Re-writing The Climate History of Iceland

This post follows up on the hornet’s nest stirred by Paul Homewood and Christopher Booker and my recent post on Temperature Adjustments in Australia comparing raw temperature records (GHCN V2) with homogenised (adjusted) temperature records (GHCN v3.1). The latter is currently used by NASA GISS and NOAA in global temperature reconstructions.

In this post I examine the records of eight climate stations on Iceland and find the following:

  • There is wholesale over writing and adjustment of raw temperature records, especially pre-1970 with an overwhelming tendency to cool the past that makes the present appear to be anomalously warm.
  • In the 1960s, Iceland (and the whole N Atlantic) experienced a run of very cold years caused by extreme atmospheric pressure differentials linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Many of these cold records appear to have been systematically deleted in V3.1 with the effect of all but removing this well-documented event from Icelandic climate history.
  • Following the end of the Little Ice Age, Iceland experienced rapid warming in the 1920s reaching near “record warmth” in 1939. This near record warmth has also been written out of Icelandic climatic history by adjusting the temperature records down, leaving the false impression that 2003 was an anomalously warm year.
  • In addition to wide-spread deletion of records, large amounts of temperature data that does not exist in V2 appears to have been created in V3.1. It is difficult to understand why this should be done since it is quite straight forward to manipulate data without apparently having to make it up.

In central Australia I found that wholesale manipulation of records did not bias the outcome. The V2 and V3.1 averages for 30 stations were the same. This cannot be said for Iceland. I dare say if one looked at a larger number of stations any bias may disappear but that is beside the point. Iceland holds a strategic geographic position in the N Atlantic and the public have the right to unadulterated information about that island’s climate history. There is little evidence of warming since 1917 which just happens to be the same conclusion I reached for Central Australia.

[Erratum 4th March: Commenter Sam Taylor, setting out to replicate my results, discovered an error in my spread sheet. The V3.1 record for Teigarhorn that should have begun in 1884 was accidentally pasted into 1880, an offset of 4 years. It was noted in the post that Teigarhorn was chaotic, and now we have an explanation. Fixing this actually removes noise from a number of charts. And for example, this completes the zone of data deletion in the 1960s (Figure 8). It does not materially alter the conclusions of this post.

In important Figures 6, 7 and 10 I’ve left the original figures there and added updated ones so that readers can see the impact of this error. In Figure 8, the corrections are not material and that figure has simply been replaced.]

First, for a little bit of background I suggest reading Paul Homewood’s post The Sea Ice Years that provides a perspective of Icelandic climate change through the lens of peer reviewed literature.  And so what is GHCN and V2 and V3.1 and homogenisation all about?


GHCN is the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN).  It is a database of temperature, precipitation and pressure records managed by the National Climatic Data Center, Arizona State University and the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (Wikipedia).

GHCN V2 temperature records are supposed to be raw temperature records as measured by thermometers from around the world. Raw temperature records are subject to a multitude of possible spurious variables over decades and centuries: 1) movement of measurement site, 2) change to the physical environment of the site – growth or removal of trees, urban encroachment, 3) change to the time of day measurements were made and so on.

There are two approaches as to how to manage this spurious input to temperature records. The first is to assume that in aggregate, some changes will result in spurious warming and some will result in spurious cooling and that on average most of this will come out in the wash. This is the approach I would follow and was in fact the one preferred by NASA GISS.

To recap, from 2001 to 2011, GISS based its analysis on NOAA/NDCD’s temperature collection GHCN v2, the unadjusted version. That collection contained for many locations several records, and GISS used an automatic procedure to combine them into a single record, provided the various pieces had a big enough overlap to estimate the respective offsets; non-overlapping pieces were combined if it did not create discontinuities. In cases of a documented station move, the appropriate offset was applied. No attempt was made to automatically detect and correct inhomogeneities, assuming that because of their random nature they would have little effect on the global mean.

But NASA GISS, who use the GHCN records have had “homogenisation” thrust upon them. Homogenisation is a computer robot (bots) based procedure that purports to detect these occasional site specific incidents and to correct for them using what is called the Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA). So how can we be sure that these bots can discriminate between temperature changes specific to a site and those that might be a change in the regional temperature trend?

This post is about examining the justification of the temperature changes made by bots to the raw temperature records of Iceland. Here, we need to first consider the possibility that the Icelanders may have already corrected their raw records for station moves etc. Do the bots know this or not? Can any of the massive and systematic data manipulation presented here really be put down to changes in the physical conditions of 8 climate stations in Iceland? GHCN V2 = raw temperature records, GHCN V3.1 = records adjusted by bots for supposed non-climatic variance.

GHCN V2 raw temperature records

Figure 1 The first 8 stations on this list are the 8 Icelandic stations analysed. This is the printout from V3.1 with Akureyri placed at the centre. The V2 stations where I used the selection “after combining sources at same location” have the same ID numbers apart from Akureyri and Keflavikurflu where the last digits differ. The next nearest station is then Kap Tobin in Greenland and then Thorshavn on the Faroes and Jan Mayan that is a small island in mid Atlantic, 699km N of Iceland. Thorshaven and Jan Mayen are interesting because they have the same temperature structure as the Iceland Stations.

Figure 2 This chart shows the basic structure for all 8 stations, V2 unadjusted. Flicking through the individual station records its possible to identify some features common to most records 1) pre-1917 there were periodically cold years, 2) 1917 to the 1930s was a period of marked warming 3) warming was then followed by cooling and then in the 1960s there was a run of very cold years 4) from about 1980, modern warming began. Further to this, Vestmannaeyja, an island off the S coast, is an outlier with a warmer past than the other stations. The warmest annual record ever recorded on Iceland was on Vestmannaeyja in 1928.

Figure 3 This chart shows the simple arithmetic mean of the stack shown in Figure 2. Roger Andrews has cautioned that this is not best practice since discontinuous and incomplete records can impart structure to the data. The distribution of stations with time is shown in Figure 4. For the first two years there are only 2 stations and this may provide biased non-representative data, but to be honest any structure that links to the coming and going of records is not obvious. It will undoubtedly impact the fine structure, but not the big picture. One reason for this is that most stations are similar, with a range in temperatures any given year of only 2˚C. Hence I believe this chart is a fairly good average rendition of what Icelandic thermometers show. The main features are as described for Figure 2 and as annotated on the chart.

Figure 4 The history of opening and closing climate stations on Iceland. For most of the period there have been at least 5 stations. They all show pretty much the same thing and so there is no major issue about being representative. Note how V3.1 has deleted many station records, especially in the 1960s cold period and how  V3.1 manages to have more records post-1968 than there were operational stations, a point discussed at length below.

GHCN V3.1 adjusted data

Figure 5 Moving on to look at the adjusted data, comparing this chart with Figure 2, changes that have been made may not appear obvious.

Figure 6 Looking at the arithmetic mean of the data shown in Figure 5, sharp eyes are required to see the difference with the V2 data (Figure 3). The cool past is still there, the 1920s warming is still there. But the 1939 “record warmth” has gone completely. The 1964 to 1971 cool period is still there but much reduced. And the recent peak warmth in 2003 stands out imperiously as the warmest year by far. The V2 data was effectively a flat record for 100 years has been turned into one of steady warming. Its easier to see what is going on by looking at the difference between the V2 and V3.1 data (Figure 7).

Figure 6a Correcting for the Teigarhorn error (see Erratum up top) the main effects are the amplification of the temperature high in 1964 and an amplification of the temperature low in 1881. The record 1939 warmth is still gone.

Figure 7 Subtracting the V3.1 data from the V2 data reveals the structure of adjustments made by the “homogenisation” process. There are three significant features. A steady warming of the record has been achieved by cooling the past. The 1939 “record warmth” has been removed by adjusting data in a very narrow band 1936 to 1943 and the marked 1960s cooling is achieved by adjusting data in another narrow band 1965 to 1971. How has this been achieved?

Figure 7a Correcting for the Teigarhorn error (see Erratum up top) this chart has become more robot like with straight lines and right angles. It has not changed the picture for 1939. But it has subtly changed the picture for the 1960s cooling. While there appears to be systematic deletion of records 1963 to 1966 (Figure 8) it becomes more clear to see that the suppression of cooling has been achieved more by cooling the pre-1964 records than actually deleting the cold records.

Figure 8a Correcting for the Teigarhorn error (see Erratum up top) has no major material effect on this graphic.

This is a screen capture of my spread sheet for the V2 minus V3.1 data. You’re not supposed to be able to read the numbers. The first column is year and the next 8 columns are the delta temperature series for the 8 stations. Empty cell = no data V2 and V3.1; number in cell V2-V3.1; zero in cell V2=V3.1; yellow cell V2 data deleted in V3.1; green in cell V3.1 data exists where V2 data does not.

The main effect is to complete the zone of data deletion in the 1960s. I don’t why this has been done.

In green are segments of data that do not exist in V2. I really don’t know how to explain this. It is not necessary to add data in order to adjust it. This requires an explanation from GHCN. But none of this explains how they got rid of the 1930 warm peak.

Figure 9 These screen captures show segments from V2 (top) and V3.1 (bottom). Scan along 1939, 1940 and 1941 and you’ll see that the temperatures have quite simply been reduced and a peak has been turned into a trough. The finishing touch is to simply delete a segment of high T data in the final column (Keflavikurflu).

Figure 10 For completeness, here is the dT plot for the individual stations which has a number of interesting features. The robotic decimal fraction additions and subtractions seen for central Australia are also present here although in this case there is a heavy bias towards cooling the past. There is a major discontinuity across the deleted band of 1960s data. Since then, all adjustments have been small. Have the Icelanders stopped moving their weather stations? The adjustments to the 1960s cold spell are not visible because the data has been deleted 🙂 The adjustments to the 1939 warm peak are visible but not obviously affecting many stations. That is because pre-1939 there were only 5 operating stations. One has not been adjusted at all (zero line for Stykkisholmur). Three have been adjusted by exactly 0.6˚C and are therefore superimposed (Akureyri (way up north), Reykjavik and Vestmannaeyja (way down south)). And one station, Teigarhorn, is chaotic throughout. I’ve double checked this and the V2 and V3.1 records have nothing in common. It is hard to believe that V3.1 record for Teigarhorn is a derivative of V2.

Figure 10a Correcting for the Teigarhorn error (see Erratum up top) perhaps has the greatest impact on this chart. The unexplained chaos in Teigarhorn is gone and replaced by robotic adjustments to temperature. Its quite surprising to see what an accidental 4 year displacement in a single record can do.


Whilst I am a confirmed lukewarm climate sceptic, I have until now accepted without question that Earth’s lower troposphere was warming through a combination of natural and anthropogenic causes where the division between these two has yet to be worked out and confirmed. Now I’m not so sure. Every time I scratch the surface of climate data I find something wrong. It shouldn’t be like this!

GHCN V3.1 homogenisation of temperature records is supposed to remove non-climatic artefacts from the data. Is it possible that the homogenisation algorithims and robots have accidentally removed real climate signal in Iceland through a combination of deleting records, changing records and adding records? And is it a coincidence that the outcome is to create a picture of warming from one that was largely flat for the last 100 years (Figure 11 below)? If this is the case then GHCN need to tear up their V3 algorithims post haste because they are clearly rubbish.

Or is it possible that there is a darker side to this where a hand of human intervention has played a role? It should be abundantly clear that the US government needs to urgently conduct an enquiry into this agency and those related to it who seem all too willing to accept the data produced by GHCN.

The conclusions here are exactly the same as for my previous post on central Australia. GHCN V3.1 homogenisation corrections appear to have deleted real, regional climatic signal whilst creating a warming signal that does not appear to exist in the raw records. In Iceland it is worse since in Australia the manufacture of warming was at the station level. In Iceland, it is at the island / country level. In fact there is a geological argument for Iceland being a micro-continent.

To conclude, let’s take a look at the post-1917 data, when the cold influence of The Little Ice Age seemed to end in Iceland. A simple arithmetic mean of unadjusted  temperature records is close to flat for the last 98 years. There is little evidence for warming in Iceland for the last 98 years, similar to the conclusion reached for central Australia.

Figure 11 Since the beginning of 1920s warming, the temperature history of Iceland is close to flat though warming slowly.

Added Sunday 1st March.

In light of the discussion in comments I have produced an anomaly chart for 7 of the stations, excluding Vestmannaeyja that is an outlier.

Figure 12 Temperature anomaly chart where each station is normalised relative to the mean temperature for that station. Vestmannaeyja is excluded. 1939 has become the warmest year on record with dT=1.73˚C compared with 2003 dT=1.70˚C.

