Cooking The Books At The Met Office

They must have hired some accountants from Enron Fannie Mae. Yet another upwards adjustment. There seems to be no limit to how far they are willing to push this.

h/t to reader Mohatdebos



About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Cooking The Books At The Met Office

  1. Tony Duncan says:

    No Steve Don’t say Enron. that is a private company. Say FannieMae, which is connected to the government.

  2. Dave N says:

    They say that because they’ve excluded some areas, they’ve underestimated the warming. What if those areas are cooling?

    I wish them luck doing their taxes with that kind of logic.

  3. “calibrate a decade of data to account for newer sensors.”

    Must be picking up that missing Trenberth heat.

  4. peterhodges says:

    well you all said they would find some way to catch up with hansen

    what is amazing is how shameless they are about it

  5. leftymartin says:

    Ha! You conniving skeptics, serves you right for heaping scorn on the Met Office for barbeque summers that were washouts, and mild winters that turned out to hearken back to the days of Charles Dickens and the Little Ice Age. You were wrong! The Met Office was right! With their data adjustments, the UK really did enjoy barbeque summers and mild winters – you nefarious skeptics somehow hoodwinked the unwashed masses into believing your propaganda. Shame on you!

    Seriously, really we should look at this as progress. We really should. With climategate, we saw the AGW priests fudging data in back alleys. Now they’ve come out of the closet, and are announcing it far and wide to the media.


  6. trucker bob says:

    If the data doesn’t fit you theory, just torture it.

    • Ian says:

      Indeed, I think that the term “Procrusteans” (after the legendary Procrustes) might be a useful rhetorical weapon to use against those who chop and change and otherwise torture data to get it to conform to a desired theory. Mann, Hanson, and Jones are Procrusteans and what they do is procrustean “science”.

  7. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The buoys measure sea temperatures as being slightly lower than ships, which were used more in the past, according to Matthew Palmer, an ocean scientist at the Met Office.

    “We’ve effectively underestimated the rate of warming over the past decade,” Palmer said”

    Er, no. They’ve effectively overestimated it before the past decade. They should be adjusting downward not up. The new methods are supposed to be more accurate than the old methods aren’t they ?

    • Mike Davis says:

      You are over looking the latest theory regarding the “Mirror Effect”.Past wam must be adjusted cold and current cold must be adjusted warmer to account for unknown events and to better match model outputs.
      Using “Negative Aspect” configuration when dealing with pesky real world temperature records we can find cold equals hot and black equals white.

  8. MostlyHarmless says:

    Pesky measuring systems just won’t reflect reality. Satellite sensors are unreliable -they don’t show the “real” (higher) temps. Radiosondes don’t show the “hot-spot” so they’re rubbish – wind-shear seems to be the way forward. ARGO buoys aren’t showing the heat we know is hidden in the oceans, so we’ll have to adjust their readings upwards to compensate. Thermometers are fine though, except those in cold places which read far too low. No problem here, no adjustment needed – just leave them out of the record. Rain gauges may need some attention – readings are too high, maybe due to condensation in the collecting tube. perhaps we should reduce the gauge aperture to compensate. CO2 data is fine – one monitoring station in the middle of the pacific on the side of an outgassing volcano is all we need. Everyone knows CO2 is the same density as air, and doesn’t concentrate at lower altitudes.

    Rulers may need some attention however – we suggest a shorter one for use when it’s hot, and a longer one for when it’s cold. The unit will be the METre – it’ll be whatever length is appropriate for what’s being measured, when and where, and who the results are for.

  9. richard verney says:

    I don’t understand the point about ship’s data.
    Since the diesel engine, mosts data from ships is taken from the sea water intake for cooling the engine. With a laden ship, this is usually some 7 to 12 m below the surface depending upon the design and draft of the ship. Say 10m below the surface being typical for a laden ship.
    The buoys apparently take sea temperature at 1 m below the surface. Accordingly, one would expect the modern buoy temperature record to be warmer than the older data from the ships (since the ship’s data is taken typically 9 m lower down) such that if an adjustment is to be made one would either downward adjust the buoy data, or upwards adjust the ship’s data. They appear to be making the adjustment the wrong way round. Is this a genuine error, or is it a fit the data to the theory type adjustment?

    • Mike Davis says:

      Sea surface temperature is NOT 7 to 12 meters below the sea surface! It is also not what is seen when throwing a bucket off a moving ship into the ships bow wake. We are talking about averaging tastes from various forms of vegetation to make a statement about what a Cherry tastes like!

  10. Jimbo says:

    Very few people in the UK will pay any attention to Vicky Pope of the Met Office. In their minds there must be this conflict about AGW to be felt most in the northern latitude winters and the current, bitterly cold and snowy weather.

    I hope Cancun fails.

  11. Al Gored says:

    With all these revisions and adjustments this just keeps looking more and more like Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, or federal government economic statistics.

    On the very bright side, with sites like yours and the net, they are fooling less of the people less of the time.

  12. Don Sailing says:

    Must be great to be an AGW scientist. While there is no evidence in nature to support your theory, you can find evidence everywhere else.

  13. Mike Davis says:

    The IPCC was formed with the goal to provide evidence that humans are affecting the weather. If it does not exist the next best thing is to create it.

  14. John Blake says:

    Are we alone in beginning to genuinely detest la Papa and her ilk?

  15. Kramer says:

    These people are shameless. Amazing what they’ll do to get access to our wealth.

  16. Brian Johnson uk says:

    They [the likes of Hansen, Jones, Mann et al] might have many letters after their names
    in the name of science but these Scientists should be called Fictionalists.

  17. James Evans says:

    Well, I’m all for it. If the Met office can adjust temps upwards then for god’s sake do it. I’m freezing my friggin nuts off here.

  18. Nobama says:

    A difference now is that this won’t sit well with the millions of citizens who are recently aware of the past “adjustments”. This announcement will cost them in public opinion… and rightfully so.

  19. Charles Higley says:

    It’s obviously irrelevant if we are warming or not or cannot find any tangible evidence of the effects of warming, other than junk science and bad, biased data. It’s all about the important stuff, the numbers that they go to all this time and trouble to make up to show us how bad the warming is, although we cannot detect it in the real world.

    How convenient is it to think that science is a matter of simply fixing the data than having real data from the real world. If the real data does not fit your model, simply make up missing factors which, when added back, make the “adjusted,” value-added data fit the model. Hey, isn’t this the definition of “fiction”?

  20. Gator says:

    Hey look! They found the “missing heat”, turns it was in their posteriors all along!

  21. pat says:

    i first read about this in New Scientist!

    26 Nov: New Scientist: Michael Marshall: Ships and buoys made global warming look slower
    From now on climate measurements from the buoys will be “corrected” so that they can be compared with the decades of data from ship measurements, and vice versa.
    It’s not the first time measurements have had to be corrected: a change in how ships measured sea temperatures caused the apparent cooling in the 1940s.
    Journal reference: Remote Sensing of Environment, in press

    from the comments:
    Michael Marshall : Actually two different corrections will be performed. In one case the buoy data will be “corrected” so that they align with the ship data, and in the other the ship data will be “corrected” so they align with the buoy data. The two methods will then be compared to check that they show the same overall trends.
    When it comes to identifying long-term changes, the year-on-year trends are the crucial thing, not the absolute temperature – though of course it’s best to have the absolute temperature as accurate as possible, as a general principle.

  22. goodspkr says:

    I believer the left is suffering from eleutherophobia. It explains why they are willing to go to such lengths.

  23. The Met Office is full of BS. I emailed them, and told them that in so many words. I also challenged them, that this decade will likely be the decade of global cooling, and I gave them six reasons why.

    solar activity



    volcanic activity

    soi oscillation

    co2 non factor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s