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 –
Agust Bjarnason says:
January 25, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Please see my blog about this: http://agbjarn.blog.is/blog/agbjarn/entry/1218545/
You may not understand all because it is in Icelandic 🙂
=============================================
Google translate does a fair job. Thanks Agust! Let me know what part of this might be incorrect!
“Does this mean that NASA-Gizur to “correct” temperature curve for Reykjavik before it is used for the global temperature curve because they consider it contaminated the urban effects (urban heat island effect)?
Hardly can it be, because this correction is in the wrong direction. They would rather have the lower curve in recent decades, is not it?
Now I just quit trying to understand … Hopefully, some readers may explain the matter.”
Glenn Tamblyn says:
January 25, 2012 at 11:07 pm
If I have read this post correctly ……
========================================
Maybe you did to your low understanding, maybe you didn’t. Here’s the graphic which corroborates the post…… second one down. http://en.vedur.is/climatology/clim/nr/1213
If you want to obsess over Texas, go here…… http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/spot-the-anomalous-period/
Paying attention 101 really….
Glenn,
I agree that the comment on the Texas heat wave being found missing in a December plot does not lend credibility to the poster. I also agree that there should be a link to the alleged quote from the Iceland MET office, and that if such a link or other reference can not be made it should be removed.
However, the main part of the post is about Reykjavik temperatures being adjusted down by several degrees in the early part of the record. Journalism 101 calls for following that part too, don’t you think? What is the justification used for that type of adjustment?
Comparison of the fourth link provided by Agust Bjarnason above (first link below) shows that the adjustments detected by Paul Homewood are just the difference between the GHCN quality controlled unadjusted data, and the quality controlled homogeneity adjusted data. The method used for that adjustment is detailed in the peer reviewed literature by Menne and Williams, 2009 (second link below). NOAA quote clearly indicates that they make this adjustment, and cites the paper in which it is detailed (third link below).
It takes real gall to identify an adjustment clearly identified and explained by NOAA, and conclude from the fact of the adjustment alone that some sort of subterfuge has taken place. At a minimum, to show the adjustments are an error (let alone subterfuge) it would be necessary to show either that the algorithm detailed by Menne and Williams is faulty (ie, likely to give incorrect results) or that while the algorithm itself is well grounded, unusual features in this particular case have led it to give an erroneous result. Of course, that would take effort. In lieu of actual analysis, therefore, WUWT and its regular commenters have decided to skip the trial and proceed straight to the sentencing.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/6/62004030000.gif
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008JCLI2263.1
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php?show=homogeneity_adjustment
Tom Curtis,
the Menne et.al. paper describes an algorithm for automatic detection of changepoints in a timeseries. It specifically states that it compares two synchronous timeseries with the purpose of detecting anomalies that give artificial changes in level and trend. It also includes an automated correction of the time series in case such finding is made. I have just browsed the Menne papare, but I could not find any discussion of applicability with regard to how geographically (or spatially, if you like) close the two time series need to be for the comparison to be valid.
The question then remains, which timeseries were used to make the adjustments of Reykjavik?
I can assure you that the data by The Icelandic Met Office http://en.vedur.is/ is generally very reliable. The graph “Hitafar í Reykjavík 1866-2009” in my blog http://agbjarn.blog.is/blog/agbjarn/entry/1218545/ is from their web, http://www.vedur.is/vedur/frodleikur/greinar/nr/1801. This article is written by Trausti Jonsson, a well known meteorologist who is actively blogging here: http://trj.blog.is/. Maybe Anthony would like to contact him. His Email can be found here: http://www.vedur.is/um-vi/starfsfolk/
The graph shows the yearly average, 10 year average and 30 year average temperature in Reykjavik for the period 1866 to 2009. This graph is probably as accurate as it can be.
Regards
Agust
Iceland
http://agbjarn.blog.is/blog/agbjarn/
Babsy says:
January 25, 2012 at 5:11 pm
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…
———————————————————————————————–
Yes Sir Babsy, and I am not a CAGW advocate, and so I provided a link to show yet another disaster prediction going underwater. (I guess you missed the link)
“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 “
Going back to a report published in Nov of 2000 ( http://www.smhi.se/hfa_coord/nordklim/old/rapport0900.pdf ) (graph #5), the published linear temperature trend for the Reykjavik area from 1890-1999 was .05C per decade, or 0.55C increase from 1890-1999. If the data hasn’t been adjusted or tampered with since 2000, how come the GISS data above now shows ~1.0C of warming over the same time period? Also, look at figure 20 for Stykkisholmur. The temperature profile clearly shows the 1940s as the warmest period in the 1900s.
I’ve looked more into this Reykjavik story. You don’t have any quarrel with GHCN. I’ve checked back to V2 in 2009; there just isn’t any significant change. The top plot of the NOAA fig that Agust linked is pretty directly from GHCN. And they are consistent with the Iceland Met plot. For example, Paul Homewood says on his blog:
“According to the Iceland Met Office, 1939 and 1941 were the two hottest years of the 20thC in Reykjavik at 5.90 and 5.91C respectively”
GHCN pretty much agrees; 1939 was 6.29 and 1941 6.31.
