Skip to content

Iceland’s Sea Ice Years Adjusted Away

November 21, 2016

By Paul Homewood 


One further thing to add to Tony Heller’s post about the Icelandic temperature adjustments.


In January 2012, Trausti Jonsson emailed this to me:


In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing – and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency. In the questions above the year 1965 is mentioned twice. It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.

I have been working for more than 25 years in the field of historical climatology and have been guilty of eager overadjustments in the past as well as other data handling crimes. But as I have lived through these sudden large climatic shifts I know that they are very real.

I might issue an "official" statement but you can refer/use the answers above as you like.


Yet when we look at the adjustments made by GHCN, we find this is exactly what they have done:









We can see this more clearly if we focus in on Akureyri (see graph below). Note the sharp drop in temperatures between 1964 and 1966, on the top graph of unadjusted temperatures (red). This is what Trausti was referring to, and it was a real climatic event.

Temperatures went lower than they had been since the early 1920s.

Yet after adjustment the is no more than a small drop in temperatures, which appear no different to many other years in the 1940s and 50s. 




The net effect of these adjustments is to downgrade the warm years of the 1930s and 40s, which is also helped by an extra batch of adjustments around 1940.  


For some reason, Trausti now feels these adjustments are justified, and that presumably the sea ice years never happened.

  1. Svend Ferdinandsen permalink
    November 21, 2016 8:32 pm

    It seems that Iceland keeps its own measurements.

    • Broadlands permalink
      November 21, 2016 10:17 pm

      Svend… Yes… and these are the data that show a change.. As I wrote at another site…

      “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.”

      Check 2010 at that site (5.3°C) and compare it with the 1933 or 1939 World Weather Records. The Icelandic records only go back to 1949 so they don’t have to post them?

  2. Robin Edwards permalink
    November 21, 2016 10:04 pm

    Here’s an excerpt from what Trausti Jonson wrote to me:-

    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.

    When GISS write about why they make adjustments to carefully obtained and verified temperature data their statements should be regarded as deliberate obfuscations or lies. Their only interest in adjusting data is to make it conform to their preconceived wishes, which I presume are motivated by the desire to generate large grants from the US government.

    We can hope that this perverse practice is about to be forcefully terminated!

  3. November 22, 2016 8:55 am

    One wonders if Mr Jonsson is being subjected to some kind of pressure from his bosses.

  4. Athelstan permalink
    November 22, 2016 10:02 am

    From above letter to R. Edwards.

    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.

    It may have lost something in translation, though, imho I cannot read posts like Paul’s clear and astonishing data tricks revealed without totally, absolutely refuting the above comment.

    “malignant purpose”, that’s just what it was.

  5. tom0mason permalink
    November 22, 2016 11:49 am

    Well of course they have to adjust them!
    How else could you get recent records to agree with the AGW theory?

  6. November 22, 2016 3:19 pm

    That’s a pretty damning communication! Trump needs to see this one. It ought to give him a real flavor for what has been going on all around the world with all the surface temperature data.

    The people who are making these temperature changes are deliberatly trying to fool the people of the world into believing something that is not proven.

    They know they are changing a true record into a false record, and they are doing it to promote CAGW. They are deliberate liars, and are harming humanity’s ability to plan for its future by diverting us into the fantasy land of CAGW.

    • Broadlands permalink
      November 22, 2016 4:13 pm

      It is difficult to prove that all their manifold monthly, seasonal and annual changes are deliberate obfuscation, lies, and a climatological conspiracy. There are simply too many people involved with the total databases who would have to be kept quiet. What is puzzling is why they all think that they are really doing the scientifically “right thing” by consistently lowering the older values. It doesn’t seem to make any sense, certainly not if ferreting out the UHI is one of their major concerns. Perhaps someone can explain that?

  7. Tom O permalink
    November 22, 2016 4:08 pm

    The adjustments are to support the mantra, true, and the mantra of global warming caused by fossil fuel use is designed to set the world population up for hypothermic population reduction, at least in the northern latitudes. CAGW was always about finding a way to eliminate the useless eaters and get the population down to the elites’ desired level of 1 billion or less. There is an ice age coming on and the amount of land to support the world population is about to shrink drastically. They are just preparing to make more space for themselves and a little space – say the size of a cremation container, for the rest of us.

    • Broadlands permalink
      November 22, 2016 4:24 pm

      Tom… cremation is bad for the environment… it adds CO2. A hermetically sealed container should make them happy…unless it’s biodegradable itself? 🙂

  8. nightspore permalink
    November 22, 2016 4:41 pm

    In looking around to see if I could find old temperature curves for Reykjavik (which I didn’t find in the papers I had), I came across an old NOAA newsletter (or suchlike) for October 1974 (Vol. 4, No. 4) that I had collected. There is one article (at least in what I have, which I probably found somewhere on the Web), titled, “Climate: A key to the world’s food supply” by Patrick Hughes. In the article, there is the following paragraph:

    According to British meteorologist Hubert Lamb, the average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Iceland’s hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries.

    This certainly squares with what Jonsson said in his note in 2012. And I find it impossible to harmonize this with anything but non-negligible cooling in that part of the world.

  9. November 22, 2016 7:51 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  10. manicbeancounter permalink
    November 22, 2016 8:54 pm

    Trausti Jónsson did a fine piece in 2012 explaining the complicated history of relocations for the Reykjavík station. The article is still available, along with a graph of the raw station data and the station moves, linked to below.

    • manicbeancounter permalink
      November 22, 2016 9:17 pm

      Last year I downloaded the raw station data behind Trausti Jónsson’s graph, comparing it to the Icelandic Met Office’s adjusted data; the GHCN v3 adjusted data; and NASA GISS Homogenised data.

      My conclusion was:-

      The adjustments by the Icelandic Met Office professionals with a detailed knowledge of the instruments and the local conditions, is quite varied from year-to-year and appears to impose no trend in the data. The impact of GCHN is to massively cool the data prior to 1965. Most years are by about a degree, more than the 0.7C total twentieth century global average surface temperature increase. The pattern of adjustments has long periods of adjustments that are the same.

      • manicbeancounter permalink
        November 22, 2016 9:42 pm

        I did a little table of the dates of the station relocations and the dates of the GHCN v3 adjustments. The adjustments, based on a comparison of data from nearby temperature stations, is meant to reflect the biases in the instruments, most notably by instrument bias and the impacts of station moves. To me (and from Trausti’s analysis) the GHCN adjustments bear no relationship to the known station moves.

  11. tom0mason permalink
    November 23, 2016 4:27 am

    As Richard Feynman explained so well, pseudoscience has all of the attributes of scientific type methodologies with none of the rigor. Pseudoscience offers instant answers with none of that complicated validation or verification against the observed evidence.
    Pseudoscience is never unsure, uncertain, or unknowing.
    Pseudoscience is a triumph of the ego and hubris.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: