If you think the U.K. Met Office is adept at producing junk temperature measurements and statistics, just wait till you see what the Department of Net Zero and Energy Security (DNZES) is up to. Its compilation of 30-year temperature averages for its Energy Trends publication is so flawed, it might be easier and more cost-effective just to make the figures up.
The DNZES figures, both monthly and annual, are said to provide average temperature, “heating degree-days” and deviation from long-term measurements. Just 17 Met Office stations are used although, curiously, 21 sets of information arise due to site double counting. Eight of the stations consulted are in Class 4 sites with internationally-recognised ‘uncertainties’ of 2°C, while four are in Class 5 with possible errors up to 5°C. The data are not only corrupted by unnatural influences but also slewed by less than obvious geographical sitings. No measurements are taken in Northern Ireland, most of Scotland or mid and north Wales. The entire south-east of England is represented by Heathrow Airport, one of the worst places possible to gain an idea of surrounding air temperature.
The siting and identification of the relevant Met Office stations is shown below.
The eight Class 4 sites are Glasgow Bishopton, Bingley, Crosby, Nottingham Watnall, Coleshill, Aberporth, Hurn and Plymouth Mountbatten while the four Class 5 are Leuchars, Durham, St. Athan and Boscombe Down. Quite why four of the 17 sites are double counted “to produce the national averages for temperature correction” is not immediately clear. Admittedly the Met Office does not have many Class 1 and 2 sites, but quite why these cannot be used rather than the hopelessly corrupted bunch identified is again not immediately clear. But it gets worse.
Hat tip again to Ray Sanders, the citizen journalist who is carrying out a forensic examination of the entire Met Office temperature gathering operation. Noting that the DNZES statistics stretch back to 1980, he observes that doubled-up Rostherne was only opened in 2012. Glasgow is also short of a few years having started in 1998, as is Coleshill (1997), St. Athan (1997), Leconfield (2002) and Weybourne (1991). Just two Class 1 sites are used, neither of which existed in 1981. “This concoction of historic averages is reminiscent of Dungeness where stations that do not exist are attributed averages by what are no better than mathematical conjuring tricks,” Sanders states. The Dungeness note refers to the recent discovery that the Met Office has been inventing temperature averages for over 100 stations, a practice, and a subsequent attempted cover up, the Daily Sceptic recently reported here and here.
Sanders also casts a critical eye on the Leconfield site. This is a Class 3 station with uncertainties of 1°C but its doubled-up data arises from a location with “multiple issues”. In Sanders’s view, the site should be at least Class 4 due to nearby roads and tarmac. There is also the “serious issue” of a newly-built solar farm with 4,248 heat-producing panels standing just 80 metres (at its closest point) from the measuring device. “There are even bigger problems with the way in which its temperature readings are subsequently manipulated by Government departments that is almost unbelievable,” he adds.
The end result of all these shenanigans can be seen in the table below. The average temperature for the period 1991-2020 was said to be 10.3°C, a figure that according to the Met Office has never been reached in a single year. The highest recorded temperature was 10.03°C in 2023.
It’s becoming clearer by the day that the Met Office’s temperature measuring operation is amateurish and unsuitable for the serious scientific purpose of underpinning the Net Zero agenda. Little care seems to have been taken over the siting of measuring devices, with nearly eight out of 10 stations based in junk classes 4 and 5 with huge uncertainties identified by the World Meteorological Organisation. Alarmists frequently talk about the dangers of warming of as little as one tenth of a degree centigrade but Met Office figures (and those of other state-funded meteorological organisations around the world, which suffer from similar problems) are incapable of providing measurements to this degree of accuracy.
Meanwhile, DNZES is in the hands of an extremist gang of weird political wonks led by the Mad Miliband. They are unlikely to lose much sleep over a few inaccurate temperature details when there is work to be done saving the planet. Dodgy temperature figures, hockey sticks and purple weather maps have been creating mass climate psychosis for years – the job is almost done. Now is time to make a real move on the hated free enterprise industrial society and the plebs who seem to take an unnatural enjoyment in the improved living standards it offers. Step forward Miliband’s right-hand man and the former Chief Executive of the Climate Change Committee, Chris Stark. Commenting on the Net Zero imperative, he recently said: “We are likely to see a move towards a more stick-like intervention into the future if we are not able to act.”
Things are getting hot – these people are ready to strike.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
“The Met Office’s temperature measuring operation is amateurish and unsuitable for the serious scientific purpose of underpinning the Net Zero agenda.”
Underpinning the net zero agenda is a political purpose, and has nothing to do with science whatsoever.
Spot on.
“Admittedly the Met Office does not have many Class 1 and 2 sites, but quite why these cannot be used rather than the hopelessly corrupted bunch identified is again not immediately clear.”
Well, they wouldn’t produce the right answers, would they?
“The end result of all these shenanigans can be seen in the table below. The average temperature for the period 1991-2020 was said to be 10.3°C, a figure that according to the Met Office has never been reached in a single year.”
As usual, taking no account of who is doinf what, and why. This is a DESNZ document, and as they say, they have selected stations to be representative of fuel consumption in Great Britain. That is why there is little data in Scotland and none in NI. And that is why they get a warmer temperature. The MO average is area weighted to be representative of the UK.
“It’s becoming clearer by the day that the Met Office’s temperature measuring operation is amateurish and unsuitable for the serious scientific purpose of underpinning the Net Zero agenda. Little care seems to have been taken over the siting of measuring devices…”
The siting makes sense, if you take the trouble to read what they are after. But it was the DESNZ that chose them, not the MO.
And what was the reason for replicating the data multiple times from the same data site Nick?
Weighting, to match to fuel usage.
They might as well have weighted the results according to the number of birds in the trees for all fuel consumption has got to do with temperature.
They are interested primarily in fuel usage, with temperature as a modifying factor.
What a complete load of bollocks !!
You are well aware that they are interested in creating a FAKE URBAN temperature for purely propaganda purposes.
Why always be so slimy and disingenuous, Nick !
Ah, and the one site they didn’t use multiple times was Heathrow which has the highest fuel use of them all….go figure.
Heathrow may pump a lot of fuel. But is it used in Britain?
Ha, ha! on the basis of where oi/fuel is pumped and then used in the UK there should have been multiple use of thermometer data sited on the northern end of the Shetland Isles, because that is where Sullom Voe is situated which receives and pumps a lot of oil….
Doubtful they would have got anywhere near the 10+ deg C. they were pushing for though.
This is just dumb. You don’t seem to have the slightest interest in reading to see what they are trying to do.
Only thing DUMB here is your idiotic attempts to justify this farce.
Seriously Nick, if you imagine for a single minute the sampling of sites around the UK has any hope of showing the impact fossil fuel used there, has on temperature then there is nothing I can say that will break through that incredible position you hold.
Have a nice day and try to look more widely at what is actually going on.
“if you imagine for a single minute the sampling of sites around the UK has any hope of showing the impact fossil fuel used there”
Just as well that’s not what they are doing. The point is to provide information on the impact of temperatures on energy consumption.
High temperatures cause high fuel consumption in urban areas? Does everyone jump in their autos and head north? Does everyone turn their heat up so more fuel oil and natural gas is used?
Your argument holds no water!
No. They reduce fuel consumption, as you would see if you actuall read the report.
Your red herring in the frypan is burning.
Someone doesn’t understand what the expression “red herring” means. On the figurative sense they are used in hunting not frying.
But it’s not a red herring to address the specific mis-misunderstanding raised by Gorman. The point of these data is to understand energy consumption. In general warmer temperatures means less energy consumption.
So you are saying that urban warming in the winter, slightly reduces the need for winter heating.
Well la-di-daa !!
As usual for him.
And it has FAILED COMPLETELY to do that because the warming is URBAN and it is the urban densification that leads to more fuel use.
Do you apply that logic to Ufologists? Or do you scan their ‘evidence’ and quickly move onto more important things?
My quick scan of this shows that Heathrow airport is taken as indicative of the entire home counties.
Hmm.
Time to move on. This is junk science. Or this is junk politics.
Leave it to the loonies and move on.
“My quick scan of this shows that Heathrow airport is taken as indicative of the entire home counties.”
