Part 2: CET, Met Office making up data

Posted: December 13, 2015 by tchannon in Accountability, climate, Dataset, History, Incompetence, weather

Tim writes: here we have a demonstration of both sides of scientific and organisational integrity. Ten years later, 2005, there was confirmation of the poor practice.

Some time ago Part 1 was published

The last line of the 1995 email was withheld. Here it is

Our daily series is anchored to the monthly one so that
each months average calculated from the daily data equals its value
in Manleys monthly series.

The Met Office promote “Hadley Centre Central England Temperature” and HadCET but avoid “Manley CET”. There was and is no daily Manley CET. The Met Office made one up, adjusting daily figures to average the Manley CET monthly value exactly.

January 1974 onwards there is no Manley CET data to constrain Met Office daily figures.


Above is an image of the email, the verbatim server files from US publishing site are here inside a zip. File timestamps are preserved, presumably from original FTP disk write here on a contemporary computer system.

B Horton means Briony Horton, who was involved with CRU and Hadley Centre. Here for example acknowledgement by Phil Jones. (minor paper )

Example of B Horton speaking to the press…

Britain really is hotting up

Friday 2 August 2002 01.57 BST

Many may choose to disbelieve it, but the first six months of 2002 have been the warmest on record, according to Met Office figures released yesterday.

Despite torrential rain across Britain in recent days, the average temperature in the northern hemisphere has been the warmest in 143 years.

Globally, January to June has been the second warmest on record, beaten only by 1998 which had a warmer start because of the influence of El Nino.

Although temperatures in England and Wales have been below average since mid-June, so far this year the temperature has been more than a degree above average, at 16C. The hottest day of the year was on Monday, when London recorded a high of 33C.

Briony Horton, climate research scientist at the Met Office, said: “Globally 2002 is likely to be warmer than 2001, and may break the record set in 1998. For the UK it is very likely that maximum and minimum temperatures will be higher, there will be less frost and more intense rain as the global temperature increases.”

Press Association

I have previously revealed Met Office / Hadley / CRU altering data to match an expectation instead of identifying definite data errors. This brought a poor reaction as though the practice is ordinary and acceptable.


A paper was published 2005 where the practice is confirmed. Horton is one of the authors.

Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset

There you will find

Parker, D.E. and Horton, E.B. 2005. Uncertainties in the Central England Temperature series since 1878 and some changes to the maximum and minimum series. International J.Climatology, Vol 25, pp 1173-1188. (PDF)

So, to maintain homogeneity (Section 1), Parker et al. (1992) adjusted their daily CET mean values to make
their monthly averages consistent with Manley (1974). For the same reason, when we created daily CET max
and CET min series, again using a different sequence of stations (Table I), we adjusted the values so that each
day’s average of CET max and CET min equaled that day’s adjusted CET mean and was therefore also compatible
with Manley (1974)

— Section 3 (page 4)

Extending a dataset means maintaining exact consistency. Manley CET ends December 1973. The Met Office have not done this, instead, they ignored Manley, carrying on with their own way of producing monthly which they know is incompatible… why manipulating daily readings was practiced otherwise no adjust to Manley would have been necessary.

Manley died in 1980 so he cannot have seen or approved of the work.
(some new background on Manley)


Unconstrained by Manley data the independent Met Office data post 1973 has a noticeable linear trend.

A side effect of the Met Office produced daily seems to be inducement to only plot their own time range yet their web page words mention the longer Manley. This is also surprising since the Met Office plot the computed annual, which could have been computed from monthly rather than all the way from daily.


Here is all the time span.
(EC, end compensated, is a fairly long transversal filter)

An effect of avoiding the longer Manley data is omitting to show the 1730s warm period.

Nevertheless, agricultural production increased during the first half of the century, partly because of advances in the more modern sector of farming (see Chapter 10) and partly because of two decades of excellent harvests in the 1730s and 1740s. England for a time had a surplus of wheat for export. Food prices thus were relatively low, and this fact left thousands of British consumers with money after their food purchases to spend on other goods.
page 12



Dennis Shea still has a web page at NCAR. In the context here he is being strictly honest and has instructed the data and email be made available. At that time the Met Office did not publish data, hence we accessed data from the USA. This is often still the case today.

The Met Office did not have a serious Internet presence until rather late, hence the defunct email and web names.

This is the first Met Office page via web Archive




No data supplied. Ought to be easy enough to reproduce, check my working. Ask if you want the rough working document, not prepared for publication.

There may be a CET part 3, new information has turned up from the archive here.

Post by Tim

  1. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Nothing like a nice linear trend :/

  2. Tim, Philip Eden took an issue with this a while ago saying the Met Office were the ‘self-appointed’ editors of CET. He published his own series which stays true to Manley

  3. […] Source: Part 2: CET, Met Office making up data […]

  4. tchannon says:

    I must if I get time take a look at Eden’s CET work. Getting sidetracked, consuming time, life I suppose, surfeit of curiosity.

  5. P Dean says:

    This info should be sent to GWPF for their work on checking temperature records.
    BTW a summary for each year in the 1730s and 1740s can be found in Kington,J. (2010) Climate and Weather, Collins New Naturalist volume 115 pages295-301.

  6. Tim, here it is
    “These monthly figures are means of observed temperature in the Oxford district and the Lancashire Plain, normalised to provide, when combined with Gordon Manley’s original work, an entirely homogeneous temperature series representative of Central England. Many of the monthly values are the same as those found in the Met Office / Hadley Centre CET series, but occasional differences of 0.3 or 0.4 degC highlight inhomogeneities between the Hadley and Manley series.”

    There is further comment in the February 2013 edition of Weather

    “It is necessary to correct the impression given by Philip Eden in the November 2012 issue (p. 306) that to obtain the CET Gordon Manley continued to advocate using the average of the Oxford and Lancashire sites. Eden’s quotation comes from Manley’s 1953 paper. In 1974 Manley wrote temperatures at the Radcliffe are gradually becoming less representative. He advocated using the mean of Rothamsted, Shinfield, Abingdon and Cirencester plus 0.4, combined with the mean of Lancaster, Kirkham, Preston and Stonyhurst plus 0.6. This contradicts Eden’s claim that Manley’s concept was to use just two stations.

    It is, and I will use the word again, unfortunate that there are now two different versions of the CET series, the longest continuous series of monthly and annual temperatures from anywhere. It is surely necessary that a consensus is reached as soon as possible on the best way to extend Manley’s great work.

    Philip Eden responds: The point I was trying to make is that the Hadley Centre’s CET uses a tri-polar scheme, weighted towards the south Midlands. Manley’s CET uses a bi-polar scheme with equal weight given to the south Midlands and the Lancashire Plain.”

  7. tallbloke says:

  8. tchannon says:

    Good stuff there wm.
    I will probably be away for a day or so. Might respond then.