Ever wonder why NASA’s Jim Hansen (and many others) see red at high northern latitudes?
Above 2011 Temperature Anomaly. Source: NASA GISS interactive plotter
With all that red up north, you’d think Jimbo, Gore, and Trenberth would want to get a look at that firsthand, instead of making a fossil fueled boat trip to Antarctica during peak of the southern summer melt season so they could give us grand proclamations about the melting there.
All the “hot action” is up north according the the latitude plot that accompanies the GISS anomaly map:
Funny how in the anomaly map above, with the great Texas Heat Wave this year, Texas is not red. WUWT? (The way it was portrayed in media, you’d think it was a permanent condition).
It seems to be all in the adjustments. Cooling the past helps the slope of the trend:
How GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s Temperatures
Guest post By Paul Homewood
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Now that GHCN have created a false warming trend in Iceland and Greenland , and GISS have amended every single temperature record on their database for Reykjavik going back to 1901 (except for 2010 and 2011), we should have a look at the overall effect.
The red line reflects the actual temperature records provided by the Iceland Met Office and shows quite clearly a period around 1940, followed by another 20 years later, which were much warmer than the 1970’s. GISS, as the blue line shows, have magically made this warm period disappear, by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees.
Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”.
=================================================================
Just for completeness, here is the GISS trend map and latitude plot for the start of the GISS baseline (1951) to 2011.
UPDATE: 1/26/2012 10:30AM
I added (The way it was portrayed in media, you’d think it was a permanent condition) to the body of this post. since my intent with that statement about Texas wasn’t clear. I got distracted by phone calls and other business in the middle of writing this post and lost my train of thought (and I haven’t been following comments on it either). It is one of the pitfalls of trying to run a business and family while trying to keep up with the demands of this venue. Apologies to anyone who thought I was suggesting Texas summer temp data would show up in December data. Such transient events are just one more indication of the synoptic scale blocking high which caused that event, not any long term climate issue.
Paul Homewood sends his email correspondence and supporting data from the Icelandic Met Office. Here is a PDF file containing the data (referenced in the emails): Reykjavik-1871_Akureyri-1881_Stykkisholmur-1845
From: Trausti Jónsson
To: paul homewood
Cc: Halldór Björnsson
Sent: Monday, 23 January 2012, 17:40
Subject: Re: monthly temperatures
We have sent a questions to the GHCN database regarding this and they will look into the problem. Regarding your questions:
No we were not aware of this.
No, but we are asking for the reasons
GHCN are both valid and of the correct value? If so, why?
The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik but not quite as bad for the other stations. But we will have a better look. We do not accept these “corrections”.
No.
No changes have been made in the Stykkisholmur series since about 1970, the Reykjavík and Akureyri series that I sent you have been slightly adjusted for major relocations and changes in observing hours. Because of the observing hour changes, values that where published before 1924 in Reykjavík and before 1928 in Akureyri are not compatible with the later calculation practices. For other stations in Iceland values published before 1956 are incompatible with later values except at stations that observed 8 times per day (but the differences are usually small). The linked paper outlines these problems (in English):
Click to access Climatological1960.pdf
The monthly publication Vedrattan 1924 to 1997 (in Icelandic) is available at:
http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?pubId=278&lang=is&navsel=666
and earlier data (in Icelandic and Danish – with a summary in French) at:
http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?pubId=240&lang=is&navsel=666
http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?pubId=241&lang=is&navsel=666
Monthly data from all stations from 1961 onwards :
http://www.vedur.is/Medaltalstoflur-txt/Manadargildi.html
Best wishes,
Trausti J.
Til: “Trausti Jónsson”
Sent: Mánudagur, 23. Janúar, 2012 17:09:30
Efni: Re: monthly temperatures
From: Trausti Jónsson
To: phomewooduk
Cc: Guðrún Þórunn Gísladóttir
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2012, 11:19
Subject: monthly temperatures
I attach a table including the monthly temperature averages for Reykjavik (1871), Akureyri (1881) and Stykkisholmur (1845).
Best wishes,
Trausti J.
Lýsing: Could you please send me, or let me know where I can access, annual mean temperatures for Reykjavik and Akureyri, back to 1900,(or when records are available from).. Many thanks Paul Homewood –
This plot shows the Arctic warmed about 4 degrees between 1919 and 1939 and then, for a few years in the 1940’s, was warmer than the present. http://climate-change-theory.com/arctic1880.jpg
Temperatures on Jan Mayen Island (350 miles NE of Iceland) showed a similar pattern http://climate-change-theory.com/JanMayen.jpg
Actually North Atlantic Ocean temperatures play a big part in Arctic temperatures, so Jan Mayen Island is well placed to reflect such, as shown here: http://climate-change-theory.com/JanMayenEarth.jpg
So the Arctic has undoubtedly cooled a little since the late 1930’s. Yet carbon dioxide levels were increasing and are supposed to have had a greater effect there than anywhere else in the world.
@Stark Dickflüssig
Perhaps you are not reading properly. The error appears to be in GHCN v3. Therefore any program reading that data will have that error. This has nothing to do with GISS.
