Skip to content

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:




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.










  1. 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:

    In the Quest for the mythical GMST, these records have to 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.

    • February 21, 2015 3:24 pm

      You might be onto something there. i think I have heard of 2 phenomenon, contradicting the idea that climate at a specific local place remains constant
      1. Archaelogists have mentioned sites that seemed to have varying climates over only hundreds of year.
      2. In the 2005 in Australia water shortage it seemed that it was partly due to rainfall shifting a bit over the decades since the reservoirs were built.
      – So your idea that a microclimate might similarly shift over to makes sense. A straight scientist should takes the measurements blindly without thinking too much, but I can imagine someone saying “that can’t be right that the last 2 Marches have been X degrees colder than ‘normal’ so must be an instrument error so I’ll put in some corrections”

  2. February 21, 2015 2:26 pm

    “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth. ― Friedrich Nietzsche

    Climatologists in 2015 and NASA in 1975 followed Nietzsche’s advice on Manipulation of Data & People

    Precise experimental data from 1975 measurements of noble gases in mineral separates of the Allende meteorite (University of Chicago) showed unequivocally that primordial He accompanied only “strange” xenon (Xe-2), not “normal” xenon (Xe-1) in material that formed the meteorite.

    Here are the interpretations offered:

    1. University of Chicago claimed super-heavy element fission in the meteorite.

    2. University of Missouri claimed that primordial He and Xe-2 came from the outer layer, and Xe-1 from the iron-rich interior, of the supernova that birthed the solar system.

    3. Rice University claimed that inter-stellar dust grains carried Xe-2 into the solar system.

    4. Harvard University claimed that a nearby supernova injected Xe-2 into an otherwise homogeneous cloud of hydrogen that was forming the solar system.

    ― Friedrich Nietzsche

  3. ducdorleans permalink
    February 21, 2015 3:01 pm

    hi Paul …

    thanks for all the trouble and work you put in this wreck …

    I also thought yesterpost’s graphs did not do real justice … I therefore started with the data myself in excel …

    but then I saw that you did also …

    maybe this one can help you … feel free to do what you want with it, or send me some remarks if necessary …!111&authkey=!ACFew4OF967rgh4&ithint=file%2cxls

  4. Don permalink
    February 21, 2015 6:58 pm

    Getting rid of that 1940’s blip, one station at a time.

  5. 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
    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.

  6. Ello permalink
    February 22, 2015 11:04 am

    Here is an interview with Lord Monckton:

    Here is the report Mockton referred to, published in science bulletin:

    Click to access Why_models_run_hot__results_from_an_irreducibly_simple_climate_model_2_.pdf


  1. Better a pleb than a denier! | Wolsten

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: