If CO2 is so powerful, why are there no experiments?

[SSDD]

Now here is a very good documentary that demonstrates the current experiment we are conducting. Thanks to Crusader Frank;

I watched an hour of it and they described a very complex weather system. Maybe the crap about the imaginary CO2 control knob is coming up.

Also, thats not an experiment

Amazing what passes for data and experimentation among the faithful isn't it? Is that sort of stupidity and gullibility real or deliberate?

 

[Crick]

GISS' Updates to Analysis. There is no mention of Reykjavik here, but there are mentions of errors as large or larger than the Reykjavik correction and the dates on your plots would indicate that the adjustment was made shortly after GISS shifted from GHCN 2.4 to GHCN 3.2

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Updates to Analysis
Note 1: This webpage describes updates to the GISS analysis made in December 2011 and after, starting with the change to use of GHCN v3 data. Updates made before December 2011 are detailed elsewhere.

Note 2: In spring 2015, NOAA's NCDC (mentioned in various entries below) was merged into NOAA's NCEI (National Center for Environmental Information), a new entity combining the three centers: NCDC, NGDC, and NODC (National Climate, Geophysical, and Oceanographic Data Center).

Graphs and tables are updated around the middle of every month using the current data files of NOAA GHCN v3 (meteorological stations), ERSST (ocean areas), and SCAR (Antarctic stations) combined as described in our December 2010 publication (Hansen et al. 2010). These updated files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months. Here we list updates of the data or procedures that have occurred since our 2010 publication (Hansen et al. 2010).

July 19, 2015: The data and results put on the public site on July 15 were affected by a bug in the ERSST v4 part of the automated incremental update procedure. The analysis was redone after recreating the full version of SBBX.ERSSTv4 separately. We would like to acknowledge and thank Nick Stokes for noticing that there might be a problem with these data.

July 15, 2015: Starting with today's update, the standard GISS analysis is no longer based on ERSST v3b but on the newer ERSST v4. Dr. Makiko Sato created some graphs and maps showing the effect of that change. More information may be obtained from NOAA's website. Furthermore, we eliminated GHCN's Amundsen-Scott temperature series using just the SCAR reports for the South Pole.

June 13, 2015: NOAA's NCEI (formerly NCDC) switched from v3.2.2 to the new release v3.3.0 of the adjusted GHCN, which is our basic source. This upgrade included filling some gaps in a few station records and fixing some small bugs in the homogenization procedure. NCEI's description of those changes is available here. One of the impacts was removing some data that the GISS procedure had always eliminated and the list of GISS corrections was correspondingly reduced. Hence the (insignificant) impact on the GISS analysis was slightly different from the impact described in that document. The changes produced a decrease of 0.006°C/decade for the 1880 to 2014 trend of the annual mean land surface air temperature rather than the 0.003°C/decade increase reported by NCEI. Both are substantially less than the margin of error for that quantity (±0.016°C/decade). Impacts on the changes of the annual Land-Ocean temperature index (global surface air temperature) were about 5 to 10 times smaller than the margin of error for those estimates.

Please note that neither the land data nor the ocean data used in this analysis are the ones used in the NCEI paper"Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" that appeared on June 4, 2015. For the ocean data, GISS still uses ERSST v3b rather than the newer ERSST v4, but will switch to that file next month, when we add the June 2015 data; the collection of land station data used in that paper includes many more sources than GHCN v3.3.0 and will probably be incorporated into a future GHCN v4.

May 15, 2015: Due to an oversight several Antarctic stations were excluded from the analysis on May 13, 2015. The analysis was repeated today after including those stations.

February 14, 2015: UK Press reports in January 2015 erroneously claimed that differences between the raw GHCNv2 station data (archived here) and the current final GISTEMP adjusted data were due to unjustified positive adjustments made in the GISTEMP analysis. Rather, these differences are dominated by the inclusion of appropriate homogeneity corrections for non-climatic discontinuities made in GHCN v3.2 in 2011/2012. See the earlier notes from December 14, 2011 and September 26, 2012; more details are provided in FAQ.

December 29, 2014: The title on the US temperature graph was corrected by replacing "Continental US" by "Contiguous US". References to the corresponding graphs in the literature were updated.

September 15, 2014: Color maps using the Robinson projection or polar projection are now presented without contour smoothing, since that process occasionally results in skipping some color bands. It seems however to work fine for the equirectangular projection.

July 14, 2014: The missing China May 2014 reports became available and are now part of our analysis. That correction increased the global May 2014 anomaly by a statistically insignificant 0.002°C.

June 17, 2014: Analysis was delayed hoping the missing reports from China would become available. Unfortunately, this has not been the case yet. Please note, that the current May 2014 data are therefore not directly comparable to previous records.

Febuary 14, 2014: Two January 2014 reports from Greenland (Godthab Nuuk and Angmagssalik) and one from Mongolia (Dauunmod) were disregarded since they seemed unusual and proved to be inconsistent with other reports.

January 21, 2014: The GISS analysis was repeated this morning based on today's status of the GHCN data. The changes were well within the margin of error, e.g. the L-OTI mean for 2013 changed from 0.6048±0.02°C to 0.6065±0.02°C, a change of less than 0.002°C. However, rounding to 2 digits for the L-OTI table changed the 0.60°C used in some documents prepared last week to 0.61°C. This minuscule change also moved year 2013 from a tie for the 7th place to a tie for the 6th place in the GISS ranking of warmest years, demonstrating how non-robust these rankings are.

January 21, 2014: The GISTEMP maps webpage now defaults to using the Robinson map projection. The previous default "regular" projection is labeled as Equirectangular.

August 14, 2013: The July 2013 report from Jaskul (46.2N, 45.4E) is inconsistent with its June 2013 report unlike the reports from neighboring stations. In that region, the July mean has been consistently higher than the June mean and not 4.3°C colder as the current report would indicate. Hence that report was not used in our analysis.

May 24, 2013: The time series and seasonal cycle website plotting tools were restored, which completes the return of the interactive features disabled in January. A problem with porting graphics software between servers led to a longer delay than expected.

May 15, 2013: The 3/3013 report from Dushanbe was corrected and the 3/3013 report from Kuwait was deleted in GHCN v3, so that these two GISS deletions were dropped.

April 15, 2013: Two March 2013 reports, one from Kuwait International Airport and one from Dushanbe (38.5N, 68.8E), did not agree with neighboring reports or with Weather Underground data. Hence they were not used in our analysis. The faulty February 2013 report from Nema was replaced by a corrected report in GHCN v3.

April 1, 2013: A comparison of our global analysis using NOAA ERSST (our current approach) for ocean temperature as opposed to NOAA OISST concatenated with HadSST1 is available on Dr. Sato's webpage.

March 21, 2013: This update was delayed by an investigation of some unrealistic looking reports from various stations in Mongolia. NCDC eliminated the reports today. In addition, the February 2013 report from Nema also seems unrealistic and has been eliminated. Finally, from now on we will incorporate into our analysis the reconstructed Byrd station data provided by Prof. David Bromwich.

February 24, 2013: The GISTEMP maps and station data website plotting tools were restored.

January 16, 2013: Starting with the January 2013 update, NCDC's ERSST v3b data will be used to estimate the surface air temperature anomalies over the ocean instead of a combination of Reynold's OISST (1982 to present) and data obtained from the Hadley Center (1880-1981).

January 14, 2013: Due to technical problems with the webserver onto which the GISTEMP webpages were recently migrated, interactive plotting tools such as making maps of the surface temperature anomaly and line plots of station data were disabled as the site was migrated onto newer hardware.

November 19, 2012: The machine which hosted the GISTEMP web pages will be decommissioned shortly, and all files and utilities have been moved to a new server. As the new machine uses a different architecture and OS, many utilities required some adjustment. Please send email to [email protected] if you notice any problems.

September 26, 2012: NOAA/NCDC replaced GHCN v3.1 by GHCN v3.2. Hence the GISS analysis is based on that product starting 9/14/2012. Version v3.2 differs from v3.1 by minor changes in the homogenization of the unadjusted data. A description of the modifications in the adjustment scheme and their effects are available here.

February 17, 2012: The analysis was redone on Feb 17 after learning from NOAA/NCDC that the operational version of GHCN v3 was only made available that afternoon.

February 12, 2012: The reported December 2011 data for the stations LIEPAJA, ALEKSANDROVSK, and ST.PETERSBURG were replaced by corrected reports and the strange Dec 1991 report from MALAKAL is no longer part of the adjusted GHCN v3. The corresponding entries in the GISS list of suspicious data were removed.

January 18, 2012: The reported December 2011 data for the stations LIEPAJA, ALEKSANDROVSK, and ST.PETERSBURG were clearly incorrect and were discarded. Also, a likely artificial discontinuity for the station record of SHIQUANHE was eliminated by disregarding the data for 2005-present.

December 14, 2011: GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (combining different station records for the same location, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.

 

[Crick]

From the GISTEMP FAQ at Data.GISS: GISTEMP -- Frequently Asked Questions

Q. Why can't we use just raw data?
A. Just averaging the raw data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate.

