Met Office Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit HadCRUT4 and CRUTEM4 Temperature Data Sets Adjusted/Corrected/Updated… Can You Guess The Impact?

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

Image Credit: Met Office Hadley Centre

By Just The Facts, Werner Brozek and Walter Dnes

The Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, have adjusted/corrected/updated their HadCRUT4 & CRUTEM4 data sets, the update occurred with the April data recently released. There does not appear to have been a press release and there was no mention of the forthcoming change in this April 15, 2013 Met Office press release that covers the data sets, however version update tags were placed in bold at the top of the HadCRUT4 page;

“Update: An updated version of HadCRUT4 is now available. HadCRUT4 is now at version HadCRUT.4.2.0.0. Details of this update can be found here

and the CRUTEM4 page:

Update: CRUTEM4 has been updated to version CRUTEM.4.2.0.0. Details of this update can be found here.

The HadCRUT4 page notes that the HadCRUT4 “land ensemble has been updated to use station data for CRUTEM4 version CRUTEM.4.2.0.0” and the Release Notes for version CRUTEM.4.2.0.0 state that:

“Additions to the CRUTEM4 archive in version CRUTEM.4.2.0.0

The changes listed below refer mainly to additions of mostly national collections of digitized and/or homogenized monthly station series. Several national meteorological agencies now produce/maintain significant subsets of climate series that are homogenized for the purposes of climate studies. In addition, data-rescue types of activities continue and this frequently involves the digitization of paper records which then become publicly available.

The principal subsets of station series processed and merged with CRUTEM (chronological order) are:

Norwegian – homogenized series

Australian (ACORN) – homogenized subset

Brazilian – non-homogenized

Australian remote islands – homogenized

Antarctic (greater) – some QC and infilling

St. Helena – some homogenization adjustment

Bolivian subset – non-homogenized

Southeast Asian Climate Assessment (SACA) – infilling /some new additions

German/Polish – a number of German and a few Polish series – non-homogenized

Ugandan – non-homogenized

USA (USHCNv2.5) – homogenized

Canada – homogenized

In addition, there have been some corrections of errors. These are mostly of a random nature and the corrections have generally been done by manual edits. For a listing of new source codes in use, see below (end).”

While the magnitude of the changes is not that large, many of the adjustments/corrections/updates to HadCRUT4;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

and CRUTEM4;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

are concentrated in the last 16 years, a period that the Met Office is under scrutiny for the lack of warming in their data.

Also, some of the regional changes appear quite contrived, e.g. it looks like they found five hundredths of a degree of extra warming in the Northern Hemisphere in the last couple years:

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

South America they found almost a tenth of a degree of warming over the last decade;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

Africa, had five hundredths of a degree of extra warming in the last few years;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

and Australia/New Zealand a tenth of a degree of additional warming over the last few years:

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

Now updating data sets to include additional measurement locations and improve precision is usually a good thing, and if this was the only occurrence of an adjustment/correction/update resulting in additional warming, one might give the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia the benefit of the doubt. However, over the last several years they have progressed through;

CRUTEM.4.2.0.0 (current version)

CRUTEM.4.1.1.0 (previous version)

CRUTEM.4.0.0.0 (initial release)

CRUTEM.3 (Corrections)

and

HadCRUT.4.2.0.0 (current version)

HadCRUT.4.1.1.0 (previous version)

HadCRUT.4.0.0.0 (initial release)

HadCRUT.3 (Corrections)

and it seems like the impact of each adjustment/correction/update is to increase the appearance of recent warming. The move from HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4 was particularly troubling, i.e.;

“HadCRUT4 was introduced in March 2012. [2]It “includes the addition of newly digitised measurement data, both over land and sea, new sea-surface temperature bias adjustments and a more comprehensive error model for describing uncertainties in sea-surface temperature measurements”. [3] Overall, the net effect of HadCRUT4 versus HadCRUT3 is an increase in the average temperature anomaly, especially around 1950 and 1855, and less significantly around 1925 and 2005. [4]Also, the warmest year on record, which was 1998 with HadCRUT3, is now 2010 with HadCRUT4. [5]” Wikipedia

The difference between HadCRUT3 to HadCRUT4 is clearly visible in this WoodForTrees graph;

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

however, note that WoodForTrees.org is still on CRUTEM.4.1.0.0, i.e. thus that difference will grow if/when WFTs is updated to CRUTEM.4.2.0.0

Also a note should be made regarding the graph that showed Hadcrut4 was about to go below the 95% mark. With the old version, 2011 and 2012 had anomalies of 0.399 and 0.433 respectively. The new Hadcrut4 has 2011 and 2012 go up to 0.406 and 0.448 respectively. It appears as if they bought themselves some time, but as you can see in the table, the average for the first three months is 0.420. So while this is even below the original 0.433, it is only for three months so it does not mean too much yet.