So when people complain that the original data has been changed, that isn’t true. These are the accepted sources and they agree.
So the issue, if any, is with the GISS adjusted and the NOAA adjusted. These BTW are quite different and have different roles. AFAIK, the NOAA adjusted is not used in major indices. GISS does use their adjusted data in the GISS index.
But the purpose of adjusting is misunderstood. It isn’t an attempt to say that the station readings should have been something different, in terms of a measurement of that exact place. When station readings are used in an index, they are used as representing some region. It isn’t the only source for information about that region; other stations are also a guide. The adjustment is called homogenization; it’s the process whereby that other info is taken into account. As a representative of the region, the station is corrected when it appears to be out of line.
Of course cynics say that the purpose is to increase the trend. But that was looked into two years ago when there was a similar fuss about Darwin. That was about NOAA adjustments, and a histogram of trend modifications showed that the effect on trend could be large, but was almost equally likely to go up or down.
James Sexton says:
January 25, 2012 at 5:48 pm
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.
————————————————————————————
Exactly James, We constanly see this lowering the past, raising the recent in blink plots from around the globe. They all do drink from the same trough, and there is no excuse, and only the gullible would think it innocent.
If anyone skipped this post (Ágúst Bjarnason says: January 26, 2012 at 12:34 am)
go back and click on it, do google translate) Despite the Texas gaff, the main point of the post is spot on.
It is interesting that the GISS map shows it as being so “warm” up in the Bering Straits in December, but when you look back at the maps of how the arctic ice built up this fall and winter, the Bering Straits were the one place with more ice than normal.
There are some rather confused comments on this thread.
It would help if people followed the links to Paul Homewood’s blog and read his sequence of posts carefully before commenting.
The main issue is with the adjustments to the raw data introduced by GHCN.
The raw data for Iceland shows a consistent picture of warming from about 1900-1940, then cooling to about 1980, then warming to now, with 1940s temperatures similar to (in some cases higher than) today.
In the adjusted GHCN data, large adjustments are introduced that cool the past, completely changing this picture.
For Reykjavik, the GHCN adjustment reaches a maximum of 2.2 degrees in 1940, and is about 0.6 degrees earlier in the century.
All this can be checked by downloading the adjusted and unadjusted data from the GHCN website.
This matters because it is the GHCN adjusted data that is used by GISS.
Yet another case of “extraordinary claims require extra fraud in any evidence”. (Sigh) You’d have thought they’d have sussed by now that this would be noticed by somebody, but perhaps imagining they have a direct line to God’s Own Truth makes them think they’re somehow immune.
–> Another excellent book everyone here should read is Darrell Huff’s “How to Lie with Statistics”. It celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2004, and apparently has never been out of print because so many stats lecturers recommend it to their students. I’ts only a slim paperback, so won’t break your finances, and you’ll never regret reading it. I’ve had my copy since the long, hot summer of ’76.
Anders Valland says: January 26, 2012 at 1:14 am
“The question then remains, which timeseries were used to make the adjustments of Reykjavik?”
There are 6 GHCN stations in Iceland that have been reporting since 2009. GHCN classifies three of these as non-urban (Vestmannaeyja, Stykkisholmur and Hoen i Hornafirdi). They would very likely have been used.
There are also Jan Mayen and some stations in Eastern Greenland. You can see them with this Google Maps tool, which lets you color them according to reporting period, rural status etc.
lol Anthony, very funny.
Because the December temperature map from GISS should show the summer heatwave. You’re right! It doesn’t! WUWT!??! Looks like NASA are fudging the data by using December data on the December graph. Somebody call McIntyre!
But your absolute gem in this post is probably here:
“Funny how in the anomaly map above, with the great Texas Heat Wave this year, Texas is not red. WUWT?
It seems to be all in the adjustments. Cooling the past helps the slope of the trend:”
Hilarious! 😀 So suppressing the past temperatures makes the latest anomalies smaller? Brilliant! Doesn’t it give you a little thrill of power to think that people BELIEVE that?
@ur momisugly Keith Gordon – what has Iceland’s Met Office got to say about it
They tell me they knew nothing about these adjustments until I pointed them out. They sound none too pleased and have now raised them with GHCN.They also say they have no intention of altering their own records as they totally reject the adjustments.
@JPY – But I suppose it’s easier to blame GISS than look into why GHCN v3 (produced by NOAA) might be different.
If you check the earlier posts you will see that I make it quite clear they are GHCN adjustments. However GISS have compounded matters by reducing historical temperatures so that current ones are accurate.
NOAA were asked a week ago to explain the errors, but are still investigating.
@ur momisugly slow to follow – Paul – do you have a source or reference for the Iceland Met Office comment?
Both the Met Office temperatures and their comments have been emailed to me. If Anthony feels it appropriate to publish them, I would ask them if they agree with that.