Added Wednesday 4th March

I guess I need to apologise for the Erratum added today that makes reading this more difficult. One careless mistake pasting one column of data offset by 4 years. But the real problem here is the chaos in the GHCN archives. It should be a very straight forward exercise to compare one generation of data to the other. The actual raw data should be archived and never tampered with. Comparing V2 (alleged raw data) with V3.1 (processed data) is a minefield to navigate. And now I’m embarking on comparing the Icelandic Meteorological Office (IMO) data with the raw GHCN data. There seems to be mines everywhere.

This entry was posted in Climate change, Political commentary and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

85 Responses to Re-writing The Climate History of Iceland

  1. edhoskins says:

    What is the attitude of the Icelandic Met Office got this historic manipulation of their records

  2. tonyb says:

    Hi Euan

    I have been reconstructing CET for some years now and have accumulated a vast amount of data on England and a variety of other countries as well during my research at such places as the Met Office library and archives, Devon records office (which enables the climate of upland Dartmoor to be studied) various Cathedral libraries, The Scott Polar institute and numerous other places, as well as having access of course to books and the internet.

    I do not believe in a giant conspiracy or hoax being perpetrated by climate scientists, although at the edges there are certainly some who are more activist and advocate than scientist, and many others who seem to see the environment -as exemplified by Climate change- as akin to a religion.

    It will be interesting to see what comes out in the wash regarding Iceland.

    My main concern is that the historic annals I read and the modern interpretation of them often bear little relationship to each other.

    Scientists like data and seem prepared to accept anything that enables them to prepare their models. I think the idea of a highly accurate global temperature to 1850 is laughable and many of the individual country data bases incorporated are little more than train wrecks. SST’s to 1850? How does that work when much of the globe had not even been explored then, let alone its water surface minutely sampled.

    So I think the big story is likely to be the comical unreliability of most historic instrumental temperature records-with some honourable exceptions- rather than fraud.

    I wouldn’t bet the house on any global temperature being remotely accurate prior to automatic weather stations in the 1980’s, which always assumes they are correctly sited. Even then it would be desirable to correlate them as far as possible with satellites. Then we might have some short term idea as to what is happening and be able to make some sort of comparison to the many observational records (rather than necessarily transcribed data records) that stand scrutiny from the past.


    • A C Osborn says:

      Tony, I don’t know how you can keep denying some kind of conspiracy.
      After Climategate, all the about faces of all the predictions of the warmist industry, the rewriting by Politicians and NGOs of the IPCC Scientific Contributions in to those Summaries that do not say what the original Science showed and now this information.
      The Billions being made by the Researchers and the Trillion being made by the Green Energy brigade.
      Can I ask you, what would it take for you believe in one?

      • A C Osborn says:

        Tony, oh yes I forgot, how about the President of the United States Of America setting his attack dogs on 7 Sceptical/Luke warmers who have presented to Congress, but not a single Warmist Scientist?
        And you don’t think it is a conspiracy?

        • tonyb says:

          AC Osborn

          That ‘call out a denier’ web site was disgusting and I said as much on Climate Etc. The harassment of people like Soon and Curry is also disgusting.

          As regards what it would take before I believed there was a conspiracy?

          Irrefutable evidence would help, which would be in the form of those keeping the records being unable to explain the changes in a sufficient number of cases to demonstrate this wasn’t isolated and had nothing to do with the over complicated process of taking a historic temperature reading and turning it into a ‘global anomaly.’ .

          Coincidentally, I had just got back from the Met Office when I was made aware of Euan’s article. It was a two fold purpose, firstly to carry out research in their excellent library.

          Secondly, to make the point to them that there is a lot of disquiet as to how data is apparently being changed, whereby I made the suggestion that if they wanted people like me to dismiss conspiracy claims on blogs such as this, the Met Office needed to meet this head on. Specifically they need to scientifically refute the claims made by such as Euan. I subsequently specifically referenced them this blog and an waiting for a reply.

          The idea that the senior scientist I met–or the three or four others I have met or corresponded with over the years- then went back to his desk and had a busy afternoon changing data to suit a political agenda I would find incredible.

          I may think their over dependence on dubious data needs to be pointed out, but that they deliberately created the dubious data I find harder to reconcile with what I know of them.

          However, the onus is on them now to satisfactorily explain the sort of results that Euan and Homewood have come up with, otherwise I will obviously need to revise my opinions of their position and role.


          • Euan Mearns says:

            When I set out to look at this problem it was to characterise the impact of homogenisation. The thesis put to me was that look at a large enough area and the net result should be zero (why, why, why do it then???). And that’s exactly what I found for central Australia. What I didn’t expect to find was ZERO warming. Well I actually had a hunch because Roger sent me his spread sheet with 300 S hemisphere records on it. I was up to midnight last night crunching records from S Africa – its identical to Australia!

            Since homogenisation is supposed to keep features that are common to records I DONT think it is homogenisation that has removed the 1939 record warmth or the 1960s cooling.

            I visited the MET Hadley many years ago now with Dave Rutledge. We gave a couple of talks on fossil fuel resource constraints. Really nice folks all beavering away in their silos.

            It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

            Upton Sinclair

            One of the things I understand least about this is BEST and hope that Richard Mueller will be sufficiently curious to investigate. Its always possible that myself and Roger are doing something naively wrong since neither of us are scientists 😉 We need the MSM to pick up on the Iceland story in order to extract an explanation from GHCN.

          • Peter Carabot says:

            Tony There is a Senate Commission of Inquiry, in Australia, about the adjusted temperatures records, if you like have a look at Ken submission, it’s rather lenghty but were well researched. From the tone of your comments looks like anything weather is your passion,

          • tonyb says:


            Thanks for that link. It will be interesting to hear the end result.


    • Euan Mearns says:


      My climate concerned commenters here are showing no surprise, disbelief or shock at what may turn out to be some gross data fiddling. I sent this to a couple of senior US officials giving them the opportunity to respond in advance, lest I have made a mistake. But they don’t seem interested.

      although at the edges there are certainly some who are more activist and advocate than scientist

      Maybe some of them are good at writing code? I don’t think the homogenisation bots have made all the data modifications here. One of the big problems is the vast sea of data, made worse by BEST. Regional sets of thermometers should all go up and down together – like they do in Iceland. It doesn’t take long to scan these records and find the ones that look the same. These are the good records, especially the long ones. Give me 20 good records any day in place of 1000 bad ones.

      The good thing here is that the data is on line and can be checked. The NASA GISS interface is really quite excellent. Maybe they did land on the Moon after all 😉


      • Euan:

        The four graphs in the pic below summarize my Iceland results, put together using temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures:

        Top left shows anomalies relative to 1951-1980 unadjusted GHCN v2 means for Akureyri, Grimsey, Hofn Island, Teigarhorn, Reykjavik, Keflavik and Stykkisholmur, doesn’t matter which is which. As you can see reducing them to a common baseline brings them nicely into line (the black line is the 5-year average). I’m confident these results give a true picture of Iceland temp trends.

        Why isn’t Vestmanwhatever there? As shown by the heavy blue line in the top right graph it doesn’t fit the other records, so I rejected it. (I could have used it after about 1940 but it wouldn’t have made much difference.)

        Bottom left shows the GHCN v3 adjusted means calculated the same way as the unadjusted records. (These may not be from the same adjusted data set you used).

        Bottom right shows adjusted minus unadjusted = total adjustments.

      • You can see a couple of large artificial downward shifts in the Vestmannaejya record when you subtract it from the mean of the other Iceland records. An example of how my Human Eyeball Mark 1 record selection and rejection approach works in practice. 🙂

      • William says:

        My climate concerned commenters here are showing no surprise, disbelief or shock at what may turn out to be some gross data fiddling.

        Well, actually I just hadn’t got round to it… 😉

        I won’t give you disbelief of shock anyway for the same reason that nobody on the RealClimate thread treated your question very seriously. Its just more of the same, people are tired of it. I’ll make a few comments all the same. First off, it would be easier if you included a map showing the stations – like this one:
        Maybe you can inline that – email me for a higher res copy if you like.

        When you look at the map, it is clear that Reykjavik and Keflavik… are really close and might be best treated as one, since you are giving all stations equal area weight. And as you said the record at Vestmann…. is dodgy and should be excluded. And the two eastern stations are pretty close together too. So we are down to about 5 or 6 incomplete records, not 8. That is not many from which to draw big conclusions about improper data manipulation.

        One thing that does surprise me is the lack of error margins. You and others were upset by proclamations of 2014 being a new “record” because they mentioned error margins only on the second page, or whatever. So I would have expected a good discussion of wide error margins and great uncertainty that must be part of the picture here.

        A further puzzle to me is that you treat v2 as the standard against which to measure, but who says v2 is correct? It was abandoned for v3, presumably because people thought it was deficient (ignoring conspiracy theories). Was v2 accepted by skeptics as the standard? My impression is that skeptics have been attacking reconstructions, site placing and so forth for a decade or more and yet you write as if v2 is the truth. I find that strange.

        Another thing I find odd is the certainty with which you claim that temps have remained unchanged for 100 years on the basis of your simple averaging of the v2 data. And yet other sources seem to indicate that there has been warming, like this article by the Icelandic Met Office:
        That article is not exhaustive, I know. And it is possible that the IMO is also part of a conspiracy to “rewrite the climate history of Iceland”, but I can’t imagine why they would want to.

        You might also be interested in “An analysis of Icelandic climate since the nineteenth century”,

        • Euan Mearns says:

          William, thanks for the map and links that are useful. Second paragraph of you first link:

          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.

          This pretty well says exactly the same thing that I have said. Which I guess makes me right and you wrong.

        • A C Osborn says:

          This response from william just goes to show that he doesn’t really read what has been written.
          He doen’t even realise that V2 is the RAW data and V3.1 is the Homogenised (Mangled) data.
          We haven’t even got to whether the V2 data is any good or not, but we already know that it is not good for Icelandic data as it is the Homogenised Icelandic data, not Raw data as it is supposed to be.

        • William says:

          Which I guess makes me right and you wrong.

          Does it? Well 1925 is not the “beginning of warming” as your graphs denote 1917; and 90 years is not 98. But if we ignore this, and that you have averaged things without area weighting and included dodgy records for the Vestmann…. station… maybe you are right, within the margins of error (which of course we don’t know) 😉

          A C Osborn, V2 is not raw data. The raw data would be in the notebooks that recorded the temperature measurements. One might call still it raw if it had just been transcribed, assuming whoever transcribed it didn’t make mistakes or corrections. But that isn’t the V2 data that Euan used. There are 24 sets of this “raw” data (see above), each with a different ID that have been processed to get the 8 combined station records that Euan selected. That is what is meant in the original article above where it says:

          To recap, from 2001 to 2011, GISS based its analysis on NOAA/NDCD’s temperature collection GHCN v2, the unadjusted version. That collection contained for many locations several records, and GISS used an automatic procedure to combine them into a single record, provided the various pieces had a big enough overlap to estimate the respective offsets; non-overlapping pieces were combined if it did not create discontinuities. In cases of a documented station move, the appropriate offset was applied.

          GISS might have done a good job at that. An automatic procedure combining several records into a single record sounds great! Just like a homogenization algorithm. And it says that the data is corrected for known station moves, which is good, we like that. So this is V2 data, not raw, but adjusted and processed by an algorithm – one that you apparently trust.

          So my question was why that dataset should be considered the reference set? It is not raw. It has been manipulated to remove one non-climate influence but not others (station moves: yes, TObs changes: no; changes to the equipment: no; changes to the enclosures or environment: no; seismic events: no; etc.). It might be “better” than v3 or it might not – you have no way of knowing.

          • Euan Mearns says:

            William, please go find somewhere else to spew your dross. The sad thing is that the papers you link to and the map are actually useful which is why I’ve kept you around. But nit picking over the details here is tedious. Why don’t you go look at the data deletions in the 1960s cold period and the data manipulation around the 1939 peak warmth and offer a scientific reason for doing this. We can then see if your reasons match those offered by GHCN.

  3. Florian Schoepp says:

    Dear Euan,
    again, very interesting and revealing… As far as I can see, these revisions/deletions were not done by the Icelanders but NASA. Maybe Iceland has a different view?

    On a remotely related topic: I have been doing some research into exporting/exchanging electric energy via interconnectors such as the ones already existing between Sweden and Germany as well as the one being build between Norway and Germany in order to capture mainly wind enrgy “surplus”.

    As far as I can see, Iceland is at least studying the idea of a cable between Iceland and the UK (via Scotland; shortest distance) and perhaps the continent. Since such a cable would take about five to six years to build, it would arrive at a good time in the UK/EU when several nuclear plants will go off-grid for political reasons and wind farms come of age (high maintenance cost). Do you have any idea(s) on this?

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Florian, I heard that we will build a link Scotland – Norway. Why don’t you bring this up in the next Blowout which is a better venue for broad off-topic discussion.

  4. Yvan Dutil says:

    Victor Venema would warn that automatic homogenization on isolated place is problematic and manual methods a better in those cases. Also, I think I have read somewhere that GHCN might used homogenized data has input because many of the international data are from national weather services. Indeed, you do expect that the past is colder than raw data because old thermal shields were not as good as new ones.

    For comparison, this is the Berkeley Earth value for Iceland.

  5. Well well, so the global warming conspiracy continues? 😉 I also wonder how and exponential growth of anything would have no or little impact on anything…

    In the meantime from the other science news:

    Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at Earth’s surface for the first time. They measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from Earth’s surface over an 11-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel emissions.

    First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth’s surface


  6. A C Osborn says:

    You can read IMO’s “attitude” for yourself here.

    Aa you may have guessed Paul Homewood has done a real job on this and Euan has confirmed just some of his work.

    What you probably don’t realise is that as Yvan Dutil has hinted at USHCN RAW is actually IMO’s “Quality Adjusted Data” so the data actually gets adjusted twice when GISS adjust it.

    IMO are not at all amused by this state of affairs as basically NCDC/USHCN/GISS are saying that IMO do not know how to do their jobs, just like they said about the South American Meteorolgical Offices.

    Then you have the likes of
    Alexander Ač says: February 26, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    Well well, so the global warming conspiracy continues? 😉 I also wonder how and exponential growth of anything would have no or little impact on anything…

    Not prepared to look at the data, not prepared to verify anything for himself but then adds a Warmist Study that he thinks is good for the warmist cause.
    Well I suggest Alex that you go and look at WUWT, who also posted it thinking that it was good science.
    It has been seriously questioned on there and also at Tallbloke’s Talkshop. if ever there was a case of Cherry Picking” data that study is it.
    But on top of that the study shows that if it is sound science that the warming after a Century of currently increasing CO2 will be, wait for it, 2 W/m2 which is about 0.36 Degrees C.
    And for this the world is spending a $Trillion

  7. manicbeancounter says:

    I had not realized you had done this work. On my own, following Paul Homewood’s lead, I looked at the Paraguay data for eight of the eleven stations that you looked at in “The Horrors of Homogenisation“, comparing the raw data with the GISS Homogenised. I can corroborate your results there. There is something I can add to your analysis. By creating average anomalies for the raw data and the adjusted data, along with the average adjustment, I was able to show that a 1 degree cooling in the late 1960s was offset by change in adjustments of 1C. The homogenisation bot decided that a natural rapid drop in temperatures could not be real, and eliminated it. The consequence was to cool the past.
    I also took a look at the Reykjavik data, and can again corroborate your findings. That is
    – The size of the adjustments.
    – The missing data. In particular in the mid-1920s, when there was a drop in temperatures.
    I did not find the added data, as the Reykjavik was already a complete record. My analysis also adds
    – A comparison of the frequent station relocations to the adjustments. The large adjustments do not correspond to any relocation.
    – The Reykjavik adjustment for 1939-1942 was larger than the average, and there was no anomaly in the raw data to offset. No homogenisation bot would have created this huge outlier in the data.
    Like yourself, I would have thought that the data was broadly realistic, despite a few isolated, biases. But given that there are now three distinct clusters of corrupted data – Paraguay, Iceland and central Australia – and that the first two clusters might be more extensive – then my opinion is rapidly changing.
    Kevin Marshall

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Kevin, homogenisation is a catastrophic can of worms that GHCN have constructed to beat themselves with. It changes everything and nothing. It does homogenise out real signal. It should never have been applied to Iceland. My suspicion is that V4 may homogenise V3 data and that the target is to have a homogenised temperature curve that fits CO2 exactly. Keep taking photocopies until the real picture disappears.

  8. Louis says:

    well, I’ve been reading the posts on Australia et al. and am .. well bewildered.

    Many thanks Euan (& Co).

    The information data and graphs are presented in a way that even a lay person such as myself can understand and what is revealed is both shocking and thought provoking.
    Without seeing the data as you’ve presented it I simply wouldn’t have believed it.
    Naive ? … I guess so.
    Again, many thanks.

  9. Owen says:

    Its the same with Valentia, Ireland data. They lowered the temps for 1850- 1920 period to make them look cooler than they were.

  10. ducdorleans says:

    anybody interested in Iceland climate by a real meteorologist, and not by some computer, should also read …

    and following posts …

    • Euan Mearns says:

      Is that compared to V2 or V3.1? It looks like V3.1 to me. But the whole thing is a total mess.

      • ducdorleans says:


        not really … if you read some blogs by T. Jonsson, who was also mentionned on Paul Homewood’s, for myself it is perfectly clear …

        1. these people at IMO are the most diligent observers of their climate …

        2. they have “homogenized” their own record (and they are the best placed to do that, not e.g. BEST, because they know and experience their climate) and published everything open and naked on the internet … the reasons are explained on T. Jonsson’s blog, Jan & Feb 2012 …

        3. nothing in their handling of the observations, or reporting of their data has been changed (ever since the Hovemoller report) since 1956 (see T. Jonsson’s blogpost dd february 2012)

        4. therefore GISS might and should also take into account that 1956 date …

        5. now, if you look at the difference between IMO and GISS V3, the hankypankying from GISS goes on before 1956 and after 1956 … while homogenizing was maybe explainable before 1956, after 1956 the IMO methodology remained constant, and therefore GISS has some explaining to do if they change their data …

        6. GISS is equal to IMO from 1967 onwards, so they have “some trust in the IMO … GISS cooled before 1963 … they got rid of the warming in the 30’s to 60’s … and cooled up to 1.7°C … since those are averages, that is a BIG number …

        7. result is that the temperature goes more or less constantly up from when GISS starts, in 1880, at the bottom of the LIA (you can read all that at the chiefio’s)

        8. while the real record in Iceland was some cooling from 1830 to 1890, some warming to 1945, some cooling to 1980, and the warming since then … (see also climate4you – prof Humlun ..)

        9. GISS has simply introduced, administratively, some more catastrophicness …

        if you missed it, here are the excels … … I think they explain themselves, but if you want me to clean them up a bit, drop me a note … 🙂

        • Euan Mearns says:

          Duc, did you read my post ? 😉

          I think we are all making the same observations here, which is a comfort since I am often nervous about making mistakes. But the crux of your enquiry is the veracity of the GHCN V2 data. Simple answer, I don’t know, and right now its not top of my list of things to check. I did compare some GHCN UK records with those I have from Met office and from memory there were discrepancies. GHCN have records not on current Met data base for example.

          Homogenisation in Australia F*d up everything and nothing. The same will be for southern Africa. The key questions for me right now are 1) the very targeted changing of Iceland records and 2) the fact that temperature trends in Australia and southern Africa are totally flat based on V2 data. This latter observation I really don’t understand.

          • ducdorleans says:

            Yes, I certainly did … If it wasn’t interesting reading here, I wouldn’t be here … 

            But here we have something special, really special … we have ORIGINAL data … and they are so incredibly difficult to come by … not only for me – I wouldn’t be able to do such excels for Belgium, my home country, but even for the TEAM members …

            So much has been written about it, but here’s one from Steve Mc Intyre from 2012 (


            In East Anglia’s response to July 2009 FOI requests for alleged confidentiality agreements (here) , CRU stated that, since the 1980s, they had entered into confidentiality agreements that prohibited them from providing station data to third parties, but were unable to “locate” any such agreements noting that they had “moved offices several times during the 1980s”:

            “… Since the early 1980s, some NMSs, other organizations and individual scientists have given or sold us (see Hulme, 1994, for a summary of European data collection efforts) additional data for inclusion in the gridded datasets, often on the understanding that the data are only used for academic purposes with the full permission of the NMSs, organizations and scientists and the original station data are not passed onto third parties. Below we list the agreements that we still hold. We know that there were others, but cannot locate them, possibly as we’ve moved offices several times during the 1980s. Some date back at least 20 years. Additional agreements are unwritten and relate to partnerships we’ve made with scientists around the world and visitors to the CRU over this period. In some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties. We included such statements as standard from the 1980s, as that is what many NMSs requested…. ”

            In East Anglia’s submission opposing appeals by Jonathan Jones and Don Keiller (e.g. here), they made the even stronger claim that national meteorological services(NMSs) “invariably” released information only under licences that prohibited transfer to third parties:

            “… It was invariably the case that most NMSs only released information under licences, both written and verbal, that prohibited the further transfer of the information. There was no standard form for such licences but they were all similar in that they prohibit the onward transmission of the data to third parties…. ”


            Since they are so hard to come by, imho, we should be focussing on the originals data … We don’t have to compare GHCN2 (partly made up) to GHCN3 (more partly made up) … we don’t even have to go and look at GHCN1 at Columbia U.

            Therefore, I was a bit disappointed that all the well read blogs have not had more interest in comparing GHCNx with the IMO data themselves …

          • ducdorleans says:

            checking WUWT, I see that Paul Homewood has done this before, with the same result …


            it’s not really a GISS miss … He there compares GHCN with IMO …

            I clearly missed that one …

          • Euan Mearns says:

            Duc, so you’d like to see a post using just the IMO data and comparing that to the V2 data to see how accurate the latter is. I can do that. But it will have to wait weeks. I’m up to my ears in Africa right now, then I move on to E Siberia and then S America.

            UK met office publishes a lot of temperature records. These can also be QCd against GHCN.

          • ducdorleans says:


            I can do some work for you, and include also GHCN2 in my excels, and clean them up to make them easier …

            the WUWT Paul Homewood post I referred to has some very interesting exchanges from a few people with the likes of Dana, Tom Curtis and Nick Stokes …

            Nick says, among others

            “The data is identical. GHCN almost never changes its numbers”


            “So when people complain that the original data has been changed, that isn’t true. These are the accepted sources and they agree.”

            very funny up to now …

  11. ducdorleans says:

    Euan & Roger,

    maybe you have, but it isn’t clear to me …

    as Paul Homewood already did, you should compare GISS to the original Icelandic Met Office data …

    very thorough, very honest, very accessible …

    (e.g. in GISS V2, and Stykkisholmur, there are “no data” from 1980 onwards, as if everybody in the IMO had left … but of course these data exist at the IMO)

    see for the result …

  12. Found you by way of Tom Nelson, adding you to my climate folder. Your work up above is very helpful, Thanks!

  13. tonyb says:


    I will chase the Met Office if I hear nothing as we do need a clear rebuttal and an intelligible explanation for the apparent discrepancies you and others note.

    I have asked Judith Curry over at Climate Etc to carry a link to this article in her ‘week in review’. If she does, hopefully you will come and comment. The week in review tends to go up either today or Saturday, but of course she may have other things on her mind at the moment.

  14. Pingback: Week in review | Climate Etc.

  15. Rud Istvan says:

    Got here late via a tip from TonyB and the link that Judith Curry indeed posted.
    Three comments.
    1. At least for Reykjavik, the GHCN V2 ‘raw’ is essentially the IMO record as adjusted by Trausti Jonsson, with temperatures carefully and manually adjusted for 6 station moves, one motivated by improper siting. So GISS v3.1 is indeed unnecessarily homogenizing an already homogenized record.
    2. BEST automatic data ingestion has some problems. Example 1-BEST shows 1 Reykjavik station move when in fact there were 6. Example 2- Rutherglen Reaserch Australia (rather a famous example there of improper BOM homogenization) starts in 1965, when in fact there is a continuous record for this pristine agricultural research station from November 1912.
    3. I did some research on US GHCN. The project manually inspected 1007out of 1221 CONUS stations. Only 14 were pristine CRN 1 using the 2002 Climate Reference Network standards. 13 of these are comparable V2 to V3 (Corpus Christie has a lat/lon discrepancy).
    V3 removed some to all of the urban heat island effect in the three pritine urban stations, San Antonio, Syracuse, and Charleston. There was no evidence of UHI in the three pristine suburban or 7 rural stations. Yet V3 homogenization cooled the past (opposite what GISS says the UHI adjustment is) and in one case also warmed the present, in 9 out of 10 stations. It appears the homogenization is polluting good records from poorly sited records. I have a draft post on this into Judith Curry. TonyB has a copy for comment.
    Very workmanlike analysis, Euan. Regards.

    • Euan Mearns says:

      I have reached the provisional conclusion that one of the central problems is FAR too many stations. You could probably capture the world with 500 carefully chosen long records. Avoiding urban records all together is not bad starting point. Station moves etc may justifiably be corrected for by the folks on the ground. Beyond that it is clearly a catastrophe for proper science. 10,000s of stations, most with crap, short, fragmented records tell you nothing of value. Then developing complex software to manage and process the whole thing places the temperature history of the world in the hands of a few individuals. This is a precarious situation for all of us to be in. Non-climatic influences on station records should on a large scale cancel – apart from UHI that should simply be avoided.

      No V3 homogenised record is actually a temperature record since most carry code designed to homogenise a larger area. I’m just about done looking at southern Africa. Screeds of data have been deleted from the old records – that’s probably the most valuable data we have. With a tendency to create data in the recent past. But like Australia, the net effect is small on the regional average.

      Hope you have time to look at my Australia post – it gives a good picture of how homogenisation works, changing everything and nothing. 30 stations in central Australia show zero warming. Southern Africa shows same. I don’t think it is homogenisation that is manufacturing warming in OZ or SA, I don’t know yet what is, but quite determined to get to the bottom of this.

      • A C Osborn says:

        Euan, don’t forget you did not do the work for the whole of Australia, only one section.
        The major cities are used which have been shown to be massively influenced by UHI with some very badly placed Stations.
        So you cannot actually say “it gives a good picture of how homogenisation works, changing everything and nothing.” it is only true for your 30 stations.
        Do you know how many GISS/GHCN Stations there are in total for Aus?

      • You could probably capture the world with 500 carefully chosen long records.

        You can actually come pretty close with a lot fewer than that:

        • Tonyb says:


          That’s interesting . Can you tell us which ones were used and what organisation they came from? Giss? Best? Met office?


          • Tonyb says:


            Just noticed it only went to 2005 . What happened then?


          • Euan Mearns says:

            I’d point out that grabbing the V2 data now involves the following steps

            1) find station record
            2) download text version
            3) copy paste text to XL
            4) apply text to columns function
            5) copy paste the annual metANN record to another spread sheet
            6) clean data of 999.9 cells that = no data

            And then you can begin your data analysis. Its easy to do but takes time and concentration. Then you have to do the same for V3.1. And then comparing the two becomes a nightmare. The difficult bit is subtracting one from the other. No data returns zero and same data returns zero and so it takes a lot of time to check the zero returns to see if they represent no data or same data.

          • Tony. The data are from the GHCN v2 unadjusted data set. I downloaded them from GISTEMP in or around 2006, which is why the series stops in 2005. I don’t think much will have changed since then, however. The current NCDC GHCN v3.2 unadjusted data are substantially the same as the GHCN v2 data I used.

        • Euan Mearns says:

          Temperature change is congruous over large areas. Everyone’s approach has been totally wrong – trying to gather as many records as possible when what should be done is to gather the best, long, QCd, continuous, rural records.

          I might add that I’m able to comment in an informed way about this because Roger has shared a lot with me by email. Roger’s 900 are split roughly 600 N and 300 S. I’d be interested to see what happens when records from highly populated and prosperous regions are eliminated.

          In my southern Africa data I see a quasi 85 years cycle. Does that ring any bells?

          • Euan:

            A little additional information, this time en clair

            Temperature change is congruous over large areas.

            Sometimes it is, like in Central Asia and India, and sometimes it isn’t, like between Greenland and Hudson Bay (Greenland warmed by about 3C relative to Hudson Bay between 1920 and 1930). Temperature trends on either side of the Himalayas and Andes are also quite different. I allow for this by segregating the Earth into “climatic zones” and area-weighting them, although it turns out that this doesn’t make much difference. The reason we can get reasonably close to a representative global series using a comparatively small number of records is that we don’t need very many before differences of this kind begin to average out.

            Everyone’s approach has been totally wrong – trying to gather as many records as possible when what should be done is to gather the best, long, QCd, continuous, rural records.

            There are three problems with rural records. First, they are just as likely to show spurious warming or cooling trends as “urban” records (see the graphic below, from my 900-record data base). Second, over much of the Earth there are no long, continuous rural records, and here we have to use “urban” records whether we like it or not. Third, there often aren’t enough metadata to say whether a station is rural or urban; more than a few stations are in fact misclassified in GHCN. In any event I don’t consider the distinction important. Most “urban” records show no signs of urban warming gradients, and the few that do are easily weeded out.

            I’d be interested to see what happens when records from highly populated and prosperous regions are eliminated.

            I’m pretty sure the answer would be “not much”.

          • Euan Mearns says:

            Nothing like facts to ruin theories 🙁

            But your 64 to 900 chart shows that large numbers of stations are not required. And that temperature series are congruous across large areas with a common climate – and that should be used to benchmark quality. And so if you have a warming urban record in an area with no rural warming, you reject it. Do you have Pretoria, Durban and Port Elizabeth in your data base? These are three records I rejected.

          • Back again: On the rural versus urban question, Euan, how would you classify Alice Springs?

            And up the road is Tennant Creek, classified by GISS as “pop<10,000”, which seems to be the present GISS definition of “rural” (Vostok is pop<10,000). For many years the station was located at the yellow pin in the Google Earth view below:

          • William says:

            Temperature change is congruous over large areas.

            If you believe that to be true for Iceland (which it might be), then it gives a clue to the quality of the V2 reference data. It is obvious when all 8 sources of V2 data are plotted together, that the differences between them reduce in modern times. This might mean that temperature change has become more highly correlated across the island over the last 130 years, but I take it to mean that the quality of the data has improved.

            If you add a variance column to your spreadsheet and plot it (variance of the data in each year) you might get something like this:

            From that graph (which I might have messed up), I naively infer that the quality of much of the data before 1970 is not good: any data before 1930 is terrible, data for the cold period of 1965-70 is poor, data for the 1939 and 2003 peaks are good.

          • Euan Mearns says:

            We have already decided that the Vestmannaeyja data are no good. My including that in the mean of 8 stations has little effect. If you have included it in a study of variance it will have a big effect. So the first thing is to exclude that from your data. You can see from my figure 2 and your chart that Vestmann goes walk about around 1930. If you look at my Figure 2 and filter out Vestmann you can see that the data come together during recent warming, diverge during 60s cold, come together again during 30s warming and diverge again during the cold of the 1800s. So there may be something to the observation that the cold periods have more variance. This analysis should also ideally be done on anomalies to remove the natural temperature variance that does exist.

          • A C Osborn says:

            The work by Roy Spencer shows that Rural is a population of Zero, or may be low numbers per square Km.
            As soon as you have houses, streets & car parks etc antwhere near the station UHI starts.

            As to weather being regional, that is not correct, you only have to compare this small island to see that.
            Sotland weather is not like South East England which is not like the welsh coast.

            But for a global outlook, which is totally fictitious and meaningless you may well be right about the 60-100 stations.
            But I would have thought that at least 1 per Country would be good.

          • Euan Mearns says:

            This has prompted to make a dT chart that is now added at the end of the post. And here’s stdev on the dTs.

  16. Pingback: Whence Waves Wither | Skeptical Swedish Scientists

  17. Greg Goodman says:

    Fig 11 is interesting. I needs comparing to SST.

    Even on global averages those step changes around 1960-1975 are there but the timing is a bit earlier. Also it looks like the ’98 El Nino arrived in 2003 and Pintubo dip peaked in 1997.

    I lag correlation would be interesting and may demonstrate the data have been beggared in v3

    To save me digging it all out of GHCNv2 do you have that mean iceland data you show in fig 11? (monthly preferably.)


    • Euan Mearns says:

      Average T V2
      1880 3.96
      1881 1.05
      1882 0.87
      1883 2.87
      1884 3.90
      1885 2.55
      1886 2.37
      1887 2.38
      1888 2.31
      1889 4.23
      1890 4.00
      1891 3.88
      1892 1.61
      1893 3.36
      1894 4.37
      1895 3.57
      1896 3.80
      1897 3.87
      1898 3.71
      1899 3.16
      1900 3.78
      1901 4.32
      1902 2.93
      1903 3.12
      1904 4.05
      1905 3.76
      1906 3.60
      1907 2.72
      1908 4.60
      1909 4.29
      1910 3.12
      1911 3.96
      1912 4.38
      1913 4.10
      1914 3.35
      1915 3.93
      1916 3.98
      1917 3.07
      1918 2.96
      1919 3.07
      1920 3.67
      1921 3.55
      1922 3.85
      1923 4.07
      1924 3.77
      1925 4.36
      1926 4.45
      1927 4.49
      1928 5.21
      1929 4.83
      1930 4.34
      1931 4.73
      1932 5.07
      1933 5.65
      1934 5.17
      1935 4.93
      1936 4.82
      1937 4.39
      1938 5.00
      1939 5.83
      1940 4.60
      1941 5.43
      1942 4.75
      1943 3.79
      1944 4.24
      1945 5.09
      1946 5.01
      1947 4.57
      1948 4.30
      1949 3.82
      1950 4.56
      1951 3.59
      1952 3.81
      1953 4.82
      1954 4.71
      1955 4.12
      1956 4.42
      1957 4.65
      1958 4.27
      1959 4.69
      1960 5.19
      1961 4.77
      1962 3.94
      1963 4.03
      1964 5.23
      1965 3.85
      1966 3.44
      1967 3.36
      1968 3.27
      1969 3.02
      1970 3.27
      1971 4.25
      1972 4.84
      1973 4.05
      1974 4.64
      1975 3.82
      1976 4.57
      1977 3.96
      1978 4.25
      1979 2.86
      1980 4.47
      1981 3.44
      1982 3.85
      1983 3.19
      1984 4.21
      1985 4.24
      1986 3.85
      1987 4.80
      1988 4.02
      1989 3.81
      1990 4.26
      1991 4.93
      1992 4.37
      1993 4.33
      1994 3.92
      1995 3.51
      1996 4.72
      1997 4.50
      1998 4.29
      1999 4.39
      2000 4.33
      2001 4.71
      2002 4.95
      2003 6.07
      2004 5.43
      2005 4.49
      2006 5.21
      2007 5.28
      2008 5.05
      2009 5.26
      2010 5.50
      2011 5.12

      • Greg Goodman says:

        Thanks Euan,

        I’ll have to see whether I can find time to get the monthly data and do this properly, but off the bat it looks like there may be more of a correlation with Iceland _leading_ global SST by 6.6 y.

        This is something I’ve noted before when looking at AO, CO2 and arctic ice. Im many ways Arctic climate indices seem to show it leading global trends.

        This is very speculative but there are distinct patterns that line up:

  18. Philip Copeland says:

    Tony – excellent article – look forward to following your blog.

    I’d love to see someone do some analysis on the Australian BOM Data – looking at splitting the stations into Urban vrs Non-Urban. From what I have seen – it looks like a lot of the warming we’ve seen – particularly in recent years occurs in the Urban areas.

  19. Ofay Cat says:

    Great stuff, but it doesn’t matter. The power people, the elites, the special interests … huge number of powerful lobbies all going for global warming and the money they must extort to protect us from it. They run it we pay for it. That’s all she wrote. Only a violent uprising by an alleged majority of skeptics and truth seekers will have any effect on what is happening … they may be forced to stop with the idiotic wind mill scam, but the carbon taxes are on their way … along with internet taxation comparable to cigaret taxation. We are screwed ladies and gentlemen. The game now is, hide your jelly donut and keep a low profile.

  20. Colin Park says:

    So what is the purpose of changing the data? Is it to rough for the current models to handle?

    • A C Osborn says:

      Partially, but mostly it appears to be to align the temperature Trend with the CO2 Trend.
      Plus it is to maintain the appearance of continued warming.
      Can’t have it cooling when CO2 is still rising, it destroys the illusion of AGW.

      • kokoda says:

        AC…I came to that very same conclusion, therefore, I consider the temp data as provided by GHCH, GISS, etc to be purposely manipulated cuz it wasn’t warming. And it seems not be be the homogenization as the major culprit; the deleting of raw data with blank data and adding invented data where none existed seem to be causal.

  21. Pingback: My Enquiry to GHCN | Energy Matters

  22. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2015/03/03 | Free Northerner

  23. Owen says:

    Here’s what happened to temp data in Ireland

    Valentia would be a rural station

  24. Pingback: AWED Energy & Environmental Newsletter: March 9, 2015 - Master Resource

  25. Pingback: The Iceland Meteorological Office Versus GHCN V2 | Energy Matters

  26. Pingback: Understanding GISS Temperature Adjustments | ManicBeancounter

Comments are closed.