tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post4432767708737366263..comments2016-09-01T13:29:08.341-07:00Comments on The End Is Nigh - Not!: The Past is Getting ColderBrent Hargreaveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03954233178612126761noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-47749086161901371362015-06-06T01:23:07.751-07:002015-06-06T01:23:07.751-07:00Second part of the IMO reply:
I have not taken a...Second part of the IMO reply:<br /><br /> I have not taken a look at the GISS-adjustments.<br /><br />It is very important to note that there will be no final version of any temperature series, but it is as important that new adjustments are always made by the use of the 8am, 14pm and 21pm means but not by an iterative adjustment of earlier adjustments.. <br /><br />Last year I collected the original published values of monthly average temperatures in Iceland prior to 1961. They are to be found in an attachment (viðhengi) at this<br />blogpost:<br /><br />http://icelandweather.blog.is/blog/icelandweather/entry/1249149/<br /><br />The values of course include the Copenhagen-adjustment during the relevant<br />time-period. <br /><br />The original published daily records for Teigarhorn during 1873<br />to 1919 is found in the DMI-yearbooks. The relevant links can be found<br />at:<br /><br />http://icelandweather.blog.is/blog/icelandweather/entry/1228460/<br /><br />At the blog<br /><br />http://icelandweather.blog.is/blog/icelandweather/<br /> <br />more relevant information regarding the Icelandic temperature averages can be found. Please navigate to earlier pages by using the list of months in the leftmost column of the blog - or by using the paging at the bottom of the page (næsta síða = next page, fyrri síða = earlier page).<br /><br />Please note that in the DMI-yearbook Teigarhorn goes by the name Berufjord.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /> Trausti J. <br /><br />###<br /><br />How refreshing to receive such a clear and direct communication from this excellent institution; a rare ray of sunshine! <br />B.R.H. Brent Hargreaveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954233178612126761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-25373305419668546832015-06-06T01:16:27.352-07:002015-06-06T01:16:27.352-07:00For the record, here is the Icelandic Met Office&#...For the record, here is the Icelandic Met Office's admirable reply to my query in Aug 2013. <br /><br />It begins:<br /><br />Dear Brent.<br /> We have the original observation journals from Teigarhorn at<br />hand. The calculation of the monthly means are not quite as straightforward as<br />some people tend to think and is not done in the same manner all over the world.<br />In 1901 the observations were made with instruments from and according to the<br />guidelines from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI). There were three<br />fixed-time observations every day at 8am (local time), 14pm and 21pm. The<br />average of each was calculated and then the average of the average, adding an<br />adjustment depending on the location and the season. In the case of February<br />1901 the averages where: 8am: -0.9°C, 14pm: +0.9°C, 21pm: -0.6°C. The average of these is -0.2°C. As the observation near midday (14pm) is used this direct mean<br />tends to be higher than the "true" average. This is especially evident during<br />the summer. Therefore the seasonal adjustment is needed. In February it is very<br />small, the DMI used -0.1°C for that month. The published value in the yearbook<br />for 1901 is therefore -0.2-0.1=-0.3. The formula used by the DMI is usually<br />called the Copenhagen-adjustment formula. In addition to the monthly average,<br />the daily observations for Teigarhorn are listed in the yearbook, as well as the<br />daily maximum and minimum temperature and the averages of these. In many<br />countries the monthly average is calculated by averaging the daily maximum and<br />minimum of the month. This is not done in Iceland and has never been done. An<br />average of the daily max and min in February 1901 is -0.5°C, i.e. slightly lower<br />than the published value. <br /> The Icelandic Meteorological Office took over the observations in Iceland in 1920. The Copenhagen-adjustment was in use (with<br />slight changes at many stations) until 1956 when another average calculation<br />variant took over (see:<br />http://icelandweather.blog.is/blog/icelandweather/entry/1220332/ and<br />http://icelandweather.blog.is/blog/icelandweather/entry/1223325/). Most of the<br />earlier temperature means (prior to 1956) have now been recalculated so that the<br />means for the whole period of observations at Teigarhorn in use now by the IMO<br />are slightly different from the original published values. The value used for<br />February 1901 is -0.2°C. <br /> In January 2009 the farm at Teigarhorn was abandoned - so there are no manual weather observations after that. An automatic<br />station was put in operation in late 2001 so there are about 7 years of<br />parallell observation at the two station types. The annual mean temperatures<br />during the whole perod were exactly equal (the automatic station 0.02°C colder<br />than the manual one), but there is a systematic seasonal bias cycle in the<br />differences. This could be caused by the screen differences - or that the old<br />seasonal diurnal adjustment constant for the manual station was not quite<br />correct in all months. <br /> It is likely that the high resolution automatic observations will be used to calculate new seasonal adjustment factors back to the beginning of the observations, but when this will be done is not known at this time. <br /> Most of the early Icelandic temperature averages got into the present international market via the Smithsonian World Weather Records publications. The early Teigarhorn series found there is calculated by a direct average of the temperature of the three daily observations. These figures therfore differ from the original ones published by the DMI and have a daytime bias that must be corrected before a meaningful long-term series for Teigarhorn can be constructed. It is therefore entirely natural that there is a difference between the originals, the WWR tables and more recent adjustments. <br /> I have not taken a look at the GISS-adjustments.<br /><br />Brent Hargreaveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954233178612126761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-17159978048617666122015-02-02T10:54:38.677-08:002015-02-02T10:54:38.677-08:00If you wanted to adjust historic temperatures to h...If you wanted to adjust historic temperatures to harmonize them with modern UHI corupted data, you would have to increase historic temperatures by adding a UHI fudge factor. You defenetly would not lower historic data. That only makes the UHI problem worse.<br />Unless, you goal is to show increased warming....Jeff in Calgaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00983710447552608414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-66369300594863463942014-10-26T14:26:17.089-07:002014-10-26T14:26:17.089-07:00Update Oct 2014. The Jan 1900 temperature is now c...Update Oct 2014. The Jan 1900 temperature is now claimed to be 0.2C. Try as one may to understand that some form of "homogenisation" may be needed to give a true picture or to apply a little common sense, for historical temps to yoyo around on a scale of a half-degree here or there is inadmissible. It's data tampering. The whole Global Warming debate hinges on a few lousy tenths and here they are mucking about with the historical record on a scale twice that. Villains!Brent Hargreaveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954233178612126761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-67492654063759668852014-07-03T19:32:51.327-07:002014-07-03T19:32:51.327-07:00Update July 2014. GHCN's latest efforts have d...Update July 2014. GHCN's latest efforts have dipped a further 0.1C. The Jan 1900 temperature at Teigarhorn is now -0.6C. Here's the link: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_620040920000_14_0/station.txt<br /><br />My enquiries to the Icelandic Met Office yielded a good honest result. They have transcribed the original pen-and-paper record. It shows that the temperature recorded at the time was +1.0C. http://www.vedur.is/Medaltalstoflur-txt/Teigarhorn.txt<br /><br />Thank you Onelip and Paul M for pointing out that the fraud is being conducted by GHCN and not GISS.Brent Hargreaveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954233178612126761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-70906283898826694112013-08-12T06:09:58.381-07:002013-08-12T06:09:58.381-07:00Why not just ask GISS for an explaination rather t...Why not just ask GISS for an explaination rather than assuming missconduct?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05214359387746295881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-78198222044066037352013-08-12T05:41:46.450-07:002013-08-12T05:41:46.450-07:00Same thing in Texas. The downward adjustments publ...Same thing in Texas. The downward adjustments published in 2011 for years around 1900 were increased, indeed doubled, in the 2012 publication.<br /><br /><br />http://i39.tinypic.com/2ymhso8.gifAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-49636557794725597012013-08-12T01:07:04.045-07:002013-08-12T01:07:04.045-07:00Raw data is here on a blog run by the iceland met ...Raw data is here on a blog run by the iceland met office<br /><br />http://icelandweather.blog.is/blog/icelandweather/entry/1249149/<br /><br />In fact it is worth reading the whole blog starting from the first entry in January 2012 , which was roughly when Paul Homewood started drawing attention to these erroneous adjustments.