Skip to content

Iceland Adjustments Spread To Norway And Russia

February 28, 2012
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

imageimage

                                      Before                                                                              After

h/t Anything is Possible

We have already seen how GHCN recently introduced a tranche of temperature adjustments for most stations in Iceland and Greenland that had the effect of cooling the past and/or warming the present, thereby creating a false warming trend. Further investigation shows that similar adjustments have been made for many other stations, ranging from the Shetland Islands through Northern Norway and onto much of Russian arctic coast.

Ostrov Dikson, an island just off the Russian coast in the Kara Sea, is one of these and the adjustments, as shown above, have resulted in 2011 being about half a degree warmer than any other year on record. Previously both 1943 and 1945 were warmer.

 

So far I have found similar changes at the following stations :-

Russia

Malye Karmaku

Narjan Mar

Ostrov Dikson

Murmansk

Kandalaksha

Dudinka

 

Norway

Jan Mayen Island

Karasjok

 

Shetland Islands

Lerwick

 

The old GISS records can still be accessed here, and can be compared with the new version here.

According to GHCN, these adjustments, on a global scale, are insignificant. However, all the stations are inside or close to the Arctic Circle, and as there are no other stations between them and the North Pole they are used to estimate temperatures across a large swathe of the Arctic, from Nuuk in Greenland, 51o West, to Dudinka 86o East, a sweep of 137 degrees. More than a third of the Arctic is potentially affected by these adjustments.

According to GISS, the Arctic is the fastest warming place on the planet, even though they have no actual temperature data for most of it. Their map shows just how little coverage they have, even allowing for a 250 km projection.

 

image

 

Now it appears that even the little data they have is corrupted. Meanwhile GHCN continue to prevaricate and Hansen plays with his pink crayon.

About these ads
14 Comments leave one →
  1. Anything is possible permalink
    February 28, 2012 9:51 pm

    “According to GHCN, these adjustments, on a global scale, are insignificant”

    They would say that, wouldn’t they……

    However, as you go back in time, there is less global coverage, and a fewer number of stations. The fewer number of stations you have, the greater the affect on the overall record of each adjustment will be.

    For example : Adjust the temperatures of 100 stations by 1C in a dataset comprising of 10,000 stations, and you alter the overall average by 0.01C.

    Do the same thing in a dataset comprising of 5,000 stations, and you alter it by 0.02C.

    I’m willing to bet GCHN “forgot” to take that into account.

  2. February 29, 2012 3:21 pm

    “According to GHCN, these adjustments, on a global scale, are insignificant.”

    Possibly, but why are they making these adjustments? Homogenisation etc, while suspect in many cases (in my opinion), at least has some justification for it, and is based on knowledge of station moves and so on. What is the justification for making ANY adjustment to ancient readings, when there’s no knowledge of any possible reasons? Why just adjust one year in say 1932, as I have seen? it’s insupportable fiddling, and it (almost) always has the same result – an increase in the rate of warming.

    • February 29, 2012 6:13 pm

      The GHCN adjustment algorithm is supposed to spot sudden changes that are not occurring at nearby stations. In other words things like station moves.

      Clearly in these cases, far from eliminating errors the algorithm has created them. Although this may have been unintentional at the start, I believe that both GHCN and GISS are rapidly compromising themselves by not removing these errors, even though they now know about them.

  3. Lars P. permalink
    March 1, 2012 9:59 pm

    The adjustments show a reduced natural variability and a continuous warming trend. So why would they do it?

  4. lolwot permalink
    March 1, 2012 10:01 pm

    How come you aren’t finding any of the cooling adjustments, just the warming ones?

    Are you finding them but not reporting them? Are you deliberately only reporting the warming adjustments to paint a narrative?

    We know there are about as many cooling adjustments as warming ones, yet you only seem to find the warming ones…

  5. david permalink
    March 2, 2012 11:38 am

    lolwot permalink

    March 1, 2012 10:01 pm

    How come you aren’t finding any of the cooling adjustments, just the warming ones?

    Are you finding them but not reporting them? Are you deliberately only reporting the warming adjustments to paint a narrative?

    We know there are about as many cooling adjustments as warming ones, yet you only seem to find the warming ones…

    ======================================================

    If you cool the older high T, and warm the present, you get an even greater increased warming trend, but can still say, “I made as many cooling adjustments as I did warming.

  6. March 3, 2012 2:57 am

    The real question is: Does GHCN realise whatever they do to warm the recent past, by cooling the late 19th C and early 20th C by up to 2°C (2.1°C in the case of San Francisco) they are proving the existence of the Little Ice Age without any need to cite temperature proxies?

  7. climatefraudinvestigator permalink
    March 6, 2012 3:43 pm

    If GHCN are modifying station data, what has this got to do with GISS? You go on to say that GISS has very little polar data and link to the previous GISS v2 data. I’m not sure what you are saying.

    In summary, the adjustments to station data certainly deserve to be examined thoroughly and this sort of adjustment to the most sensitive polar data adds to my suspicions.

    climatefraudinvestigator.

    • March 6, 2012 5:06 pm

      As you say, it is GHCN who are making the adjustments, but it is these adjusted figures that GISS go on to use.

      Up until December 2011, GISS were still using GHCN Version 2, which did not have these adjustments. Since then they have moved to GHCN Version 3.1, which does.

      • climatefraudinvestigator permalink
        March 6, 2012 5:30 pm

        Paul, thanks for clarifying that, I’m just turning my attention to the main records of historical temperatures, what a can of worms.

        Another two questions:

        Is it true to say that NOAA use some of the USHCN data?

        Did CRU lose all the 80′s data or just the 90′s Chinese data?

        climatefraudinvestigator.

      • March 7, 2012 10:29 am

        NOAA actually produce the USHCN and GHCN data, and yes they use both for their global temperature calculation.

        As for CRU, I’m not sure if even Phil Jones knows what he’s lost!!

        BTW you might have a look at this analysis in Kansas, which shows just how unreliable surface temperature records are.

        http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/temperature-trends-in-kansas/

Trackbacks

  1. the climate fix is on…lying, still losing | pindanpost

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: