In 2009, the Met Office predicted that 2010 would be the hottest year on record.
Copenhagen climate conference: Met Office predict 2010 will be warmest on record – Telegraph
That forecast failed badly, by their own measurements.
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
So three years later, the Met Office retroactively altered historical data, to make their original forecast correct.
2010 ‘hottest year yet’
Posted on » Tuesday, March 20, 2012LONDON: Researchers have updated HadCRUT – one of the main global temperate records, which dates back to 1850, reports BBC. One of the main changes is the inclusion of more data from the Arctic region, which has experienced one of the greatest levels of warming.
The amendments do not change the long-term trend, but the data now lists 2010, rather than 1998, as the warmest year on record.
The update is reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Isn’t government fraud grand?
This is breath-taking fraud! How long can it be now until the general population notices how they are being lied to, robbed, led up the garden path and impoverished by these rent-seeking mountebanks. Where is the critical thinking in the Universities, Newspapers, Media and Parliament? Where are our intellectual Guardians?
Imagine if they spent half the time they currently spend altering temperature records from 50 years ago into learning how the climate system works… they might have learnt something useful by now.
As near as I can make out, it’s part of the underlying assumption and justification for the whole of AGW ‘science.’
They KNOW that humans are affecting Gaia, and they KNOW that this is causing warmingJust as they KNOW that it’s causing sea-level rise, and they KNOW it’s causing ocean acidifcation, and co. Almost ‘by definition’ one could say.
So, if the measurements don’t show this warming that we KNOW is happening, the measurements MUST be adjusted to the CORRECT values, to show the RIGHT amount of warming that is AGREED and SETTLED science by 97% of ALL climate scientists.
See, if you understand it, it all makes sense. I don’t know why you’re making such a fuss?
So 2010 hottest, meaning half the years from 2011 to 2015 will be hotter than 2010. What!!! Maybe they will make their dreams come true – again.
(
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Solar Panel war China US
Xinhua Insight: Solar panel tariffs put Sino-U.S. trade under destructive risks
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-03/22/c_131483654.htm
government fraud ?
One of the main changes is the inclusion of more data from the Arctic region
Louise Gray was peddling this lie as well in the Telegraph. There is no “new data” or “extra data” available. The amount of data available from GHCN has not changed.
What has changed is that HADCRUT now uses GISS type projections to guess the 99% of the Arctic where there are no thermometers.
It would be interesting to know if they added the same “new data”/ projections to 1998.
“So three years later, the Met Office retroactively altered historical data, to make their original forecast correct.”
No they didn’t and you know it. These new figures are from the 4th HadCRUT version, which uses wider data sources and happens to bring it into line with other temperature series and satellite data.
As it happens the updated 2010 figure is a tie with 2005.
Tellingly the crew over at Real Climate (the one with qualified scientists posting) said recently;
“We can look forward to any number of contrarians making before and after plots of the data and insinuating that something underhand is going on. Most of the time, they will never link to the papers that explain the differences. (This is an easy call because they do the same thing with GISTEMP all the time).”
Guess you made their dreams come true!
ROFLMAO – See the post above yours.
Lazo,
In New Zealand the “scientist(s)” actually got caught fiddling and decided to throw out their “adjustments” and miracle of miracles, the country cooled by .7C overnight. So this is not always just about “insinuations”.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm
“No they didn’t and you know it. These new figures are from the 4th HadCRUT version, which uses wider data sources and happens to bring it into line with other temperature series and satellite data.”.
LOL
What is hadcrut doing? Science? or follow the leader?
“Guess you made their (qualified scientists) dreams come true!”
Qualified scientists? Dreams?
As in qualified scientist/turned activist journalist/turned supposed ethicist/turned confessed fraud Peter ‘the dreamer’ Gleik?
And don’t sell yourself short Lazarus. Where would the team be without their dreamy-eyed bubblehead cheerleaders? Choreographed by pros, marching in perfect sychronized lockstep with a steely focus on the routine and finishing with the perfect pyramid scheme. Get a life Lazarus.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rr2Tflw9BE&w=560&h=315
speaking of fraud
“I mean, hey you got a president who has a false birth certificate on the Internet, on the White House website,” Monckton said. “It’s not even clear where he was born.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/lord-monckton-im-no-birther-but-obama-birth-certificate-plainly-a-forgery/
“It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).”
Well they are in deep shit if that doesn’t happen, so they might as well make the prediction…
They can fiddle with the data to try and show a statistically insignificant amount of extra warming in 2010 instead of 1998, but if the warming remains on the 1C per 100 year track as most sceptics believe possible, and this continues to happen for the next 5-10 years, then the IPCC models will be 2 sigma outside their prediction. Or to put this another way, the models will score a “fail”. The chance of the models being correct for the right reasons is about zero. But when you put a magnifying glass on some fractional amount of warming or cooling in the atmosphere, then of course this issue might drag on for a while…
Funny how the adjustments they make always increase the trend to match their earlier predictions. Are self fulfilled prophecies as valuable as others?
Shame on the Met Office, what a bunch of crooks. Sad that amongst the Met ‘modifiers’ there will be some [not many] who believe in real science but probably daren’t speak out.
“Will Nitschke says:
March 23, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Lazo,
In New Zealand the “scientist(s)” actually got caught fiddling and decided to throw out their “adjustments” and miracle of miracles, the country cooled by .7C overnight. So this is not always just about “insinuations”.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm”
The worst part about that was NIWA when they got caught. Tried to make out they ‘lost’ the original data!
What’s more laughable was after they claimed the warming of the 7SS data. They tried it all over again with another fiddled and highly cherry picked 11SS data. The thing was they chose many locations that are sub tropical and naturally warmer than the average NZ location. Including using Temp data for Raoul Island in the Kermedec Islands located 1100KM approx North of the city of Auckland in the Pacific Ocean.
Unbelievably dishonest. More of the same from the self-appointed guardians of the cause. What a fine line there is between useful idiot and intent to defraud.
my ‘unadjusted’ data shows 2010 as .1C above my 22 year average…..yup….but i can adjust it up by 1.3C, it will tie my hottest year….but …why bother…ITS JUST WEATHER….
Every idiot knows that only Hansen can make the proper adjustments to what your thermometer says. Even if he is 2,000 miles away from you in Greenbelt, MD.
So this means that when they get a prediction right, they should tell everybody to ignore it – until adjustments can be made 3 years hence
Oh yes, I can see that happening!
If they continue their fiddling, they might actually prove in 2103 that 2100 DID warm according to IPCC scenario A. And even though nothing will be underwater, the sea level WILL have risen by 8 feet…
It’s dialectic materialism all over again.