Source HADCRUT4.1 HADCRUT4.2
1.yr 2010 2010
1.an 0.540 0.547
2.yr 2005 2005
2.an 0.534 0.539
3.yr 1998 1998
3.an 0.523 0.531
Jan 0.378
Feb 0.476
Mar 0.410
ave 0.420
rnk 12th

Alright, so how many of you guessed wrong and thought that the impact of the adjustments/corrections/updates to HadCRUT4 and CRUTEM4 was to decrease recent warming?…

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
99 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 12, 2013 8:06 pm

Convince anyone in Minnesota that it is warming….
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50146674n

Hasbeen
May 12, 2013 8:15 pm

garymount, I thick the word you were actually searching for was risible. Seems to fit the bill to me.

john robertson
May 12, 2013 8:20 pm

Amazing, that is desperation and insanity combining to create satire.
With no other play left on their books, its same old play, for sure it will work differently, those uneducated doubters will believe us this time.

Christoph Dollis
May 12, 2013 9:08 pm

Theo Goodwin says:
May 12, 2013 at 7:30 pm
Christoph Dollis says:
May 12, 2013 at 6:27 pm
Great post! Tell her one more thing. They took a perfectly ordinary and inoffensive expression with a perfectly good meaning, climate change, and turned it into something that causes fear.
That is not the most harmful and hateful thing they accomplished. They made children fearful of hot weather – drained all the joy out of it.

Thanks, Theo. And good suggestion.
The conversation is continuing. This is bet an excerpt:

2h
@skepticalpark And this is just Britain. It’s devestating to people in less developed countries: http://is.gd/bCj6mp [link to an article showing deaths in Britain caused by lack of energy related to CO2 restrictions, etc.]

2h
@skepticalpark Who loses? Well the people who die and don’t have access to sufficient energy to live a decent life, to start with.

20m
@ChristophDollis I have to say, I hadn’t heard anything about that! That’s insane!

@skepticalpark Note how the propaganda term they chose, “climate change”, means that if **I** am right, and if climate cycles are natural

@skepticalpark and inevitable, they can still claim them as proof of their theory. Whatever happens, it’s reason to be afraid.
9m

@skepticalpark Now couple this with the Holocaust-esque “climate change denier” libel. Is this proper scientific discourse “Skeptical Park”?
8m

@skepticalpark “That’s insane!” 1. Why haven’t you heard about that? 2. WHY haven’t you heard about that? 3. … ? (Ponder this.)
7m

@skepticalpark “That’s insane!” It follows logically though, right? Energy is kind of important. Now assuming AGW is valid and I am wrong…
5m

@skepticalpark … still, ask yourself, why did they have to use such obvious propaganda terms and strategy to sell it?
4m

2m
@skepticalpark http://is.gd/R1yLi6 [link to this post on WattsUp] Check the record of previous adjustments, not just this last one. Notice a bias in the adjustments?
3m

@skepticalpark And why do they keep on making temperature measurements, and having to keep on adjusting it upwards after the fact?
4m

4m
@ChristophDollis Holy Moses! slow down! It’s a lot to take in! I’ve been reading – you know, when life allows – and I will certainly looking

@ChristophDollis at climate change with more critical eye – based on what you’ve pointed out! Need to digest, though!
Skeptical Park 6m

6m
@ChristophDollis no, it’s not proper scientific discourse

Now imagine if she knew about the Michael Mann’s IPCC hockey stick graph Medieval Warm Period “hide the decline” and the fraudulent shenanigins at the Climatic Research Unit?

May 12, 2013 9:13 pm

I guess is something does not exist, just invent it. This worked well for entrepreneur’s, unfortunately for scientists this is so wrong on so many levels. Is there a complete and unhomogenized data set out there? In 5 to 10 years, we will not know what is truly going on period. This was something I feared coming from GISS but I guess CRU was too close to the truth and the believers needed to spread more uncertainty.

May 12, 2013 9:14 pm

What I meant to ask in my above statement, is there a RAW data set for the measured era, with all this manipulating even if the earth began to cool we will never know as GISS and CRU now are completely inventing warmth that does not exist.

RossP
May 12, 2013 9:16 pm

” Amazing, that is desperation and insanity combining to create satire.”
Very well put John.
There has to be some legal way that these fraudsters can be held to account.
Having said that the basic AGW theory is busted no matter what they do. We are told the CO2 levels are now above 400ppm and yet even with their adjustments the temperature has only marginally increased over the last 15 years.

May 12, 2013 9:26 pm

Is this the finding of missing heat and an end to the travesty?

Jon
May 12, 2013 9:35 pm

Just like in USSR when nothing happend in the present they changes the past to make it look as if present was getting better.
🙂

Alex
May 12, 2013 9:43 pm

I was feeling cold before the adjustment, now I feel warm. I’ve switched of the heating and saved some money. Thanks for the adjustment.

Jon
May 12, 2013 9:52 pm

Brad said “When will the funders, our elected officials, wake up to this? If only the Republicans take this up it could make things worse as it will look like more anti-science stuff. How do we get the truth out?”
Most of today’s elected officials and funders is behind this and this is just what they want.
Politized science. To get the truth out you need to get rid of these elected officials in the next election.

