{"id":1452030,"date":"2024-01-20T13:10:00","date_gmt":"2024-01-20T18:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/?p=1452030"},"modified":"2024-01-20T13:10:00","modified_gmt":"2024-01-20T18:10:00","slug":"was-2023-really-the-second-hottest-year-since-1884","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/was-2023-really-the-second-hottest-year-since-1884\/1452030\/","title":{"rendered":"Was 2023 Really The Second-Hottest Year Since 1884?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Was 2023 Really The Second-Hottest Year Since 1884?<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Authored by Iain Davis via Off-Guardian.org,<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

According to the UK Met Office, 2023 was the\u00a0second hottest year in the UK since 1884<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Quite obviously, this is complete nonsense. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Unless they are troglodytes that never venture out in daylight, why would anyone in the UK believe such absurd drivel?<\/p>\n

The Met Office states:<\/p>\n

2023 is provisionally the second warmest year for the UK according to mean temperature. [. . .] 2023\u2019s provisional mean temperature of 9.97\u00b0C puts it just behind 2022\u2019s figure of 10.03\u00b0C and ahead of 2014\u2019s 9.88\u00b0C.<\/p>\n

Right, it\u2019s \u201cprovisional\u201d drivel.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The UK summer of 2023\u2014where I live\u2014was a thoroughly miserable affair. We had a few weeks of decent sunshine in the spring and a couple of hot weeks of Indian summer. That was it!<\/p>\n

The rest of it was cold, wet and comprehensively devoid of anything we might traditionally call \u201csummer.\u201d The winter preceding and following it wasn\u2019t particularly cold, but nor was it unusually warm.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m knocking on a bit and can remember about 50 years of my life. I know, for a fact, that I have lived through many warmer years. Sure, this is anecdotal, but I haven\u2019t completely taken leave of my senses and I still have a functioning memory. No way am I unquestioningly buying the Met Office\u2019s silly claim.<\/p>\n

Neither do I believe any of the legacy media reports trying to convince me that the Met Office\u2019s preposterous assertion is evidence of\u00a0an alleged climate crisis<\/a>. It simply isn\u2019t true, so it is not \u201cevidence\u201d of anything at all. Although it does suggest deception.<\/p>\n

The Met Office\u2014obviously unreliably\u2014tells us\u00a0\u201cUK mean temperatures have been shifting over the decades as a result of human-induced climate change. [. . .] 2023\u2019s provisional mean temperature of 9.97\u00b0C puts it just behind 2022\u2019s figure of 10.03\u00b0C.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

For a start, \u201chuman induced climate change,\u201d or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), is a questionable and\u00a0unproven scientific theory<\/a>, not scientific fact. This too is just another claim from the Met Office which it wrongly asserts as fact.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Met Office also tells us that \u201csunshine was near-average for much of the UK.\u201d If we have got this right, the Met Office is claiming that, with average hours of UK sunshine in 2023\u2014which also seems pretty dubious to me\u2014somehow, since 1884, the only year that has been \u201chotter\u201d was 2022. Which doesn\u2019t ring true either.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s going on?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

What does the Met Office mean\u2014pardon the pun\u2014by \u201cmean temperature\u201d? It reports that its 2023 alleged \u201cprovisional mean temperature of 9.97\u00b0C\u201d had been obtained via the HadUK-Grid data set. The Met Office also cites its\u00a02023 rapid attribution study<\/a>. It is from this that we can\u2014eventually\u2014glean how the \u201cUK mean temperature\u201d is calculated by the Met Office.<\/p>\n

In its rapid attribution study, the Met Office states:<\/p>\n

Observed values of the UK annual mean temperature are obtained from the HadUK-Grid dataset v1.2.0.0. The time series spans 1884 \u2013 2023, with the 2023 values being provisional as of 2nd January 2024.<\/p>\n

\u201cObserved,\u201d that\u2019s what we want to hear. So what observations are reported in the HadUK-Grid dataset? The\u00a0Met Office claims<\/a>:<\/p>\n

HadUK-Grid is a collection of gridded climate variables derived from the network of UK land surface observations.<\/p>\n

If we look at the\u00a0HadUK-Grid methodology<\/a>, the Met Office adds:<\/p>\n

The gridded data sets are based on the archive of UK weather observations held at the Met Office.<\/p>\n

So far so good. The HadUK-Grid reportedly records real data, such as sunshine hours, rainfall and even temperature. We live in hope. Unfortunately, there is some caveats. The Met Office continues:<\/p>\n

The methods used to generate the daily grids are described in more detail in [this] report.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

OK. So beyond just recording real-world data, what are the \u201cmethods\u201d outlined in said\u00a0report<\/a>?<\/p>\n

[. . .] the Met Office climate data archive [. . .] contains a simplified version of the raw observations generated according to well-defined rules. [. . .] Mean temperature [. . .] is the average of the maximum and minimum temperatures.<\/p>\n

At last we have a definition of the \u201cmean temperature\u201d the Met Office claims to be the second highest since 1884. Apparently, it is \u201cgenerated according to well-defined rules.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Met Office speak \u201cmean temperature\u201d isn\u2019t the actual\u00a0arithmetic mean<\/a>\u00a0of daily temperatures but rather the \u201caverage\u201d of minimum and maximum temperatures recorded between 09:00 and 21:00 on any given day. Begging the question how are the minimum and maximum UK temperatures \u201cobserved\u201d?<\/p>\n

Although the data ha[s] undergone some quality checking, the extent and effectiveness of this has changed through time since the 1960\u2019s. [. . .] NCIC climate data analysis software was again used to create the gridded data. [. . .] The station data were normalised with respect to the monthly 1km x 1km gridded 1961-1990 climate normals described by Perry and Hollis (2005a).<\/p>\n

So the minimum and maximum allegedly \u201cobserved\u201d 2023 \u201cmean UK temperature\u201d wasn\u2019t actually observed at all. It was calculated from\u00a0normalised<\/a>\u00a0data using computers running software based upon the \u201cclimate normals\u201d defined in\u00a0Perry and Hollis (2005)<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The related paper considered how to calculate long term averages (LTAs) and suggested a methodology by which \u201cmean\u201d temperatures could be calculated:<\/p>\n

For air temperature, 1490 stations reported at some point between 1961 and 2000 but only an average of 560 of these were open at any one time. This gives an array which is 38% complete. [. . .] [T]he solution is to fill in the gaps using an appropriate estimation technique. [. . .] Once the gaps in the array have been filled, long term averages for the periods 1961-1990, 1971-2000 and 1991-2000 can be calculated for each station from the complete array. [. . .] The regression model parameters provide an estimation of [. . .] the UK climate, explaining between 29% and 94% of the variance in the data depending on the climate variable.<\/p>\n

Potentially, up to 62% of the data forming the Met Office\u2019s \u201cMean UK temperature\u201d is \u201cgenerated\u201d by \u201cfill[ing] in the gaps.\u201d <\/strong>This is based upon an \u201cestimation technique\u201d which supposedly explains between \u201c29% and 94% of the variance in the data depending on the climate variable.\u201d This doesn\u2019t mean that the estimated fill-ins are inaccurate but they cannot be called \u201cobservations\u201d either.<\/p>\n

We seem to be moving further away from empirical science.\u00a0Surely the Met Office isn\u2019t claiming that it knows what the average UK \u201cprovisional\u201d mean temperature was in 2023 based upon such limited observations? With regard to how it interprets the HadUK-Grid dataset the\u00a0Met Office states<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The HadUK-Grid dataset is produced on a 1km x 1km grid resolution on the Ordnance Survey\u2019s National Grid. To facilitate comparison of the observational dataset with the UKCP18 climate projections [. . .]. All the gridded datasets use the same grid projection. The re-gridding is conducted through averaging of all 1km grid points that fall within each of the coarser resolution grid cells.<\/p>\n

Whoa there! We already know that the \u201cobservational dataset\u201d is created by \u201cfill[ing] in the gaps\u201d\u2014around a 60% gap apparently\u2014with computer modelled estimates. Now we are told some sort of \u201cre-gridding\u201d is necessary to \u201cfacilitate comparison\u201d with\u00a0UKCP18 climate projections<\/a>. Why is that necessary?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The UK Met Office adds:<\/p>\n

Area averages are also produced based on averaging the 1km grid [data] across a set of geographical regions to provide spatial statistics for country, administrative regions and river basins. The details of these areas can be found in the UKCP18 guidance notes.<\/p>\n

Now we\u2019ve got \u201cspacial statistics,\u201d instead of empirical measurements, based upon \u201carea averages\u201d that facilitate, for some unknown reason, comparison with \u201cUKCP18 climate projections.\u201d OK, so how are the \u201carea averages\u201d constructed in accordance with the\u00a0UKCP18 guidance notes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Before using [UKCP18 guidance notes], it is important to understand the assumptions made, the caveats and limitations and the appropriate use of the results.<\/p>\n

Assumptions made, caveats and limitations! <\/strong>What bloody assumptions, caveats and limitations? Just measure the temperature and calculate some sort of meaningful average for crying out loud!<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s look at the\u00a0caveats and limitations<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Our understanding and ability to simulate the climate is advancing all the time but our climate models are not able to represent all of the features seen in the present day real climate and there are still limitations in our ability to project 21st century weather and climate.<\/p>\n

Why are the Met Office \u201cgenerating\u201d temperature datasets to \u201cfacilitate comparison\u201d with climate models if those models \u201care not able to represent all of the features seen in the present day real climate.\u201d Surely the models should be based upon the empirically observed and measured features of the \u201creal climate,\u201d as opposed to creating \u201carea averages\u201dcontaining \u201cspacial statistics\u201d to fit in with the models?<\/p>\n

Almost unbelievably, this is evidently what the UK Met Office is doing:<\/p>\n

The relative probabilities indicate how strongly the evidence from models and observations, taken together in our methodology, support alternative future climate outcomes. [. . .] The probabilities are conditioned on methodological choices and expert judgement. The results may change if a different methodology is used.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

In essence, the Met Office uses a tortuous and unnecessarily convoluted methodology to make up the bulk of its UK \u201ctemperature\u201d data. While the Met Office claims that the provisional UK mean temperature was for 2023 was 9.97\u00b0C it also states that its results might change \u201cif a different methodology\u201d was used.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s more, the data it uses is normalised, based upon a wide gamut of climate assumptions, in order to fit in with its own climate models. Again, it admits its so-called observations, of things like mean temperature, are \u201ctaken together in [its] methodology\u201d expressly in order to \u201csimulate the climate.\u201d<\/p>\n

Most of these modelling shenanigans are utterly superfluous if your objective is to calculate the arithmetic mean annual UK temperature. Of course anomalies, such as heat islands, need to be normalised in the data but the rest of the Met Office\u2019s \u201cmethodology,\u201d which doesn\u2019t even attempt to calculate an arithmetic mean temperature anyway, is about as far removed from empirical science as it is possible to venture.<\/p>\n

Inevitably, it produces completely meaningless pap. <\/strong>The problem with such allegedly \u201cscientific\u201d rubbish is that, rather than being laughed off, it is then taken seriously by millions\u2014thanks the unquestioning propaganda reports of the legacy media\u2014and used to advance policy agendas, such as Net Zero.<\/p>\n

Apart from the fact that it is blatantly obvious, to anyone who has lived in the UK from more that a couple of decades, that 2023 was not a warm year, there are other notable reasons not to automatically trust the Met Office\u2019s makey-uppy \u201cclimate science.\u201d Its entire claim is reliant upon the HadUK-Grid dataset which is a project\u00a0funded by the UK government<\/a>. As is the Met Office itself.<\/p>\n

Apparently, the UK government is\u00a0irreversibly committed<\/a>\u00a0to UN Sustainable Development and the associated UK Net Zero policies. The Met Office\u2019s alleged scientific \u201cobservations\u201d suffer from an\u00a0enormous financial conflict of interest<\/a>. Providing any evidence that contradicts the notion of \u201cunprecedented global warming\u201d couldn\u2019t be further removed from the Met Office\u2019s and the UK government\u2019s own declared interests.<\/p>\n

There is absolutely no reason to believe any of it. As \u201cscience\u201d goes, it\u2019s complete junk. <\/strong>I\u2019ve read comics with more credibility that the Met Office\u2019s claim that 2023 was the second warmest year in the UK since 1884.<\/p>\n

Pull the the other one, it\u2019s got bells on it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Tyler Durden<\/a><\/span>
\nSat, 01\/20\/2024 – 08:10<\/span><\/p>\n

\u200bRead More<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Was 2023 Really The Second-Hottest Year Since 1884? Authored by Iain Davis via Off-Guardian.org, According to the UK Met Office, 2023 was the\u00a0second hottest year…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1452030","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","wpcat-1-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1452030","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1452030"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1452030\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1452030"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1452030"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bugaluu.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1452030"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}