Skip to content

Icelandic Met Office Sells Out To Gavin

November 21, 2016

By Paul Homewood 


Reposted from Tony Heller at Real Science: 



This is a huge story.  We are closing the noose on NASA climate fraud.

The Canberra Times has an article today attacking Senator Roberts over a letter he sent questioning the adjustments NASA (i.e. GHCN) has made in Iceland. Senator Roberts asked Gavin to explain his adjustments, and Gavin responded with an insult. Totally unacceptable behavior for a public servant.





The article quoted Truasti Jónsson saying the adjustments were all good.

In an email, Truasti Jonsoon, senior meteorologist with a specialty in historical climatology at the Icelandic Meteorological Office, told Senator Roberts that the temperature “adjustments” are “quite sound”.

NASA chief slaps down climate sceptic senator Malcolm Roberts: ‘You hold a number of misconceptions’


Four years ago, Paul Homewood contacted the same Truasti Jónsson at the Icelandic Met Office about the adjustments GHCN was doing to the Icelandic temperature record, and got this response, saying that the Met Office rejected the adjustments some of which were grossly in error. (Also note that the author of the Canberra Times article spelled Jónsson’s name wrong.)

From: Trausti Jónsson
To: paul homewood
Cc: Halldór Björnsson
Sent: Monday, 23 January 2012, 17:40
Subject: Re: monthly temperatures

Hi Paul.
We have sent a questions to the GHCN database regarding this and they will look into the problem. Regarding your questions:

a) Were the Iceland Met Office aware that these adjustments are being made?
No we were not aware of this.

b) Has the Met Office been advised of the reasons for them?
No, but we are asking for the reasons

c) Does the Met Office accept that their own temperature data is in error, and that the corrections applied by GHCN are both valid and of the correct value? If so, why?
The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik but not quite as bad for the other stations. But we will have a better look. We do not accept these “corrections”.

d) Does the Met Office intend to modify their own temperature records in line with GHCN?

No changes have been made in the Stykkisholmur series since about 1970, the Reykjavík and Akureyri series that I sent you have been slightly adjusted for major relocations and changes in observing hours. Because of the observing hour changes, values that where published before 1924 in Reykjavík and before 1928 in Akureyri  are not compatible with the later calculation practices. For other stations in Iceland values published before 1956 are incompatible with later values except at stations that observed 8 times per day (but the differences are usually small). The linked paper outlines these problems (in English):Climatological1960.pdf

The monthly publication Vedrattan 1924 to 1997 (in Icelandic) is available at:

and earlier data (in Icelandic and Danish – with a summary in French) at:

Monthly data from all stations from 1961 onwards :

Best wishes,
Trausti J.

Originally Posted at : Another GISS miss, this time in Iceland | Watts Up With That?



In a 2015 article by Cristopher Booker at the UK Telegraph, Jónsson was amazed to see how GHCN had made the cold of the 1970’s disappear in Iceland.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever – Telegraph


The graph below shows how NASA altered the data at Reykjavik in 2014, as captured by Paul Homewood.



Raw Version 2014 Adjusted Version


Trausti appears to have “changed his mind” about this, just like Chief Justice Roberts and Director Comey did.

The 1930’s-1940’s were very warm in that region, from Eastern Greenland to Norway. The glaciers of Eastern Greenland and Norway were melting very quickly and faced the possibility of catastrophic collapse. It was clearly much warmer in 1939 than it is now.



17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier


Frank Lansner also provided a more detailed reference of how Arctic data has been adjusted.

Every single one of the stations in the region has had the past cooled via “adjustments”. These adjustments are absurd, just like they were four years ago. Perhaps part of the adjustment at Vestmannaeyjar was justifiable, but taken as a whole the adjustments have no validity, just as Trausti said four years ago, before he changed his mind.




  1. metoak permalink
    November 21, 2016 7:03 pm

    Paul, I hope you know in your head and in your soul what a great public service you are performing. God’s Speed, Colleague

  2. Keitho permalink
    November 21, 2016 7:16 pm

    We are being lied to by Gavin and the gang. This is so frustrating and there seems to be no way of setting the record straight.

  3. Athelstan permalink
    November 21, 2016 7:35 pm

    When I hear ‘hottest evah’ I close down.

    Crikey, the shit that has gone down, the pusillanimity, the fixed T data sets, leads on to only draw one conclusion; it’s all fucking lies and more BS pscience. Yeah for sure gavin is a persistently devious charlatan but in rank – I dunno if he’s right at the bottom of the dung heap, for, among the beetles rolling the shit – the competition is so fierce.

  4. A C Osborn permalink
    November 21, 2016 7:39 pm

    Paul, have you considered re-emailing Trausti Jónsson again to confirm the story in the Canberra times?
    Seeing as they could not even get his name right it does make you wonder about the rest.

  5. November 21, 2016 8:21 pm

    Schmidt appears to be skating on thin ice by lashing out at politicians, unless he’s already decided to quit – or invite dismissal – when Trump takes over.

  6. November 21, 2016 8:32 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    The noose on NASA climate fraud certainly tightening…

  7. November 21, 2016 9:11 pm

    So Trausti agreed to the changes. Did he provide any further details of how these gross adjustments are justified?

  8. Broadlands permalink
    November 21, 2016 9:32 pm

    It is more than fascinating that the monthly temperature adjustments are almost always lowered in a seasonal manner with the winter months being lowered the most. It has happened in the US, at de Bilt in the Netherlands and at Stykkishólmu, Iceland.

    At Stykkishólmu the annual average temperatures for both 1933 and 1939 were lowered sufficiently from the Smithsonian’s World Weather Records to make 2010 turn out to be it’s warmest year on record. No wonder Herr Gavin wouldn’t answer. He’s known to use the ad hominem answer..and move on.

  9. Robin Edwards permalink
    November 21, 2016 10:22 pm

    On 10 Feb 2015 Trausti Jonsonn emailed me in response to something I sent him regarding the “adjustments”.

    Here’s a portion of his email:

    Dear G. Robin Edwards.

    I have a long time ago stopped being irritated by the adjustments made by GISS on the Icelandic temperature series. And I don’t believe that their work is done with any malingnant purpose in mind. They are just blind or ignorant about the reality of the details in the information that they are destroying with their dangerous methods. I have no time nor interest in finding out exactly what they are doing – but I can clearly see the effect.

    With luck this sort of technical lying by GISS will reap a just rewards in a few months. We shall have to wait and see. Incidentally Trausti’s email seems to be well after his alleged acceptance of the “adjustments”. I don’t understand this.

  10. November 22, 2016 12:16 am

    I’m past the stage of feeling angry with those like Schmidt – I’m now just really looking forward to having the truth revealed so I can how close my hunches about what has been going on are.

    OK, I fully expect some of those involved to go to prison – but that’s just the way the law has got to act. But I’ve no sympathy at all for those involved.

  11. Scott permalink
    November 22, 2016 12:26 am

    Gavin, et. al. are continually exposed as fraud’s but no consequences ever seem to occur?
    No one is fired, suspended, warned.
    Let’s all hope that with the new POTUS – DJT will put the right people and mechanisms in place to expose this horrible fraud, once and for all.
    The “Lefts” Scientists…..need an intervention.

    • November 22, 2016 1:04 pm

      Indications are that President-Elect Donald John Trump is already at work on the subject. There are rumblings about making significant (and highly needed) changes in the “civil service” system. There needs to be a mechanism for rewarding based on merit and firing based on lack of merit. These sorts of shenanigans frost him. I look for a mass exodus by some of these birds. Maybe they can find an Arctic ice floe by that time on which to sit and commiserate with the polar bears.

      The incoming governor of WV has already had a phone conversation about restarting the coal industry with Mr. Trump.

  12. November 22, 2016 6:24 am

    Anyone with “raw” data from Iceland (or anywhere) should keep hold of it.

  13. Tim Hammond permalink
    November 22, 2016 9:03 am

    It is very difficult to see how this is anything other than pure fraud. I can understand adjusting the data from one station if it diverges significantly from say 4-5 other, reliable stations that experience the same weather and which all agree with each other. But where is the better data from that is being used to adjust all these Icelandic stations? And since there is plenty of other, indirect evidence for the temperatures recorded, how do they justify it?

    I have always hesitated to call fraud, but this surely is?

  14. Anders Valland permalink
    November 22, 2016 1:07 pm

    if you have one outlier and 4-5 good stations, why would you adjust the outlier? The sound thing to do would be to drop the outlier and make do with the rest, without adjustment.

    I wonder why adjustments are needed at all? Why is it necessary to align stations with each other after a move? The only thing you achieve is to introduce the notion of a “true” temperature, while risking the loss of true signal.

    SInce everyone seems obsessed with trends, it would seem to be better to use the raw data and compute trends for all available stations for all contigous periods and then have a go at figuring if there is an overall trend. I am aware of the fact that the aggregated “global average” makes no sense physically, but still if one is interested in trends it should be possible to extract those without aligning stations and so on.

    What really troubles me is when all this is mixed up with algorithms to produce “data” points where none have been physically recorded, i.e. infilling of records. That is the real bollocks in this case, and is very much part of the constant adjustment of past records.

  15. November 22, 2016 2:33 pm

    I must agree with Anders, the homogenising process always seems to remove hot years from the past records. That seems to be its main function: have never seen any justification for the fiddling with data.

  16. November 25, 2016 12:52 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: