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 –
Try that anomaly map shown with a 250km smoothing, and a polar projection, and see the red disappear.
Not really. Amplified warming for the region 60N – 90N shows up in every global data set. Eg the high latitude (60N – 82.5N) trend for UAH satellite record is 0.47C per decade. That’s more three times the rate of their global trend.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt – (decadal trends given at the bottom of the page)
Back in the mid-70’s winter weather at Prudhoe Alaska was pretty reliably around -35F with a 20kt wind blowing west to east. “Summer” weather was in the high 30’s to low 40’s with an occasional short burst to the upper 60’s. So the net warming effect is now it may be warming to only -30F. And the impact of this is likely to be….What? If you accept this it means that food production moves hundreds of KM north. This is a bad thing?
Watts, you ask “Texas is not red. WUWT?”
WUWT is that you messed up and plotted the December 2011 anomaly instead of the 2011 annual anomaly, as you claim. This is the annual map, and yes, Texas is dark orange.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2011&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=1212&year1=2011&year2=2011&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
crosspatch Jan. 25th — This so-called “adjustment” has been going on for years and contrary to your belief it is not well known. It shows up very clearly if you compare their temperature curves with satellite-measured temperatures. These have been available since December 1978 but neither NASA, nor NOAA, nor the Met Office recognize their existence. When you compare their temperature curves with satellite temperature curves you discover why: they all manufacture warming where none exists. The worst case is in the eighties and nineties that these guys say were the years of that “late twentieth century warming.” According to satellite observations there was no such warming. Satellites show that the real late warming did not start until the super El Nino of 1998 arrived, ten years after Hansen’s testimony to the Senate that warming had started and that we were the cause. I demonstrate graphically how they fake these temperature curves in figures 24, 27, and 29 of “What Warming?” – a book that has been available on Amazon.com since 2010. Get it for your institution or library if you don’t get it yourself.
Arno Arrak says: January 25, 2012 at 7:15 pm
“Doug Cotton Jan. 25th – You are right about Jan Mayen being a good comparison point for Iceland.”
Thanks Arno – I’ve now linked your paper on my Home page http://climate-change-theory.com
Alan Statham says:
January 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm
I can’t help with the quotes, but you can go here…… http://en.vedur.is/climatology/clim/nr/1213
And then you can see where their graphics says as much. Second graph down. Maybe, your doubts are misplaced.
It will be interesting to see what they show for January of 2012 versus January of 2011. I’m showing based on METAR temperatures a whopping 13C drop from January this year versus January last. This is just an average of the raw reported temperatures at ASOS/AWOS-equipped airports. It is not gridded or any other attempt made to infer temperatures across Alaska. It merely compares recorded temperatures from weather stations.
select avg(temp_air) from wx_metar_history where airport in (select airport from wx_metar where airport in (select icao from ais_airport where latitude > 51.013755 and latitude -170.15625 and longitude < -140.800781 and icao is not null and icao ”) group by airport) and time > ‘1-1-2011’ and time 51.013755 and latitude -170.15625 and longitude < -140.800781 and icao is not null and icao ”) group by airport) and time > ‘1-1-2012’ and time < '1-24-2012' ;
avg
———————-
1-1-2011 to 1-24-2011… -10.7673091418111338
1-1-2012 to 1-24-2012… -23.9249495893375301
[Moderator Asks: Is THIS what you wanted? -REP]
this post makes claims that deserve some scepticim.
we all know what that is.
looking at the period when the adjustment is made should
clue folks in.
Nick Stokes says:
January 25, 2012 at 6:55 pm :
Nick, being you have the data set from years ago, what was the temperature data for the period of 1927-1946?
DMI produced Greenlands historical temp data and the current warm period is certainly not out of bounds compared to fairly recent warm periods there. Nor exceptional.
Recent temperature patterns there as the rest of the world warmed?
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/greenland.pdf
I wil have to dig to see if I can find long term historical reconstructions that really show how unexceptional the current short warming is.
i saw this today: http://www.climatecentral.org/videos/web_features/nasa-finds-2011-ninth-warmest-year-on-record
makes sense to me. is it wrong?
steven mosher says:
January 25, 2012 at 8:32 pm
this post makes claims that deserve some scepticim.
we all know what that is.
looking at the period when the adjustment is made should
clue folks in.
