Real Climate Science

Michael Spencer clicked on an ad on my blog, and this came up.

Two days ago I reported on Trausti Jónsson of the Icelandic Met Office reversing his long established complaints about NASA/NCDC temperature adjustments in Iceland. After being a vocal critic of the adjustments for years, he suddenly reversed roles and allowed himself to be used in a Canberra Times hit piece on Senator Malcolm Roberts, who had asked Gavin Schmidt for an explanation of the adjustments being made in Iceland. Apparently progressives don’t believe that Senators should be allowed to ask questions of public servants.

“During this early period there was a large daytime bias in the temperature data from Iceland as presented in this publication,” which accounted for much of the “discrepancy” at Teigarhorn and less so at Vestmannaeyjar, Mr Jonsoon said.

For the latter station, it was relocated in October 1921 to a higher elevation. “Comparative measurements at both sites have shown that the later location is about 0.7 degrees Celsius colder than the former – this relocation has to be ‘adjusted’ for,” he said.

“I assure you that these adjustments are absolutely necessary and well founded although the finer details of the resulting series shown in your letter differ slightly from my own version,” he told Senator Roberts.

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

Previously Jónsson had flat out rejected the GHCN “corrections.”

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. 

Another GISS miss, this time in Iceland | Watts Up With That?

Then Gavin ramped up the lies even further.

Dr Schmidt said the Arctic was “not so much” the target of data critics.

That was quite a whopper. But for now let’s look at the Vestmanneyia station more closely. How does a 1921 station shift explain that many of the NCDC adjustments after 1921 are just as large or larger than before 1921? The 1926 adjustment was just as large as the 1917 adjustment. The explanation given in the Canberra Times provides no answers for the massive post-1921 adjustments.  It was just blowing smoke.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Icelandgate is going to be a huge scandal, and I will be pressing it moving forwards.

Scientists and the press have been claiming that the different surface temperature data sets showing record heat are independent.

2015 declared the hottest year on record : Nature News & Comment

Gavin just admitted to Senator Roberts that they aren’t. They all come from NOAA.

robertsnasags.pdf

They not only are not independent, but they are all wrong.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

We need to bring this scam to an end.

Thermometers show the US cooling since about 1920, but NOAA massively cools the past to create the appearance of a warming trend.

These adjustments make a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering.

When plotted against atmospheric CO2, the correlation is almost perfect.  NOAA is tampering with the data exactly to match their theory.

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. 

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:
http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?pubId=278&lang=is&navsel=666

and earlier data (in Icelandic and Danish – with a summary in French) at:
http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?pubId=240&lang=is&navsel=666

http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?pubId=241&lang=is&navsel=666

Monthly data from all stations from 1961 onwards :
http://www.vedur.is/Medaltalstoflur-txt/Manadargildi.html

Best wishes,
Trausti J.

---

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

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier

In one one of their many fake news stories today, the New York Times says Donald Trump is going to cause sea level to rise six meters at Boston, drowning the city.

What Trump’s Climate Legacy Could Look Like – The New York Times

Sea level at Boston has been falling the last six years, but the long term trend (due almost entirely to land subsidence) is that Boston will drown in 2,000 years.  I expect that Trump’s term will be over by then.

Sea Level Trends – State Selection

King Canute had to actually take his village idiots down to the sea to show that he doesn’t control sea level. Trump may have to do that with the idiots at the New York Times, who know perfectly well that Obama’s fake climate treaty does nothing to slow CO2 emissions

Climate Goals Pledged by China and the U.S. – The New York Times

In 1999, NASA showed there was no net global warming from 1866 to 1976, and that 1877 was the warmest year during that interval.

Archived version of http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt

Note that this looks nothing like Michael Mann’s hockey stick blade from 1866 to 1976. Mann shows about 0.4C net warming from 1866 to 1976.

The next image overlays the 1999 NASA data on the hockey stick graph, at the same scale normalized to the 1877 spike.

In one of many fake news stories from Salon today, Trump also controls the moon.

Donald Trump’s climate wake-up call: Supermoon flooding shows the reality of global warming – Salon.com

No worries though. Salon and NASA already drowned New York in 2008.

Stormy weather – Salon.com