Anders Valland, that information is provided under the section “a. Selection of neighbors and formulation of difference series” of Menne and Williams. (p 1072) Of course, it would be necessary to apply this process to Rejkavik and surrounding stations in the GHCN to determine which stations where used. I do not know of an independent listing.
@ur momisugly Isonomia – The big question is who found this and have they informed the authorities of their suspicion of fraud? If they haven’t why not?
At the moment GHCN are investigating this. Once I get a reply we can decide the next step.
Nick Stokes is sowing confusion.
Firstly he talks about “people complain that the original data has been changed”. Nobody is claiming this. The issue is with the adjusted data which feeds from GHCN into GISS. Nice straw man Nick.
Secondly he does not explain which numbers he is quoting.
He is quoting the unadjusted numbers, about which there is no issue.
Here are the adjusted numbers for 1935-1940 as they were in GHCN version v3.0.0 in November 2011:
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 0
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
Notice that these are the same as the unadjusted numbers Nick quotes.
Then in November 2011 GHCN switched to version v3.1.0, the version currently used. Here are the adjusted numbers for the same period in that version:
1935 187 -403 277 237 857 897 997 1017 887 287 247 -83
1936 -393 -153 97 397 707 897 1247 1077 867 547 137 -303
1937 7 -233 -203 427 617 887 1087 967 787 327 287 157
1938 -63 107 127 397 527 847 1057 987 867 417 97 127
1939 -223 57 138 278 648 858 1078 1008 958 518 -72 -62
1940 -62 -52 -242 78 538 748 898 788 488 408 -92 8
At the beginning of this period there is a downward adjustment of 0.73.
In March 1939 this adjustment suddenly changes to 2.22.
This adjustment can’t be explained as a homogeneity correction because other icelandic stations show a warm summer in 1939.
This looks like an error either in the GHCN adjustment algorithm or in its coding.
I reported this to GHCN nine days ago.
Tom Curtis says:
January 26, 2012 at 12:24 am
“It takes real gall to identify an adjustment clearly identified and explained by NOAA, and conclude from the fact of the adjustment alone that some sort of subterfuge has taken place. At a minimum, to show the adjustments are an error (let alone subterfuge) it would be necessary to show either that the algorithm detailed by Menne and Williams is faulty (ie, likely to give incorrect results) or that while the algorithm itself is well grounded, unusual features in this particular case have led it to give an erroneous result”
Menne and Williams have written a classification algorithm. Do you want to posit that their classifier is 100% perfect? That would be a tall statement. I know of no classifier that has zero percent false classifications. Maybe Reykjavik is simply one case where the machine seriously botched it. You say
“At a minimum, to show the adjustments are an error (let alone subterfuge) it would be necessary to show ” – Sorry, it is not our responsibility to prove that the MW algorithm is capable of misclassifications. It would be the responsibility of MW to prove that misclassifications cannot occur. You don’t say “in dubio pro algorithm”, that’s not how it works. Paul Homewood and other bloggers have already shown that the MW algorithm botched it, simply by pointing at this ridiculous adjustment.
An analogy: The X-Ray machine at the airport says you have TNT in your suitcase. You deny it; and the border agents hold that their machine is really well designed and that you must be a terrorist. You offer to open the suitcase to show that you don’t have TNT (the equivalent to the thermometer readings) but they say: “No, you have to prove that our machine is capable of errors. We already looked into your suitcase and the machine says you have TNT in there.”
The MW algorithm might need an improvement.
@James Baldwin Keenan – 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.
The anomaly maps were added by Anthony, presumably to highlight the “Arctic Warming”. If you check the earlier links, you will see I have made it quite clear that the errors stem from GHCN, but GISS have compounded the problem by revising all their temperatures downwards to avoid having to artificially increase current ones.
The GHCN adjustments can be seen here.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/noaa-dont-believe-the-iceland-met-office/
Nick Stokes says:
January 26, 2012 at 12:41 am
“Of course cynics say that the purpose is to increase the trend. But that was looked into two years ago when there was a similar fuss about Darwin. That was about NOAA adjustments, and a histogram of trend modifications showed that the effect on trend could be large, but was almost equally likely to go up or down.”
The strength of the trend is not important for the CAGW movement. What’s important for their theory is that most of the warming takes place after 1950, and that the last few years are far warmer than, say, 1934. And that’s the direction Hansen aims at with each GISS revision – making the past less wavy, especially reducing the warming trend in the beginning of the 20th century.
I grant you and your kind that it is a subtle form of manipulation, not at all ham-fisted. You have thought of the histogram, and made sure the adjustments look balanced. That’s an important consideration when manipulating data – is the suspension of disbelief still working. Does it still smell like science.
You do that well.
@Nick Stokes – 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:
Nick, As I understand it the adjustments arose in the original Version 3.0, which I believe was introduced last May. However, GISS did not update from Version 2 till Dec19th 2011, so it has only recently become apparent.
Therefore your July 2011 records will show the same as today’s.
@ur momisugly Alan Statham – 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.
See my previous comment. I will forward their email to Anthony so he can verify. I will also ask for their agreement for it to be made public.