Arctic Temperature Data From CLIMAS
By Paul Homewood
h/t Josik
http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/
The CLIMAS (Climate information access system) was set up to provide climate data for high latitudes, although it does not seem to have been updated since 2000.
The project was a joint effort from, amongst others, the Max Planck Institute, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center and St Petersburg University.
The data they provide includes monthly temperature data from 28 weather stations around the Arctic. Checks at Jan Mayen Island and Nuuk confirm that these tally with the raw GHCN Version 2 data, which I used in my earlier analysis.
For instance, Jan Mayen.
http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Temper/tempGl_menu.htm
GISS Version 2
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/
Now compare with the new adjusted version at GISS.
GISS Version 3
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
The new GISS temperatures all 1.1C cooler than the CLIMAS set for 1924/5.
The CLIMAS system also gives graphing. (Bear in mind this only runs to 2000).
Just taking three at random, Godthaab Nuuk (Greenland), Jan Mayen (Norway) and Akureyri (Iceland).
All show the 1940’s spike, at least as high as anything prior to 2000. They also show the big cooling in the 1960’s and 70’s, but, in addition, they show other abrupt changes, such as the big ups and downs around 1940. Such rapid changes in the Arctic are well known to specialists in this field.
Now compare with the current GISS version of the temperature record.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
,
The CLIMAS temperature database, which was created by the Arctic & Antarctic Research Insitute in St Petersburg, is apparently good enough for Arctic climate research but not good enough for GISS.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Reblogged this on eliquidassets and commented:
Why does data have to be manipulated show warming? C(Lie)mate change.
Nice one.
“Why does data have to be manipulated TO show warming” ?
Because its the only way they can support their hypothesis. 🙂
I can not open the links to NASA as given above.
Wille Börlin Sweden
Neither can I!!
You can get the Version 2 menu here
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/
Just select station
Then Version 3
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
You need to go to drop down box, and select GHCN V3. (GISS Homog is after they allow for UHI)
I’ll amend the post
Thanks
Paul
Paul,
Fascinating.
These adjustments are enormous – what can possibly justify them? If a data-set contains errors requiring adjustments of this magnitude, the data should be properly thrown out. And to make it all more laughable, the adjustments are referred to as quality control!
If this were all fiction, no one would believe it.
Paul, that is a really great find, well done.
Let’s see what excuses they come up with this time.
I know they will ask this, do they provide a graph for the whole area?
Notice that all the GISS graphs have an obvious break-point in 1998.
The data after this is obviously reading high. Why hasn’t it been adjusted downwards?
And again, the very obvious attempt to squash the 1940’s peak as well.
How inconvenient is that Wigley peak, hey 🙂
Thanks, Paul.
GISS must have very stringent criteria about data. They like it well-done.
I am new to your site and find it a great source of information the public needs to correct the misconceptions now prevalent in society. But a complex subject like this one must be simplified to be communicated to a more general audience. That is what I want to do. With that in mind, a few questions:
[a] Recent posts concentrate on data manipulation by NASA/GISS (and perhaps others). Can you list the various phenomena GISS corrects for? I’m aware of UHI: the others?
[b] You say that satellite data is the clearest data available: can you tell me where to find this data?
[c] Simplification also means orienting on a few/single measurement statistic. Is global average/mean temperature a valid stat to focus on? Or, do you have another candidate?
You do a great service by publicizing the inaccuracies being published by otherwise reputable scientific orgs in the service of Global Warming (which by now deserves to be capitalized). I hope you’ll continue in this vein and I intend to use information you provide to better educate elected officials and the public about the false nature of widespread alarm about Global Warming.
Thank you for your work.
Fritz
Fritz Mehrtens
Lieutenant Colonel, USA-Ret
Irvine , CA- USA
To move forward, we must prepare the way.
a) GISS only adjust for UHI. However, they use GHCN data which is already adjusted as part of the homogenisation process, in theory to correct for non climatic bias, such as station moves.
b) There are two sources of satellite data, which measures the lower troposphere.
c) The concept of a “global temperature” has long been debated. Many would see it is meaningless, even if we could measure it.
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/index.html
Keep it up. Do not give up. Also make sure you download ALL the raw data before they wipe it out
Calling Stever Mosher, calling Steve Mosher….come in Steve, can you hear us???? GISS needs more cover flak, NOW! Your last sortie failed its objective.
Steve, WHERE ARE YOU???
(Yes, sarc-off)
Happy Valentines Day to everyone, regardless of your stance in life.
I don’t see the point of introducing CLIMAS. The data you have shown are the same as the numbers shown on GHCN V3 unadjusted, within rounding error. And the GISS numbers are the same as GHCN V3 adjusted. Here is the GHCN plot. It’s just another way of saying that, gosh, sometimes adjustment increases the trend.
It helps to confirm that the actual data .
Gosh, invariably adjustment increases the trend. Strange that eh Nick?
No. For 30+ year trends (>359 months adjusted data), 764 GHCN stations had increased trends on adjustment, 433 had lower trend, each on whole of life. 764 gives ample cherry picking room.
Nick
I presume these are your figures. Have NCDC issued any official summary of this sort?
Paul,
Yes, they are just the count of the pink and cyan markers in that gadget. I’m not aware of any NCDC summary.
30 year trends Ha Ha. 1985 -2015 and we are talking pre & post 1940.
Can you provide a list of those 433 stations so that we can start checking just how much they were changed compared to the ones that were increased?
“Can you provide a list of those 433 stations”
I provided the visualisation here, showing them in pink and cyan. You can click on any station for details, including the amount of trend change. If you want a summary picture, these histograms provide it.
They are 30+ years trends, not 30. They are the whole life trends, as shown in the GHCN plots. 360 actual months of data (gaps allowed) is the minimum data requirement.
That’ll be a no then.
As they say where I come from “Aye that’ll be right Jimmy”
I provided the visualisation here, except it doesn’t
The top “all yellow” secton works, but the section with other colours doesn’t.
You just have to make some choices.
Paul showed part of the Arctic with the markings here.
Nick, if this was being done CORRECTLY adjustment should reduce the trend account for UHI effects not increase it. Which is pretty much the “Skeptic” argument. Its not that adjustments per say are wrong. Its that all adjustments seem to increase the warming trend whilst ignoring valid scientific work about UHI, which should make the adjustments reduce the trend.
(This UHI effect which climate scientists can’t measure but is mentioned on pretty much every weather report and you can measure its effect using your simple car thermometer by a few degrees… when driving from town to countryside).
The next argument is that the use of gridded squares and homogenisation, takes warmer city based thermometers, then uses this increased trend to overwrite correct data in rural sites.
I think I would weight my trust most in Russian, Norwegian and Icelandic Arctic Researchers. They live there and have been navigating all over it for a few centuries. I note that Russia is busy renewing and expanding its large ice breaker fleet. Why would they do this?:
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/OEWatch/201405/Russia_09.html
http://thebricspost.com/russia-readies-worlds-largest-nuclear-icebreaker/#.VOCoCy7QPQs
Canada’s also to replace its fleet with bigger icebreakers, although if the left gets in, they may change this into a fleet of outrigger canoes with parasols.
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/rfgcc-ccgfr-eng.html
Putin and his Russia is getting more and more aggressive.
If they build a boat like this it is certainly planned to ( primarily ) have a military use……….
Wille B.