Last August, the Daily Sceptic drew attention to the UK Met Office inventing temperature data at its fictitious ‘open’ weather station at Lowestoft. Figures were said to be compiled from “well-correlated neighbouring stations”, but research by citizen sleuth Ray Sanders found there were no such operations within a 40-mile radius. At the time, the Daily Sceptic referred to the matter as a “smoking gun” and said that unless the Met Office could finally reveal its workings out, “the only realistic conclusion to draw is that the data are invented”. No explanation has been provided but in a shock unannounced move the Met Office has now withdrawn all the Lowestoft data from its historical record back to when the site closed in 2010. Similar withdrawals of data have also occurred in the stations at Nairm Druim and Paisley.
The move casts serious doubt over attempts by the Met Office to estimate temperature trends across many once open but now closed weather stations. Sanders is not inclined to minimise the scale of the problem facing the Met Office. When subject to “proper scrutiny”, the Met Office “could not substantiate its fabrication of false data and has had to delete them in their entirety”.
The practice of inventing temperature data from non-existent stations is not confined to the UK. In the USA, the weather service NOAA has been charged with fabricating data from more than 30% of its reporting sites. Data are retrieved from surrounding stations and the resulting averages are given an ‘E’ for estimate. The addition of the so-called ‘ghost’ station data means NOAA’s monthly and yearly reports are “not representative of reality”, states meteorologist Anthony Watts. If such evidence was presented in a court of law it would be thrown out, he adds.
Temperature measurements and estimates are a highly imprecise science. The dreadful mistake meteorological operations like the Met Office and NOAA make is to leverage their ‘trusted’ status to promote the political Net Zero fantasy by claiming an accuracy and precision that is simply not available in their rough-and-ready figures.
The problem with Lowestoft is that the Met Office has been unable to back up its widely promoted “well-correlated stations” explanation. The four nearby stations to Lowestoft supplied in a Met Office public domain database are all, alas, closed. Sanders dug further and found that the only open well-correlated sites available were Cromer, a Class 4 junk site with possible unnatural errors up to 2°C at 35 miles distance, and Class 2 Weybourne, 41 miles away. Well-correlated except for the fact they are too far away to provide a monthly estimate for Lowestoft to one tenth of a degree centigrade. For its part, the Met Office refuses to name well-correlated stations for any of its calculations, claiming “it is not retained information”. Sanders has expressed incredulity at this explanation, exclaiming: “What, not ever, not even for one day? Hands up anyone who believes that!” Freedom of Information requests to obtain station names have been met with the Met Officer stating that such attempts are “vexatious” and not in the public interest.
It might be suggested that the public interest is not best served by monthly temperature figures for Lowestoft being presented until a few days ago as follows (the two columns on the left after the year and month claim a monthly average based on daily highs and lows):
All pretence at estimating these figures has now gone with the following now published. Similar cleansing has occurred at Nairm Drium and Paisley and previous ‘open’ claims have been changed to ‘closed’.
Meanwhile, the Met Office continues to invent data for about 100 non-existent stations that are used to provide ‘location-specific’ long-term average temperature data. Political pressure is mounting for the Met Office to make a full public statement about its temperature gathering operation – a public statement that addresses the many criticisms of fabrication now widespread on social media. Sanders is clear on the core issue that needs the urgent attention of the Met Office: “How would any reasonable observer know that the data were not real and simply ‘made up’ by a Government agency?” He has called for an “open declaration” of likely inaccuracy of existing published data, “to avoid other institutions and researchers using unreliable data and reaching erroneous conclusions”.
Erroneous conclusions seem to have been reached by the local council in the Welsh spa town of Llandrindod Wells. A few years ago it declared a fashionable ‘climate emergency’ at a time when the Met Office was claiming the local maximum temperatures had risen by 1.07°C relative to the period 1960 to 1990. How did it know? Last month marked the 50th anniversary of the closing of the weather station at Llandrindod Wells. Precision to within one hundredth of a degree centigrade is the product of a computer model – the disclosure of the input details of which are said to be not in the public interest.
Hopefully any much needed explanation will be of a higher standard than that sent recently to Matt Ridley following a recent article in the Telegraph. The science journalist had criticised the Met Office’s exaggeration of warm weather and in passing noted that the meteorologist had been “embarrassingly duped by activists”. In a post on X, Ridley said the Met Office claimed that he was wrong in saying that it based its wildly unrealistic projection for the UK climate in 2070 on the extreme and implausible computer model scenario known as RCP8.5.
As exhibit 1, Ridley posted the following from the Met Office’s own site.
Time for the Met Office to come clean on using junk computer models as well as invented and exaggerated temperature readings.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So the conspiracy theorists were correct once again.
That statement needs a slight correction…
We base these changes on the RCP8.5 high emissions scenario, where
the worldChina continues to create high levels of emissions as the rest of the developed world OUTSOURCED their emissions to China along with the associated jobs“as the rest of the developed world OUTSOURCED their emissions to China along with the associated jobs” and technologies.
“conspiracy theorist” is another once useful term now lost to rhetorical overreach. It’s just one of the millions of ways for a 21st century person expresses disagreement.
“Without evidence” is ready to cross that event horizon.
The term “conspiracy theory” was invented by the CIA as a propaganda tool.
Every well explained conspiracy theory is better than the best climate models and global warming scenarios.
Even the really bad ones are more likely to be true than the climate catastrophe we are officially experiencing now but only exists within the realm of MSM, Big Tech and politics.
I’ll take the flat earth over co2-went-suddenly-rogue-after-14billion-years any time of day.
If you make up 1 completely imaginary weather station that never existed and populate it with the average data of several surrounding, even make it the same as 1 nearby, hell, make up 200 randomly located stations, what does it do to the countrywide average? Paul Daniels had a catchphrase for it. At worst you could drag the average one way or the other a little by concentrating them in one area of the country.
The Met Office may be a steaming pile with an agenda, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the mean temperature of the UK climate has warmed in recent times. So you can’t say it is exactly +1.71C, and all you can say is it’s somewhere above +1.5C. Is that really an amazing victory?
As would be expected if anthropogenic heat results in higher nighttime minima. The “average” temperature rises, but “average” maximum temperatures don’t!
Of course, some ignorant and gullible nutters believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter! How nutty is that?
So how do you calculate any rise or fall in temperature with junk stations, phantom stations, maybe even zombie stations?
You do what the Met Office does.. MAKE THE WHOLE THING UP !!
Where is the evidence that these stations were just “averaged” into being, and not a “random” number just a bit higher than the actual average? They’ve polluted that well, and are now counting on people like grim to cover it up.
Awww phantoms and zombies, scary.
Use your own brain, not difficult.
It’s like people claiming jet engines at airports spike prt readings, if you apply half a second of thought, it’s obviously not logically possible on any regular or significant basis.
Airports have vast areas of black pavement- which gets hot- even without jet engines.
And a number of Airport weather stations are based behind places where jets pause on the tarmac waiting for Tower Permission to proceed. Then the jets rev their engines prior to proceeding to get their mass rolling again.
And for half+ of a century the amount of black asphalt has increased in proportion to the size of jet engines that randomly blow the warm air towards the official weather station.
Mr. Nasty: You apply logic, sometimes. Use your own brain, and ask why the Met: 1) did this at all; then 2) lied to you about it for years; and 3) even now downplay it without admitting anything, just as you do. If it’s a victory for truth in science, why does this leave you unhappy? I don’t think you’re a troll, try taking your own remedy and get back.
” ask why the Met … did this at all”
I’d love to hear an answer from the person who actually decided. It may have been a politician pushing a billion dollars of wasteful spending or it might have been a data reentry clerk who had to put -something- in the pop-up box to get to the next screen.
It is very hard to admit that, by reducing the number of stations that you look after…..you should get a salary cut….or a number of people in your department should be laid off….so instead have them spend more time at their desks interpolating old data so that extrapolations can be accomplished for points on the map with designated but non-existent pseudo-stations. It’s all very scientificky.
“by reducing the number of stations that you look after…”
From what I’ve seen of Met Office site and Ray’s exposé of them…
.. they don’t “look after” any of them !!
The guy who’s never demonstrated any ability to independent thought, telling other people to think. That’s funny.
A daily average is by definition the result of all the temperature readings taken during the day. If one of those readings has been inflated by jet exhaust, then the daily average is, by definition, inflated.
If you are stupid enough to think that there is only one plane taking off during the day, then you might be able to get away with the claim that the contamination is minor. However, at busy airports such as Heathrow, you are going to have a plane taking off and landing every couple of minutes, for most of the day. That is not minor.
If even one plane causes Tmax to be spiked, then the mid-range temperature used by climate science will be influenced.
It’s one reason why I continue to say that climate science should move to using integrated degree-day values. The spikes will have less influence on the total. Climate science *could* have been doing this for 40.5 years. More than enough time to meet the climate science goal of 30 years to estimate climate.
“Use your own brain, not difficult.”
I did. Your name… it’s a bit of an odd choice, isn’t it. You could rearrange it…
Arming Mr Sty
String My Ram
Mr Sam Trying
They aren’t quite so grim or nasty
“if you apply half a second of thought, it’s obviously not logically possible on any regular or significant basis.”
We have either a different vision of how that process might work or a different definition for the word “obviously”. Please explain.
When the mid-range daily temperature is based on two observations, Tmax and Tmin, jet engine wash *can* and *does* create Tmax values that are not representative of the daily climate.
If climate science uses that mid-range value then it is highly *LIKELY* that jet engine wash can create a phantom value.
Mr GM you are clearly no remotely close to being a scientist to post such nonsense.
“all you can say is it’s somewhere above +1.5C”
NO, given the abysmal state of the sites used by the Met Office, and all the fabricated and abused data…
… the likely error could be around 3C or even more.
There is no way you can make any “warming” statement whatsoever.
Best to look at one of the few pristine sites in the region, Valentia…
..which shows the average in the 1930’s was higher than the first couple of decade of this century. (blue values)
Hmmmm . . . the UK Met Office . . . just wondering how closely they are tied to the the University of East Anglia (UEA) and its Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which were at the center of the Climategate scandal of 2009.
If not intimately connected, it sounds like the Met Office learned the tactics of misinformation and cover-up from UAE.
The “UK climate” may well be a smidgin warmer than it was 100 years ago, but the question is “what caused it?”
Natural variation or CO2?
No evidence so far for the answer being CO2.
Mr Nasty
If you select your stations used to create your ghost stations from among those most contaminated by urban heat, then you most assuredly are not merely overweighting certain regions. You are implying an urbanisation that does not exist. It’s a fantasy.
Furthermore, and far more to the point, any improvement in UK weather is devoutly to be implored. Warmer is better for humanity. Those who pretend that an absurdly small warming is a catastrophe are anti-human.
Amazing how many people completely miss the point I made and just rant their tired personal favourite soapbox point and other irrelevant drivel/straw persons.
Of course we known the UK climate has warmed, there’s multiple points of irrefutable data, and the evidence of my own eyes and something I’ve had which few of you have, the same thermometer in the same unchanged environment for over 40 years.
Impossible bullcrap.. Show me a photo from 40 years ago and one today. Also show me the calibration certificate for the thermometer for each of those 40 years and the calibrating authority..
Even if a thermometer is calibrated every day, so long as it’s in a naturally ventilated shelter the measurements will not be better than about (+/-)0.5 C.
So if it’s warmed a bit. So what? It’s not a catastrophe and no need to go broke trying to do anything about it. What is a problem is the claim that its settled science and that it is an emergency.
What temperature has warmed, Tmax or Tmin?
Has first frost day gotten later?
Has last frost day gotten earlier?
Has the growing season gotten longer?
What is the impact?
These are important when discussing climate change.
“What temperature has warmed, Tmax or Tmin?”
Both. Tmax a bit more than Tmin.
By how much? Outside the measurement uncertainty interval?
“By how much?”
From 1979 – 2024 using annual averages
TMax: 0.37 ± 0.11°C / decade
TMin: 0.29 ± 0.10°C / decade
You know you could always download the data and do your own research.
“Outside the measurement uncertainty interval?”
Yes, we all know you don;t understand the difference between a single instrument reading and a multi-year trend across an entire country. No need to keep demonstrating it.
Multi-year trend….. cannot be at all sure it is even real if its coming from Met data
If it is real it is likely cause by bad sites and urbanisation, airport expansion etc etc…
… or the diluted effect of El NIno atmospheric events.
… or increase solar input due to more sunshine hours.
or just FAKE data.
Still no evidence of human CO2 causation.
There is absolutely no way of knowing that from Met Office sites.
There is way too much junk data in the mix
So if TMax has risen more than TMin that would indicate a warming mechanism other than CO2 since CO2 would have its maximum effect at night in the winter.
Tmax has a boundary condition set by the T^x emission relationship. T^x goes up faster than T. At some point Tmax can’t go up any further because the heat radiates away faster than it is input to the system.
(note: I can’t confirm that x = 4 for the earth biosystem but it is certainly greater than 1)
Funny, half the time people claim that if min is rising faster than max it proves it’s caused by UHI, and then when max is warming faster than min it’s proof that CO2 couldn’t be responsible.
You are correct that there are possibly other factors than just CO2 here. I would guess the increase in sunshine has something to do with it.
No data from the Met Office is “proof” of anything.
Its too unreliable for that.
Has first frost day gotten later?
Answer: Yes, (for East Highland) but 2025 bucked that trend.
Has last frost day gotten earlier?
Answer: Yes, a fraction.
Has the growing season gotten longer?
Answer: Probably no discernable difference.
On a similar note, I would ask similar questions about Arctic Sea Ice.
Eg. Has the melt season gotten longer?
Although there has been sea ice loss (since 1979), the seasonal changes from melt to refreeze; and from freeze to melt don’t seem to have altered much at all. This is counter to the prevailing global warming narrative, as I would expect the melt season to lengthen under global warming. In fact, this year, the Arctic sea ice refreeze began a few days earlier than normal.
Currently Arctic sea ice is the 12th lowest on the NSIDC record, according to their own analysis tool. There are however zero years with less sea ice in earlier October, prior to 2007. But since 2007, as others have pointed out, sea ice loss has definitely stabilised. After all, 12th lowest in 18 years, could also be expressed as 7th highest (since 2007).😉
“Has first frost day gotten later?
Has last frost day gotten earlier?”
I’m not sure about first and last frost days, but the total number has certainly been declining.
Great news for the plant kingdom, crop growth etc etc.
Just like enhanced atmospheric CO2 is. ! 🙂
just rant their tired personal favourite soapbox point
Yes, I’ve seen you doing that, yourself.
If you make up 1 completely imaginary weather station that never existed
You’ll probably get a job at the Met Office.
I don’t see anyone who missed your point. The Met is caught fabricating data, and you’re ok with it. You are approaching trollville.
Amazing how alarmists completely ignores all criticisms of their sacred texts and just proclaim that no matter how many errors and deceptions are found, that it’s all minor and doesn’t impact the main point.
Your protestations haven’t been ignored, they’ve been addressed and completely shredded. Why don’t you try dealing with that instead of just declaring that everyone else isn’t smart enough to understand how brilliant you are.
OK, so what leads you to conclude that a minor increase in CO2 over the last 40 years is the culprit and not simply continued warming since 1770?
Actually, since the Met Office has been faking it for decades, you can’t trust ANY of their data. You essentially know nothing.
Someone who will lie about one thing will lie about any number of things. It’s a matter of trust.
True that, Mary.
Addicted liars don’t even realize they’re lying.
They just carry on oblivious saying anything that suits their self-interest.
They aren’t holding Frost Fairs anymore.
OMG all those little ice skaters will drown in the Thames
The last Thames Ice Fair was in January 1814, when Dickens was under 2 years old. The old medieval bridge was removed in 1832, after that the flow of the river was not as restricted. The last time the Thames froze completely was in 1947 and 1963 and a partial freeze in 2021, this despite a freer flowing river.
What this means about the climate of South East England I don’t know.
Extremes??
The seine froze over in the still tidal stretch in the winter of 1983-84.
It was so thick and the temps stayed down so long you could easily have had a frost fair on it in Rouen.
That winter most of the 6 week freeze up, the early morning temps were between -20 to -30C.
Hardly a single diesel car would start.
That is close to the sea….
Now I also remember 1976 very well.
It was a longer and hotter summer in the UK than this year of 2025 when in France we had 2 major heatwaves, both lasting about a week and with temps around 32-39/40C.
People not old enough to remember have selected amnesia
Grim,
How do you know that you have “the same unchanged environment”?
To assert this, you have to have a measure of change.
If your thermometry for 40 years shows no change, you stand a chance of being correct.
But, because you report a change, something in the surrounding environment HAS changed.
Your mission, should you accept it, is to reveal the causes of the change and then note if they are natural or man-made.
Geoff S
Perhaps Grim will post their data records of daily T-min and T-max recordings over the last 40 years. It’s one thing to make a spurious claim and another to back it up.
“the same thermometer in the same unchanged environment for over 40 years.”
Stevenson screen (or CRS), naturally ventilated?
I can’t think of a single airport that hasn’t grown significantly larger over the last 40 years.
Airport measurements are great for their intended purpose…calibrating the local Radar Stations for air traffic control…but not so much for accurate trends or actual climatic usage.
Wow. And here I thought it was so we pilots could better evaluate required performance and for takeoff and landing, as well as inform the tower as to which runways should be made active. Humidity, temperature, and air pressure greatly affect lift and engine performance and calibrates altimeters on the aircraft. Landing in a crosswind can be tricky; landing with a tail wind can make stopping before the runway runs out exciting.
All of those and more preceded radar stations. Most small airports don’t have radar stations, but they do have weather information!
You absolutely need to know your Ts & Ps prior to takeoff and landings. But wind direction isn’t necessarily an artifacts of poorly measured temperatures. Like I said weather stations at airports are a must but they aren’t fit for use in the climate network…not fit for that purpose.
Barra , hebridean island with beach runway.
Repaint the screen and the environment changes. Don’t maintain the screen and the environment also changes.
Same goes for the surrounding vegetation.
You’re saying there’s an environment in the UK that hasn’t changed in 40 years? Unless you live in the Outer Hebrides I’d struggle to believe that, but moving on…
Is this thermometer of yours a mercury one, given its age?
How often do you take readings?
Do you have a record of these readings?
Would you be willing to post them, as well as the approximate Latitude and Longitude?
Is the thermometer located in a Stevenson screen?
Would the surroundings be conducive to a Class 1 or 2 rating?
Given that Lowestoft is no more, perhaps your setup could take its place.
“the same thermometer in the same unchanged environment for over 40 years.”
If that thermometer has been exposed to sunlight it has probably changed it’s reflectivity coefficient. Very few substances get *more* reflective due to UV exposure. Meaning the mounting infrastructure for that thermometer has probably increased its heat absorption over the 40 years meaning its indicated temperature also goes up.
Sorry, but with the parlous state of the Met weather sites, there is absolutely no way you could say with any confidence that a large amount, if not all, of the so-called “warming”, was not coming from bad sites, data fabrication and data manipulation.
NO DATA COMING FROM THE MET IS IRREFUTABLE..
That’s how bad the Met data is. Basically junk data.
That is the point that you have missed.. completely.
I have shown an example of “the same thermometer in the same unchanged environment for over 40 years.” And it shows the 1930’s was warmer than the first couple of decade of this century.
On what basis do you assert your “fact?” It can’t be the MET office temp reports because it is a fact that they are false.
Given that fabricated data is the basis for the claim that the temperature has warmed, then no, you can’t say anything regarding what has happened to the temperature in the UK.
It has absolutely warmed there since 1770, the nadir of the LIA.
But the question is…
When did Natural Warming end (warming from the LIA) and supposed human influences overpower natural variability? And how was this determination made??
CO2 concentration can’t be the culprit as with current ambient concentration being some 130ppm above historic levels natural varies still an apparent factor as new Low records are still broken in winter and many areas around the world record cooling trends since 1990.
England has ” warmed” so much that the English used to built the pipes on the outside of their houses.
Ctrl-f suggests 26 “Reply to MrGrimNasty” in 7 hours. Good work sir!
If all WUWT messages are stored in a database format, statistics could be compiled for categories including “best troll of the year”. I’m non-sarcastically impressed.
You can say it’s 0.9(+/-)1.9 C.
The entire historical record is submerged in systematic measurement error.
I suspect you are being generously small with the ±1.9C when you consider the almost uniformly bad and unfit-for-purpose state of Met Office sites..
.. and all the funky and bogus, agenda driven never-was data..
I don’t think that it is correct to call made up numbers ‘data’. I think it’s time for a clearout at the Met Office.
No need to get excited. Have them use a good version control.
When I try to call my fake dollars money – they call the police and give me 5 years.
When they call their fake numbers data – they call it science and give them a nobel prize.
Is their a formal term to call data that has been tampered with?
Bogus
“Is their a formal term to call data that has been tampered with?”
There are a couple I can think of… but “fraud” comes first to mind. !
Fraud! And if you fiddled with the company accounts the same way, you would be in jail!
World’s best practice homogenisation. The climate botherers reference guide.
Fake
NASA’s GISTEMP is fiddled with every month. Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group alters data on a regular basis. It can’t be denied.
Yes, they have been bastardizing the data since 1998.
NASA and NOAA show about 10 years between 1998 and 2016, which they declared “the hottest year evah!, as a means of promoting the Human-caused Climate Change Hoax, whereas the honest UAH satellite chart shows NO years between 1998 and 2015, that are warmer than 1998.
The temperatures cooled after the high point of 1998, but NASA and NOAA mannipulated the data to make it look as though the temperatures were getting hotter and hotter and hotter, year after year, even going so far as to mannipulate the data to the point that they had each successive year showing hotter than the previous year. Devious little Climate Liars.
See if you can find any years after 1998, that were hotter than 1998, on this UAH satellite chart. Hint: There are none. NASA and NOAA are liars who should be prosecuted for their climate lies.
“See if you can find any years after 1998, that were hotter than 1998, on this UAH satellite chart.”
2016, 2023, 2024 and almost certainly 2025 are warmer than 1998.
Context is important. It was established the time frame was “between 1998 and 2016.”
Define “warmer” for the years you are presenting. Is that an intensive or extensive property of those years? You forgot to say, which means you have no point to make since you did not define your argument..
GISS shows continued warming after 1998 to 2016, (the period Tom was talking about)
UAH shows no warming during that period.
You love those El Nino events… they are all you have.
“mannipulate”
I see what you did there!
See if you can find any years after 1998, that were hotter than 1998, on this UAH satellite chart.
Ok, up to 2015 this is true. But beyond 2015, there have definitely been years when they 1998 record was broken. The trend remains upward, up to the present, albeit not as pronounced as NOAA would have us believe.
“Ok, up to 2015 this is true.”
Yes, just as I said.
Now ask yourself: How were NASA and NOAA declaring ten years between 1998 and 2015, as the “hottest year evah!”(hotter than 1998), when the UAH chart shows over a decade of cooling, up to 2015?
NASA and NOAA lied to the Public about the temperatures. They are no better than propaganda organizations where it concerns the Earth’s climate.
Think of all the people, especially the kids, that NASA and NOAA frightened out of their wits with these temperature lies. It’s child abuse, among other things.
Each peak/rise is from a strong El Nino.
These are natural events, with no evidence of human causation.
Interesting that all those hottest years ever happened during the time they once called the warming hiatus.
I guess the hiatus went in the meantime the way of the dodo and the ice age scare.
Nono, the hiatus was caused by banning 100 watt light bulbs and cash for clunkers.
I mean, that’s why they did it at all, wasn’t it?
Still waiting for them to tell us how much sea level in Colorado has risen. 😉
Here’s a “What they said then and what they say now chart” showing how much they changed the 1950 – 1997 trend over the 22 years from 1997 to 2019:
So, safe to say sea level in Colorado hasn’t risen at all. Perhaps they should move their operation to the seashore, then they may perchance figure out what is going on with sea level. 😉
If they wanted bigger, scarier positive anomaly numbers, then they could just change the baseline to “Years with Frost Fairs on the Thames”.
Aye, those were the days of plenty.
Earth stood hard as iron
Water like a stone
When they talk about how much the earth has warmed since the “pre-industrial”, that is exactly what they are doing.
Just think of the money the MET would save if it junked all but one of its real weather stations and “correlated” 300 or so other sites to that single station. The entire nation covered with so little cost!
Or just use the Central England temperatures for the last several hundred years, no need for any others.
S/
The MO is more than doing its political (dressed up as authoritative) science part.
It has to now the consensus is DOA and the pressure is on.
Let’s scrap Britain’s successful climate law so we can burn more gas, lose investment and have higher bills. Crazy as it might seem, that is the message of Kemi Badenoch’s new energy strategy. Grauniad
Labour must fight rightwing billionaires undermining net zero, says Ed Miliband
Reform UK were “importing a net zero culture war” Grauniad
Extreme weather is the UK’s new normal, says Met Office – BBC
Laughable.
Bum BBC link… should be
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74w1gyd7mko
Neither the Grauniad nor the Beeb has any credibility nowadays.
Lying Left. It’s just who they are.
People need to stay on their case until they come clean about their imaginary numbers and stop using questionable methods. How this can continue is testament to what we call “deep state” in the USA where there’s really a shadow government running the show.
“The problem with Lowestoft is that the Met Office has been unable to back up its widely promoted “well-correlated stations” explanation. The four nearby stations to Lowestoft supplied in a Met Office public domain database are all, alas, closed. Sanders dug further and found that the only open well-correlated sites available were Cromer, a Class 4 junk site with possible unnatural errors up to 2°C at 35 miles distance, and Class 2 Weybourne, 41 miles away.
No
Nearest climate stations to Lowestoft (Suffolk)
Hemsby
(14 miles)
Coltishall
(25 miles)
Scole
(26 miles)
Morley St Botolph
(30 miles)
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/location-specific-long-term-averages/u12v1xhdm
Also: Notice the word “possible” not that there will be.
Hence the UKMO doing their own checks to verify that that doesn’t happen.
(and see below re WMO)
“Sanders is clear on the core issue that needs the urgent attention of the Met Office: “How would any reasonable observer know that the data were not real and simply ‘made up’ by a Government agency?” (see below) He has called for an “open declaration” of likely inaccuracy of existing published data, “to avoid other institutions and researchers using unreliable data and reaching erroneous conclusions”.”
First of all any “other institutions and researchers” using the data would have to be both blind and/or stupid to do so.
BECAUSE…..
https://science.feedback.org/review/no-the-uk-met-office-is-not-fabricating-climate-data-contrary-to-a-bloggers-claims/
As the Met Office explains directly on their page (the same one referenced in recent claims): “This webpage provides long-term climate averages for specific locations across the UK. It is designed to display locations that provide even geographical coverage of the UK, but is not reflective of every weather station that has existed or the current Met Office observation network.”
On the same page, the Met Office also explains that “The averages table shows 30-year averages for the nearest / most similar climate station to your chosen location.” This line answers the question posed in the ‘Tallbloke’s Talkshop’ blog post: “how would any reasonable observer (i.e. the example student) know that the data was not real and simply ‘made up’ by a government agency?” The data is real – not ‘made up’ – and it comes from nearby stations, as clearly explained on the page in question.
As explained in the guidance (linked here), a Class 5 site suggests that there are nearby obstacles that create an inappropriate environment (e.g., shade) for the station’s meteorological measurements to be representative of a wide area (i.e., tens of square kilometers [km2] or more). But, contrary to the blog’s claims, higher classification ratings do not necessarily mean the data is ‘junk’ for climate reporting purposes.
In fact, the WMO explains that “[t]he numbers should not be taken to mean that higher class stations are of low value, as there may be very good reasons for the site exposure depending on the purpose for which that station was established”. They continue, explaining “we acknowledge that the use of numbers can easily lead one to suggest a ranking. This is not the purpose and should be avoided.”
Continued:
“Erroneous conclusions seem to have been reached by the local council in the Welsh spa town of Llandrindod Wells. A few years ago it declared a fashionable ‘climate emergency’ at a time when the Met Office was claiming the local maximum temperatures had risen by 1.07°C relative to the period 1960 to 1990. How did it know? Last month marked the 50th anniversary of the closing of the weather station at Llandrindod Wells. Precision to within one hundredth of a degree centigrade is the product of a computer model – the disclosure of the input details of which are said to be not in the public interest.”
Again No:
Nearest climate stations to Llandrindod Wells (Powys)
Llandrindod Wells
Sennybridge No 2
(16 miles)
Cwmystwyth
(20 miles)
Shobdon Airfield
(21 miles)
Trawsgoed
(25 miles)
“Precision to within one hundredth of a degree centigrade is the product of a computer model”:
Of course it is, as the handing of statistics is done that way these days and not by abacus or slide-rule.
How did it know?
“The Met Office calculates a regional UK temperature rise by creating a geographically complete grid of temperature data using observational records, then comparing this data from the latest 30-year climate normal period (e.g., 1991-2020) to previous periods to find the difference in average temperature. The HadUK-Grid dataset provides this comprehensive, gridded data, allowing them to show the departure from average in different regions.
“You can find detailed information on how to access and process HadUK-Grid data on the Met Office website and through the CEDA data catalogue, with examples often available in Python code on community sites. ”
Here:
https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/4dc8450d889a491ebb20e724debe2df
You take the vexatious MO seriously.
Interesting.
Llandrindod Wells DCNN8314 & 8323 – Countdown to the 50th Anniversary celebrations of complete fabrication. | Tallbloke’s Talkshop
More junk data.. from non-existent or totally corrupted sites.. The Met Office way.
They should be totally ASHAMED of themselves.
Is it total incompetence…. or is it deliberate.. !!!
How do we know these aren’t also zombie stations?
Your link says “No records were found matching this identifier.”
All those station you noted as close to Lowestoft are similarly all closed. How incredibly stupid do people like you have to be to have worked at the Met Office.
Great point Ray.. Either totally incompetent.. or totally corrupted by the AGW agenda.
Lowestoft – a site well-corelated with only a junk site? Center Met Science around it.
So essentially what you’re saying is that –
the Met’s numbers are “close enough for government work”, so it’s all good?
“an inappropriate environment (e.g., shade) for the station’s meteorological measurements to be representative of a wide area “
“higher classification ratings do not necessarily mean the data is ‘junk’ for climate reporting purposes. “
If the measurements are not representative then how can they be anything other than junk for *any* purpose?
‘Hemsby (14 miles)’
Closed 2001.
The Scole Met Office weather station is closed. It originally operated from 1971 but had a short operational life of just over nine years, closing in the summer of 1980.
Why is somebody trying to explain that the deleted data was totally accurate?
It has been deleted.
obviously there were problems.
Nearby stations that either don’t exist , have faked data, or are so corrupted by local issues as to be worthless.
That is the Met Office way.
“higher classification ratings do not necessarily mean the data is ‘junk’ for climate reporting purposes. “
Yes it is JUNK data.. period… , we know Met Office likes to use JUNK data for climate purposes… in fact , they rely on it. . thanks for highlighting that fact.
The use of the “large samples” rule also does not apply to disparate sites.
AB suddenly got quiet.
AB assumes junk stations are ok because the uncertainty disappears into the averages. Same with made up temperature at non-existent stations. Any uncertainty disappears until the final value divided by √n. So, the more stations you make up values for, the smaller the total uncertainty!
Making up data is “settled science”. All you “deniers” just want to cause trouble. Saying you just want the truth, and you want actual observations and un-adjusted temperatures instead of computer models, you all are just Luddites…how dare you all question the consensus!
How much could the UK climate change by 2070? It could be wetter. It could be drier. It could be a lot hotter (or not). And that’s just compared to the year 1990. What if we compared it to 1989, or,
God forbid, we compare it to the mean from 1900 to 2000?
Hmmmm . . . the UK Met Office . . . just wondering how closely they are tied to the the University of East Anglia (UEA) and its Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which were at the center of the Climategate scandal of 2009.
If not intimately connected, it sounds like the Met Office learned the tactics of misinformation and cover-up from UAE.
This makes me want to see NASA’s sea level data audited
The next part of this story becomes even more damning. Go to Tallblokes Talkshop and click on the Surface Stations Project header. There you will be able to check out all of my latest 360 posts in the last 14 months on this subject. Particularly check out the recent one on Paisley and collapsing the deck of cards. The Met Office are in danger of being legally challenged for Malfeasance. Watch that space!
We all thank you “muchly” for doing this work and exposing the incredibly sad and disparate state of the Met Office network. !! 🙂
Nothing new or surprising here. The Met is a criminal organization, if I treated my tax return the way they run their outfit I would be in jail. Lying and cheating is not okay. Fire all managers change the locks on all properties. All other employees must be interviewed, if they side with the managers fire them also. Then we must have the discussion of how close an association the Met should have with the government. My view is that the government has failed big time and should be far removed.
Same goes for NOAA.
“…NOAA has been charged with fabricating data from more than 30% of its reporting sites.”
Nothing new. In the 1800’s the US Army ran telegraph lines to it’s bases/forts in Arizona. The telegrapher was expected to read a thermometer at local midday and sent that figure to HQ. One such chap in his memoirs mentioned that in summer he’d stand at the door looking at the thermometer 100 yards away across the baking hot parade ground. “It feels like 113 degrees, that’s what I’ll send.”
(“Local midday”? No “standard time zones” till 1886. US Army time was based on Pittsburgh time.)
All data is fake when there is an underlying agenda.
When the aim is to verify a fixed assumption cherry picking data is an art.
John von Neumann: “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”