Massive Adjustments At Every Icelandic Station (And Guess Which Way)
February 21, 2015
By Paul Homewood
As requested, I have had a look at all of the GHCN stations in Iceland, to see if we have the same pattern of adjustments.
Let’s start by comparing the GHCN Adjusted figures with the official IMO data for Reykjavik:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/find_station.cgi?dt=1&ds=12&name=teigar&world_map.x=333&world_map.y=64
http://en.vedur.is/climatology/data/
We see clearly how GHCN has adjusted down temperatures prior to 1975, since when the numbers tally. The adjustment varies during the earlier years, reaching a maximum of 2.0C in 1940.
There are seven other Icelandic stations on GHCN, though not all current. The charts below, that GHCN supply, all show a similar pattern of cooling the period leading up to the sea ice years of the 1960’s and 70’s.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/21/massive-adjustments-at-every-icelandic-station-and-guess-which-way/
Ron C. permalink
February 21, 2015 1:48 pm
What I don’t get is the disrespect of the adjusters for the reality of micro climates. BEST acknowledges that some 30% of US records show a cooling trend over the last 100 years. Why can’t reported cooling, or even trivial warming be true?
I did a study of the CRN top rated US surface stations. Most remarkable about them is the extensive local climate diversity that appears when station sites are relatively free of urban heat sources. 35% (8 of 23) of the stations reported cooling over the century. Indeed, if we remove the 8 warmest records, the rate flips from +0.16°C to -0.14°C. –
In order to respect the intrinsic quality of temperatures, I calculated monthly slopes for each station, and combined them for station trends.
See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/20/analysis-of-23-top-qualty-us-surface-stations-shows-insignificant-warming-only-0-16c-rise-per-century/#sthash.NqWG4SbF.dpuf
In the Quest for the mythical GMST, these records have to be homogenized, and also weighted for grid coverage, resulting in cooling being removed as counter to the overall trend.
Once a researcher believes that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures, and since CO2 keeps rising, then temperatures must continue to rise, cooling is not an option. In fact 2015 dare not be cooler than 2014.
......
A C Osborn permalink
February 21, 2015 7:53 pm
Paul, I took a look at the NCDC Annual Global Analysis, the one that showed 1997 warmer than 2014.
Well it is really tricky trying to follow which years are where in the high temps stakes due to NCDC messing around with the Base Lines.
The analysis starts in 1997 and it uses a standard 30 year baseline of 1961-1990, they don’t actually quote what the baseline is but make the very serious mistake of quoting the Actual Annual Temperature of 62.45 F as well as the Anomaly 0f 0.73 which provides the baseline as 62.45 – 0.73 + 61.72.
For 1998 till 2005 they use a running baseline of 1880 – 1 year before current, so it is always a moving target. Except for 2000 where they provide no Annual” summary at all.
They state in the 1998 summary that it was warmer than 1997, but you can’t work out the actual temperature.
in 2006 they change the Baseline to the 20th Century ie 1901-2000, but provide the temp as 59.6 F later rounded off to 57 F Note the 4.7 F drop in baseline from 1997. But also change away from their standard graphs and start using the “Coloured Globe” style anomalies and Tables of Hotttest Years.
If they had not left the 1997 summary in place it would have been very difficult to identify that 4.7 degree baseline shift and which were REALLY the hottest in the latset decades.
AS we know the real 1930/40s temperatures have been “Quality Adjusted” out of sight.
Here is the summary as far as I can see it.
Year Baseline Temp Anomaly BaseLine Temp [ Note below 1997 - 1999 had global avg temps of over 62 degrees F. Then they stopped reporting Global Avg temps till 2006. When they began reporting Global avg temps again, they reported numbers of 57-58 degrees F. Why a roughly 4 degree drop??? ]
1997 1961-1990 62.45 0.73 61.72
1998 1880-1997 62.8 1.26 61.54
1999 1880-1998 62.28 0.74 61.54
2000 1880-1999
2001 1880-2000 0.92
2002 1880-2001 1.01
2003 1880-2002 1.01
2004 1880-2003 0.97
2005 1880-2004 1.04
2006 1901-2000 57.87 0.97 56.9
2007 1901-2000 57.99 0.99 57
2008 1901-2000 57.88 0.88 57
2009 1901-2000 58.01 1.01 57
2010 1901-2000 58.12 1.12 57
2011 1880-2010 57.92 0.92 57
2012 1880-2010 58.03 1.03 57
2013 1880-2010 58.12 1.12 57
2014 1880-2010 58.24 1.24 57
Sorry the format is messed up as the Excel data does not paste very well in to here. |
