From the Daily Skeptic
Chris Morrison
Shocking evidence has emerged that the Met Office falsified temperature data from more than 100 non-existent weather stations. The explosive allegations were made by citizen journalist Ray Saunders and sent to new Labor Science Minister Peter Keir MP. After making multiple Freedom of Information requests to the Met Office and visiting sites, Saunders found that of the 302 sites providing temperature averages, 103 did not exist. “How could any reasonable observer know that these data were not true and were simply 'made up' by government agencies,” Sanders asked. He called for a “public statement” that currently published data may be inaccurate “to avoid other institutions and researchers using unreliable data and drawing erroneous conclusions”.
In his home county of Kent, Sanders blamed four of the eight locations identified by the Met Office – Dungeness, Folkestone, Dover and Gillingham – where the rolling average temperatures had reached The second digit after the decimal point – all “fictitious”. Saunders pointed out that Dungeness has not had a weather station since 1986. daily skeptic It can be confirmed that none of these four stations appear on the list of Met sites classified by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The Met Office directs online inquiries about Dover to the “nearest climate station” at Dover Port (Beach), with a full set of 30-year rolling averages. According to Met Office coordinates, the site is on Dover Beach, as shown in the Google Earth photo below. It seems unlikely that any scientific organization would set up a temperature monitoring station that might be regularly flooded. Who runs this station on the beach, are accurate records kept for 30 years, and why is it not listed among the 380 stations rated by WMO?
Saunders noted that of the 302 sites cited, the Met Office “refused to tell me” how or where the so-called “data” for the 103 non-existent sites was obtained.
The practice of “making up” temperature data from non-existent weather stations is a controversial issue in the United States, with local weather agency NOAA accused of falsifying data from more than 30 percent of its reporting sites. Data were retrieved from surrounding sites and the resulting average was assigned an “E” for estimation. “The addition of ghost station data means NOAA's monthly and annual reports do not represent reality,” said meteorologist Anthony Watts. “If this procedure were used in a court of law, the evidence would be discarded because it was contaminated,” he added.
The Met Office lists a number of sites with long-term temperature data records in its historical data section. Lowestoft offers records dating back to 1914 but it closed in 2010. Stations in Nairndruym, Paisley and Newton Rigg are also closed but are still reporting estimated monthly figures. “Why would any scientific organization feel the need to publish what can only be described as fiction?” Sanders asked. “It is impossible to achieve any scientific purpose by fabricating it,” he suggested.
The Met Office may have a sound scientific explanation for the way it collects temperature data. Temperature calculations are an inexact science, but there are growing concerns as the data are used for blatantly political purposes to promote “net zero” fantasies. Alarmists claim that small temperature increases can cause large climate differences. To stoke global fear, agencies such as the UK Met Office and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration cited temperature data purportedly accurate to one hundredth of a degree Celsius. The Met Office has so far been silent on the storm surrounding its data, with the organization refusing to return calls to the Met Office. daily skeptic.
Saunders mentioned another big temperature measurement issue surrounding the classification of WMO sites by the Met Office. Nearly eight in 10 sites were rated garbage levels 4 and 5, with possible “uncertainties” of 2°C and 5°C respectively. Saunders pointed out that this means they are not suitable for reporting climate data according to the international standards that the Met Office has a hand in developing. Only 52 Met Office stations (ie a paltry 13.7%) fall into categories 1 and 2, with no recommended margin of error. In fact, at least mark it as 1. During his trip, Saunders noted possible heat damage at the Hastings Level 1 site, which has now been downgraded to Level 4. Manual adjustment ” “.
this daily skeptic Investigated the poor siting of a number of Met Office sites which had significant thermal damage which made a mockery of attempts to measure naturally occurring air temperatures. Saunders lists many problems with inappropriate sites, including those walled vegetable gardens and botanical gardens designed specifically for artificially elevated temperatures and microclimates. Other unsuitable locations include in or near car parks, airports, domestic gardens, sewage and water treatment works, electrical substations and solar farms.
Sanders' take on the recent closure of many rural temperature measurement sites is interesting. In 1974, there were 32 operating sites in Kent, but this has now dropped to seven. Switching to a new electric platinum resistance thermometer requires a reliable power supply and data communications. Many rural sites were closed down as such facilities were not available in the early days of automation. However, by eliminating cooler recording sites from the overall data record, this resulted in predominantly urbanized sites resulting in unrepresentative increases in temperature relative to the mean value of the change. “Statistical gimmicks, however unintentional, create inaccurate historical misrepresentations,” Sanders noted.
In an open letter to MP Peter Keir, Sanders said he had proven with conclusive evidence that the Met Office had “clearly fabricated” its data. Furthermore, it fails to meet high standards of scientific integrity and to produce reliable or accurate data for climate reporting purposes from a network of poorly located and poorly maintained sites. Peter Keir, the minister responsible for the Met Office, has yet to respond to Saunders' allegations. Ray Sanders has done an excellent research job, providing new and highly relevant details of what is becoming a major scientific scandal. The Met Office has so far refused to make any comment and defended its temperature measurements and calculations, despite repeated requests. While the Government, Parliament and the Met Office have remained silent amid a complete lack of interest from the mainstream media, it can only be assumed that the interests of the net zero rollout outweigh any concerns about the underlying scientific data.
Chris Morrison is daily skepticof Environment editor.
Relevant
