Skip to content

NOAA Still Falsifying Icelandic Climate History

December 9, 2017
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

You would be forgiven for thinking that the Iceland Met Office are probably the best people for understanding the history of their own climate.

In 2008, their leading climatologist, Trausti Jonsson, wrote this article:

image

 http://en.vedur.is/climatology/articles/nr/1213

   

Temperature in Stykkishólmur

Stykkishólmur is a village in western Iceland. The temperature (figure 1) has in the long run been increasing at Stykkishólmur during the last 200 years at the rate of +0.7°C per century. This is similar to the general temperature increase in the whole Northern hemisphere during the same period. The warming has been very uneven, dominated by three cold periods and two warm ones.

Stykkishólmshiti

Figure 1. Annual temperature in Stykkishólmur 1798 to 2007. Note that the values prior to 1845 are interpolated from observations at other stations. The confidence is very low for the years before 1830 and the values are preliminary and should not be referenced. 

   

The time from 1925 onwards is dominated by a very large cycle that does not show an overall significant warming, although the temperature rise of the last 20 years is considerable.

There is also a large decadal variability before 1925. The year 1892 marked the end of a period dominated by a very large year-to-year variability and the end of a long run of very cold years. There was a relatively warm period during 1837 to 1858, and by overlooking the very cold year of 1835 and a few isolated cold months one can identify the interval 1813 to 1858 as a generally warm one.

The years 1807 to 1812 were very cold. Although the following warm period was considerably colder than the corresponding 20th century warm period it was noted as a generally favourable time for agriculture and the population of the country increased markedly.

The 20th century warm period that started in the 1920s ended very abruptly in 1965. It can be divided into three sub-periods, a very warm one to 1942, a colder interval during 1943 to 1952, but it was decisively warm during 1953 to 1964.

The cold period 1965 to 1995 also included a few sub-periods. The so called "sea ice years" 1965 to 1971, a slightly warmer period 1972 til 1978, a very cold interval during 1979 to 1986, but thereafter it became gradually warmer, the last cold year in the sequence being 1995. Since then it has been warm, the warmth culminating in 2002 to 2003. Generally the description above refers to the whole country, but there are slightly diverging details, depending on the source of the cold air.

 

Comparison of temperature in Stykkishólmur, Akureyri and Reykjavík

A comparison of annual temperatures at three stations, Stykkishólmur in the west, Akureyri in the north and Reykjavík in the southwest reveals some inter-station differences.

The first cold interval, the "ice years", was the coldest of the three in the north and east, but the 1979 to 1986 was the coldest in southwestern Iceland. Figure 2 highlights this by expressing the variability as 7-year running means of temperature. We see the end of the warm period in 1965 and three cold sub-periods during 1965 to 1971, 1979 to 1986 and 1992 too 1995.

Figure 2. 7-year running means of temperature at three locations in Iceland, Reykjavík (red trace)), Stykkishólmur (blue trace) og Akureyri (green trace). Kuldakast = cold period. The first of the marked periods was the coldest one in the north (Akureyri), the second one was the coldest in Reykjavík.  

 

The cold during the ice years was accompanied by persistent northerly winds and an associated maximum extent of the East Greenland sea ice. The air pressure during this period was generally high – the NAO was in a negative phase.

The cold period that started in 1979 was characterised by very low pressure and an extremely positive NAO phase, the NAO phase culminating in 1989 to 1995. The air masses that dominated the weather in Iceland originated over the cold continental areas of Kanada, brought to Iceland by persistent southwesterly winds. In this situation the southwest is anomalously cold compared to the northeast.

http://en.vedur.is/climatology/articles/nr/1213

 

Jonsson could not have made it clearer.

  • There has been no overall significant warming since 1925. (At least, up to 2007).
  • It was just as warm in the 1930s and 40s as it has since 1990.
  • There have been two extremely cold interludes, from 1965-71, and again from 1979-86
  • These warm and cold cycles are clearly evident across the whole country.

These climate cycles, and particularly the colder interludes are very well known, and have been the subject of much scientific analysis, for instance here.

However, the experts at NOAA don’t believe they actually occurred, and have made up their own account of Iceland’s climate during the 20thC.

image

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=620040130000&ds=5&dt=1

 

They have replaced the actual temperature data (green) with adjusted data (blue) in their GHCN. The cycles are now gone, and we are left with a steadily rising temperature trend.

The warmth of the 1930s and 40s has been removed, and the sea ice years now longer appear to be anything unusual.

And not only at Stykkisholmur. Similar adjustments have been made across all of the other stations in Iceland.

image

image

image

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_find.cgi?lat=65.08&lon=-22.73&ds=5&dt=1

 

 

Apologists for temperature tampering claim that it is just all part of an averaging exercise. But this does not wash, because there are no adjustments going the other way anywhere in the region. Indeed, the adjustments all go the same way, cooling the past, for instance at Jan Mayen and Thorshaven (Faroes):

 

image

 image

 

In short, there is no justification whatsoever for NOAA’s adjustments.

As Trausti Jonsson commented in 2012:

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.  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.

    23 Comments
    1. December 9, 2017 2:52 pm

      Reblogged this on WeatherAction News.

    2. December 9, 2017 3:07 pm

      Surely when the record is altered in this way those doing so must give a detailed explanation for it. If they do not then they must expect people to think that it is not justifiable.

    3. December 9, 2017 4:26 pm

      Excellent post Mr. Homewood! Thank you.

    4. December 9, 2017 4:28 pm

      Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
      Paul Homewood summarizes:

      “In short, there is no justification whatsoever for NOAA’s adjustments. As Trausti Jonsson commented in 2012:

      “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. 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.”

