Skip to content

Real Climate Fail

February 12, 2015

By Paul Homewood  




Real Climate have just issued their attempt to disprove my allegations about temperature adjustments in the Arctic.

The only piece of evidence they can offer is this plot of temperatures at Svalbard Airport, which compares GISS temperatures with a composite series developed by Oyvind Nordli.




The graph only begins in 1980, and consequently totally misses the point that the adjustments made at GHCN reduced temperatures from around the 1940’s to the 1960’s.


Temperature records at Svalbard Airport only started in 1977, and there is no other long running on the island, so any long term comparisons cannot be made with GISS.


However, we can check other nearby locations.




Below are the GHCN plots for those stations with long running records going back to pre 1940.








At three of the five, we see the tell tale cooling of the 1930’s through to 60’s. The other two sites are unadjusted. ( It is hard to see on the graph, but the adjustments at Vardo all took place in the 19thC).

Both Vardo and Murmansk were shown as unadjusted on my original post. (It is also worth noting that both these exhibit the same cyclical pattern, with 1940’s temperatures up around current levels). 


Meanwhile, my original list is still up on my first post on the subject, detailing the nineteen stations where temperature differentials since the 1940’s had been adjusted to show more warming.

I am still waiting for anyone to show that this list is wrong.

  1. February 12, 2015 1:33 pm

    Reblogged this on Real Science.

  2. February 12, 2015 2:11 pm

    If indeed the adjustments to the surface temperature records are easily justified; where is this shown? So far, all I have seen is cherry-picking, non-explanations, and a sprinkling of ad hom.

    Records are being massively altered; cooling trends magically transformed into warming trends – it should be simple to demonstrate the rationale for such wholesale alterations of the raw data. In other words, there must be something massively wrong with the raw data. If there is something massively wrong; it should be easy to explain, and it should be easy to explain without resorting to ad hom attacks on the person(s) asking the question.

    Years ago, just after Climategate 1.0, I thought to myself, “how tough can this be to verify Man-Made Global Warming? Just check the thermometer readings….”

    Ha. How naive of me.

    • A C Osborn permalink
      February 12, 2015 6:17 pm

      They point to their “Papers” on how correct their “Adjustments are, but their adjustments are not even in the same ball park as their papers say it should be.
      They then prove their point by running their Code to show that it doesn’t make any difference, but we have seen their code before, it doesn’t matter what you put in you get almost the same answers out.
      We now no longer believe anything they say because they have been caught lying and exaggerating so many times in the past.

  3. February 12, 2015 2:15 pm

    Thanks, Paul, for your efforts to uncover adjustments to temperature data.

    When Climategate emails surfaced in Nov 2009, nobody could imaging the full extent to which science had been modified to direct society toward UN’s Agenda 21.

  4. Anto permalink
    February 12, 2015 2:22 pm

    The reason why the alarmists are doomed is because they all thought that people were stupid. Just because Joe Public doesn’t have a Mensa-level IQ does not mean he can be fooled forever. Global warming causes more snow? He doesn’t buy it and never has.

    The Emperor’s New Clothes; The Boy Who Cried Wolf; The Elephant That No One Has Seen. History’s parables indicate that the masses can be fooled for a while, but eventually they see through repeated lies and ridiculous claims, regardless of who is making them.

    People don’t miss the irony of activists holding global warming conferences while it’s snowing. They don’t miss the fact that this year’s summer seems much like all of the summers they remember, despite the fact that they remember being told it should be very much hotter by now. People don’t buy it. It’s not going to be long before politicians realise that there aren’t any votes in it, either. Then, the funding will stop.

    Perhaps our comfortable, middle-class greenies could then turn their attention to some real environmental problems:

  5. February 12, 2015 2:43 pm

    I saw their article and saw the rubbish they were printing and just thought “it’s going to be a load of crap, why am I wasting my time here?”

    Thanks for proving my judgement was correct!

  6. Brad permalink
    February 12, 2015 3:27 pm

    Read the RC article and the comments.
    The misdirection is stunningly stupid.
    I’ve heard better put-downs in elementary school…
    You have definitely struck a nerve.

  7. February 12, 2015 4:58 pm

    Realclimate. is desperately trying to keep up the morale of the faithful

    • February 12, 2015 10:21 pm

      A response starting in 1977 when the Iceland ice years were in the 60’s, and the previous warming was in the 40s, should be a morale dumper. Perhaps the wevsite needs to be changed to UnReal Climate. Gavin has no response, cause Paul used Gavin’s own current data. Now that itnpublic and archived, he cannot change it again, either.This on top of Gavin forgetting to mention in his PR there was only a 38% chance 2014 was GISS warmest ever. Poor Gavin.

  8. Keith permalink
    February 12, 2015 8:09 pm

    I think “Steve Goddard” makes a good point. It is time for skeptics to show a bit of soildarity here (although that might be an idea from the left). As he and Paul are pointing out (and as have Steve McIntyre, Ken in Ken’s Kingdom, Jennifer Marohasy), you cannot claim homogenisation if the majority of the stations have been changed. The idea of homogenisation is that you use a group of stations (which should be relevant and close) to check for outliers. But as practised by the keepers of the temperature records, there is wholesale change as opposed to a search for outliers.

    Also, as pointed out by “Steve” and Paul, there are huge areas where extrapolation is used rather than real data, in order to calculate a global temperature.

    Keep up the pressure, well played. Even though you are facing Orwellian responses.

  9. Newsel permalink
    February 12, 2015 10:35 pm

    Facts speak louder than rhetoric:

    To echo most of the comments: “Illegitimi non carborundum”.

  10. tom0mason permalink
    February 13, 2015 2:10 am

    Paul you have them routed!
    Their reply is less than pathetic. Adjustment to temperature records are, to often, erroneous, unwarranted and misapplied. All evidence points to these advocates building a system at the behest of the UN-IPCC to provide so sort of ‘proof’ of human induced global warming. They are wrong, and you have publically shown them to be wrong.
    Well done!

    The voice of the UN-IPCC, and the advocates of human induced ‘climate change’ (nee AGW) are in a panic as the curtain falls and CO2 is dismissed as innocent.

    I await the day I say “Fair-well global warming BS, good riddence CO2 levy on fuel use.”

  11. Brian H permalink
    February 13, 2015 10:03 am

    Try, “Fare-well … good riddance …”, and I’m with you.

  12. Brian H permalink
    February 13, 2015 10:06 am

    PS, also “too often”. Spellun mattars, especially when it changes meanings. (;p

    • tom0mason permalink
      February 14, 2015 7:06 am

      Thank-you for you comments – they help.
      I try my best but obviously not good enough for some.
      Between my poor typing ability, sight, dyslexia, and few other problems it takes a while for me to compose the little I do write. So if you could forgive the slip-ups in grammmar and spulling I will thank you in advance.
      If you are (like me) someone that finds some things totally unacceptable and irritate too much then please ignore my comments. However I will endeavor to persist at this blog commenting.

  13. manicbeancounter permalink
    March 3, 2015 11:46 pm

    I have had a more detailed look at this Real Climate post.
    The nearest weather station to Svarlbard Luft is Isfjord Radio (about 50km away), with data from 1912 to 1976.
    The warming in the raw data is slightly larger for 1917 to 1938, than for Svalbard from 1976 to 2006.
    I find the Isfjord Radio weather station amazing. We have “raw” temperature data available from 1912, despite the author of the Real Climate article saying it was only constructed in 1934. Further it was destroyed by the British in late 1941, to prevent it falling into enemy hands. No humans collated weather data on Spitzbergen until 1946, yet we have continous raw data right the way through the period.


  1. RealClimate’s Mis-directions on Arctic Temperatures | ManicBeancounter

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: