From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Two contrasting items on the Met Office News website today!
Met Office Blowing Hot & Cold!
- Wednesday, February 11, 2026
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Two contrasting items on the Met Office News website today!
Ah yes, global warming!
Well, the 2025 data is pretty much in, and yes, it was the warmest in the record.
And yes, there was an amber warning issued for snow in Scotland on Friday, 2 January, 2026.
As you say: in the recorded temperatures. The question is do the recorded temperatures have any relation to the actual temperatures given the well documented deplorable state of the MET’s network of sensors. I am an outgoing person and 2025 was a run of the mill ordinary year. So as far as I’m concerned one can put that ‘warmest on record’ with the rest of the folklore.
No doubt in my mind. Been a crazy warm year. No truly exceptional heat records but uniformly warm. CET confirms. Never had roses Hebes and marigolds in flower at Christmas in my lifetime before.
The problems with the temperature data are much exaggerated, it all comes out in the wash.
There was no cold in 2025 apart from half of January and very briefly in November. The majority of months were 2 to 3C above average.
Be of no doubt though, this was a result of the average air source over the UK this year being dominated by deep S SW rather than N/W SW. Is that a permanent shift of our weather pattern or just one year of chance weather?
Mostly nice and times rather wet, but I have seen that before.
I lost plants to drought,. Dry spring wet autumn
Same here in N E Wales. Lost several plants
You should sue the wind farm owners for reducing wind strength and associated ocean to land advection.
UK is trekking down a path to desertification. No trees and loss of atmospheric moisture despite it being surrounded by water.
Nothing is free. You get one use from the wind and the best thing for any land surface is the moisture it carries not the energy.
Extreme heat should stunt the growth and blooming of flowers. At least according to climate science. Your experience sounds more like a moderation of temperatures (same highs and warmer lows).
Extreme heat is in the eye of the beholder – In East Coast Australia, lots of flowers of many kinds, with the warmest parts having the most prolific flowers. In the South, around Melbourne, summer temperatures sometimes up to 43 deg C, but large flower farms including Tulips and Roses. The so called climate science is merely output from computer models which are garbage in – garbage out. A little warmth is nothing to fear – The little ice age, 2 deg C below the present was a dark and deadly time, which the Roman Climate Optimum, 2 deg C above the present was a time of growth, expansion and vineyards in UK.
‘Never had roses Hebes and marigolds in flower at Christmas in my lifetime before.’
You have put your finger on the crux of the matter.
Winter in Britain has got milder.
On the one hand, 2000 fewer pensioners die of hypothermia than in the winter of 1962-1963.
On the other hand, people have more flowers in their gardens.
Swings and roundabouts!
Sounds catastrophic! 🙂
“No truly exceptional heat records but uniformly warm.”
And some fools consider that an emergency?
Here are some graphs from NOAA for Kansas in the U.S. You be the judge of what is changing most, summer/winter and Tmax vs Tmin. My guess is Tmin in the summer and both in the winter.
To me, one should expect Tmax in summer to increase most due to CO2 and the most insolation. Why would winter months be increasing due to CO2 when the insolation is the least?
This is about the UK, not Kansas. As I’ve told you before, in the UK maximimum temperatures have been rising faster than minimums. This may well be because sunshine has been increasing. 2025 was both the warmest and sunniest year on record here..
“To me, one should expect Tmax in summer to increase most due to CO2 and the most insolation. Why would winter months be increasing due to CO2 when the insolation is the least?”
To me that seems completely wrong. Why would CO2 increase the effects of insolation? The effects of greenhouse gases happend all the time. If anything they should have more of an impact when there is no sunshine.
‘2025 was both the warmest and sunniest year on record here..’
In other words, it was hotter in 1976.
From 23 June to 7 July 1976, temperatures in the UK reached at least 32.2 °C somewhere in Britain for 15 days in a row.
In 2025, there were about 4 days when the temperature reached at least 30 degrees. Figures for days over 32 are not available to me.
The peak temperature in 2025 was below the peak temperature in 1976.
The main dry spell ran for about 16 months from May 1975 to August 1976, with England and Wales receiving only 756 mm of rain in that period, assessed as the worst drought on record there in analyses using long rainfall series.
‘The effects of greenhouse gases happend all the time. If anything they should have more of an impact when there is no sunshine.’
The greenhouse effect is basically where energy received from the sun is not transmitted back into space.
So no sunshine = no greenhouse effect.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
RE: “So no sunshine = no greenhouse effect”.
That statement is flat out wrong. After sunset out-going long wavelength IR light is mostly all absorbed by H2O.
In summertime this results in muggy air and sleeping at night is uncomfortable unless you have AC.
In the Arctic and Antarctic during winter , outgoing long wavelength light is greater than incoming solar radiation, which is zero.
The mean temperature of the Earth with no greenhouse effect would be about -15 degrees C.
It gets colder than that in the Arctic in winter.
Here is what MGN said.
Do you deny a warmer winter occurred at his location? Have you investigated his location to see if it has a similar Tmax/Tmin temperature profile to Kansas? If not, how do you justify your assertion?
Why would the sunniest year on record not have increasingly higher summer Tmax temperatures than Tmax or Tmin in winter. Your assertions have no resources shown, therefore they are useless in making any conclusions.
“Do you deny a warmer winter occurred at his location?”
I’ve no idea where his location is. But given he says
I’m assuming we are not in Kansas any more.
“Why would the sunniest year on record not have increasingly higher summer Tmax temperatures than Tmax or Tmin in winter.”
I’ve no idea what you are talking about. My point was tgat in the UK maximimum temperatures have been increasing faster than minimums. and speculated that this may be related to increasing sunshine. The effects of increasing sunshine vary throughout the year. I didn’t say this was specifically linked to summer temperatures.
I did try to look into this in more detail a few years ago, in response to the claimes that all of the UK warming was caused by increasing sunshine. I didn’t come to any firm conclusions. but it looks like that might be a contributing factor, but can’t explain all the warming – and ehen you look at seasonal changes it becomes much more complicated.
“UK maximimum temperatures have been increasing faster than minimums.”
If you look at some of the hilariously bad sites they have installed recently, and most of the horrendously bad sites that already existed, and the number of sites just don’t actually exist…
… that is hardly a surprise. !
But there in no evidence it was caused by human released CO2.
Here are the UK temperatures for each season.
And here are the rates of warming from a OLS linear regression, since 1970.
It’s the spring which really stands out for increases in max – which is also the season where sunshine has increased the most. Other seasons show slightly faster rates for max over min, but probably not significantly different.
To compare with your Kansas graphs, here’s the trend since 1900 – though I doubt you should read too much into them, given the non-linear nature of the last century.
In this case minimums in Summer and especially Autumn have warmed faster. But there is still no season that shows no warming.
That may be so for this region. However, why is Tmin causing the rise in Tavg? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Is the earth going to reach a tipping point where it burns up if Tmin keeps increasing.
“However, why is Tmin causing the rise in Tavg?”
Correlation does not imply causation. On the whole there has been warming over the last 125 years. This results in both minimums and maximums rising. Saying that the rise in minimums caused the average temperature to rise is a bit if a stretch unless you know of a specific cause for rising minimums that didn’t apply to the rest of the day.
“Is that a good thing or a bad thing?”
That depends on a lot of things. I doubt over this period it’s possible to give a yes / no answer.
“Is the earth going to reach a tipping point where it burns up if Tmin keeps increasing.”
I very much doubt it. The earth literally burning up seems like a straw man argument.
That is a totally issue than why is Tmin causing a rise in Tavg, which is what I asked.
Why do you think Tmin is causing a rise in average temperature?
Why do you think I used months that were fairly constant for sunshine? Spring months have the greatest seasonality when compared to the dead of summer and winter.
You have never done time series analysis have you/ Plain old OLS is all one needs to make conclusions from data that have auto-correlation and seasonality, right?
You will be surprised what first differencing and removing seasonality will do for time trends.
“Why do you think I used months that were fairly constant for sunshine?”
Was it for the same reason you used Kansas and ignored all the states with faster rates of warming?
I think your comment is misunderstanding what I’m doing. I’m not running a linear regression along all monthly values. I’m taking an average of monthly values for each season, and then calculating the regression for each season separately. There is no seasonality in any of those regressions.
Do you see a lot of warming in these states? Maybe you could find some rural states that have lots of warming.
“Maybe you could find some rural states that have l/ots of warming.”
Firstly, you can’t tell from any of your seasonal graphs what the trend is doing in any of those states. And why have you moved from arguing that you have to look at TMin and TMax separately, to just looking at TAvg?
Going back to your original claim, which was about TMax in July – I find that looking at all states, the fastest warming since 1900 is Utah.
Warming rate is 0.18 ± 0.06 °C / decade.
That’s cherry picking, of course. So I made this graph showing the rate of warming, or cooling for each state. Again, these are TMax for July since 1900.
Fastest warming states are Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico.
Alabama is the only state with a statistically significant cooling trend.
Measured mainly at deliberate class 4, 5 sites..
meaningless because you have no idea how much urban and bad site contamination there is.
Increased insolation results in increased absorption that raises temperature of the surface. Increased surface temperature results in an increased amount of radiation by T⁴. According to GHG, increased radiation upward also results in an increase of downward radiation from CO2, raising the temperature by about 33 degrees.
In Australia I had a neighbour from UK, who could not stand the idea that the skies were usually blue and the birds shrieked at her. I think her real problem was that in the UK, her husband played golf when ever the weather was fine (not often) and kept the same habit in Australia which meant he played 2 rounds a day
There is no measured scientific evidence that CO2 has any effect on temperature or climate whatsoever.
It is a fantasy, a scientifically baseless CONjecture
The answer is that during the day in approaching max temp the depth of instability increases rapidly and air rises, taking, of course the surface heat aloft – so the extra energy that any GHG causes is spread over the mixed boundary layer of atmosphere (3-5Km). At night, often a nocturnal low level inversion (ranging from a few feet to a few 100’s) will form and because of the vertical restriction of movement imposed (it’s a stable layer), the downwelling LWIR *warming* of the ground (it is actually a balancing of LWIR out vs LWIR in) is localised.
Basically – vertical mixing is suppressed, so radiative effects are confined to a much thinner layer.
Harold The Organic Chemist Say:
“CO2 Does Not Cause Warming Of Air”!
In 1900 the concentration of CO2 in air was ca. 295 ppmv
(0.58 g CO2/ cu. m. of air), and by 2024, it had increased to
ca. 424 ppmv (0.83 g CO2/cu. m. of air. In the last panel, the increasing concentration of CO2 from 1900 to 2024 had no effect on July Tmax. The reason CO2 had no effect on Tmax is that there is just too little of it in the air.
H2O is the main greenhouse gas in the air. During the month of July the RH must have been constant from 1900-2024. During the growing season in Kansas vast fields of wheat are a sink for CO2. Thus, the actual concentration of CO2 is not knowm.
The above empirical data falsifies the claim by the IPCC that CO2 causes global warming.
Why on earth would anyone in the UK not embrace global warming and head towards a decent climate with winters around 10-20 deg C and summers 25 – 35 deg C. I would call that, as they did in Roman times, a CLIMATE OPTIMUM.
How did the Scots survive in the past without warnings that it’s going to snow? 🙂
Do you think warnings should stop?
They should go back to pre 1990.
Ergo, forget about warnings for light breeze Brian.
Actually, yes.
I would like to get simple forecasts and for them to reserve warnings for genuinely dangerous events. I can make up my own mind how to behave when its 2C or 30C, its been hitting both every winter and summer all of my life. Now if it is going to -10 or +40 for days on end, that’s different, then warnings are appropriate. But it doesn’t and hasn’t.
What the UK is being subjected to by the Met Office, BBC and media is straight up weather hysteria directed to seasonal norms. There is a pretense that freezing temperatures in January are somehow new, different and alarming. Or that hot temps in July and August similar.
And so you have the contrast in recent summers between clips of people getting their clothes off in parks and on beaches to lie in the sun and bathe in the sea and generally having a great time, and dire warnings to stay indoors with the curtains drawn and don’t go out. Which no-one pays any attention to other than to sigh as ask themselves what these people are talking about.
They are trying to sell something called ‘climate breakdown’. Which is not happening.
in France I kid you not!
The media are actually advising people to wear more and warmer clothes when it gets cold like it is currently.
Ie. the state has acquired a new role – treat everyone as though they were naughty 2yr old toddlers.
Capitan le Obvious?
A “warning” implies something out of the ordinary that might be threatening. Of course everyone likes to check the weather reports- but why use the word “warning” unless it’s going to be a blizzard? Instill fear, due to OMG, the climate change monster? 🙂
I don’t see what’s wrong with warning people that “Delays and cancellations to rail and air travel, power cuts, and road disruption are likely.”
Warning means advance notice of something, it doesn’t necessarily imply a threat.
That’s all it needs to say without the “warning”. I didn’t and won’t read the original so I don’t really care. Most likely using the stronger word is part of their fear mongering about the climate. If anyone can find the full original story- that might help this discussion.
This is what the Met Office says:
“Warnings are designed to let people, businesses, emergency responders and governments know what weather is in store and what the impacts of that weather could be.”
You are exaggerating the meaning of the word ‘warning’.
nonsense- the use of the word “warning” is when there is a danger of some sort- if you google it, you’ll get, “a statement or event that indicates a possible or impending danger, problem, or other unpleasant situation.”—- not that it’s gonna rain today
Yes ‘warning of icy roads’ for example, certainly people would regard that as a potential problem.
The warning might be useful with BLACK ICE on the roads- an invisible threat. Otherwise, we hardly need to be told there is a threat merely because it snowed and we can still see some snow on the road even if plowed. Black ice causes many accidents so that would be helpful. Otherwise, IMHO, we don’t need to be warned that it snowed or might snow. Glad to learn in a weather report that it’ll snow overnight so i can plan on getting up early to snow blow my driveway. My truck and car are in my garage so I won’t have to worry about cleaning them up before heading out.
Tel us by how many hundredths of a degree was it warmer. Then tell us how that was discerned by measurements where that knowledge is not known because it was not measured. This is not scientific at all. At best it is using statistical inference to make a guess! At worst, it is creating propaganda for public consumption.
Here is an article that says the MET is projecting a 0.02°C over 2022.
2025 on track to be UK’s warmest year on record, says Met Office | UK News | Sky News
Physical scientists don’t do inference and claim they know it is correct. They carefully use significant digits properly so that conclusions are not based on unknowable knowledge.
“Tel us by how many hundredths of a degree was it warmer.”
For CET was about 0.03°C warmer than 2022. It’s not smashing an old record. bit it is interesting that records are happening so frequently. The last four years have all been in the top 5 warmest years.
Why not look at the bigger picture? Why does that trouble you so?
We went’t over what troubles me about that graph last year. It’s a complete fraud, and it’s troubling that so many will just accept it because they like how it looks.
No, the real fraud is so-called anthropogenic global warming, or more recently the climate crisis, according to the media….
Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned. “We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” said the editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. “The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.” – Guardian Style Guide
It’s a pity the ludicrous reportage bothers you not, matey.
One deflection after another.
“No, the real fraud…”
So you don’t think that graph is “real” fraud?
“Think’ has nothing to do with it! If you don’t like it, then post a graph of CO2 and temperature that you do like.
“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise”
Uh, right.
If you haven’t reviewed the papers that derived this information and made a list of the problems with them, then you are just making an inference based on personal opinion that has no justification. Guessing is another word for it!
No. I’m making an inference based on the way the two time series have been distorted in order to place the peak CO2 over snowball earth. Combined with the absense of any scale, the inconsistent time scale, and the obviously incorrect labels for CO2 levels.
Science has no room for inference other than making a conjecture. A conjecture is neither true or false until experimentation shows which.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Richard P. Feynman
Calling the graph incorrect means nothing unless you have the experiments to back up your assertions. Until then it is simply your OPINION, and it should be stated as your opinion, not as a judge declaring it wrong.
Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this year.
I’m not making a scientific theory. I’m just pointing out something that is obvious when you look at the data. This graph is wrong.
It’s so telling that you have no problem dismissing every modern time series, up to the point of denying there is even such a thing as a global average temperature – yet when presented with this cartoon of a graph, you won’t even consider the possibility it might just be wrong without a detailed scientific theory.
“Calling the graph incorrect means nothing unless you have the experiments to back up your assertions.”
The experiment is looking at the original data and observing it doesn’t agree with this graph.
Here for instance is the more traditional graph. Note how CO2 spikes during the Cambrian period, when temperaturss are constant and hot. Now compare this with the new graph and note that it’s showing temperatures at an all time cold just as the spike in CO2 happens. Then note that the spike is no longer happening during the Cambrian period. but the Precambrian.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391
I reviewed your link and it is different. That doesn’t make it the correct one. That is your assumption, The correct disposition is that there is a disagreement. Unless you have the expertise to adequately assess them, you have no way to call one incorrect and the other one the correct one.
“That doesn’t make it the correct one.”
I’m not saying the earlier graph is correct. But it does reflect it’s source for CO2, ehilstbignoring the large uncertainties.
The newer graph appears to be using exactly the same source, but has changed the scale, moving the CO2 spike back hundreds of millions of years. It’s not even possible to estimate when they think the spike was, given tgeir first section is coveting around 4 billion years.
Unless you can provide a good reference that explains why they made that change, the obvious explanation is that they were extreamly careless. or deliberatly changing it to make a point.
“the point of denying there is even such a thing as a global average temperature”
I outright deny it. There is no such thing.
You clearly fail to realise that your graph disproves your hypothesis.
It “troubles him” because the last 500 million years are irrelevant to a post about an alleged contradiction between January 2026 synoptic forecasting and annual UK temperature averages.
A blinkered approach.
No, it is because “warmer” has connotations that are based on history. The measurements of absolute temperature are what is important, which you have failed to address.
“The measurements of absolute temperature are what is important, which you have failed to address.”
No, it’s not.
The blog post is alleging a contradiction between a record annual temperature anomaly and a short term synoptic snowfall event.
Debating whether it was truly a record rather misses the point, since the underlying assumption, that an anomalously warm year is incompatible with snow, is laughable to say the least.
Sorry dude, you word salad is unconvincing. The point that you don’t address is whether the absolute temperature is known to a resolution that allows one to KNOW what THE one hundredths value of a degree actually is. It is purely a guess that has no scientific credibility.
This isn’t my “word salad”. It’s Paul Homewood’s argument stated plainly.
The fact that your evasion isn’t even adjacent to the main argument suggests that you, too, find it difficult to defend. And it speaks so loudly.
Many of the temperature measurements are taken at airports – more air traffic, more warming. Other temperature measurements are taken in areas which have growing populations and increasing income, which means more energy use, less open land, less tree cover which will also mean local warming. It is very hard to get a measurement truly free of local influences which are almost uniformly towards warming
Your ‘bigger picture’ doesn’t include the last 75 years. Also it’s a fake graph with distorted scales!
Last 46 years shows no evidence of any atmospheric warming by human released CO2.
The whole “climate change” meme (as defined by IPCC)…. is FAKE !!
Anyone who thinks a meteorological temperature difference of 0.03C is measurable let alone significant is clueless about temperature measurement.
You don’t know that. The best temperature measurements have an uncertainty of ±0.3°C. Anything inside that interval is unknowable literally and scientifically. If the base temperature is 10.0±0.3°C, then the interval where the unknowable value might be is 9.7°C to 10.3°C. Trying to infer that a one hundredth of a degree has any statistical significance is playing with numbers like a statistician.
Read this page from NIST.
2.4.5.1. Resolution
“relative to measurement needs” should tell you that in order to discriminate to the one hundredth of a degree, one needs an instrument with uncertainty in the range of one thousandths of a degree.
Arithmetic and statistical manipulation can not allow one to infer information that was not actually measured and thereby knowable.
A large proportion of Met Office sites are Class 3,4,or 5
These might measure up to, or maybe even more, 5ºC too high in warm weather.
To pretend that they can calculate an all of UK temperature which has any meaning whatsoever, especially to 1 or 2 decimal places, is totally ludicrous !
Temperature are never measured to +/- 0.01° C. The “0.03° C” is nonsense.
And tell us how that 0.03°C was measured. It is entirely a made up value by doing an inference as to the location inside the uncertainty interval.
While you are at it, tell us what the uncertainty interval is for those one hundredths of a degree inferences.
“And tell us how that 0.03°C was measured.”
It was measured by me averaging the monthly values. This wasn’t very accurate as the actual published figures show a difference of 0.05°C.
“It is entirely a made up value…”
All values are made up. You always have to fo calculations. There isn’t a big tree which gives you an annual average temperature if you ask it nicely.
“…by doing an inference as to the location inside the uncertainty interval.”
Huh? It’s an average of daily values from 3 selected stations.
“While you are at it, tell us what the uncertainty interval is for those one hundredths of a degree inferences.”
I think the estimate is around ±0.1°C for annual mean temperatures. A bit more for max and min.
Your reaction to all this suggests you are somewhat obessed by records. Of course. nobody should read too much into them. Especially CET which only an approximation of an abstract concept.
A record is really just a bit of fun. What is much more important is the overall trend. It really doesn’t matter if 2022 was a little cooler or warmer than 2025. It’s just indicative of the fact that most years now are warmer than in the recent past.
And rather more important. this is consistent with global trends.
As always, climate alarmists rely on averaging temperature, an intensive variable. Such people reveal their ignorance of Physics and Metrology.
I was recently told that these are not measurements but only indices that are being calculated to monitor the warming. Yet this person turned right around and used the values as a measurement with degree units. The whole architecture of the scam is falling apart.
That is the entire point in a nutshell.
You didn’t “measure” the average. You calculate it. If you wish to maintain its value as a measurement, then you need to follow metrology guidelines for defining measurands and its model.
The very first and I emphasize first, thing you need to recognize is that resolution is not a pie in the sky, esoteric concept. It underlies every physical science experiment ever performed. It is something you learn early on in any physical science lab class. You screw around with resolution, rounding, significant figures, and yes, data, you will fail the class.
You can’t take measurements with a resolution of 1/10th, and tease out values of 1/100th by doing arithmetic or statistical gyrations with the numbers. If it wasn’t measured, it is unknowable, regardless of the math.
“You didn’t “measure” the average.”
Then stop asking how it’s measured.
So you are saying it wasn’t measured.. just guessed. ! 😉
In other words, let you keep spouting misinformation! Nope.
Your statement accurately reflects your inability to understand measurements.
Read the GUM again, for understanding. Many measurands are not measured directly. They are the result of a calculation using other phenomena that are measured and those are called input quantities. The input quantities each have their own analysis of a measured value along with an uncertainty value.
A measurand such as a montlhly_average_Tmax can be analyzed in different ways. One is to declare 30 input quantities, each with a Type B uncertainty and then calculate the combined uncertainty of the measurand. Another is to assume one input quantity as a random variable with 30 entries. The random variable can then have its mean and standard deviation calculated. Your choice!
What you can’t do is a simple average and ignore the complexities contained in the values you using in your calculations. That means you don’t have a measurement value that you can pretend is a correct indication.
“Many measurands are not measured directly.”
Which is why I keep asking you if you consider an average to be a measurand.
“They are the result of a calculation using other phenomena that are measured and those are called input quantities.”
And that calculated value can be considered a measurement.
“The input quantities each have their own analysis of a measured value along with an uncertainty value.”
Keep going. You might get to the part where you have to try and understand how that uncertainty is propagated.
“Another is to assume one input quantity as a random variable with 30 entries.”
Which as I’ve explained is not very sensible when you are talking about measurement uncertainty. You need to define exactly what it is you are measuring. Treating the 30 daily values as if they were a random sample, implies the mean you are interested in is not the actual average of those 30 days.
“Your choice!”
When you are interested in the actual average for a given month at a given station I would choose option A.
“That means you don’t have a measurement value that you can pretend is a correct indication.”
A correct indication of what? In the case of the CET it’s tricky because it’s not trying to measure the actual average of a physical place. But of course it will still not be correct. It’s always been described as an approximation.
But none of this is relevant to the simple question of whether this year’s CET was warmer than 2022’s. When I say it was a record, I am not claiming in an absolute that we know a specific abstract area was warmer, just that it’s a record by the CET. It really makes very little difference if a different measurement might have put 2025 slightly cooler than 2022. Records are just a bit of fun.
It is an entirely FAKE number..
A large proportion of Met Office sites are Class 3,4,or 5
These might measure up to, or maybe even more, 5ºC too high in warm weather.
To pretend that they can calculate an all of UK temperature which has any meaning whatsoever, especially to 1 or 2 decimal places, is totally ludicrous !
You cannot use the “large sample” rule on individual surface site data.
Your final error using Met data is probably around +/-3ºC, heavily skewed to the + side.
The overall trend is highly affected by bad sites and airport data.
A nearby nearly pristine site shows that the 1930s,40s average was warmer than now.
Measurement made at Met Office sites are basically meaningless.
And to second decimal place.. totally laughable.
The whole system is a load of totally unfit for purpose corrupted sites and airports.
And no , there has just been a strong El Nino event.. one would expect there to a warm period.
But that El Nino is now subsiding.
It is nothing to do with human released CO2.
“For CET was about 0.03°C warmer than 2022. It’s not smashing an old record. bit it is interesting that records are happening so frequently. The last four years have all been in the top 5 warmest years.”
No thermometer is measuring 0.03°C. It’s made up crap.
One day people here are going to understand the difference between a single temperature, and an annual average. But I won’t hold my breath.
Show us a resource that says a measurement average can be used to “generate” resolution that wasn’t measured.
If you are attempting to say an average is not a measurement, then quit showing it as one, and stop referring to it as a temperature. Don’t include a °C or a °F to the non-measurement.
“Show us a resource that says a measurement average can be used to “generate” resolution that wasn’t measured.”
What’s the point? I keep explaining it to you – it just won’t penetrate your skull. I’ve given you examples from Taylor, and I’ve demonstrated who it works with actual real life examples.
“If you are attempting to say an average is not a measurement”
That’s what you keep saying. I don’t care if you consider it a measurement or a statistic.
“and stop referring to it as a temperature.”
It’s an average temperature. That is not the same as a temperature. You keep failing to understand that an average does not have to exist in the real world. There are no families with 2.4 children.
“Don’t include a °C or a °F to the non-measurement.”
I would never include a °F – what is that antique nonsense. But an average of temperature will have the same dimension as the temperature, so °C is entirely appropriate.
Here is an illustration of the utter stupidity of your assertion: imagine trying to measure the diameter of a (say) turbine shaft. According to you, a wooden ruler would suffice. Just measure the diameter 100 times and average the results and you will obtain the same value as a calibrated micrometer.
and stop referring to it as a temperature.”
It’s an average temperature. That is not the same as a temperature.
That is an inadvertently revealing statement.
But your examples are all incorrect. You want to divide the uncertainty of a measurement by how many data points you are averaging. If you divide to obtain an “average”, the constant value of “n” cancels out when you use relative uncertainties which you must use when dividing.
If you are talking about Taylor 3.4, you forget that the following assumption is necessary.
And, you start out knowing the total uncertainty of identical sheets, not so with temperature.
“But your examples are all incorrect.”
And thete’s the problem. You’ll keep demanding I provide references, but when I do you just dismiss them. It’s obvious from the 5 years we have been having this conversation that you are incapable of accepting anything that chhallenges your convictions.
We were talking about resolution, not uncertainty in general, and my examples from Taylor were the exercises, such as 4.17, which he uses to make the cleat point thst averahing a lot of values can result in less uncertainy than the resolution of the individual measurememts.
From his solution for 4.17
“You want to divide the uncertainty of a measurement by how many data points you are averaging.”
No you don’t. You and Tim keep saying things like this, and it just makes it clear you can’t follow the argument. What you dovide by N is the uncertainty of the sum. It’s a direct application of the rule that says scaling a value requires scaling the uncertainty by the same amount.
“If you divide to obtain an “average”, the constant value of “n” cancels out when you use relative uncertainties which you must use when dividing.”
You still don’t get that this is what I’m saying. It’s the fact that division requires relative uncertainties that results in the scaling.
u(avg) / avg = u(sum) / sum
implies that u(avg) has to be smaller than u(sum) by a factor if N. Even after all these years I find it astonishing that you can’t see this.
“And, you start out knowing the total uncertainty of identical sheets, not so with temperature.”
And this is another problem – you seem to incapable of understanding a general point without looking at a specific example. and then deciding that example is the only use. You example is just that, an example. I that example you are measuring the entire stack in one go, and assuming all the sheets have the same thickness. That provides a simple example of how you get the thickness of a single sheet with a high precision despite the imprecise measurememt of the stack. But you are incapable of seeing how exactly the same logic works if you get the total size by adding the values and using the propagation rule to getbthe uncertainty of the sum. and then dividing the sum by N to get the average of the values.
You can’t do what you are doing with the math. The uncertainty in each input quantity of (xᵢ/n) is what is at issue. The relative uncertainty of each xᵢ/n is:
u[(x1/n) / (x1/n),
u[(x2/n) / (x2/n),
…,
u[(xₙ/n) / (xₙ/n).
You then end up with:
{(u꜀(sum/n) / (sum/n)}² = {u[(x1/n) / (x1/n)}² +
{u[(x2/n) / (x2/n)}² +
{u[(xₙ/n) / (xₙ/n)}²
When you multiply both sides by (sum/n), the “n’s” will cancel. The combined uncertainty becomes the ‘sum” multiplying the “sum of the relative uncertainties”
This is one reason that constants in multiplication/division always disappear.
Read this from the GUM carefully.
“You can’t do what you are doing with the math.”
Yet somehow I keep managing to do it. And it always agrees with what Taylor says, and with the results of using the general equation.
“The relative uncertainty of each xᵢ/n is”
You missed a bracket in each case. But why do you always insist on doing this the hard way? It’s almost as if you want top make mistakes.
“You then end up with:
{(u꜀(sum/n) / (sum/n)}² = {u[(x1/n) / (x1/n)}² +
{u[(x2/n) / (x2/n)}² +
{u[(xₙ/n) / (xₙ/n)}²”
And there you go. You can’t add up the terms using relative uncertainty. When adding or subtracting you have to use absolute uncertainty.
Having determined that the uncertainty of each term is
u[(xi/n)] / u(xi)/n
You need to convert it to an absolute uncertainty in order to find their sum. So you need to add in quadrature
u[(xi/n)]
That is
u꜀(sum/n)² = u(x1/n)² +
u(x2/n)² +
… +
u(xₙ/n)²
= [u(x1)/n]² +
[u(x2)/n]² +
… +
[u(xₙ)/n]²
=
1/n² [u(x1)² + u(x2)² + … + u(x2)²]
And taking the square root we get
u꜀(sum/n) = √[u(x1)² + u(x2)² + … + u(x2)²] / n = u(sum) / n
“This is one reason that constants in multiplication/division always disappear.”
When all you are doing is multiplying and dividing. You just keep failing to see that an average is not just dividing.
And the constants don;t really disappear. They just get moved into the divisor of the total.
“Read this from the GUM carefully.”
Why? You keep on doing this. Pasting some lengthy section from the GUM, and refusing to accept what it actually says. Tell me ion your own words what you think it says, and then we can have a discussion.
Your understanding has a long way to go !
You seem to think you can average numbers from all over the place..
… with errors that could be as large as 5ºC or more..
and somehow get a value with accuracy to 1 or 2 decimal places.
That is just SO BOGUS and so ignorant. !
One day, Bellman is going to understand the fundamental difference between intensive and extensive variables. Perhaps.
Calling this post a fabrication would imply some level of deliberate deception, but it’s really just so nonsensical that it isn’t even worth engaging with.
You guys are fun
it’s really just so nonsensical that it isn’t even worth engaging with.
So why did you engage enough to type and press post comment?
Selfie, I see.
“some level of deliberate deception,”
We are talking “climate science”
So Yes… “deception” is a major part of it..
Some people are so dumb, that they continually fall for that deception.
You’re not a Homewood ‘mark’, I see.
Pity (for him); I think he has his begging bowl out again.
“Pity (for him); I think he has his begging bowl out again.”
If there’s a begging bowl out, it must be invisible. Nobody is defending the post. They’re just throwing random distractions at the wall, as if enough motion might make the problem evaporate.
Before or after the data was properly cooked?
And your evidence for “cooked” data is what…?
It was also another warmest year on record for the Central England Temperature (CET) data set, the warmest continuous temperature data set in the world (starts 1659).
11.23C annual average edges out 11.18C, set in 2022.
The 10 warmest years in the CET record have all occurred since 2006, and a new annual record has been set four times in the past 20-years.
I see you quoting temperature measurements to the one hundredth of a degree. How is this resolution obtained when the uncertainty interval is at best ±0.3°C?
Tell us what the definition of resolution is and how you create a higher resolution from thin air.
Who says the uncertainty interval is ±0.3°C? What is your source for that, specific to CET?
Even if it was (in the unlikely event, given that CET is based on a handful of well-controlled temperature stations), it would make no difference to 2025 being the ‘best estimate’ warmest year on that record.
The data come from the same, few, sites and are processed in exactly the same way; so any error margin would apply equally to any other given year’s data. 2025 was the warmest year on record in CET, no matter what way you try to deny it.
CET has a proven Urban bias. !
They also use an ever changing mix of station that can be of up to Class 3, so errors of maybe up to 2ºC or more, skewed to the warm side.
Since you can’t use the maths laws of large samples, that means your error could easily be a degree or so too warm.
“so any error margin would apply equally to any other given year’s data”
That is pure conjecture….they basically have zero idea how much error there is from year to year.
Nothing coming from the Met Office has any real meaning because of the farcical nature of their sites.
More on the very real problems of CET since Met Office took full control around 1990
2 of the sites currently used are Class 4 sites.. so any pretence of “accuracy” has been thrown out the window.
The methodology used by Manley, then by Parker up to 1990, has changed.. coincidentally 1990 when all the warming started.
(no-one can blame-that warming on CO2)
You didn’t address resolution anywhere in this word salad. Measurement uncertainty intervals are related to resolution even if they aren’t the same thing.
Nor does it matter if the temperatures come from the same sites and are processed in exactly the same way. The resolution limit *is* inherent in the measuring device, no amount of processing can increase resolution. The measurement uncertainty is a STANDAR DEVIATION, you can’t assume that consecutive measurements from the same sit using the same instrument have a measurement uncertainty of 0 (zero).
The mere fact that you use the word “error” means you know what the true value is – otherwise you don’t know what the error is. This implies that you are assuming that the stated value of the measurement is 100% accurate – an impossibility that metrology has recognized for over 40 years.
Using the mean as the “best estimate” also implies you are assuming that the measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels. The uncertainty for temperature measuring station measurement devices in the field is almost always asymmetric due to heating of elements in the measuring infrastructure as well as degradation of the station enclosure (e.g. paint deterioration from UV exposure).
Your whole approach to metrology would get you fired from an apprentice machinist position in a high quality machine shop.
So where did you obtain the value of ±0.3°C for CET?
You just made it up, didn’t you? Or you based it on something you heard reference one of the global data sets, right?
If there’s a a high quality machinist position that requires a meteorologist near me then I won’t apply, based on your sage advice.
Or even a ‘metrologist’.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, that figure is for a state-of-the-art reference station in the U.S. I sincerely doubt that the MET has stations that exceed the design of these stations. Fully aspirated, triple sensors that are compared, stringent calibration, short maintenance periods, etc.
If you have information that supersedes these for MET stations, please post it here.
“So where did you obtain the value of ±0.3°C for CET?”
Averaging Tmax with Tmin, both with measurement uncertainties of +/- 0.5C, gives a measurement uncertainty of at least +/- 0.7C. That measurement uncertainty should be propagated up through all of climate science’s averaging heirarchy. +/- 0.3C IS AN OPTIMISTIC estimate for measurement uncertainty from *any* temperate data set.
The National Weather System ASOS user manual gives the measurement uncertainty interval for their weather stations as +/- 1.0C. This measurement uncertainty should be propagated using root-sum-square for any mean calculated from such temperature data. Most temperature measurements will have a WORSE measurement uncertainty than this after being installed in the field for a period of time. Again, +/- 0.3C IS AN OPTIMISTIC estimate for measurement uncertainty.
Now, come back and tell us all how all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels so it can be ignored and the SEM used as the uncertainty of the mean.
“You just made it up, didn’t you? Or you based it on something you heard reference one of the global data sets, right?”
The only thing that is “made up” is your typical climate science assumption that all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels so it can be ignored and not propagated onto any mean calculated from a temperature measurement data set.
“f there’s a a high quality machinist position that requires a meteorologist near me then I won’t apply, based on your sage advice.”
The exact same metrology concepts apply in a machine shop and climate science. The only difference is that machinists can’t afford to ignore the concepts and make up measurements – climate scientists apparently *can* ignore the concepts and just make things up!
The USCRN (United States Climate Reference Network) consists of premier stations with state-of-the-art equipment. Here is an image of the information in the CRN manual.
You will notice that I did say that ±0.3°C was “at best”.
Here is an image from the NOAA ASOS manual that has those stations uncertainty value.
You should notice that the uncertainty interval for these stations is ±1.8°F (±1.0°C).
If you have information that MET stations have better or worse uncertainty intervals, you are welcome to post that information here!
I am trying to deny nothing. I am pointing out the uncertainty intervals that are associated with weather stations. As you can see from the tables I have posted, that the resolution of measurements do not come close to allowing one to determine values to the 1/100th of a degree. The resolution of measurements defines the information that IS KNOWN about a measurement. The information beyond the resolution is UNKNOWABLE. It simply doesn’t exist.
hundredths of 1 degree C.
?
As BillyBob would say –
“ya gotta be shittin’ me!!”
Or, in Landman, “you are f’ning lying to me”.
Again, here’s the paper explaining their methods, go and tell them where they are going wrong, board warrior.
I have right done so right here.
Your assertion is also refuted by the MET itself.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/land-surface-air-temperature-data/
This was an article titled:
In other words, NO AUDIT TRAIL!
How convenient.
CET methodology is described in the peer reviewed literature here.
Go and see where they are going wrong and set them right.
3rd paragraph says it all –
“the data have been adjusted”
So you actually want them to use data affected by outside influences?
Make your mind up, Mr.
If its not fit for purpose, it should be discarded. Changing data with no audit trail is not a scientific endeavor.
Agreed. So all you have to do is show that it’s not fit for purpose and we’re done.
But you can’t. No one can, apparently.
It doesn’t work that way. If it must be changed, then it is not fit for purpose.
Think about for a minute. Would you allow a nuclear power plant operator to change released radiation data to make it agree with other readings? How about pollution releases? Would you let an oil company homogenize oil leak data? If not why not?
The ‘audit trail’ is right there in the scientific, peer-reviewed paper.
No it isn’t. The MET has said they don’t know what stations are used to homogenize or create temperatures for non-existent stations. The computer algorithm does not create that information. Do you think studies start with raw data and create their own algorithms to modify the data? Or do you imagine many use MET and NOAA modified data instead as a starting point?
That involves assumptions of what the “data” should be.
Whose guess will be the best?
Where does it say that in the paper?
And if that is the case, why hasn’t it already been refuted?
The paper has been published for decades.
Dude, how do you refute something that has no audit trail? The assumption is that the starting data points are unchanged. We know that isn’t true.
There is provable urban warming effect in the CET data. (see Valentia vs CET graph below)
The sites used can also have an errors of at least +/- 2ºC, skewed heavily of the +ve side.
You cannot use the “large samples” error calculation with surface data, so the final error will be somewhere around +/-2ºC , skewed heavily to the +ve side.
This makes their stated values absolutely meaningless.
CET takes UAH into account in its processing.
Did you not read the article linked to previously?
No, you didn’t, did you?
Valentia is on the west coast of Ireland which, I think, is not in Central England.
‘UAH’? UHI, I meant.
This place is starting to rub off on me!
CET has a provable urban densification/population trend.
Local pristine sites, basically unaffected by urban growth, show that the 1930s,40s were on average warmer than the current decadal average.
The last couple of years were strong effected by a major El Nino event, which is very gradually subsiding.
Alarmists luv those El Nino events, because they cause higher surface temperatures, especially when combined with horrendously bad surface sites.
But they are TOTALLY NATURAL. !!
Absolute made-up garbage.
Another lie. See the Valentia temperature series.
Valentia is an island of the west coast of Ireland.
What on earth has it got to do with Central England temperatures?
off… (not ‘of’) …
A down-vote for a correction!
Thank you so much.
Why should Valentia NOT show warming? According to fools like you such warming is GLOBAL.
WRONG !
I have posted the graph numerous times that shows this to be FACT.
You really are a “climate DENIER” aren’t you.
Noted you don’t argue that any non-urban-effected warming…
.. is TOTALLY NATURAL.
I said “…the warmest continuous temperature data set in the world (starts 1659)”
I meant the “longest”, not the ‘warmest’. Apologies.
Warmest because Urban heat effect. 1976 was the warmest summer on record by far.
totally agree, and the winter of 1983-84 was the coldest I have ever seen in northern France, Normandie, as far south as Lyon.
If it is measured at Met Office sites…..
… IT IS MEANINGLESS
Darn! Too bad it isn’t colder than the LIA. Then we’d all be better off, right?
The Schizophrenia virus appears to have taken hold in the MET office
Please explain why there cannot be a warning of snow/ice out for the 1/2nd of January 2026 and yet the whole of 2025 be “another record year for UK annual temperature“.
Homewood is a hopeless case, but what is your excuse?
Jan 2025 started off with snow and ice too. But it was the only month marginally colder than average in the end!
From the article: “Currently the mean temperature value for the year so far”
Mean temperature? What does that imply?
‘Mean temperature? What does that imply?’
Milder winters in Britain.
But averaging January and July temperatures yields a number of no importance.
Quebec City is currently -25 Degrees Celsius, in the summer the temperature is +30 degrees Celsius, giving an annual average of +2.5 degrees Celsius, hardly representative.
That is why the variance/standard deviation of a “mean” of measurements is so important! Depicting a value as an actual measurement without also showing the variation involved is not scientific.
Maybe the UK media should focus more on the crisis in its economy and less on the weather.
You are a mess Banton.
“the whole of 2025 be “another record year for UK annual temperature“.”
Were you a kid in nappies in 1976 or you deliberately feign amnesia??
As you are totally aware,.. any temperature measurements from the Met Office are totally compromised by bad sites, airports etc etc
The “UK annual temperature” is totally meaningless because of that.
The Met Office is a totally hopeless case. !!
More garbage
WRONG Again..
… totally provable.. and has been shown many times.
Some 60-70% + are class 4,5 sites…. huge errors, huge urban warming.
Many sites are at airports that have some of the heaviest traffic loads in the world.
…. and many that are reporting data, just DON’T EVEN EXIST.
It is basically just FAKE and JUNK data.
Wishful thinking on your part, chum.
Christmas and New Year on UK YouTube (the television I never watch)…Back-to-Back ads for holidays in the sun…Paid for by people who neither know nor care to know about science…
I never really care much for the climate change stuff on this site. But that’s like on level with this senator and his snowball.
This is a joke, right?
Senator and snowball? Let me think. I may know what you are talking about.
Inhofe brings snowball on Senate floor as evidence globe is not warming
Yes, he was one of my State’s U.S. Senators.
He used to drive the Climate Alarmists crazy. He said Human-caused Global Warming was a hoax, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Apparently, he is still living in some of their heads. 🙂
The concept of UK Annual Temperature is indeed a joke.
The Met Office says ‘2025 10.05°C’
Explain why I should not start laughing at 2 decimal places for averaging out midday in June and winter nights in January as being a figure which has any meaning whatever, apart from demonstrating that your calculator works.
They don’t even give you the variance of temperatures that were used to calculate that value. It is nothing more than propaganda. It is depicting knowledge that was not measured and therefore is unknowable. They should preface it with a statement that says, “we guess the difference is”.
“I never really care much for the climate change stuff on this site. “
Yet you feel the need to know what’s up by coming here. You don’t get real unfiltered science in the media, as we all know.
I come here for the funny energy articles.
And yet you end up every time you venture to post here as the butt of the joke. And people love a good free laugh. Is this a social service you voluntarily provide?
It’s a matter of give and take. I get to see “renewables have an eroi <1” posts in 2026 and that makes it worth it 😛
Sadly I haven’t seen the “Europe had peak wind energy in 2017” posts lately. Maybe not all hope is lost
Maybe not all hope is lost
Hope?
Oh dear, it’s worse than you thought
You have found the really really dopey ones in the links you occasionally post.
He needs his brain reloaded.
Yet you have not once provided a cogent counterpoint to those article you smear, epic fail!
We never really cared for your climate comments on this site
They are provable from someone with a pre-junior high education.
Fair enough, pal. The content is pretty poor.
But I have to ask, why on earth do you come here?
What is this snow you speak of? Is it not a thing of the past?
If you click on the graphic, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to contact the graphic and return to Comments.
Please stop.
Strange silence from Stokes, Bellend, TFN. Why?
I don’t know where the Met Office got their train-in-the-snow picture from but those trains were taken out of service a few years ago. If that typifies their standards of accuracy, then why should I believe anything else they tell me?
The folks in the UK have turned into such wusses that they need a warning that’ll snow? Just amazing.
“The folks in the UK have turned into such wusses that they need a warning that’ll snow? “
The propaganda has clearly worked better than expected.
you should see the British attempting to drive in snow.
It’s hilarious and almost invariably on SUMMER TYRES!!
The best bit is seeing their chelsea tractors stuck on slushy hillsides all wheels spinning!
In the weird and thrice wacky world of the Met Office you can have your cake and eat it. And that pretty much sums up current [alarmist] climate science and its narratives. Everything about it is illogical:
And although it sounds counterintuitive, global warming can even cause unusually cold and snowy weather. – Yale
It’s all about holding the line now that Trump is in.
Here’s mad Ed….
The CET has been crunched.
The mean temperature for 2025 gets no. 1 spot, realistically the same as 2022, only 0.05C in it.
only 0.05C in it
By Jove, what a sensitive soul you are, Mr Grim.
You do make some very very silly comments Strat.
“The mean temperature for 2025 gets no. 1 spot, realistically the same as 2022”
Which in turn was around 0.5°C warmer than any year in the 20th century.
Once again, UHI is contaminating CET. Pristine sites like Valentia Island show the 1930’s were warmer than today, in agreement with the uunadjusted NOAA figures for the Continental US.
“Once again, UHI is contaminating CET. ”
SSTs are warming quickly as well.
“UK near-coast sea surface temperatures have been on average 0.3°C warmer than a decade ago and nearly a degree warmer than 1961-1990. Five of the ten warmest years for these sea surface temperatures have occurred in the most recent decade (2015-2024), with 2024 ranked sixth warmest.”
https://noc.ac.uk/news/uk-sea-level-rising-faster-global-average
Explain why this warming does not show up in Valentia data.
Coastal waters were warmer in the 1930s,40s
In fact, the whole of the region was warmer in the 1930s and 40s.
SST Faroe Channel Scotland
Good qualitative agreement with Valentia.
As are basically all originals measured from the much wider NH area.
Peak around the 1930s, 40s higher or similar to the first couple of decades of this century.
Your chart is missing the last 20 yrs of data.
“The warming trend in the most recent 30 years has been greater than the longer term trend for the period 1870 – 2016 (Figure 2; Hughes et al., 2018; Tinker & Howes, 2020). The warming trend in the last 30 years (1988 – 2017) is about 0.2 °C per decade. The warming has been greatest in the region of the Faroe-Shetland Channel and further northwards, with trends here reaching 0.4 °C per decade.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20250321043655/https://marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment/sea-temperature
https://marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment/sea-temperature
Any possible affect is small compared to the substantial recent warming.
And if we had reached the point where UHI was affecting the whole of the UK, then that IS the temperature. The CET has nothing to do with the cause of our warming climate, it just records that it is.
Explain the deviation between pristine sites and those affected by UHI.
The problem you are ignoring is the untold expenditures for solar and wind in order to do Netzero which is driven by supposed CO2 emissions. If CO2 is not the problem, then we are ruining economies for nothing.
OMG.. UHI only affect the temperature sites because are mostly in urbanisation areas.
Valentia is still basically Pristine, and shows the 1930s,40s was warmer than current decadal average.
There is a LARGE UHI component in CET.
I’ve told you this before bnice – but I’ll do it again in case someone might read it and get the simple meteorological common-sense involved as to why Valentia shows less warming ….
Valentia observatory lies on the far SW tip of Ireland with the entirety of the fetch of its prevailing S/SW’ly wind coming thousands of miles across the Atlantic Ocean, and just a v brief passing over cliffs and a bit of land before it enters the Stevenson screen there.
You are aware that the oceans (largely) warm the atmosphere?
Good – so what would you expect the temperature of the air in a S-SW’ly to be closest to, the ocean or that somewhere, say 50 miles of travel downwind ?
This of course given the specific heat of water that is mixing solar energy to several metres, instead to just a few mms in open country.
Is it not sensible to accept that the temperature will be higher there?
Have you not been to the coast (or even sat by a lake) on a hot day and experienced an onshore cooling breeze?
Thus the slower warming trend at Valentia is a product of its local micro-climate and not the effects of extra LWIR impacting that short stretch of land under prevailing conditions. And reflect the warmth of the local waters upwind the prevailing S-SWly wind.
If Valentia has only warmed 0.3C on your graph (it’s 33 years shy of data) it is because the ocean SST has warmed by that and not to any imagined “pristine” nature of it.
To refute this, would you please provide evidence of any other “pristine” station that is not similarly prevailingly affected by winds directly from across lakes/oceans.
EG: not the likes of the Faroes!
And not just your usual caps shouting and hand-waving.
That’s good – you are now admitting warming is not global but depends on location.
How do you reconcile the close agreement between Valentia and Continental US temperatures?
That’s good – you are now admitting warming is not global but depends on location.
According to Eldrosian, SST’s have warmed, yet this is not reflected in Valentia air temperatures. How do reconcile that?
Yes, we all know you love to use sites that are highly affected by urban/airport contamination.
You were with the Met after all, weren’t you. 😉
Funny what happens when you use less urban affected site in the CET region…
Thanks bnice. That map pretty much nails UHI as the cause of most or even all the recent warming.
Always has been.. Met Office chose and create the sites most likely to have un-natural urban warming…
Like using 2 out of 3 CET sites that are Class 4.
Evidence points very clearly to it being deliberate.
Yes, we all know you like to concentrate on class 4,5 sites.
Its the Met office way. !!
There is no doubt, given the way the Met Office operates, that there is a DELIBERATE agenda to create warming trends that are far in excess of reality..
You do realize that NOAA says ASOS thermometers have an uncertainty of ±1.8°F, right? Knowing that, 0.5° is well within the uncertainty interval. How do you infer that is a significant difference when you don’t know the actual value?
He doesn’t care, his averages give him the numbers he wants to see.
Nearby site which is basically unaffected by the urban warming and bad site effects apparent in the CET farce..
… shows average temperature through the 1930s,40,s was warmer than the current decadal average
How do you or the MET even KNOW that value? It wasn’t measured. It could just as easily be -0.1°C and still be within the uncertainty interval. In other words, it is the same as creating information by holding your finger in the air to “measure” the temperature!
I’ve no idea what you are saying or asking.
Thanks for confirming you have no understanding of themometry.
Of course you don’t. Do you have a copy of the GUM? Have you spent the time to study it? What books on measurements and uncertainty do you have?
LOL.
Pretending you can get 2dp accuracy from sites that may have up to 2 or more degree C error..
…. skewed massively to the +ve side.
Is utterly ludicrous. !!
It continues to amaze me that the scientific community has not made a point to call out this massive ignorance in the use of measurement techniques and metrology.
Climate “scientists” are ignorant of basic physical principles.
So the UKMO is saying it’s possible for two statement to be right at the same time?
Whatever next?
And commenters are not addressing that flawed logic. They’re just retreating into 500 million year charts and side arguments about measurement resolution.
“Met office” and “measurement resolution”, are not words that should be used in the same sentence.
They are basically opposites. !
The funny thing is, a few years ago Paul Homewood tried to make a case that CET was showing a cooling trend (I see those posts are no longer available at his site).
He used to show the annual data with a 10-year, non-centred running trendline. This had peaked around 2007 at that time and, for a while, Homewood made great play of the fact that the running 10-year trend was below this ~2007 peak.
Then, when that line went north of the ~2007 peak with the entry of the 2022 data, Homewood’s annual CET update charts suddenly stopped appearing and have now disappeared from his archive, as far as I can see.
This is what that data look like now (using the same start date and colour scheme, etc that Homewood did on his now disappeared posts):
Another point being, when Homewood was able to use CET to show a brief downturn in the 10-year running average, there was no question whatsoever of CET being an unreliable data set.
How events change perceptions!
I have asked you a number of times why there is a such a discrepancy between CET and pristine sites like Valentia, mainly in the last 30 years.Care to answer?
What is this discrepancy, please?
Also, as I understand it, Valentia is an island off the south-west coast of Ireland and CET is in, well, Central England.
See my reply to this point above.
And see my reply above
Funny what happens when you use sites not as urban corrupted as the CET sites 😉
Another point being that Tavg conveys no discernible information about what temperature us actually changing. Scientists should be embarrassed to not be able to show people what is actually occurring. Are you one of those?
What occurred was a change in sunshine hours, combined with corrupted site data.
TWO of the 3 sites currently being used are Class 4
We all know why the Met Office would use such bad sites for their CET fabrication. 😉
A point never made by Paul Homewood during his long but now vanished ‘CET is cooling‘ phase.
Also a point that virtually every scientific institute that studies long term temperature trend disagrees with.
In other words, it is just your opinion, whether informed or not, and one to which you are entitled.
It is not just opinion. If I give you two days of Tavg, 70 and 75, exactly what changed between them? Did Tmax change? Did Tmin change? Did Tmax go down while Tmin went up?
Not you nor any other climate scientist can answer those questions with specificity. Averages hide critical information that people should be aware of.
Do you really think the world would be rushing headlong into installing solar and wind if only winter temperatures were warming or if only Tmin was increasing? I suspect 97% of the population would say that was a good thing and no changes would be needed.
Does it strike anyone as odd that when using the original “Manley” method for CET, the trend after 1990 totally disappears 😉
Paul Homewood:
For a UK temperature check, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch/countries/united-kingdom/average-temperaure-by-year. The Tmax and Tmin data from 1901 to 2024 are displayed in a table. Here is the data for these two years:
Year——Tmax——Tmin——Tavg Temperatures are ° C
2024——12.9——–6.9——–9.9
1901——11.8——–4.7——–8.2
Change–+1.1——-+2.2——+1.7
CO2 Concentration Data
2024: 424 ppmv (0.83 g CO2/cu. m. of air)
1901: 295 ppmv (0.58 g CO2/cu. m. of air)
After 123 years there has been a only slight warming in the UK. The question to be determined is: how much of the increase in temperatures is due to natural variation?
However, I don’t how to do the calculation.
It’s official, warmest for whole UK too (although another tie really).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15428927/2025-Britain-hottest-year-RECORD-climate-change.html
This MET office temperature data mannipulation reminds me of how NASA and NOAA bastardized their temperature charts after 1998.
The year 1998, was a temperature high point from the warming that began in the late 1970’s.
After the temperatures reached the 1998, high point, they started to cool and cooled quite significantly (see UAH chart below).
But cooling temperatures were not what NASA and NOAA wanted because cooler temperatures would be counter to their claims that CO2 is causing warming and will continue to do so.
NASA and NOAA proceeded to bastardize the temperature charts so that they could claim that there were 10 “hottest years evah!” between 1998, and 2015. NASA and NOAA said there were ten years after 1998, and before 2015, that were hotter than 1998.
Now, look at the UAH satellite chart below and see if you can find any years after 1998, and before 2015, that were hotter than 1998. What you will see is that NONE of the years between those dates were hotter than 1998, and many of them were significantly cooler than 1998.
But you won’t see that on any NASA or NOAA chart. They lied about the temperatures using their computers to mannipulate the data.
There should be a formal investigation as to why the NASA and NOAA charts looks so different from the UAH satellite chart. The NASA and NOAA mannipulations are pure Climate Crisis Propaganda.
You have to bastardize the record quite a bit to make it appear there is warming after 1998.
UAH satellite chart:
Story tip:
I just paid $1.98 per gallon of gasoline on my fill-up today. 🙂
How low will it go?
Thank you, President Trump!
Still close to $4 in Washington State, at least where I am. Lots of state taxes on fuel here.
A government propaganda machine. Propping up net zero lunacy. They have lied for years.
If you look at temperatures over a long period rather than the short modern one, the variation is perfectly normal. The planet has cooled overall for the last two years, and is now entering another cooling period.
There have been rapid cooling and warming periods in the past, with no scientific explanation. We still don’t understand much about the climate.
The Met needs a serious overhaul. Remove the top five managers from the main office and the top five managers from each department. Promote from within, explain exactly why their bosses were fired lying, cheating, using stations other than class one and two for official purposes, using non existent stations for official purposes, letting politics influence your work and so on. Now they know what not to do we will see if they can do a proper job if they can’t they will soon join their former bosses and we will find others that can do an honest days work.
and make sure you vet them for “climate” bias. !!
2025 confirmed as the warmest year on record in the UK (record starts 1884).
All that’s left is to wait for two slightly cooler years so Paul Homewood’s inevitable “cooling phase” headline can be rolled out.
Measured at mainly class 4 and 5 sites… Means NOTHING. !!
Cognitive dissonance?