============================================
Steve, you’ve got to follow the links to get the full story. Some are not yet as jaded as others, so certain documenting and referencing doesn’t occur to them as quickly as some of us. There really is, a good story here. You should look. I think a few clicks and you’d find it intriguing.
Camburn says: January 25, 2012 at 8:37 pm
“Nick, being you have the data set from years ago, what was the temperature data for the period of 1927-1946?”
Camburn,
Here’s the version from 14 July 2011. I’ve removed some unneeded chars. The numbers are monthly avg, in units 0.01°C.
1927 -170 140 330 180 640 990 1160 1100 760 420 240 180
1928 -60 -10 320 510 860 980 1260 1160 920 570 260 110
1929 260 330 610 510 640 950 1180 1050 700 220 130 160
1930 -100 160 -210 500 760 940 1110 1080 970 350 -150 230
1931 -20 -310 110 320 740 900 1160 1190 1010 460 270 40
1932 -30 540 330 80 840 1010 1230 1140 720 400 240 220
1933 170 -180 220 350 870 1090 1280 1140 970 420 460 -170
1934 100 210 10 400 500 1070 1220 1210 930 390 200 290
1935 260 -330 350 310 930 970 1070 1090 960 360 320 -10
1936 -320 -80 170 470 780 970 1320 1150 940 620 210 -230
1937 80 -160 -130 500 690 960 1160 1040 860 400 360 230
1938 10 180 200 470 600 920 1130 1060 940 490 170 200
1939 -150 130 360 500 870 1080 1300 1230 1180 740 150 160
1940 160 170 -20 300 760 970 1120 1010 710 630 130 230
1941 -30 -150 210 540 880 1150 1230 1150 1150 710 480 250
1942 160 190 270 360 770 970 1140 1130 790 260 410 190
1943 40 -90 150 290 500 990 1140 990 810 450 200 240
1944 -170 60 140 410 660 990 1300 1180 800 460 10 30
1945 -260 10 410 440 760 980 1190 1200 960 720 650 240 0
As a check, here’s the full line from the latest dataset for 1927.
620040300001927TAVG -170 0 140 0 330 0 180 0 640 0 990 0 1160 0 1100 0 760 0 420 0 240 0 180 0
The data is identical. GHCN almost never changes its numbers.
To put it politely:
It would seem that UCHN needs to re-examine the data that they have used.
And GISS needs to be aware of the revisions to data BEFORE they publish public temperature records.
Alan Statham says:
January 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm:
There has been a warming trend since 1800 @ur momisugly
http://en.vedur.is/climatology/clim/nr/1213
So we are supposed to get alarmed that the trend is continuing?
And the recent high temps are in no way abnormal within the channels of this trend.
When?…..will the AGW folks finally understand that the rate of warming during the late 20th century is NOT exceptional when looked at through the eyes of a person with 2 ounces of grey matter between their ears?
dana1981 says:
January 25, 2012 at 7:56 pm
“Watts, you ask “Texas is not red. WUWT?””
Nucitelli, any opinion about the real topic of the post, the Reykjavik meltdown? Is that a case of positive water vapor feedback?
@John F. Hultquist says: 1/25, 5:51 pm, RE: How to lie with maps.
I read that book maybe 15-20 years ago.
There are books known by many by there first lines. “Call me Ishmael.” “It was the best of time, it was the worst of times,…”, “In the Begining, …”, “Who is John Galt?”, “A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away… “, “Behind every man now alive stand thirty ghosts,..”
For me some memorable lines are:
“Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm … ” – Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galexy
“I always get the shakes before a drop.” – Starship Troopers.
and
“Not only is it easy to lie with maps — it is essential.” – How to Lie with maps.
Boy! that got my attention. It encapsulated the entire book into one sentence.
GHCN, NOAA, GISS, HadCru – where the data with its modification come from matters not. Hansen and Gore present the data as a bone fide, US government. scientifically reviewed, accurate description of what is going on. Their position is based on the long-term temperature profiles they publish, promote and portray as the best of the best. And they are able to discern, or have those able to do discern for them, what is reasonable and what is fabrication.
Hansen/Gore speak for the warmists and use the GISTemp profiles as their evidence. On a legal level you might look elsewhere for responsibility, but on a practical, taking-my-taxes basis, whatever group puts their stamp on the picture should be accountable. I doubt that the staff under Hansen are as happy as he is with what is presented, but that is the backside of having a salary. Ask anyone who doesn’t work only for himself what compromises the “bosses” require.
I suggest we encourage GISS/Hansen et al to adjust, adjust, adjust. The combination of excess enthusiasm for warming can only make the discrepancy worse. Already Hansen’s “C” scenario, in which CO2 stopped in Y2K, is the best match for the last 12 years. Not that he is able to admit it. But by 2015, will he be able to ignore the disconnect? Will Al? Or will they admit the disconnect, and blame/praise China for all the soot that has saved the planet?
I bet on “thank the Lord for small mercies” from the warmists. And maybe then the temps will be “readjusted” to show that the pre-cooling warming wasn’t so extreme, after all: thank the Lord, redux.
dana1981 says:
January 25, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Mr. Nucitelli:
There seems to be a large diversion of temperatures from GISS generated results verses Icelands Met Office results.
Would you care to comment on that? And why would GISS, as published, be more certain than Iceland’s core data as exibited by their own office?
One of these data sets is wrong. Maybe you can help us in decideing which one is correct.
Thank you.
Please see my blog about this: http://agbjarn.blog.is/blog/agbjarn/entry/1218545/
You may not understand all because it is in Icelandic 🙂
But see this:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/62004013000.gif
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/62004018000.gif
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/62004030000.gif
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/62004048000.gif
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/62004063000.gif
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/62004065000.gif
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/62004082000.gif
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/62004092000.gif
Reagrds
Agust
Iceland
So, I Google ‘The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error’ and get 4 hits on WUWT and Paul’s homepage. Strangely I don’t get any hits on a source for the quote. And neither on WUWT or Paul’s home page is any link given to the source of this quote. So why should anyone take this supposed statement from the Iceland met office seriously without any means that they actually said it, are being quoted in context, no caveats left out, all that basic stuff. In Journalism 101, let alone Investigative Journalism 101, this would be a ‘FAIL, Resubmit after you have done the work properly’.
Yet read through the comments here. Apart from those who point out the obvious fact that the Texas Heat-wave won’t show up in an anomaly graph for winter, just about every respondent has lapped this up.
Are you all so totally, utterly and completely lacking in credulity that when a piece of atrociously sloppy and unprofessional journalism like this is put forward your only reaction, characterised by Rogelio first comment – ‘When are the legal people going to be brought into this?’, is the best that you can manage? Have you ever considered that Paul’s entire piece might be a great big pile of Hogs Droppings?
If Paul wants to suggest that the Iceland Met Office said something, he can’t just claim it. He has to show it. Just one little link, showing context, who said it etc. Not that hard really. Just basic journalism.
Stephen Rasey
A quote that got my attention, many years ago was from a bit of fiction. Robert Heinlein, author of Starship Troopers as well. In ‘Time Enough For Love’, his life story of Lazasus Long, The Senior, the oldest man alive who has lived for several thousand years, he includes two sections of the saying from LL – really a way for Robert to pontificate a bit (his postumous work was called ‘Grumbles from the Grave’ after all)
LL opines on the art of Artistic Lying. And his First way to Lie Artistically – ‘Tell The Truth! But Not All Of It!’
Ain’t the blogosphere such a fantastic medium for Partial Truth Telling.
Thank you Agust:
I think I will print out your blog and have my neighbor translate this for me.
If I have read this post correctly – its a bit unclear – Anthony has put some stuff at the beginning then Paul’s cross-post follows. I have commented about Pauls article. However the preliminary section appears to be Anthony’s work.
Therefore, when Anthony puts up a comment about the Texas SUMMER heatwave using an anomaly plot for the NH WINTER, the failure to spot that the plots shown wouldn’t show the heatwave because they are looking at the wrong half of the year, can we assume that the error in doing so (as pointed out by a number of commenters here) can be laid at Anthony’s feet. Could it be that the fact that the default settings for the GISS calculator when you first go to the site are for December only have anything to do with it? Surely if you wanted to highlight the Texas heat wave one would change the default settings to do a plot for those months of the year? Not December.
Again, basic journalism. Checking sources, understanding what you are reporting. Busting your Balls to make sure what you report is as accurate a reflection of the facts as possible.
Journalism 101 really!
Glenn:
And not even important to the topic which is Iceland temps and why the dramatic change in ACTUAL observed temperatures?