizing and silencing the skeptics easier. While some measure of organization to maintain the schools of skeptics, too much organization and management risks subversion, division, and is counterproductive to a genuine grassroots movement.

  95. From the Met Office site for the CET record, “Both series are now kept up to date by the Climate Data Monitoring section of the Hadley Centre, Met Office. Since 1974 the data have been adjusted to allow for urban warming.”

    Adjustment, adjustment, my thermometer for an adjustment…

    Thus is Man-made global warming explained in the later 3 decades of the 20th Century: and we know who that man is and where he works.

  96. The issue of repeated adjustments confuses and alarms me. If old thermometers/temperature measuring devices read “warm” relative to current, more accurate ones, then I understand why there would be a gross, one-time adjustment – even with older data adjusted more than recend data. But GISTemp was seriously adjusted between 2000 and 2011: it was only in the last 10 years that this historical disconnect was recognized AND temp measuring devices in the 1980s were also bad?
    The UHIE is or should also be a one-time correction. Current readings should be adjusted as we go along. And all such corrections should be to push the records down. Instead UHIE adjustments (on a global scene) seems to involve old temperatures going down while current ones go up.

    I don’t see data to justify older, “warmer” temp measurements, and why adjustments should be continuing. Enough! The historical data should be stable and should have been stable long before today.

  97. Not that this is related to the MET bury the long term CET. Yet, it seems Britains meteorological services has history of getting the forecast wrong.

    New Scientist, June 3, 1971, “Curbing the Cost of Bad Weather”, has a write up on some of the big errors of the 50’s and 60’s.

    Regards!

Comments are closed.