Jon
May 12, 2013 9:58 pm

Since Jones et Al first data set how much have the data been “adjust” to make past colder and the present warmer?

Hoser
May 12, 2013 10:27 pm

Clothing manufacturers figured out you should cut the fabric slightly larger over the years but label it the same so fatter people would be happier, and buy more of the product.

omar
May 12, 2013 10:28 pm

I would love to see an overview of all the adjustments to this series from version 1 and up.
I am still frustrated over the adjustments to the sea level series by NOAA, where the series over night went from showing sea level rise to showing sea level volume, by adding a compensation for a theoretical sinking of the sea floor to the data.
They have not yet got enough stick for this

Kaboom
May 12, 2013 10:41 pm

It would seem UEA is the major source of global warming and shutting it down will help more than reducing CO2 emissions /sarc

Martin A
May 12, 2013 10:52 pm

“Can You Guess The Impact?”
It’s worse than we thought?

Man Bearpig
May 12, 2013 11:11 pm

Real World to Hadley, real world to Hadley …. It’s colder here … and has been for last 15 years or more please explain this..
Another amazing piece of work by the Sci-Fi team at Hadley.

dwr54
May 12, 2013 11:15 pm

The updated HadCRUT4 version doesn’t appear to be in any better agreement with Dr Spencer and Dr Christy’s UAH satellite data over recent years than either of the previous two HadCRUT versions.
The trend in HadCRUT4.2.0.0 from March 1997 to March 2013 remains +0.04C per decade compared to +0.09C per decade in UAH.

May 12, 2013 11:21 pm

couple things.
cru use data from nws. so homogenization happens there.
also we now have 2000 more stations than we did before at berkeley.
posts forthcoming….
data recovery continues.
you should expect more warming as cru adds data. they are biased low relative to what we know from a dataset 6 times larger than theirs

May 12, 2013 11:28 pm

Reblogged this on yasarnorman.

Peter Miller
May 12, 2013 11:53 pm

From Wikipedia – Lots of scary parallels here.
Nineteen Eighty-Four is a dystopian[1] novel by George Orwell published in 1949. The Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, and public mind control, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (Ingsoc) under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite that persecutes all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes.[2] Their tyranny is headed by Big Brother, the quasi-divine Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who may not even exist. Big Brother and the Party justify their rule in the name of a supposed greater good.[1] The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party who works for the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to re-write past newspaper articles so that the historical record always supports the current party line.

Werner Brozek
May 12, 2013 11:56 pm

dwr54 says:
May 12, 2013 at 11:15 pm
The trend in HadCRUT4.2.0.0 from March 1997 to March 2013 remains +0.04C per decade
Would you happen to have both numbers to 3 significant digits? The reason I ask is that I did a bit of number crunching and found the following increases for the years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. The increases were 0.008, 0.003, 0.003 and 0.004 respectively for an average of 0.0045 for the first 4 full years. However for the last full four years, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, the increases were 0.005, 0.007, 0.008 and 0.015 for an average of 0.00875. Thanks!

May 13, 2013 12:03 am

This isn’t temperature measurement; it’s temperature invention. The attempt at data manipulation is crude and obvious. The thermometer DaVinci’s are apparently reaching their wits end as they scramble to manufacture a warming signal without making the subterfuge appear too obvious. In that regard, they have failed.
The HadCRUT, and also the GISS temperature data, has been adjusted, homogenized and tinkered with to the point of irrelevance. Can it be trusted any more? Years from now, when HadCRUT 10.0 data is released, will we discover that the planet emerged from a major glaciation during the 1930s, leading to a long and sustained period of warming into the early 21st century similar to the Cambrian period? Nothing would surprise this observer.
Perhaps it would behoove us to stick with the RSS and UAH temperature data sets. They appear to be a tad more accurate than HadCRUT and CRUTEM — and GISS.

Peter Miller
May 13, 2013 12:15 am

I just had to re-write my last post in today’s context.
2013 is part of a story, whose final outcome has yet to be published. The Global Warming Industry (GWI) exists in a world of perpetual war against the denialists, omnipresent government surveillance, and public mind control, dictated by a political influence system euphemistically named Climate Change under the control of a privileged elite (the Team) that persecutes all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes, or denialism. Their tyranny is headed by Big Al Gore, the quasi-divine leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality, but who never debates his beliefs with outsiders and therefore some say may not even exist. Big Al and the GWI justify their rule in the name of a supposed greater good. The protagonist of the novel, Anthony Watts, is a member of the denialists who works for the truth and is responsible for exposing GWI propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to write articles which preserve the actual historical record and to expose the routine deceit, misrepresentations and the data manipulations of Big Al’s acolytes.

May 13, 2013 1:02 am

Christoph Dollis says:
May 12, 2013 at 9:08 pm
If facts don’t work in trying to get your friend to see the sceptic viewpoint, you could try fiction. I have a free-to-read sceptical cli-fi / sci-fi story in various formats here:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/273983
The story also featured in a post here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/15/wuwt-spawns-a-free-to-read-climate-sci-fi-novel/
Some folks can digest stories better than they can dry scientific facts.
Andy