Q. Can you illustrate the above with a simple example?
A. Assume, e.g., that a station at the bottom of a mountain sent in reports continuously starting in 1880 and assume that a station was built near the top of that mountain and started reporting in 1900. Since those new temperatures are much lower than the temperatures from the station in the valley, averaging the two temperature series would create a substantial temperature drop starting in 1900.

[SNIP]

Q. Do the raw data ever change?
A. The raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source.

Q. Does GISS deal directly with raw (observed) data?
A. No. GISS has neither the personnel nor the funding to visit weather stations or deal directly with data observations from weather stations. GISS relies on data collected by other organizations, specifically, NOAA/NCEI's Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v3 adjusted monthly mean data as augmented by Antarctic data collated by UK Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and also NOAA/NCEI's Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v3b data.

Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the "raw" data?
A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCEI website.

Q. Does GISS do any data checking and alterations?
A. Yes. GISS applies semi-automatic quality control routines listing records that look unrealistic. After manual inspection, those data are either kept or rejected. GISS does make an adjustment to deal with potential artifacts associated with urban heat islands, whereby the long-term regional trend derived from rural stations is used instead of the trends from urban centers in the analysis.

Q. Does NASA/GISS skew the global temperature trends to better match climate models?
A. No.

Q.How accurate are the GISS results (tables, graphs)?
A. The GISS results are really estimates based on the available data. Accurate error estimates are hard to obtain. However, it is likely that the largest contribution to the margin of error is given by the temporal and spatial data gaps. That particular margin was estimated as follows: All computations were first made replacing the observed data by complete model data. Then the calculations were repeated after discarding model data where the corresponding observations were missing. Comparisons of the two results were used to obtain an estimate for that margin of error. Assuming that the other inaccuracies might about double that estimate yielded the error bars for global annual means drawn in this graph, i.e., for recent years the error bar for global annual means is about ±0.05°C, for years around 1900 it is about ±0.1°C. The error bars are about twice as big for seasonal means and three times as big for monthly means. Error bars for regional means vary wildly depending on the station density in that region. Error estimates related to homogenization or other factors have been assessed by CRU and the Hadley Centre (among others).

 

[Crick]

Here's an interesting reports on temperature data collection in Reykjavik by the man who did most of it.

Reykjavík - monthly means as originally published - icelandweather.blog.is

Reykjavík - monthly means as originally published
Measurements in the modern style started in Reykjavík in May 1880. There are earlier observations available but made with unsheltered wall instruments. These can be added to the series back to 1866 and observations were also made in Reykjavík during 1820 to 1854. We will hopefully look at these early measurements later.

The history of the Reykjavík station is quite complicated. The Reykjavík station was operated by the Danish Met. Institute (DMI) from 1880 to 1910 and monthly mean temperatures were published in the yearbooks of the Institute (Meteorologisk Aarbog) which are available online (see an earlier post). During this period there were a few observers and the station was relocated within the town three or four times. A wall-mounted instrument screen was used during the first part of the early period but it was later replaced by a free standing one - the first one in Iceland.

The thermal characteristics of the early screens are better known than elsewhere in Iceland at this time as it was for a considerable period equipped with a thermograph which was read every hour. So we know the diurnal cycle quite well. It conforms well with later-time diurnal cycle observations. A few months of thermograph sheets are missing.

The main thermometer was read three times per day at fixed hours. The DMI always used the average of these + a separate fixed constant for each month (to account for the seasonal variation of the diurnal range). In comparison with modern methods these early calculations tend to have a daytime bias - resulting in slightly elevated temperatures. This is one of the main reasons for the adjustments that have been used later on the means. We will look at this problem later.

The climatic station in Reykjavík stopped making observations in December 1910, temperature measurements continued at a telegraph station in the town but data from this station were never published - and are not used in the attached dataset, except during 1920 and 1921 - which were published.

When the station in Reykjavík was discontinued in 1910 a new one was established just out of town at the newly built Vífilsstaðir sanitarium. This location is slightly warmer in summer but colder in winter than the downtown stations. The published monthly means from this station are included in the attached dataset.

During the early period from 1880 to 1920 a few months are missing from the DMI publication. The Icelandic Meteorological Office (IMO) was established in 1920 and took over the DMI station net. Proper observations began again in Reykjavík (in a wall screen) in May 1920. Observations were made at fixed hours. In 1924 a thermograph was introduced again at the station and during 1924 to 1948 all the published temperature means in Reykjavík were calculated as the average of thermograph readings every two hours. There were daily comparisons of the thermograph and the fixed hour observations.

Since 1949 the Reykjavík monthly mean is calculated as the average of observations made every three hours.

The DMI also published the average monthly minimum temperature during the first few years. A minimum thermometer was, however, in use in Reykjavík during most of the early period, but the means were not published. The minimum thermometer was used for the calibration of the thermograph mentioned above during most of the 1884 to 1907 period.

The IMO has published monthly means of maximum and minimum thermometer readings since 1920. These means are included in the attached dataset.



The figure shows the annual mean temperature in Reykjavík 1881 to 2011 (as published). No external adjustments have been used.

Relocations are marked with vertical lines. In late 1931 the station was relocated to a rooftop in the town centre and remained there until the end of 1945. The data (above and in the attachment) have not been adjusted for this change nor others. Later versions of the dataset (e.g. the one available at the IMO website) do include adjustments for the relocations. All adjustments are subject to revisions at a later date.

Some internal adjustments are needed during the early part of the series due to later changes in calculation methods. The fixed-hour means that form the basis of both the DMI average method and recent adjustments by the IMO will be made available at this website later.

The data in the attachment are semicolon delimited with a period as decimal seperator.
*******************************************************************************************

If you don't see more than a few possibilities of the need for adjustments on the scale of the one you mentioned, I can point them out for you.

 

[IanC]

Looking for an explanation of the Reykjavik adjustments. Along the way I found this

Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.

--Judith Curry

Oh, kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya.....

I started off with a lot more favourable opinion of many in the global dataset business. unfortunately every place that I poke my nose into, stinks.

if they are so honest and pure they should be more open and answer questions. like Reykjavic

 

[CrusaderFrank]

GISS' Updates to Analysis. There is no mention of Reykjavik here, but there are mentions of errors as large or larger than the Reykjavik correction and the dates on your plots would indicate that the adjustment was made shortly after GISS shifted from GHCN 2.4 to GHCN 3.2

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Updates to Analysis
Note 1: This webpage describes updates to the GISS analysis made in December 2011 and after, starting with the change to use of GHCN v3 data. Updates made before December 2011 are detailed elsewhere.

Note 2: In spring 2015, NOAA's NCDC (mentioned in various entries below) was merged into NOAA's NCEI (National Center for Environmental Information), a new entity combining the three centers: NCDC, NGDC, and NODC (National Climate, Geophysical, and Oceanographic Data Center).

Graphs and tables are updated around the middle of every month using the current data files of NOAA GHCN v3 (meteorological stations), ERSST (ocean areas), and SCAR (Antarctic stations) combined as described in our December 2010 publication (Hansen et al. 2010). These updated files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months. Here we list updates of the data or procedures that have occurred since our 2010 publication (Hansen et al. 2010).

July 19, 2015: The data and results put on the public site on July 15 were affected by a bug in the ERSST v4 part of the automated incremental update procedure. The analysis was redone after recreating the full version of SBBX.ERSSTv4 separately. We would like to acknowledge and thank Nick Stokes for noticing that there might be a problem with these data.

July 15, 2015: Starting with today's update, the standard GISS analysis is no longer based on ERSST v3b but on the newer ERSST v4. Dr. Makiko Sato created some graphs and maps showing the effect of that change. More information may be obtained from NOAA's website. Furthermore, we eliminated GHCN's Amundsen-Scott temperature series using just the SCAR reports for the South Pole.

June 13, 2015: NOAA's NCEI (formerly NCDC) switched from v3.2.2 to the new release v3.3.0 of the adjusted GHCN, which is our basic source. This upgrade included filling some gaps in a few station records and fixing some small bugs in the homogenization procedure. NCEI's description of those changes is available here. One of the impacts was removing some data that the GISS procedure had always eliminated and the list of GISS corrections was correspondingly reduced. Hence the (insignificant) impact on the GISS analysis was slightly different from the impact described in that document. The changes produced a decrease of 0.006°C/decade for the 1880 to 2014 trend of the annual mean land surface air temperature rather than the 0.003°C/decade increase reported by NCEI. Both are substantially less than the margin of error for that quantity (±0.016°C/decade). Impacts on the changes of the annual Land-Ocean temperature index (global surface air temperature) were about 5 to 10 times smaller than the margin of error for those estimates.

Please note that neither the land data nor the ocean data used in this analysis are the ones used in the NCEI paper"Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" that appeared on June 4, 2015. For the ocean data, GISS still uses ERSST v3b rather than the newer ERSST v4, but will switch to that file next month, when we add the June 2015 data; the collection of land station data used in that paper includes many more sources than GHCN v3.3.0 and will probably be incorporated into a future GHCN v4.

May 15, 2015: Due to an oversight several Antarctic stations were excluded from the analysis on May 13, 2015. The analysis was repeated today after including those stations.

February 14, 2015: UK Press reports in January 2015 erroneously claimed that differences between the raw GHCNv2 station data (archived here) and the current final GISTEMP adjusted data were due to unjustified positive adjustments made in the GISTEMP analysis. Rather, these differences are dominated by the inclusion of appropriate homogeneity corrections for non-climatic discontinuities made in GHCN v3.2 in 2011/2012. See the earlier notes from December 14, 2011 and September 26, 2012; more details are provided in FAQ.

December 29, 2014: The title on the US temperature graph was corrected by replacing "Continental US" by "Contiguous US". References to the corresponding graphs in the literature were updated.

September 15, 2014: Color maps using the Robinson projection or polar projection are now presented without contour smoothing, since that process occasionally results in skipping some color bands. It seems however to work fine for the equirectangular projection.

July 14, 2014: The missing China May 2014 reports became available and are now part of our analysis. That correction increased the global May 2014 anomaly by a statistically insignificant 0.002°C.

June 17, 2014: Analysis was delayed hoping the missing reports from China would become available. Unfortunately, this has not been the case yet. Please note, that the current May 2014 data are therefore not directly comparable to previous records.

Febuary 14, 2014: Two January 2014 reports from Greenland (Godthab Nuuk and Angmagssalik) and one from Mongolia (Dauunmod) were disregarded since they seemed unusual and proved to be inconsistent with other reports.

January 21, 2014: The GISS analysis was repeated this morning based on today's status of the GHCN data. The changes were well within the margin of error, e.g. the L-OTI mean for 2013 changed from 0.6048±0.02°C to 0.6065±0.02°C, a change of less than 0.002°C. However, rounding to 2 digits for the L-OTI table changed the 0.60°C used in some documents prepared last week to 0.61°C. This minuscule change also moved year 2013 from a tie for the 7th place to a tie for the 6th place in the GISS ranking of warmest years, demonstrating how non-robust these rankings are.

January 21, 2014: The GISTEMP maps webpage now defaults to using the Robinson map projection. The previous default "regular" projection is labeled as Equirectangular.

August 14, 2013: The July 2013 report from Jaskul (46.2N, 45.4E) is inconsistent with its June 2013 report unlike the reports from neighboring stations. In that region, the July mean has been consistently higher than the June mean and not 4.3°C colder as the current report would indicate. Hence that report was not used in our analysis.

May 24, 2013: The time series and seasonal cycle website plotting tools were restored, which completes the return of the interactive features disabled in January. A problem with porting graphics software between servers led to a longer delay than expected.

May 15, 2013: The 3/3013 report from Dushanbe was corrected and the 3/3013 report from Kuwait was deleted in GHCN v3, so that these two GISS deletions were dropped.

April 15, 2013: Two March 2013 reports, one from Kuwait International Airport and one from Dushanbe (38.5N, 68.8E), did not agree with neighboring reports or with Weather Underground data. Hence they were not used in our analysis. The faulty February 2013 report from Nema was replaced by a corrected report in GHCN v3.

April 1, 2013: A comparison of our global analysis using NOAA ERSST (our current approach) for ocean temperature as opposed to NOAA OISST concatenated with HadSST1 is available on Dr. Sato's webpage.

March 21, 2013: This update was delayed by an investigation of some unrealistic looking reports from various stations in Mongolia. NCDC eliminated the reports today. In addition, the February 2013 report from Nema also seems unrealistic and has been eliminated. Finally, from now on we will incorporate into our analysis the reconstructed Byrd station data provided by Prof. David Bromwich.

February 24, 2013: The GISTEMP maps and station data website plotting tools were restored.

January 16, 2013: Starting with the January 2013 update, NCDC's ERSST v3b data will be used to estimate the surface air temperature anomalies over the ocean instead of a combination of Reynold's OISST (1982 to present) and data obtained from the Hadley Center (1880-1981).

January 14, 2013: Due to technical problems with the webserver onto which the GISTEMP webpages were recently migrated, interactive plotting tools such as making maps of the surface temperature anomaly and line plots of station data were disabled as the site was migrated onto newer hardware.

November 19, 2012: The machine which hosted the GISTEMP web pages will be decommissioned shortly, and all files and utilities have been moved to a new server. As the new machine uses a different architecture and OS, many utilities required some adjustment. Please send email to [email protected] if you notice any problems.

September 26, 2012: NOAA/NCDC replaced GHCN v3.1 by GHCN v3.2. Hence the GISS analysis is based on that product starting 9/14/2012. Version v3.2 differs from v3.1 by minor changes in the homogenization of the unadjusted data. A description of the modifications in the adjustment scheme and their effects are available here.

February 17, 2012: The analysis was redone on Feb 17 after learning from NOAA/NCDC that the operational version of GHCN v3 was only made available that afternoon.

February 12, 2012: The reported December 2011 data for the stations LIEPAJA, ALEKSANDROVSK, and ST.PETERSBURG were replaced by corrected reports and the strange Dec 1991 report from MALAKAL is no longer part of the adjusted GHCN v3. The corresponding entries in the GISS list of suspicious data were removed.

January 18, 2012: The reported December 2011 data for the stations LIEPAJA, ALEKSANDROVSK, and ST.PETERSBURG were clearly incorrect and were discarded. Also, a likely artificial discontinuity for the station record of SHIQUANHE was eliminated by disregarding the data for 2005-present.

December 14, 2011: GHCN v2 and USHCN data were replaced by the adjusted GHCN v3 data. This simplified the combination procedure since some steps became redundant (combining different station records for the same location, adjusting for the station move in the St. Helena record, etc). See related figures.

"Homogenizing the data" yeah.

Crick, so are they're "Homogenizing the data" from 1890?

 

[Crick]

Annual Mean Temperature at Reykjavik from the Iceland Met Office

More than 6C variation. Two other stations provide very similar data, prompting the Icelandic Met Office to make the following observation:
***********************************************************************
Across all three sites, we find temperatures in the 1930’s and 40’s up around where they have been during the current warm period. The main difference, however, is how persistent this recent warm weather has been, compared to the 1940’s, where there were some extreme year-on year changes. As Trausti comments “there has not been a single cold year since 1995.”
************************************************************************

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Annual Mean Temperature at Reykjavik from the Iceland Met Office

More than 6C variation. Two other stations provide very similar data, prompting the Icelandic Met Office to make the following observation:
***********************************************************************
Across all three sites, we find temperatures in the 1930’s and 40’s up around where they have been during the current warm period. The main difference, however, is how persistent this recent warm weather has been, compared to the 1940’s, where there were some extreme year-on year changes. As Trausti comments “there has not been a single cold year since 1995.”
************************************************************************

The same Met Office telling us no warming for 2 decades?

 

[Crick]

The graphics below (and above) came from a denier site (The Official Iceland Temperature Series) that, after displaying all the Iceland Met Office graphs, put up the GISTEMP data and observed "None of the above bears any resemblance to the current GISS record:"

Well, I took the GISTEMP record (the line-connected scatter-graph) and overlay it in Photoshop with the appropriate Iceland Met Office graphic (the histogram), matching scaling.

Not only is the match fairly impressive (considering the roundabout manner in which it got here, but the DIFFERENCES are informative. From 1965-72, GISS came up with higher temperatures than the IMO following a gap in the GISS data. For nine of the 35 years prior to that, GISS came up with lower temperatures, but in every one of those nine instances, the IMO temp shows a high deviation from the mean. These graphics do not tell us the causes but it appears that the GISS adjjustments have moved that small number of records closer to the mean of the remaining data. They have corrected outliers in older data.

And I see no corrections greater than 1 degree.

 

[Crick]

The same Met Office telling us no warming for 2 decades?

I don't think so Frank. We were talking about data from the ICELAND Meteorological Office, not the UK's office.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The graphics below (and above) came from a denier site (The Official Iceland Temperature Series) that, after displaying all the Iceland Met Office graphs, put up the GISTEMP data and observed "None of the above bears any resemblance to the current GISS record:"

Well, I took the GISTEMP record (the line-connected scatter-graph) and overlay it in Photoshop with the appropriate Iceland Met Office graphic (the histogram), matching scaling.


View attachment 58464

Not only is the match fairly impressive (considering the roundabout manner in which it got here, but the DIFFERENCES are informative. From 1965-72, GISS came up with higher temperatures than the IMO following a gap in the GISS data. For nine of the 35 years prior to that, GISS came up with lower temperatures, but in every one of those nine instances, the IMO temp shows a high deviation from the mean. These graphics do not tell us the causes but it appears that the GISS adjjustments have moved that small number of records closer to the mean of the remaining data. They have corrected outliers in older data.

And I see no corrections greater than 1 degree.

Chart shows no warming over 80 years

 

[Crick]

Frank... the graph is for a single station in Iceland. It does show warming as the Icelandic meteorologist indicated. I'm terribly sorry that it doesn't match the global averages. The point is that it does not show the multi degree corrections Ian put up and the adjustments GISS did make, look to be easily justified.

 

[IanC]

Annual Mean Temperature at Reykjavik from the Iceland Met Office

More than 6C variation. Two other stations provide very similar data, prompting the Icelandic Met Office to make the following observation:
***********************************************************************
Across all three sites, we find temperatures in the 1930’s and 40’s up around where they have been during the current warm period. The main difference, however, is how persistent this recent warm weather has been, compared to the 1940’s, where there were some extreme year-on year changes. As Trausti comments “there has not been a single cold year since 1995.”
************************************************************************

and you wonder why people laugh at you for your lack of comprehension of graphs!?! hahahaha

the range for yearly means goes from a low of 2.8C in 1979 (the start of satellite monitoring of temps and ice), to a high of 6.1C in 2004. the variation is 3.3C.

I brought up Feb 1940 because I had a photocopy of the monthly results, +1.7C. I then went to GISS and copied their results for 1940. the second number is for Feb, the last is the yearly mean

1940 -1.6 -1.5 -3.4 -0.2 4.4 6.5 8.0 6.9 3.9 3.1 -1.9 -0.9 -1.6 0.3 7.1 1.7 1.88

according to the graph you provided, the annual mean for Reykjavik was 4.8C. the difference between 4.8C and 1.88C is almost 3C!


crick, do you ever even try to understand what I am pointing out to you? do you ever look at the pieces of evidence and figure out how they go together? or do you just post up something, anything, that sound like it might be counter to what I have been saying? so far the first graph and your statement about it have made you look foolish. the GISS value for Rejkjavik 1940 is lower than any value on your graph. the adjustment made to Rejkjavik 1940 is only slightly smaller than the total variance over the entire range!

 

[IanC]

this graph shows Reykjavik 1940 as 5.2C

another epic fail on your part. 5.2C minus 1.88C is over 3C in adjustments.

 

[westwall]

Yes, crickey is the poster child for graph abuse and non comprehension. That's for sure. And, still we wait for an experiment that shows a 200 ppm increase will have the slightest effect on global temperature.

 

[IanC]

The graphics below (and above) came from a denier site (The Official Iceland Temperature Series) that, after displaying all the Iceland Met Office graphs, put up the GISTEMP data and observed "None of the above bears any resemblance to the current GISS record:"

Well, I took the GISTEMP record (the line-connected scatter-graph) and overlay it in Photoshop with the appropriate Iceland Met Office graphic (the histogram), matching scaling.


View attachment 58464

Not only is the match fairly impressive (considering the roundabout manner in which it got here, but the DIFFERENCES are informative. From 1965-72, GISS came up with higher temperatures than the IMO following a gap in the GISS data. For nine of the 35 years prior to that, GISS came up with lower temperatures, but in every one of those nine instances, the IMO temp shows a high deviation from the mean. These graphics do not tell us the causes but it appears that the GISS adjjustments have moved that small number of records closer to the mean of the remaining data. They have corrected outliers in older data.

And I see no corrections greater than 1 degree.

I am not quite sure what you did here, or why a different station pertains to Reykjavik, but Okay lets go with it.

let's use the same year as before, 1940. the graph says 3.5C

GISS says

1940 -1.8 -4.3 -3.7 -0.4 6.8 10.2 9.6 9.1 5.1 2.3 -1.7 -1.1 -3.2 0.9 9.6 1.9 2.30

the difference between 3.5C and 2.30C is 1.2C. unfuckingbelievable! the very first thing I look at proves you to be incompetent at best, a liar at worst!

 

[IanC]

I certainly think people should visit the link crick posted- The Official Iceland Temperature Series

"
In particular, they have full records since 1931 for seven stations.

It needs to be emphasised that these are not raw temperatures, but have been carefully homogenised and adjusted where necessary, to account for station moves and equipment changes.

Trausti, who has done much of the work himself over the last three decades, explains:






I would again like to make the point that there are two distinct types of adjustments:


1. An absolutely necessary recalculation of the mean because of changes in the observing hours or new information regarding the diurnal cycle of the tempearture. For Reykjavík this mainly applies to the period before 1924.

2. Adjustments for relocations. In this case these are mainly based on comparative measurements made before the last relocation in 1973 and supported by comparisons with stations in the vicinity. Most of these are really cosmetic (only 0.1 or 0.2 deg C). There is a rather large adjustment during the 1931 to 1945 period (- 0.4 deg C, see my blog on the matter – you should read it again:http://icelandweather.blog.is/blog/icelandweather/entry/1230185/).
I am not very comfortable with this large adjustment – it is supposed to be constant throughout the year, but it should probably be seasonally dependent. The location of the station was very bad (on a balcony/rooftop).


I must emphazise that an adjustment on the top of an adjustment is a very bad idea. [GISS – please note!]

One must be very open about the data – and the adjustments used.
It is also important to realise that the adjustment/homogenizing process is always a compromise – information is always lost during the process.
"
the graph of anomalies for those seven stations.

warm at the beginning, then colder, then warm again. range of just under 3.5C, five of the seven warmest year are pre-1950.

compared to Reykjavic after GISS adjustments

range of over 4C. ignore the broken off first chunks and compare to the seven station series. (edit)one of the pre 1950 temps makes it into the top 14 years. the basic shape is sorta the same. warm, then cool, then warm again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank... the graph is for a single station in Iceland. It does show warming as the Icelandic meteorologist indicated. I'm terribly sorry that it doesn't match the global averages. The point is that it does not show the multi degree corrections Ian put up and the adjustments GISS did make, look to be easily justified.

Crick if it were the chart of a stock you bought at 4 in 1932, 80 years later, it would still be 4

 

[Crick]

The graphics below (and above) came from a denier site (The Official Iceland Temperature Series) that, after displaying all the Iceland Met Office graphs, put up the GISTEMP data and observed "None of the above bears any resemblance to the current GISS record:"

Well, I took the GISTEMP record (the line-connected scatter-graph) and overlay it in Photoshop with the appropriate Iceland Met Office graphic (the histogram), matching scaling.


View attachment 58464

Not only is the match fairly impressive (considering the roundabout manner in which it got here, but the DIFFERENCES are informative. From 1965-72, GISS came up with higher temperatures than the IMO following a gap in the GISS data. For nine of the 35 years prior to that, GISS came up with lower temperatures, but in every one of those nine instances, the IMO temp shows a high deviation from the mean. These graphics do not tell us the causes but it appears that the GISS adjjustments have moved that small number of records closer to the mean of the remaining data. They have corrected outliers in older data.

And I see no corrections greater than 1 degree.

I am not quite sure what you did here, or why a different station pertains to Reykjavik, but Okay lets go with it.

let's use the same year as before, 1940. the graph says 3.5C

GISS says

1940 -1.8 -4.3 -3.7 -0.4 6.8 10.2 9.6 9.1 5.1 2.3 -1.7 -1.1 -3.2 0.9 9.6 1.9 2.30

the difference between 3.5C and 2.30C is 1.2C. unfuckingbelievable! the very first thing I look at proves you to be incompetent at best, a liar at worst!

The graphic you're looking at has one value per year. The numeric record you pulled up has 17 values. Please clarify; and I wouldn't mind a link to its source.

 

[IanC]

The graphics below (and above) came from a denier site (The Official Iceland Temperature Series) that, after displaying all the Iceland Met Office graphs, put up the GISTEMP data and observed "None of the above bears any resemblance to the current GISS record:"

Well, I took the GISTEMP record (the line-connected scatter-graph) and overlay it in Photoshop with the appropriate Iceland Met Office graphic (the histogram), matching scaling.


View attachment 58464

Not only is the match fairly impressive (considering the roundabout manner in which it got here, but the DIFFERENCES are informative. From 1965-72, GISS came up with higher temperatures than the IMO following a gap in the GISS data. For nine of the 35 years prior to that, GISS came up with lower temperatures, but in every one of those nine instances, the IMO temp shows a high deviation from the mean. These graphics do not tell us the causes but it appears that the GISS adjjustments have moved that small number of records closer to the mean of the remaining data. They have corrected outliers in older data.

And I see no corrections greater than 1 degree.

I am not quite sure what you did here, or why a different station pertains to Reykjavik, but Okay lets go with it.

let's use the same year as before, 1940. the graph says 3.5C

GISS says

1940 -1.8 -4.3 -3.7 -0.4 6.8 10.2 9.6 9.1 5.1 2.3 -1.7 -1.1 -3.2 0.9 9.6 1.9 2.30

the difference between 3.5C and 2.30C is 1.2C. unfuckingbelievable! the very first thing I look at proves you to be incompetent at best, a liar at worst!

The graphic you're looking at has one value per year. The numeric record you pulled up has 17 values. Please clarify; and I wouldn't mind a link to its source.

Go to the GISS temperature station selector. Once you have picked a station, at the bottom there is an option to get numerical data.