    5. Broadlands permalink
      December 9, 2017 5:20 pm

      If one examines the Smithsonian’s World Weather Records for 1931-1940 (H.H Clayton) and goes to Stykkisholmu Iceland they will find that the two warmest years… annual means, 1933 (5.5°C) and 1939 (5.6°C) have been lowered in Iceland’s official records for that location. They are now 5.11°C and 5.09°C, respectively. The same is true for all of the other annual values for that decade. Note that Paul’s chart for Stykk…shows no annual mean temperature above 5.1°C even for the unadjusted means. “Something is fishy”?

      http://www.archive.org/stream/worldweatherreco031542mbp#page/n403/mode/2up

    6. December 9, 2017 5:36 pm

      Criminal fraud on the part of the Climate Gurus at NOAA, is what it is.

      They have changed temperature charts all over the world to erase the 1930-40 heat in their efforts to sell the CAGW narrative. The temperature facts don’t match their CAGW claims, so they change the facts, rather than discard their failed theory.

    7. Alaskan Sea permalink
      December 9, 2017 6:08 pm

      ‘data handling crimes’, says it all.

    8. markl permalink
      December 9, 2017 7:18 pm

      When will these record changers be brought to justice and exposed for who they are and what they’ve done? Are we powerless to do anything about it? This is happening all over the world so tell me more about “conspiracy theories”.

      • Broadlands permalink
        December 9, 2017 9:58 pm

        One answer to your question is that the NOAA and NASA “gurus” enjoy the full support of a large cadre of climate alarmists who enjoy ganging up on those who dare to use facts. Their tactics are well known and widely used. Ignore the message! Bring down the messengers! ..those awful denialists, trolls, and even worse. Socrates understood them and had a comment…

        “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser”.

        These people have turned the very foundation of scientific research… legitimate skepticism into a term of derision. History will not treat them well?

    9. Bitter&twisted permalink
      December 9, 2017 10:56 pm

      Climate “science” at its best.

    10. Ian George permalink
      December 9, 2017 11:02 pm

      Here’s the ‘raw’ data for Reykjavik prior to the ‘necessary adjustments’.
      https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=620040300000&dt=1&ds=1

    11. December 10, 2017 12:03 am

      Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
      “THE past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” – George Orwell, 1984

    12. December 10, 2017 2:23 am

      Please note that the early Smithsonian temperature lists for Iceland are heavily daytime-biased compared to later published values – and have to be adusted so the series make any sense. – The station at Vestmannaeyjar was relocated in 1921 to a 100 m higher level than earlier – so a large adustment is also required there.

    13. December 10, 2017 2:34 am

      On temperature trends in Iceland (in Icelandic):
      The first entry ends with this conclusion (freely translated): “Thus, we can choose the number that suits us, but let us remember: A lone-standing trend is utterly worthless as a weather and climate forecasting tool (even though it can by useful in analysis).”

      https://trj.blog.is/blog/trj/entry/2189193/
      https://trj.blog.is/blog/trj/entry/2189261/

    14. Paddy permalink
      December 10, 2017 7:36 am

      Don’t the Icelandic temperature cycles match the 11-year solar cycle?

    15. December 10, 2017 9:37 am

      Josh explains…

    16. December 10, 2017 9:45 am

      Hubert Lamb suggested a reason for one particular (relatively) warm spell in Iceland, such shifts being in anti-phase with weather in NE Europe, so the homogenisers may give false alarms when Iceland goes against the neighbouring trend:

      • Bloke down the pub permalink
        December 10, 2017 11:43 am

        I was wondering why Iceland appeared not to have been significantly affected by the 1816 ‘year without a summer’. Perhaps this goes some way to explaining it.

    17. donald penman permalink
      December 10, 2017 1:09 pm

      The original data seems to suggest that Iceland did get colder during the sixty’s which was around the period of a low solar cycle but the adjusted data does not show a drop in temperature during the sixty’s. I know that there is polar blocking and the Jetstream is variable but it is very convenient that there were no satellites to confirm or deny the validity of these adjustments all we had then were communication satellites in the early sixty’s and I remember the Telstar satellite and being able to see live television pictures from around the world for the first time.

    18. December 10, 2017 1:20 pm

      The problem is not just with NOAA. A lot of scientists have used their temperature data in their own studies. I used it for the Dolly Sods area of West Virginia in the late 1960’s when working on the flora of Alder Run Bog for my master’s degree from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There was a remote weather data collection station nearby at Stony River on the same ridge.

      At this time, where do scientists turn for reliable data? Not to NOAA, it seems. Increasingly, this becomes a problem for botanists, zoologists, ecologists (they are notorious for using other people’s data for everything), and others whose primary study is not the collection of “weather” data. You have to be able to rely on data from other sources in any study, especially flora and fauna projects.

      Whom can you trust? This leaves the realm of “funny” very quickly. Trust is one of the most important elements of a healthy human society. It affects all our interactions.

    19. December 10, 2017 9:33 pm

      Some very clear supporting evidence of variability in Iceland is provided by this figure:

      Source: http://en.vedur.is/media/loftslag/myndasafn/frodleikur/Einarsson.pdf

      • December 10, 2017 9:42 pm

        Hypothesis: GISS gives insufficient weight to the many Icelandic stations that confirm strong variability, and too much weight to more distant ones that have much less variability.

        • Phoenix44 permalink
          December 11, 2017 2:07 pm

          I suspect that it exactly how their interpolations and other tools work. No doubt you can make a case for doing it, but that doesn’t make it right.

    Comments are closed.

    %d bloggers like this: