AEMET changes measurement method, making Spanish springs appear cooler

AEMET changes measurement method, making Spanish springs appear cooler

The State Meteorological Agency (AEMET) has formally acknowledged what many suspected: in 2020, it stopped calculating average temperatures using a limited number of stations and switched to a climatological grid. The agency states that current average temperatures are lower and more accurate to reality than those produced by the previous method. In plain terms: past and present data are not comparable, and mixing them is misleading. This warning comes after a warm spring was announced in a year when much of Spain experienced colder-than-usual weather.

What exactly changed in AEMET’s measurement method

The change is not cosmetic. Until 2020, analysis relied on a limited number of stations; since then, a climatological grid distributes data across the entire territory. The agency itself admits that the new system produces a lower average. In other words, the old method tended to inflate readings. The uncomfortable question is why this correction took so long and why it occurred just as the narrative of accelerated warming needed support.

Some argue this is simply a technical improvement, common in science when instruments are refined. However, a counterargument exists: if the new method had shown cooling or negligible variations, would it have been implemented with such urgency? The doubt is significant because the historical series is now split in two, making direct decade-to-decade comparisons an act of faith.

Why a warm spring can feel cold

The second issue is the gap between data and perception. A season can end with above-average temperatures while still feeling like heat never arrived. The physical explanation often cited is that spring has as much sunlight as summer, but thermal inertia in soil and air lags behind: the sun’s angle begins decreasing toward December 21st while accumulated heat continues its course. The expected average until July, in terms of sensation, is negative.

The problem is that this technical nuance becomes an excuse. When headlines say “warm” and bodies feel “colder than ever,” ordinary citizens stop trusting the scale. Without trust in the scale, no climate policy holds up. Perception is not data, but it is not nothing either.

The precedent nobody wants to repeat

This is not the first time a public body redefines a concept and causes controversy. During pandemic management, vaccine definitions changed, flu disappeared from statistics, and masks were said to block all bicho. That left a mark: part of the population learned to distrust any methodological adjustment announced after the fact. AEMET’s change falls into that same category, even if its nature differs.

Full calculations, broken down station by station, reveal differences that surprise careful observers. It is not that the agency lies; rather, the methodological flexibility is enormous and unmonitored. When flexibility is huge, the temptation to use it exists.

What insiders say

There is a version rarely seen in media: that of base-level technicians. According to these accounts, among forecasters, observers, and equipment staff, climate change is not discussed; the narrative is pushed by politically appointed executives. If true, the problem is not scientific but structural: an agency with a political leadership and a technical corps looking away.

Added to this is the material state of the network. There are broken stations, uncalibrated sensors, and areas where coverage has degraded. Any grid, however robust, depends on input quality. If raw materials fail, the final product is an estimate claiming certainty.

The coming cooling, according to some

The most repeated prediction in circles is not that heat will end, but that the narrative will flip. Once the public stops believing, the circulating hypothesis is that those selling thermal alarm today will start selling global cooling tomorrow and ask for money for the opposite. Studies on a new ice age have sat in drawers for decades. If this happens, AEMET’s method change will be the first piece of the cover story.

With these elements, trust in the historical series is damaged. Not because thermometers lie, but because those deciding how to read them have incentives to interpret them in a specific way. And in science, that is the beginning of the end.