The GISTEMP code itself has been replicated by clearclimatecode.org – including the switch to GHCN v3: http://clearclimatecode.org/ghcn-m-v3/
and the difference GHCNv3 made with respect to GHCNv2 is here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/V3vsV2/
where the high Arctic is seen to be *cooler* in the new version. How does that fit the conspiracy?
The big question is who found this and have they informed the authorities of their suspicion of fraud? If they haven’t why not?
And has anyone issued a press release? It might sound stupid, but unless someone tells the media they aren’t going to do anything.
PS It’s probably a fair bet that the Jan Mayen Island temperatures in my post above are a pretty good indication of the real pattern in Iceland, being only 350 miles NE of Iceland with only ocean between. Also, the island is within the Arctic Circle as shown on the map in that post. The warmer temperatures in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s certainly seem a reality.
Yes, many have noticed the Texas graphic was for december only, but that was not the main point of the post. So CAGW enthusiasts, how is that eternal drought in Texas doing.
http://www.real-science.com/aggie-joke-dessler-promises-texas-drought
Another reason the “Bright red” anomalies over the poles are basically meaningless is because when it is windy up there it is warmer. (I think it is the positive AO that is conducive to wind.) When it grows calmer the cold air settles and it gets colder. Wind “mixes” the air, and rather than forty below it is “only” thirty below.
If you want an idea of what wind does to sea ice up at the pole, check out the Navy “Sea Ice speed and drift 30 day animation,” at http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicespddrf_nowcast_anim30d.gif
In other words, when it is “only” thirty below, due to wind, the sea ice is crashing and smashing. Huge pressure ridges are getting piled up, and even in the darkest cold vast leads are opening up and exposing water to the arctic night, briefly, before swiftly freezing over to a thickness you could drive a car on, because, after all, it is thirty below.
Compare this situation with a calm, when it is ten degrees colder. No pressure ridges are built. No leads of open water are exposed. The ice remains nice and neat and flat, and is a layer of insulation which keeps the cold from increasing the formation of ice underneath much, despite the fact it is ten degrees colder.
I argue that more sea-ice is likely to form when it is thirty below and windy, than when it is forty below and calm.
However Hansen’s silly maps only show a crimson arctic, and silly people assume the crimson means less ice must be forming.
For those whinebags crying about the Texas heatwave not showing up on the map….. so what, it isn’t suppose to. All it did was return Texas’ trend to normal. We all know, or rather, should know the baseline period GISS picked was a rather anomalously cool period. Especially for Texas. Go here…. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/spot-the-anomalous-period/
Now, I’m know I’m asking a lot out of some of the commenters here (you know who you are), but try to apply this new found knowledge, and look at the actual temp graph of Iceland. Paul shouldn’t have to spell out every little detail for this. Knit pick all you wish. This is clearly more malfeasance on GISS’ part.
Paul! Great job! And congrats!
Pierre says: January 25, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Pierre, do you often go to your neighbor’s homes, accuse them of malfeasance and suggest burning down their house? Do your friends allow you to treat them this way? If not, then please refrain from coming onto this site and acting in such a disrespectful manner.
If you believe than the article is factually in error, please point out exactly which facts you think are wrong and provide reputable sources for the correct data.
JPY:
That’s assuming it’s even an error.
So far, I’ve seen more problems in the write up (misattribution of the “error” to GISS, using a December anomaly map to look for a July heat wave, etc.) than any evidence that GHCN messed up in their adjustment in Reykjavik, other than an unsourced statement supposedly made by the Iceland Met Office. I’ve looked and not found any similar claims on line.
I think it has been pretty widely known that NOAA has been fiddling with the NCDC database. I saw one site that showed month by month adjustments to older temperature records. The database has seen older temperatures adjusted colder each month of 2011. Every month they seem to go in and tweak older temperatures just a little bit colder in order to prevent the flattening recent raw data from reducing the “warming” trend. If today’s temperatures aren’t getting warmer, they can always “adjust” older temperatures colder … and they have been. Every month.
David says:
January 25, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Drought? What drought? It rained 4.25 inches last night at DFW. Set a record for the date and for the month as I understood. Lots of water standing in the fields…
You can see a less “adjusted” Alaska record on this page
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/
about halfway down the page.
When you look at the annual record, you’ll see that it’s all about the 1976 phase shift of the Arctic Oscillation; it has no correlation at all to the supposed upturn from carbon. In fact, the last decade has been regressing back toward the mean.
Pierre says: January 25, 2012 at 3:48 pm
The Texas Heat Wave plot is for July 2011, the “NASA GISS interactive plotter” shown on the WUWT Web page is for Dec. 2011. The only legal people that need to be brought are those required to permanently shut down the WUWT Web site for deliberately misinforming people.
Pierre. Please look in the mirror. I think you have a turd on your head.
Texas summer heat wave = weather, not climate.
Substitute 2010 in the URL for the interactive plotter and it shows Alaska for December a year ago to be a couple degrees cooler than the baseline, meaning it’s a whopping 12 or 13C above the year ago.
With the stories of the terrible winter they’re having there, it’s hard to see how it can be that warm.
I have hourly METAR data for all METAR-equipped Alaska airports for 12/2010 and 12/2011. If someone would tell me how they’d like them structured, I’ll format them and upload. They ought to show a lot higher for 2011, RIGHT?
JPY says:
January 25, 2012 at 4:19 pm
That was an awful lot of words to say, “I don’t know.” So, let’s try again:
What justification is given for a 3°C adjustment to historical temperatures? Answer (from your link): *silence*
What “replication” has been done? Answer (according to your link): flagrant manipulation of data using a methodology that gives a similar result. Replication in the context of science, means to recreate an experiment and obtain similar results. It does not mean to take extant data and recreate a graph. Again, curve-fitting =/= replication.
If you want to lie, by all means do so. But when someone ask you why you are lying, “Because science and webpage!” isn’t a valid justification.
The very first thing that pops into my head when I see maps like that is “Error, something is obviously wrong. Read data doesn’t look so stupid and wrong.” I just think the global warming argument is so sadly stupid… just read a geology textbook and WHAM! Carbon dioxide has been higher in the past and temperatures have certainly been higher. Argument over… move along, nothing to see here. Start making maps that make sense. Start seeing things in a positive light. Be happy. Be productive… enough pessimism. Enough doom and gloom. Enough.
Holy crap! NOAA, NCDC, GISS….. they all play on the same team and they all have the same goal. GISS is responsible for their product. If the malfeasance is for one, it is for all. Cry about the maps all anyone wishes.
It boils down to this. Iceland says their temps are such. NOAA/NCDC/GISS alters them to render as what was shown above. We can choose to believe those lying Icelanders or we can choose to believe the mathematical purists who know what the temps in Iceland really were. If we are to believe the lying Icelanders, then we must also question the temps rendered in other near-arctic and arctic locations as well; meaning the temperatures of places with thermometers as well as the majority of places without thermometers which GISS/NCDC/NOAA gives us. The lying Icelanders couldn’t possibly know what they are talking about because they only take the readings. They don’t know how to properly interpret the readings. We know this because the Texas map shown doesn’t properly reflect the anomalous heatwave (worst evuh!!!) Texas had this year. Or……
Or, it could be Paul and Anthony expected a little cerebral function from some of the various readers. (Most are still sharp as ever!) and that in spite of holding people’s hand most of the way there, they didn’t completely show all that could be shown. And, it is possible that the lying Icelanders aren’t really lying and that they are in a better position to tell us what their temps really were and are.
Yes, its scary when we have to think for ourselves. My condolences to the ones in which this is the first time.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 25, 2012 at 3:04 pm
As long as we are discussing GISS distortions….
There is a long history of using cartography to make things seem the way you think they ought to be seen.
‘How to Lie with Maps’ by Mark Monmonier is an interesting book.
http://www.markmonmonier.com/
In the case of these “climate” maps, I, and others have mentioned the need to use “equal area” maps. All one needs to know – here:
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/mapproj/mapproj_f.html
Blog discussions of the topic are not new. This one happened about 6 months before I had a DSL connection and began to read this stuff on-line.
http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/12/equal-area-projections/
While on Steve McIntyre’s CA site, the post is by Hu McCulloch.
James Keenan says:
January 25, 2012 at 4:55 pm
I’ve searched and can’t find any confirmation of your bizarre claim “that GHCN messed up in their adjustment of Reykjavik”. I think accusing other people of libel should be an actionable offence. You ought to at least apologise.
At some point, there has to be an accounting, in the Sheaksperian sense. So much tumult about so many lies. Heads shold role. To paraphrase Sheakspere, “First **** all the climatologists”
Thank God for Al Gore! If he hadn’t invented the internet, these pickpockets would rob us blind!
I wasn’t confident that the story about recent changes to Reykjavik in GHCN was accurate, given the messup here with showing December plots for Texas heatwaves etc. But I looked up the original GHCN V3 data. I have many on file – I looked at one from July 2011, Jan 10 2012, and the latest. For 1991 they were identical in all three:
620040300001991TAVG 110 W 220 W 180 W 130 W 680 W 940 W 1300 W 1100 W 770 W 470 W 20 W 130 W
No change there. The mean, weighted for days in month, is 5.07 °C
Doug Cotton Jan. 25th – You are right about Jan Mayen being a good comparison point for Iceland. NOAA’s Arctic Report Card for 2010 shows a temperature curve for 60-90 degrees north very similar to Jan Mayen graph of yours. Both show a warm peak at 1940 followed by cooling until 1970 and new warming thereafter. Records show that the Arctic as a whole really has been warming since the start of the twentieth century. What is warming it are warm North Atlantic currents (http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/arno-arrak.pdf), just as you suspect. It started suddenly at the turn of the century, after two thousand years of slow cooling. The warming itself was not accompanied by any increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide which rules out the greenhouse effect as its cause.
Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”.
I doubt they do. I rather suspect you made that up. But perhaps you can provide a link to the source of this claim.
[REPLY: By all means, ask for a citation, but do not EVER call a poster or commenter here a liar again. -REP]