Again, you have to read what they are trying to do. It isn’t to resolve the climate of the home counties. It is to produce a fuel-weighted 30 year average for GB, so they could tell how much 1991-2020 changed from 1981-2010. And whatever you think of Heathrow as representative in absolute terms, the decadal change is representative of the area.
They and you cannot know this from the data used (and created!).
No!
It isn’t.
The growth in aviation, with all the increase in car trips to fill the planes, is not representative of the rest of the South East.
That’s my point.
They deliberately picked the one place that has had extremely high increase in energy usage.
The jet set were special because the hoi polloi could not access budget airlines.
That change does not represent Hove or Lowestoft or even Brixton.
Look. Think. This is rubbish!
They have picked an obviously atypical site to represent the most populous quarter of all England.
If you really trust that, would you like to buy a bridge?
What the heck does a fuel weighted average have to do with temperature of a well mixed gas – CO2. Are we talking temp/ gal? How about gal/temp? Or, temp•m²/gal? Maybe temp•gal/m²?
None of this makes any logical sense to me.
The mere fact Heathrow has changed to 5 terminals instead of 2 is not even noticed in this era of vastly increased air traffic – especially FREIGHT!
WTF is this Stokes banging on about??
Even the idea that it takes more fuel at different temps is wrong. Aircraft have noticeably less power at high summer temps as do most vehicles thanks to road friction and temperature differential between intake air and exhaust temps.
It all sounds to me like some freak (jobsworth ) designed this sort of intellectual masturb exercise to keep being paid highly for doing sweet F.A.
A bit like Nick stokes here it seems.
Irrelevant, these temperature data are not fit for purpose, the main point which you tried to skirt around.
Again, fuel usage is going to be related to URBAN DENSITY.
They are DELIBERATELY creating a farcical massive URBAN temperature for blatant propaganda purposes.
I am absolutely sure that you KNOW that is the case, and that is why you condone it.
Ah I’ve figured it out Nick……your lonely aren’t you?
they have selected stations to be representative of fuel consumption in Great Britain. That is why there is little data in Scotland and none in NI.
What, they don’t consume fuel in Northern Ireland? And only consume a ‘little’ in Scotland?
And what has fuel consumption got to do with it anyway?
I don’t know why they chose GB only, but they stated clearly that they did.
DESNZ are collecting the data to relate energy use to weather variation, so the average should be for where energy is used.
Scotland consumes less fuel per sq km than England.
Scotland consumes less fuel per sq km than England.
Does it really? Well, I never.
Scotland has a population of ~5 million people. How many people do you think live in England, Nick?
12 times that of Scotland – 60 million.
57 million, says wiki, at 438/sq km. Scotland has 70/sq km.
Wiki? Try the government you ‘of course’ believe…
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/populationestimatesforenglandandwales/mid2023
They say 60.9 million. Did you factor in illegal immigration?
Again you just can’t read. It says 60.9 million for England and Wales.
You didn’t factor in illegal immigration. Why is that?
Last year we added another 906,000. This year it will be more.
It won’t change the fact that Scotland consumes less fuel per sq km than England.
Idiot.
5 million people who live mostly in the lowlands will never ever match the size of England in terms of anything – except public expenditure. They get far more per capita and very few migrants go to Scotland.
“”It won’t change the fact that Scotland consumes less fuel per sq km than England.””
In many ways, Nick, that is the Friday funny. Ta.
You are totally unable to follow a logical argument. The sparsity of popuylation leads to lower fuel use per area, which is why they choose fewer stations in Scotland. That is all.
A 10 year old could reach this conclusion WITHOUT any data whatsoever!
If CO2 is well mixed fuel use per sq meter is a worthless metric.
Why not include some data from the sparsely populated areas of Scotland to show how correct their methodology is? The Western Isles would be a good example population 1951 35,591, 1971 29,891 199129,600 and 201127,684. So actually a declining population.
The windiest place in Scotland is the Butt of Lewis Lighthouse on the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides: so any CO2 heading in the direction of Norway most days.
If you’re trying to prove it’s to do with fuel use then you need to have data from rural areas with relatively stable populations in the study, don’t you?
Threads like these convince me that the vast majority of skeptics are merely contrarians disagreeing for the sake of it. Not a single person arguing with you seems to have read or understood what they’re arguing against.
So the new metric is fuel per sq km. Got it.
For Caithness it’s 5/sq km. Populations of Wick and Thurso have declined and the rural population increased. That would have given a good contrast to England and they didn’t use Wick Airport?
They chose them because they wanted to create a FAKE URBAN TEMPERATURE for propaganda purposes.
Scotland would be too cold.
The relevant document (where the table comes from) is here.
The table is totally MEANINGLESS because it is based purely on URBAN temperatures, as shown by the use of fuel consumption.
Its only possible use is blatant AGW propaganda.
Have you considered this lot/
https://www.meetup.com/topics/loneliness/
“”they say, they have selected stations to be representative of fuel consumption in Great Britain. “”
And you believed them. Honestly Nick, try some critical thinking.
Yes, of course I believed them. It’s their business. People here seem to think everything is done for climate research only.
“”Yes, of course I believed them. “”
Nuff said, Nick.
Fuel consumption at Aberporth in one of the remotest parts on the Welsh Irish Sea coast must be the lowest in Britain, similarly the data from Heybourn on the East coast is about as far from any traffic or fuel use it can get in England.
It is a complete joke. How did it ever get past the critical editors of such reports….maybe they don’t have critical editors any more?
I would say Caithness and Sutherland, and the Western Isles population combinef total is lower than Ceredigion’s.
The are Jobsworths.
Similar breed to HSE. Going around “caring for people” and “assuring them” they are being looked after by a caring, loving state.
Nick is just too dumb and brain-washed to realise that they are creating a massive URBAN temperature fabrication.. wow.. urban areas use more fuel… who knew !!
The also have heaps of urban warming.
It is an empty, meaningless fabrication, totally unrelated to anything to do with climate.
Using it to compare past and present temperatures is ABSOLUTELY ANTI-SCIENTIFIC and TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.
Which is why Nick supports it.!
Stokes is anti-intellectual.
“The siting makes sense, if you take the trouble to read what they are after. But it was the DESNZ that chose them, not the MO.” You really do talk out of your arse don’t you. A
Again, Nick is absolutely CONDONING the use of massively corrupted data. !
CO2 is well mixed, so “fuel consumption” would not show anything EXCEPT URBAN WARMING.
The siting make absolutely NO SENSE except you are specifically trying to create a farcically corrupted number for blatant propaganda purposes.
The so called “climate science” serves only 1 purpose and that is not to understand the climate. It is used to give weight to political decisions.
IPCC is not about the environment. The “climate crisis” is not about the planet. It has been stated time and again over the past 50 years or so that it is all about redistribution of wealth and a one world order.
He who controls the money controls. This whole fabrication is about controlling the world, politically, economically, militarily, and socially.
You will have nothing (meaning the 0.5B deplorables who manage to eke through the disruptions) and you will be happy.
Just looked at the siting of the Bingley weather station. If this is representative of the others then god gelp us. It’s in the middle of a large electricity sub station. Not a good idea.
Nick doesn’t care.
Glasgow is also short of a few years having started in 1998,
Tell the good folk in Bishopton that they live in Glasgow and they will have a good laugh. One problem is that the towns of Renfrew and Paisley get in the way.
Yes indeed , I made that very point myself here.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2024/12/10/great-cumbrae-millport-dcnn-6186-a-classic-example-of-most-thats-wrong-with-the-met-office/
Meteorology martyred Mann, their liar in chief. Miliband, the politician, would struggle to remember the last time he told the truth about anything.
When you’re playing a game of guess the weather these guys may not exactly be the public relations successes true professionals would like to have at the front.
This utter schoolboy moron was on BBC radio 4’s Today (again).
He was informed that renewables were managing 6% of demand and that we are in yet another dunkelflaute. More storage cried Ed – Flywheel – Miliband.
He refuses to face reality. His advisors are even more loony than Flywheel is. Unfortunately, or maybe deliberately, the BBC avoided the green jobs issue…
“”Ministers have been forced to step in and rescue a wind turbine factory after collapsing demand for blades pushed it to near collapse. Wind turbine maker Vestas on Wednesday said it would make 300 of its British staff redundant after demand for its products slumped. At least half of the 600 staff at Vestas’ plant in Newport, Isle of Wight, will be cut amid shrinking demand.
It comes after energy giants, including BP and Shell, scaled back their wind energy plans””
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/11/miliband-bails-wind-turbine-factory-as-demand-falls/
When it comes to mathematics and numbers remember that “fully costed” manifesto that clearly wasn’t.
Nullius in verba – ex imperio.
Alarming, albeit unsurprising, that he doesn’t appear to grasp the scale of storage required to get through even one calm winter’s day.
For reference, to get through today without gas would’ve required approximately 500 GWh of storage, which with batteries would’ve cost ~ $150,000,000,000, and that’s about 2% of what’s needed to ensure supply across the year.
Clearly impossible.
That doesn’t include the extra RE required to (re)charge that storage. God forbid you need it two days in a row.
I have said previously that I collected data for the Met Office for 20 yrs from their site in Hull (Pearson Park), and was shocked the very first time I got a print out of the monthly data I had submitted as it didn’t tally with my readings. After asking why, I was informed that all data was adjusted upwards for instrument calibration and human error, other adjustments were made (?) for the location and any missing data was infilled using estimates based on data from a nearby site (RAF Leconfield which is by no means nearby). All the regional data was combined to get an average, then all the now averaged data was combined with other regional data sets and this would be used nationally!
The site in Hull needed moving due to it being surrounded by houses and mature trees and the screen itself being about 3 metres from a building. It was moved across the city to another park (I assissted with the move and location) but it was not put where I suggested. Instead, it is in an area surrounded by trees, low hedges, a steel and glass building, in a sun trap!
The met office happily go about their daily business, fabricating data, telling others what disasters have come about and how they (met office) need more money to help in the fight against ‘climate change’, etc, etc.
I DO NOT TRUST A WORD THEY SAY AND NEITHER SHOULD ANYONE ELSE.
And Stokes, bellman, and the rest of the ruler monkeys defend the indefensible Fake Data Mannipulations.
Ah Hull East Park, possibly the worst site the Met has….
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2024/08/27/hull-east-park-a-k-a-the-costa-del-humber/comment-page-1/
Pearson park was bad but not as bad as its replacement. p.s. born in Danom Lane Hull and I personally both sites very well!
You should arrange with WUWT to write an article on your experiences at the Met Office.
Hi Mr Bluesky, I would very interested in tapping into your information. ray.m.sanders1956@gmail.com
“Its compilation of 30-year temperature averages for its Energy Trends publication is so flawed, it might be easier and more cost-effective just to make the figures up.”
That link is to a department that no longer exists, and was last updated in 2022. Blaming this on Ed Miliband’s department is about of a stretchwhen the department didn’t exist until 2023, and the Conservatives were in power until July 2023.
Correction, although the page says it was “Last updated 31 March 2022”, it does include reports from 2024 and the new department.
The key point though is that the method used for the temperatures, and the 30 year averages predate the current government by several years. And as Nick Stokes says, their method’s and reasons for the weightings are spelled out in the document form 2022.
“Numbers Is Numbers!”
Numbers are numbers.
But in this case they are used to represent years, which enables people to work out when something happened, and figure out which party was in power when specific reports were published. Sorry if this is a difficult concept for you.
Sorry if you can’t grasp my correct use of the grammar.
Fucked up your response didn’t you. Idiot.
Why do you trust the Met Office when mrbluesky, someone who actually worked there, reveals the deep corruption and dishonesty which prevail in that body?
Collecting data is not working there.
This is just paranoia run rampant.
I actually did “work there” …. For 32 years.
So you are saying I am dishonest for that?
Really?
(I would guess probably BTW)
Look get a life and calm down.
The hatred you hold is doing no one any harm but yourself.
But we only produce one percent of global CO2 and there’s no chance of checking the rise in the Keeling curve. So what’s the point, you lying trougher
We all know that Red Ed Minibrain has a screw loose.
Just the one?!
At the present time, Coleshill Area is the site of HS2 delta junction construction.
With gargantuan amount of earth moving and concrete construction.
This would not skew temperature results would It?
No it wouldn’t.
Construction is on the west side of the M42 and north of the M6.
https://www.google.com/maps/place//@52.4799853,-1.6971346,14z/data=!4m6!1m5!3m4!2zNTLCsDI4JzQ4LjUiTiAxwrA0MScyNi44Ilc!8m2!3d52.4801389!4d-1.6907778!5m1!1e4?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Thank you for the reply.
As I live in Coleshill I am witness to the amount of earth spoil, that is being deposited ( from digging a 3.5 mile tunnel) around Coleshill. All so the concrete viaducts being erected . I am truly impressed with the amount of construction machinery involved and the work being carried out 24/7 The whole topographical Area around Coles hill is being altered.
May that have some bearing on the areas weather?
No.
Peeps here seem to think that much is changed by things such as this.
Unless the digging is right next to the station there will be zero effect in what the thermometer reads.
Any UHI (warming) effect would take place during the day, and heated air rises, even with the wind in the west.
Malarky! Where do you get the idea that UHI only warms Tmax? Tmin has been what generally increases in urban areas as compared to rural areas. All the concrete, asphalt, building etc. act as a heat reservoir that keeps nighttime temps higher.
Show some data from urban areas separated by Tmax and Tmin to support your assertion. Otherwise, you are full of it.
Yes indeed I am full of it … as I have expertise in the area.
Both scientific and geographical.
I worked within 3 miles of the Coleshill weather station for 17 years.
As UKMO meteorologist.
Whereas you are full of it because you think you have expertise and don’t have enough intelligence to realise the difference.
You can locate the Coleshill screen form here. There are other issues with this CIMO Class 4 site
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4800368,-1.6908825,3a,75y,34.62h,80.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKx1QoPHu9hw40SAbb4NQpQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D9.823013495903453%26panoid%3DKx1QoPHu9hw40SAbb4NQpQ%26yaw%3D34.61827270235602!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e4?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Based on taking temperature readings to 0.1 C from several hundred stations that do not exist
Milliband has a mini brain.
If the UK PM were not a similar idiot, he would have been ousted for treason and malfeasance
“Based on taking temperature readings to 0.1 C” Nope they claim readings to 0.00001 C
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2024/09/16/cavendish-dcnn-3122-anatomy-of-an-ongoing-challenge-crop-circling/
Seven significant digits! Climatology is bunk.
I want to see the measuring device spec where a field device can produce a resolution of one ten-thousandths of a degree.
USCRN, some of the best stations with three thermometers, can only produce to the tenths digit.
These numbers also don’t show the associated uncertainty values. Do they have any specifications for the uncertainty of these stations and measurements?
Numbers Is Numbers!
The fifth decimal place is actually one hundred thousandth of a degree! Look at it another way, its the same as just one millimetre against 100 metres. A degree K is a very small unit in the first place, chopping it up so small is an impossible to measure unit in an uncontrolled environment.
Climatology will never understand this.
One ten-thousandths or one hundred-thousandths is really meaningless in the long run. Obtaining either one from a field measurement device, even where a thermistor might have the ability to resolve such a difference is merely counting angels on a pinhead. It simply is a fantasy of people who have never been trained to actually measure physical quantities.
As I live in the village of Aberporth I was interested to see that this was one of the sites used. It is frequently mentioned on the BBC weather reports. Readers might like to know that the station is sited on the Ministry of Defence base situated on a headland jutting out into the Irish Sea. This headland is almost 440 feet above sea level. Not surprisingly some rather strong winds get reported here.
And Capel Curig is even worse!
Simple Ed just gave a statement on the Net Zero progress of such a jaw dropping ignorance that I now really fear for the future of his country. And not because of ‘climate change’.
Time for the Hague to step up:
Stark’s sticks:
Me, months ago: Please opt me out of your smart meter pitches. I don’t want one.
Them: OK.
Them, this week: This is E.On Next. You need a new electricity meter. Yours has passed its certification date. We are obliged to change it under the Electricity Act 1989.
Me: OK, so same again please. As you already know I don’t want a smart meter.
Them: That is indeed your option. Trouble is, we don’t have any more non-smart meters so we’ll have to fit a smart meter. So that is your option.
Me: OK, so fit it and make it dumb. I believe that is also my option.
Them: No, it’s not. But I now see that your property has insufficient WAN coverage so yes, it is.
Them: Just in passing, why don’t you want a smart meter fitted?
Me: Start with the fact that I think that Ed Millipeed may be certifiably mad and you can fill in the rest for yourself.
Them: Thank you, Sir. We’ll either send you an email OR a visit from the police within 4 hours to discuss your non-criminal climate hate belief system.
Today: Tumbleweed ….
It should be noted for the record that both Stokes and bellman are pushing a giant red herring — the noise about the purpose being fuel use, while ignoring the main point of the article. The data being used are not fit for purpose, plus are artificially Mannipulated.
But as usual for climatology, none of this matters: “Numbers Is Numbers!”
For the record the points I am objecting to are:
1. The claim this is part of a plot by Ed Miliband, when the supposed wrong data was being produced during the Conservative government. The minister at the time was Jacob Rees-Mogg. Why not blame him.
2. The claim that the data is wrong, because it shows different figures to those produced by the Met Office, when the DUKES document specificcaly point out they are using a different value and explain why.
3. The claim that this is all being done to persuade people if the reality of climate change. Nobody on 2022 were saying, UK average annual temperature was over 10°C., therefore global warming is real. Nobody knows what an average annual temperature means. I doubt if anyone would think 10°C is too warm.
And you still weasel around the fact the data are not fit for purpose.
Meanwhile the Oz BoM has to eat crow and tone down the rhetoric (paywalled)
Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology will change its El Nino and La Nina climate driver updates | The Australian
The nation’s weather bureau will stop publishing incremental updates on the likelihood of El Nino and La Nina hitting Australia, conceding the controversial indicators have sowed confusion and given Australians a false impression of the seasonal forecast.
Criticism of the bureau was widespread last year when some farmers blamed its El Nino declaration for spooking producers into selling livestock, leading to a flooded market that sent sheep and cattle prices tumbling.
That’s putting it mildly at a sector that was really pissed swallowing the BoM Kool Aid that it was anything more than a 20/20 hindsight expert with La Nina El Nino and the Indian Ocean Dipole and really just a half reasonable 4 day weather forecaster.
Dr Braganza said the confusion generated by the bureau’s 2023 El Nino declaration, which came during heightened focus on the bushfire season ahead, had contributed to the decision to scale back the prominence of the ENSO.
“If I did have my time over, I would try to differentiate the risk for the forecast of bushfires and the forecast for the risk of drought,” Dr Braganza told The Weekend Australian.
“I would deliver slightly different messaging for different sectors based on how they assess their risk.
“We realised there was mixed messaging from that.”
Face facts you got full of your own importance and believing in all the fancy computer modelling with GIGO in expensive computers but that won’t stop the company line from backing the dooming once the egg is wiped off your faces.
The WMO classification document says class 4 stations have AN ADDITIONAL uncertainty of ±2°C while class 5 stations have AN ADDITIONAL uncertainty of ±5°C.
These are added to the uncertainty that exists in the stations. If USCRN have an uncertainty of ±0.3°C, which is very good, 4 & 5 would have up to 2.3 and 5.3.
And the probability of them giving a higher reading than local reality is far greater than the probability of them giving a lower reading.
A large problem is no statement of what the uncertainty values are. That is the first piece of missing information that tells me how unscientific this is.
Scientists interested in ACCURACY should take great pains to evaluate the uncertainty of data they are using and of any calculations made from that data.
A mean is calculated from a group of observations, that is, from a random variable. That random variable should be evaluated as to the appropriate probability distribution associated with it. These observations are all single readings which means the standard deviation defines the dispersion of observation surrounding the mean, i.e., the uncertainty.
Where has all this information disappeared to?
Cela vous intéresse mais, pas pour moi
Sticks are indeed necessary: for use on the Nett Zero Global Warmistas.
Truth is the first casualty of Politics.
AVG > MAX is called New Math
0/0=1
2×0/0=2×1
0/0=2
1=2
The vast proportion of studies and comments on the value of surface temperature measurement hinge on the MetOffice sites. I have yet to read anything about the huge number of readings submitted by owners of Personal Weather Stations to a number of web sites, including to the Met Office under its WOW (Weather Observation Website) that is measles-like across the Nation. I am sure those clever with computers could investigate correlation with those of the MetOffice.