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 –
Tom Curtis says:
“At that point you can apply a decision tree.
How about this in the decision tree.
1) If GISS publicly acknowledges the inadvertent error of their algorithm and corrects the corrupted adjusted data set(s) in a timely manner then maybe it was an inadvertent mistake afterall.
2) If GISS doesn’t publicly acknowledge the error and doesn’t correct the adjusted data sets, then it probably was NOT an accident.
If (2) comes to pass, it would be in my opinion be because they believe that only a relatively few dedicated blog readers will ever know about the “corrections” that have been made. The MSM will never cover such a story but will in all likelihood accept as accurate any reports that are based on information gleaned from the corrupted, adjusted, data sets.
Tom, perhaps I should have said ‘arise from a valid homogeneity correction’.
It’s worth looking at what the literature says on Iceland temperatures.
Hanna et al, 2004,
http://bprc.osu.edu/~jbox/pubs/Hanna_et_al_Int_J_Clim_2004.pdf
“The 1930s was the warmest decade of the 20th century in Iceland”
“The 1990s was definitely not the warmest decade of the 20th century in
Iceland, in contrast to the Northern Hemisphere land average (Houghton et al., 2001). It was cooler than the 1930s by 0.45 °C for Reykjavik, 0.41 °C for Stykkisholmur and 0.16 °C for Teigarhorn”
There’s also a paper on sea surface temperature
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3933.1
“a cold latenineteenth-century, rapid warming around the 1920s, an overall warm peak circa 1940, cooling until an “icy”period circa 1970, followed by warming.”
“peak SSTs typically being attained around 1940; and cooling thereafter until the 1970s, followed once again by warming—but not generally back up to the level of the 1930s/1940s warm period.”
A couple observations.
Many posts have attempted to ridicule Anthony for not seeing a summer heat signature in a December plot. Making the observation and asking the question in fine. If a mistake was made, Anthony is usually quick to admit it and correct it, unlike Hansen, Mann, etc. Do you have a reply Anthony?
Second, many posts have been quick to blow off the size of the adjustments because studies have shown they balance out. This may be true globally, but remember there are very few northern temperature sites. A large upward temperature adjustment in a northern site averaged with few other northern sites would have a much greater effect than a temperate or tropical site with a large downward adjustment averaged with many other temperate or tropical sites. The sine of the N matters a great deal.
That should be “The size of the N matters a great deral”. Sorry.
Tom Curtis says:
January 26, 2012 at 7:05 am
“Paul Homewood, it is entirely possible that the sudden temperature changes in 1939 and 1941 confused the algorithm.”
Confused “the algorithm”? Really? Can you precisely state “the algorithm”? Why was it “confused”?
Tom Curtis:
What would be interesting would be to see maps of temperatures using non-adjusted data with a long term mean average as the base.
The short periods that are used now with the adjustments etc do not honestly reflect the actual climatic temperature changes well at all.
Why all the fuss? When I was a student and we carried out experiments then, if the experiment worked, we did not adjust the data. If, on the other hand, the results of our experiments did not agree with the relevant theory we realised that we had made a mess of the experiment and would either do it again or, if there was not enough time, make suitable “corrections” to the data so that the results were in reasonable agreement with the theory.
Everyone knows that CAGW is true and therefore if the data does not agree with the theory it obviously needs to be adjusted. The only difference is that when I was a student we were cleverer than climate scientists because we were careful not to get caught!
JPY says:
January 25, 2012 at 3:17 pm
“…So given that the post itself points to GHCN v3 as being the source of the change (and according to the Iceland met office, this change is an error), what do you expect the GISTEMP algorithm to do with it?…”
I would expect GISS to go over to GHCN and ask for an explanation for these changes, and make a determination that they are reasonable, and explain why or why not they have used the data. The current practice suggests someone – or even the whole group – needs to be fired because they seem, prima facie, irresponsible.
@Tom Curtis and Nick Stokes
It is only when you get to the end of the full decision tree (rather than the schematic above) that that there can be any plausible suggestion of wrong doing by GISS.
I agree totally with what Tom says. I am waiting for GHCN to explain what they have done. As the same sort of changes appear at 7 out of 8 Iceland stations, it suggests their methodology is wrong.
I am not suggesting this has been done deliberately, but I am keen that they get to the bottom of this and eventually get their records right, which is why I wanted to bring this into the open.
I am more than happy to work through this with you and/or Nick. To this end, I am happy for Anthony to pass on my email address to you, so we can work together.
As promised I have downloaded the Iceland Met figures. They can be seen here.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/iceland-met-office-temperatures-for-reykjavik/
@ur momisugly Agust Bjarnson
Thanks for your reference to Greenland. Four out of five stations there exhibit the same sort of adjustments.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/ghcn-say-it-cant-be-that-cold-in-greenland/
Paul Homewood:
The important thing in all of this is to find out if the new adjusted data set is corrupted by the apparant poor methodology.
Anyone can make errors, that is who we are.
Is the apparant error confined to only Iceland or is manifest throughout the data set as a whole?
Thank you for bringing this to our and GHCN’s attention.
“Many posts have attempted to ridicule Anthony for not seeing a summer heat signature in a December plot. Making the observation and asking the question in fine. If a mistake was made, Anthony is usually quick to admit it and correct it, unlike Hansen, Mann, etc. Do you have a reply Anthony?”
Was the caveat in comments about media portayal there in the original – I can’t recall?
Note: 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.
P.S. I’m about to add the supporting data and emails from the Icelandic Met Service, sent via Paul Homewood, to the body of the post.
Paul Homewood says:
January 26, 2012 at 9:30 am
@Tom Curtis and Nick Stokes
It is only when you get to the end of the full decision tree (rather than the schematic above) that that there can be any plausible suggestion of wrong doing by GISS.
—
I get it — It wasn’t GISS’s fault – it was “The Algorithm” ™ that done it!! [heh]
By the way, regarding “the suggestion of wrong doing by GISS” – here’s an analogy.
Let’s suppose Oscar Meyer unknowingly used tainted meat in it’s hot dogs, and as a result people who purchased the hot dogs got sick. Do you think Oscar Meyer could absolve itself of blame by saying “it was the farmer’s fault for selling us the bad meat!”??
So, GISS is providing the world a climate “product” much like the tainted hot dogs – but we musn’t place blame GISS since they only process “the meat” using “The Algorithm” ™.
It is actually very revealing to see how this discussion has developed. Some points, which may not have been clear initially, have been clarified and it seems we have a pretty good basis to move on from.
We have established that the unadjusted GHCN figures are the same as the Iceland figures and that a large adjustment has been made. It is now up to GHCN to prove that this is justified.
This is how good science should work.
I would ask one question :-
If these discrepancies had not been spotted and queried with GHCN, would they ever have been addressed?
At some point in my life, my fervent desire would be to see a visual with all the known or available original, unadulterated, temperature records from around the world averaged together in a single graphic. Disregard station changes, homogenations, spatial corrections, missing data points, etc., etc., etc. I readily admit It probably would not be a true approximation of temperature reality. Then show a seperate graphic with those temperatures adjusted for humidity, where available. Then let those who adjust the data do it stepwise. Wouldn’t that be informational.
I meant this comment “(The way it was portrayed in media, you’d think it was a permanent condition).”
For everybody who is insisting that the GHCN adjustments are automatically faulty, I refer you to this historgram of the trends in adjustments for the GHCN and CRU, first linked by Nick Stokes above:
http://www.gilest.ro/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/dist1.png
If you will look at it, you will see the most frequent adjustment is a very slight cooling adjustment (ie, one that reduces warming trends). Small adjustments are more frequent than large adjustments, and except for the smallest adjustments (where cooling adjustment predominate) are of about the same frequency whether warming or cooling. Overall, this means the adjustments are close to neutral with respect to the global trend. It also means that prima facie the adjustment algorithm is sound.
If you were to automatically exclude warming adjustments from the algorithm as some are in effect proposing, the result would be to bias the algorithm to ensure cooling trends.
So, rather than rushing to judgement again, you would do well to wait on a detailed examination of the case. Where there, for example, significant changes in the siting or locale of the site in Reykjavik in 1939 and 1941? Was there any sudden change in traffic at Reykjavik Airport that might have resulted in biasing the reading due to warming from engines and prop wash? Or was there some well defined climate event that would explain the large shifts in temperature over that period? Without enquiry, you do not know, and your simply assuming the algorithm is wrong in its application shows your “skepticism” is non-existent.
As it happens, I know for a fact that the second suggestion above (increased traffic at the airport) is in fact what happened. I do not know that it was the cause of the unusual temperatures, but to assume that the sudden influx of aircraft at Reykjavik Airport due to its use as a staging post between the US and Britain during WW2, and also as a base for antisubmarine operations had no effect without any bother of inquiry is absurd.
Tom Curtis @ur momisugly 10:47
What this may show is that the adjustments, whether cooling or warming, is the issue.
Even with increased traffic at the airport, the surrounding temp metrics would not/should not have been affected.
This is about trying to have accurate temperature metrics used for climate no matter where they are located. A data set should be “uniformally” correct, not correct in some spots, cold in other, and warm in others. To use such a set as I described for any type of accurate research would/should be absurb.
Ever heard of the rounding effect concerning interest rates etc? While a very small per item thing, it can and does amount to huge finacial gains/losses that do not average out.
I think the same applies to the current data set in question.
Anyone/everyone makes errors. Best to find the error and then correct them. That will result in sounder science and more confidence in the merics.
Gosh:
Anyone/everyone makes erros. Best to find the error and then correct it.
That will result in sounder science and more confidence in the metrics.
See, I just made some errors in typing and hopefully corrected them.
Tom Curtis says
“As it happens, I know for a fact that the second suggestion above (increased traffic at the airport) is in fact what happened. I do not know that it was the cause of the unusual temperatures, but to assume that the sudden influx of aircraft at Reykjavik Airport due to its use as a staging post between the US and Britain during WW2, and also as a base for antisubmarine operations had no effect without any bother of inquiry is absurd.”
The US didn’t enter the war until Dec 7. 1941. The warm spikes were 1939 and 1941…. there was a strong cooling trend from 1942-1945 in the data. From 1942-45 should have been the WARM spikes if it was due to “aircraft in my opinion.
Anthony – so definitely not changing the body of a post as a direct consequence of commenters pointing out errors (such as has been claimed that Skeptical Science do). I think we can all recognize that you made a mistake and have corrected it, no big deal. Perhaps that same courtesy could be extended to others?
REPLY: Thanks Louise. The difference here is that SkS did their “corrections” long after the post and comments were made, with no notice of any kind. They were caught out and called out for doing so, and have been unapologetic. If I did such things without notices, months or years after the fact, I’d rightly be called out on it too. Making mistakes and correcting them in the open for all to see while the discussion is live is one thing, “correcting” them months/years later with no notice is something else entirely. – Anthony
This has got to be one of the greatest examples of the general climate discussion I’ve ever seen.
Paul and Anthony give us a post which shows some real problems with the way data is treated and temps being represented to the world. Now, clearly, the post could have been cleaned up and aesthetically better. But, this doesn’t change the base premise. The temps GISS is reporting the to world clearly isn’t anything like what the actual temps are.
Cue the merchants of confusion! We can bicker about Iceland’s Met office actually quoted, but does that change the fact the data and temps are being altered? WTF difference does it make, Alan?
Next up, people rush to the defense of GISS!! “It was the GHCN what dunnit!!! Not GISS!!!” Turns out that they’re both jacking with the data, but again, WTF difference does it make? Are we to believe GISS doesn’t know GHCN data is jacked? Of course they know, and approve. But, even if they didn’t, is shirking the responsibility to vet the data an excuse? Either way is outrageous and unacceptable. Nations and governing bodies are making decisions based on what GISS spews. GISS apologists are worse scumbags than the GISS historical revisionists!
Lastly, please someone start hand-waving about Texas again. Does the map alter the data? Does it change the premise one iota?
There are a bunch of well educated, morally corrupt, intellectually vacant, people on this thread.
Alcheson, Britain entered the war in 1939, and immediately began sourcing a large portion of their aircraft demands from the US, not to mention a lot of other goods. They also immediately began anti-submarine operations from out of Iceland from 1940. As it happens, the homogeniety adjustment for 1941 to the end of the war is larger than that for 1939. Pure coincidence, of course /sarc.
From Wikipedia:
“The first flight from the airport area was September 3, 1919, with the takeoff of an Avro 504, the first aeroplane in Iceland. Until 1937 there were experiments with airline operations in Vatnsmýri but with the foundation of Iceland’s oldest airline, Flugfélag Akureyrar, currently operating as Icelandair in Akureyri in 1938, operations began in the area and in March 1940 scheduled flights started taking off when Flugfélag Akureyrar moved its hub from Akureyri to Reykjavík (and changing its name to Flugfélag Íslands)
The current airport was built by the British military during World War II on the south coast of Reykjavík peninsula, then a small town. The military began construction in October 1940 at which time the airport still only had a grass surface. The Black Watch regiment constructed the first runway constructing the piste over sunken oil barrels. On July 6, 1946, the British handed the airport operation over to the Icelandic government and since then it has been operated by the Icelandic Civil Aviation Authority (now named Flugstoðir).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjav%C3%ADk_Airport#History
Now, are you going to tell me on WUWT that commencing flight operations in 1938, constructing a sealed runway (of a sort) in 1940 cannot have effected temperature measurements? Well, so much for the surface stations project then.
I don’t have a dog in this hunt. The problem could be with the temperature adjustment, or the problem could be related to the history of the station, and the algorithm has worked properly. You cannot find that out just by looking at the statistics of nearby stations (ie, performing a manual homogeneity adjustment) as the UHCN is more or less restricted to doing. You also have to look at the actual details of the station history. You also have to look at specific historic climate events in the period so see if they can explain the temperature changes. You absolutely cannot find the correct conclusion to this issue by observing that there has been an adjustment and concluding that therefore the adjustment introduces an error.
“Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
– George Orwell’s 1984