Central England Temperature Anomalies

The Met Office reports  that 2014 was the warmest year in the 354 year series of temperature measurements in central england. Ed Hawkins also has a post on this.

So is it true and what does it really mean?

CET annual mean temperatures since 1990. The red line is a long term trend fit described below

CET annual mean temperatures since 1990 to 2014. The red line is a long term trend fit described below.

Well 2014 does indeed scrape through  above 2006 as the warmest year, but the quoted measurement error is 0.1C.  So statistically it would be more correct  to say that it is  60% probable that 2014 broke the record. However in this post I want to understand better the full time series and identify a  long term warming trend in CET.

This gives a rather different narrative than the simplistic one of just CO2 induced warming of the UK climate.

Full  354 year series of CET.  A clear warming trend is evident over the full erod. The red curve shows a linear fit to the data

Full 354 year series of CET. A clear warming trend is evident over the entire period. There is little evidence of an acceleration of this trend after the industrial revolution. The red curve shows a linear fit to the data showing a net warming of 0.03C/decode

The data shows that there has definitely been a slow but continuous warming trend since 1660 until the present time beginning well before the industrial revolution. Furthermore there is no obvious evidence of any CO2 induced acceleration in warming as emissions increased post 195o.

So let’s do something a little different and calculate temperature anomalies relative to that long term trend instead of relative to 1961-1990. The result of this procedure is shown below

Temperature anomaly relative to the linear long term trend in CET

Temperature anomaly relative to the linear long term trend in CET

Relative to the 350 year long term trend there is no real evidence for any recent anthropogenic warming. Now let’s simply put a spline through the anomaly data to see if there are  shorter time scale trends.

Spline fit to CET anomaly data

Spline fit to CET anomaly data

There is indeed an apparent upturn after 1970 but nothing that is really remarkably different to that in the 1700s. This is then  followed by a downturn back to normal.

What could be the cause of the evident  slow long term warming trend? Most likely this is due to a recovery from the ‘little Ice Age”

During the so-called “little Ice Age” the Thames was regularly frozen and ice fairs held in winter. The Great Frost of 1683–84, the worst frost recorded in England,[3][4][5] the Thames was completely frozen for two months, with the ice reaching a thickness of 11 inches (28 cm) in London.

The last Ice Fair was held in 1841 because the climate was growing milder well before CO2 levels were of any concern. Since then the climate has become milder. Once  this natural warming trend is included , then the lack of a more  rapid acceleration post 1950 becomes evident.

The distribution of these anomalies results in a normal distribution about a mean of zero. Based on this definition of anomalies against a long term trend, the next plot shows the ranked warmest years in the full series.

Ranked warmest years based on temperature anomalies to long term trends.

Ranked warmest years based on temperature anomalies to long term trends.

2014 is certainly way up there as an exceptionally warm year, but if natural climate trends are taken into account the average temperature is not exceptional. There is therefore  little hard evidence for an anthropogenic warming signal in CET.

I am convinced that enhanced CO2 levels must change the energy balance within the atmosphere so I would expect to see a first  order warming effect . However the complexities of the rest of the climate system on earth are still immense and still full of surprises.

This entry was posted in AGW, Climate Change, climate science, GCM, Institiutions, IPCC, Meteorology, Science, UK Met Office and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Central England Temperature Anomalies

  1. England is only a small dot on the ”global map”
    When talking about ”global” temp, but discussing about misleading English temp data; it only proofs that: the Poms and Met office are the biggest liars! The globe is a big place fellas!

    • Clive Best says:

      The point about CET is that it is the longest continuous record of temperature measurements in the world. Yes the UK is a dot on the global map but it is all we have got for much of the 17th and 18th century.

      What is interesting is the clear warming trend underway before 1900.

    • Clive Best says:

      here are the longest temperature series for Australia





      • Clive, that’s temp for 5 cities in Australia; nothing to do with Australian temperature! It’s same as: having temperature gadgets on 5 cars, to tell the correct temperature on every car engine in Australia…?! TRUTH: Australia is a big place with billion different variations in temp! Have some ”real truth” Clive, real science:

        The ”correct” monitoring is completely WRONG, not only the manipulated data; therefore: the overall ‘’global’’ temp is same every year, BUT hypothetically: even if there was any fluctuation in temp, nobody would have known, because nobody is monitoring on every 10m3, for every minute in 24h!!!

        1] monitoring only for the hottest minute in 24h and ignoring the other 1439 minutes, in which the temp doesn’t go up, or down, as in the ”hottest” minute…. statistically 1439 minutes against one…?!?! Hello ”statisticians! It’s same as: if the car is got 1440 different parts, but you are building that car, ”with one bolt only” you will not get very far…! Some places, sometimes warms by 5C from midnight to midday – other places and different times from midnight to the hottest minute in the day – IT WARMS UP BY 20c-25c- and 30C, in 12h difference – no swindler takes those things into account! Why?!

        2] the ”highest temp minute in 24h, is not at the same time every day! Sometime is the ”hottest at 11, 50AM, most of the time is after 1pm = that is many more warmer minutes than previous day.

        3]example: tomorrow will be warmer by 2C than today, happens many times; and they will record 2C warmer – because the ”warmest” minute was 2C warmer, not ALL the rest of the 1439 minutes since midnight were warmer by 2C. b] question is: ”is it going to start from midnight, every minute to be warmer than the same minutes in previous day?! Therefore: recording only the hottest minute is meaningless! Nobody knows what was the temp yesterday, or last year on the WHOLE planet… but most of the fanatics in the blogosphere pretend to know with precision the temp for the whole year, for last thousands of years… What repetition and aggressive propaganda can do to a grown up person’s brains… tragic, tragic…

        4] on a small hill, put a thermometer on all 4 sides; all 4 will show different temperatures on different day and on SAME minute simultaneously – when you take in the account that: on many places one thermometer represents millions of square kilometers, where are thousandths of ”independent” variations, every few minutes, on every different altitudes = gives a clear picture about their ”global temperature” for last 50years… or 5000 years, or for the last two years. On small part of the planet is warmer for few weeks than normal – they declare it as: ”warmer year”… what a science… couple of months after, when on that same place is colder than normal – they avoid that place and point other place where is for 3-4 days warmer than normal… what a brainwashing scam…

        5] pointing at some place that is warmer than normal – is SAME as saying: ”the planet is warmer by 12C at lunch time, than before sunrise…? taking in consideration the size of the planet: one thermometer or 6000 thermometers, wouldn’t make any difference! ( look at their ”global” temp charts… they look like seismographs… with ”precision” to one hundredth of a degree, for the last thousandths of years… = the biggest con /lies since the homo-erectus invented language…

        6] a thermometer can monitor the temp in a room; but one thermometer for 10 000km2?!

        7] even those ”few” (6000) thermometers are not evenly distributed; no honest statistician would have taken to make ”statistic” if he wasn’t told: which individual thermometer, how much area represents. Example: if the workers in 4 countries have their pay packet increased by a dollar, and in 2 countries had ”decreased by a dollar Q: would the ”overall’ all workers in those 6 countries get more money, or less? Of course, statistic would say: ‘’yes’’ (the 4 countries were Luxembourg, Monaco, Belgium and Portugal, increased by a dollar. The other two were India and Chinese workers, decreased by a dollar) statistic would be wrong; because two thermometers represent much larger area than the other four combined. So much about the ‘’correct’’ temp data… (there are more thermometers in England monitoring for IPCC, than in Russia… England is a small dot on the map (but most of the lies come from there) Warmist Poms are the most shameless liars..

        8] when is sunny – on the ground is warmer / in upper atmosphere is cooler – BUT, when is cloudy, upper atmosphere is warmer, on the ground cooler – overall same temp; BUT, because ALL thermometers monitoring are on the first 2m from the ground = they are completely misleading! There is much less heat in the first 2m from the ground, than in the rest of 10km up. The rest of 10km up, is not on their ”globe”…?!

        9] for the shonks northern hemisphere summer is warmer by 3,8C than S/H summer. That tops the stupidity; they can’t get it correct even about same year. They come WRONG by 3,8C for two different reasons: a] N/H has more deserts, southern hemisphere has more water. Desert has warmer top temperature, BUT the night temperatures are cooler – by not taking all minutes in 24h, they are wrong by +/- 3C. In deserts get to 45-50C at day time, but nights are cold -/ on islands in south pacific between day / night temp is different 3-5C, is that science? B] on southern hemisphere are ”LESS” thermometers = less thermometers cannot say correct temperature against the N/H more thermometers, when you summon up all the numbers. So: only by those two factors they are wrong by +/- 3C, but when you say the last year’s temp cooler by 0,28C than today’s = it shows the sick propaganda… they call themselves ”scientist” Instead going to Antarctic, Arctic to get reumatizam and spend millions, they can get the whole truth on my blog; but they are scared from the truth as the devil from the cross… The truth: if they have same number of thermometers, distributed evenly AND every minute in 24h is taken in consideration = would have shown that: every day and every month of every year and millennium is ”overall” same temperature on the earth!!!

        10]almost all of those 6000 thermometers collecting data for the ”climatologist; are distributed on land – water covers 2/3 of the planet!!! If you don’t understand what that means… you are qualified to be a ”climatologist”…

        11]When you point out to them that: ‘’6000 thermometers cannot monitor the temp in the whole troposphere – thermometer is good to monitor room temp, but not one thermometer for 1000 km2 – 6000 thermometers is not enough to monitor the temp in all Hilton Hotel’s rooms’’ -> they instantly point out that: ‘’there is satellite temp monitoring’’! Well, ‘’satellite’’ is a great technology, very impressive; unfortunately, they don’t have 350km long thermometers, to monitor from space the temp on the ground! They use infrared photos that never covers the whole planet, in two color blotches for the whole of Pacific, or for the whole of US. The ‘’two’ colors represent THE different temp, BUT: if you look the evening weather report, it says that are many variations in temp even for the big cities in USA; would be much more variations if they were reporting for every square mile! B] temp distribution is three dimensional in the atmosphere and constantly changes, cannot present it on two-dimensional picture! Satellite monitoring is the biggest con! Unfortunately, person responsible for analyzing those pictures will not admit the truth – because he prefers to be seen as very important, by the gullible foot-solders, the lower genera and IQ Warmist & Skeptics…

        Earth’s temperature is not same as temperature in a human body I.e: if under the armpit goes 0,5C up = the whole body is higher by 0,5C, arms, legs, the lot. Therefore, can tell if is gone higher or not. Earth’s temp is different on every 100m and FLUCTUATES ”INDEPENDENTLY”! Which means: one thermometer cannot tell the temp correctly for 1km2, when one monitors for thousands of square kilometers

        Using only those 11 points above; to put any leading Warmist on a witness stand, under oath => will end up in jail; for using the ”temperature data / charts” as factual =/ Skeptics & Warmist of lower genera and IQ in a nuthouse, for believing in warmer / colder years. Warmist only prosper and flourish, thanks to the Skeptic’s outdated Pagan beliefs…

        • Clive Best says:

          Those are the only temperature measurements in Australia going back to 1850. Hadcrut4 relies on them for its global temperature estimates.

          Otherwise you are mostly right that we know very little about how the troposphere has evolved, if at all over the last 160 years. Probably also there is an urban heat effect at play in big cities like Sydney and Melbourne as they have exploded in size.

          The main point is how small effects appear. The southern hemisphere receives about 20W/m2 more solar radiation in summer than does the northern hemisphere due to the earth’s orbit.

    • Clive Best says: ”Yes the UK is a dot on the global map but it is all we have got for much of the 17th and 18th century”

      Clive, I heard that before… it’s same as saying: all we have is a rusty bolt and two nuts – lets ”pretend” that we have a car wrrrrm, wrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmm. Clive, that’s a sandpit job, for children, not science! It’s nothing wrong to say: ”we don’t know, we don’t have any data” Instead of making up things… all propaganda is made on ”making up things, to suit the ideology BUT:

      There are proofs that we know, from the ”honest laws of physics” – they were same in the past, as they are today, AND same laws will be in 100y from now! Those laws say: -” localized temp constantly changes BUT: ”overall global temp” is always the same – because of the Temperature Self Adjusting Mechanism (TSAM).

      I did ask you to read the post that will give you all the real proofs, that can be proven now, beyond any reasonable doubt – for some reason, you prefer the ”sandpit job”…

      (my other comment will give you a clear picture about the shonky data collecting your Met office and the others use)

  2. Tony Price says:

    It’s not surprising that your plot of anomalies relative to the trend produces no trend – you’ve thereby removed the trend. It’s called statistics.

    • Clive Best says:

      That is only true of a linear warming trend covering the entire period. For anthorpogenic warming one would expect to see an accelerating increase in temperatures after 1950. This trend would survive the subtraction of a linear trend. It doesn’t and therefore CET gives no direct evidence for an anthropogenic term independent of a long trem trend.

  3. Lies, damned lies and removing trends.

    Nice article -love the approach. However, you know it’s a little “statistical” in its conclusion.

    Not that sceptics don’t have to play dirty.

    All I can say is that if being “economical with the truth” were on a scale of 1 (just facts) and 10 (saying black is white – alkaline = acid), then if most of what we read from the alarmists is around the 7-9 scale, the met office (on global warming) around 6-9, then this ranks around a 3-4.

    • Clive Best says:

      The only thing that matters is direct evidence.

      1. CO2 is increasing
      2. temperature ‘anomalies’ have increased by less than 1 degree since 1850
      3. CET shows a very slow warming trend starting before CO2 levels began incresing.
      4. CMIP5 models predict more warming than is currently being observed AND assume there is no natural underlying trend.

  4. A C Osborn says:

    Clive, what data did you use?
    The current UK data has changed from the old records, so 2014 is not as hot as it appears.

    • Clive Best says:

      I am using the monthly averages since 1659. cetml1659on.dat The yearly average is the average of all 12 months. I think that I have the final figures as I downloaded it yesterday 4th January after being told by Ed Hawkins that the December figure had been finalised.

      Originally the Met Office jumped the gun by releasing preliminary figure of 5.8C for December with about a week to go. The late cold spell dropped the final average down to 5.2C. As a result

      2014 = 10.93 ± 0.1 C
      2006 = 10.87 ± 0.1 C

      So they are really equal within error bars i.e. 10.9 ± 0.1 C

  5. Joel M says:

    How is it that the MET office has a chart that is so incongruous with yours?

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    I know there have been a lot of adjustments, but I assume you have plotted post-adjustment data. I’m sort of at a loss here.

    • Clive Best says:

      It’s the same data. The Met office chose to plot anomalies rather than temperature to make it look like global warming plots.

      They average every jan,feb etc from 1961 to 1991 and then subtract from the full monthly series. The long term trend then looks like AGW.

      • Joel M says:

        Hmmm … I’ve got that. They used a 30 year normal which was been a standard in meteorology since before there ever was such a thing as a climatologist. No problem.

        I’m just struck that the global warming signal is so stark doing this the MET way. Looking at your absolute temperatures and residuals I’ve squinted my eyes for a couple of hours and can finally see a few years clustered at the end (2012 an exception) that is apparently causing the “signal”. I’m not saying it’s not real, but damn it sure is small.

        • Clive Best says:

          That’s because global warming is in reality so damn small. One large volcano would produce more cooling than 100 years of AGW. If you click on the map icon in the right hand menu on my site and click on a dot = wether station you see how small the effect is at any one place. CRU even dropped stations from H3 to H4 that showed cooling ad they must ne ‘wrong’. Othrrs hsve beeb sanitised to tell the ‘correct’ story.

  6. Clive Best says: ”That’s because global warming is in reality so damn small. One large volcano would produce more cooling than 100 years of AGW”

    Clive, ”global” warming is not ”small” it doesn’t exist!

    2] volcanoes don’t cool!!! Volcanoes produce heat – burnny, burny… plus: volcanoes produce CO2 plus water vapor.plus SO2!!! That’s what confused the Warmist – volcanoes suppose to produce warming BUT: because of the earth’s Temperature Self Adjusting Mechanism (TSAM) – doesn’t happen any warming = therefore: the Warmist in CONFUSION created the con that: aerosols cool… it’s the most childish theory / lots of contradictions…

    3] aerosols have nothing to do with the overall global temp
    4] volcanoes produce heat +CO2+H2O+SO2, NOT cooling
    5] when volcano releases heat -> instantly oxygen & nitrogen / vertical wind take that super-heated air to 10-12-14km up; WHERE COOLING IS MUCH MORE EFFICIENT and cool that heat in a jiffy!

    6] Met office is established for deceiving and cooking people’s brains, so they cannot think for themselves…

  7. Pingback: Any doubts about Climate Change? - Page 160 - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum

Leave a Reply to Tony Price Cancel reply