<br /><br />As oneillp says, it is not GISS doing the adjustment, it is GHCN/NOAA/NCDC. <br /><br />Paul M Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-43418252520048197692013-08-12T00:44:07.121-07:002013-08-12T00:44:07.121-07:00Who controls the present, controls the past, Who ...Who controls the present, controls the past, Who controls the past, controls the future...rxc and jlmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17501814092684489852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-61940268595758636622013-08-11T21:52:10.195-07:002013-08-11T21:52:10.195-07:00In that case they need to report the precision. Th...In that case they need to report the precision. The decimal value is not a valid statement of the temperature if it arose from 1 degree or 1/2 degree original numbers. <br /><br />Averaging a number of readings allows one to state with some confidence where the actual average lies, but does not increase the precision of the data set or the result. <br /><br />It would appear that lowering the temperature by 1.2 Deg C is fraudulent as that amount exceeds the precision of the readings. It should still have error bars on it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-47056250301096438252013-08-11T20:46:41.465-07:002013-08-11T20:46:41.465-07:00I took a peek at the Jan,Feb,Mar Giss-v2 and Gis...I took a peek at the Jan,Feb,Mar Giss-v2 and Giss-v3(agu. 2013 edition) monthly temperatures at Teigarhorn for the years 1899-1908 ( most of which are visible in the first and third screenshots in the article above).<br />For fullness sake below is the table of all the 2011 giss-v2 data for this period.<br />the v3-data is fully visible in the 3. screenshot up above.<br /> <br />Year Jan Feb Mar<br />1899 -1.7 -0.1 -2.7<br />1900 0.7 -2.5 -0.2<br />1901 1.6 0.0 0.9<br />1902 -4.3 -2.3 -1.6<br />1903 -1.1 -1.1 -0.7<br />1904 0.1 -0.5 1.4<br />1905 -1.5 -2.3 2.0<br />1906 0.5 -1.9 -1.1<br />1907 -0.1 -2.3 -0.5<br />1908 -0.1 -1.3 1.5<br /><br />and I noticed that the the diffrence Giss-v2 - Giss-v3 is = -1.2°C for all those months exept the 1908 Mar entries where the v3 value is ¨only¨ -1.1°C down from the v2-value. <br />Wonder what the explanation can be for this. Anybody know how the rationalization <br />goes?. I am to lazy right now to try to go and chase it down myself. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-73920496751469168402013-08-11T19:27:11.966-07:002013-08-11T19:27:11.966-07:00I can't agree ... "0.7C" in 1900 is ...I can't agree ... "0.7C" in 1900 is still the same "0.7C" when viewed today. If the temperature in the same location in 2013 is measured at 0.7C it does not justify changing history to get context for UHI, etc., ... the 'modern' temperature data must be adjusted downward to reflect the environmental conditions of 1900 at that location, not the historical temperature data.<br /><br />However, what you describe is exactly (incorrectly) what is being done ... the past is being cooled in relation to the environmentally contaminated modern temperature record.Streetcredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087098646859312336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-47264978805644950712013-08-11T17:54:38.434-07:002013-08-11T17:54:38.434-07:00In this case, since GISS treats Teigarhorn as a ru...In this case, since GISS treats Teigarhorn as a rural station and does not further adjust the GHCNM values, it is NOAA/NCDC rather than GISS which is responsible for these shifting values. GISS takes GHCNM data at face value, seemingly rarely questioning the validity of that data as input for further analysis. Also, although knowing that there are serious mistakes in the GHCNM station inventory file, they still use that file to find radiance values for stations, to determine whether the stations are urban or rural, pleading lack of manpower to check the entries in that file, and as a result misclassifying a substantial number of stations. <br /><br />Your values for November 2011 come from GHCNM v2, while those for March 2012 and August 2013 come from GHCNM v3. And even within GHCNM v3 there have been other substantial shifts in these values. If you had taken the October 23rd 2012 version of the GHCNM adjusted (qca) data file used by GISS you would have found:<br /> <br />Year Jan Feb Mar<br />1900 -1.36 -4.56 -2.26<br />1901 -0.46 -2.06 -1.16<br /><br />and there may be other even greater shifts - I have only grepped the data from the data files currently decompressed on my hard disk, and not the many others still compressed.<br /><br />The corresponding unadjusted (qcu) GHCNM v3 data remains unchanged for all the corresponding decompressed files:<br /><br />Year Jan Feb Mar<br />1900 0.70 -2.50 -0.20<br />1901 1.60 0.00 0.90<br /><br />(which you may also recognise as the GHCNM v2 data) <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-54094457651461154492013-08-11T16:57:02.671-07:002013-08-11T16:57:02.671-07:00Every day I try to download data from GHCN.
Here i...Every day I try to download data from GHCN.<br />Here is some result for Teigarhorn:<br /><br />Data file from: January 1900<br />2012-07-12 -0.16<br />2012-08-13 -0.19<br />2012-09-08 -1.36<br />2012-09-24 -1.35<br />2012-11-28 -0.90<br />2012-12-09 -0.30<br />2013-05-24 -0.33<br /><br /><br />All I know data from Theigarhorn should show 0.70 degree C January 1900,<br />but GHCN change the data every day. I have documented GISTEMP for a while.<br />They use GHCN data set. I have never seen to same series from Nasa.<br />Every Month they change global temperature.<br /><br />Have a look: http://www.knuta.no/GISS_en_studie_i_endringer-10151s.html<br />Sorry Norwegian text but the graphs is in english.<br /><br />Knut Aasen<br />Knut Aasenhttp://www.knuta.no/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-82836616015937403352013-08-11T15:51:22.389-07:002013-08-11T15:51:22.389-07:00US Temperatures Have Been Falsely Adjusted Accordi...<a href="http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2012/10/us-temperatures-have-been-falsely.html" rel="nofollow">US Temperatures Have Been Falsely Adjusted According To the Level of Carbon Dioxide In The Atmosphere</a>Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-43881687001750694362013-08-11T15:44:48.529-07:002013-08-11T15:44:48.529-07:00For what it is worth here below is a link to the t...For what it is worth here below is a link to the the English version of front page <br />to the "official" temperature time series from the Icelandic weather bureau (IWB).<br />( I assume pre-computer era data are the "uncooked" data taken from the written records. though I can not vouch for it ).<br /><br />http://en.vedur.is/climatology/data/<br /><br />Look for a subheading saying<br /> <br />"Longer series for selected stations"<br /><br />Data for Teigarhorn can be accessed through the selection menu<br />in the line below that heading, there is also a handful of continuous <br />monthly temperature series from other stations going back to around<br />1930. And one other that goes all the way back to 1823 ( Station :<br />Stykkishólmur ), but I think that the oldest part (from 1823 to 1845)<br />of that one is a reconstruction, If that matters the man to ask at IWB is <br />mr. Trausti Jónsson ( his work email can very likely be found somewhere on the <br />IWB website, staff section).<br /><br />Now the giss numbers for Teigarhorn sure look a bit different from<br />the ones recorded at IWB.<br /><br />Here is the part for January, February and mars from the IWB record<br />for the period 1899 - 1908 ( in Celsius degrees)<br /> <br /> Jan Feb Mar<br />1899 -1.5 0.2 -3.0<br />1900 1.0 -2.2 -1.6<br />1901 1.8 -0.2 0.0<br />1902 -4.3 -2.0 -1.7<br />1903 -1.0 -1.1 -0.6<br />1904 0.4 -0.3 1.2<br />1905 -1.3 -2.2 1.9<br />1906 0.6 -2.0 -1.6<br />1907 0.1 -2.3 -0.9<br />1908 0.2 -1.0 1.0<br /><br />and tabulated differences from the very "august" record of the <br />same by giss version 2013.( also in °C)<br /><br />diffs: Giss - IWB <br />Year Jan Feb Mar<br />1899 -1.4 -1.5 -0.9<br />1900 -1.5 -1.5 0.2<br />1901 -1.3 -1.0 -0.3<br />1902 -1.2 -1.5 -1.1<br />1903 -1.3 -1.2 -1.3<br />1904 -1.5 -1.4 -0.9<br />1905 -1.4 -1.3 -1.0<br />1906 -1.3 -1.1 -0.7<br />1907 -1.4 -1.2 -0.8<br />1908 -1.5 -2.5 -0.6<br /><br />My guess is that computers at NOAA/Giss are overfeeding some<br />of their databases with those magic TOBS-pills that are <br />absolutely necessary to predict the recent past ( hard work that<br />is,we all know) with any certainty.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-30071987524629999892013-08-11T14:47:04.554-07:002013-08-11T14:47:04.554-07:00Talk to Paul Homewood if you have not already.
He ...Talk to Paul Homewood if you have not already.<br />He has done loads of work on this.<br />Paul MatthewsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-24747092638796245882013-08-11T14:19:27.960-07:002013-08-11T14:19:27.960-07:00The idea is to slightly cool the past (while also ...The idea is to slightly cool the past (while also minimizing the LIA) to make the temp upswing off the later 20th look greater.<br /><br />I caught the NCDC doing the same thing with data for the lower 48, which reduces the warmth of the 20's and 30's while also attempting to make this decade look warmer and show that there has not been a pause http://www.thepiratescove.us/2013/07/25/ncdc-changing-temperature-data-values/William Teachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11447753680268439618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-11377026367367586822013-08-11T13:11:26.112-07:002013-08-11T13:11:26.112-07:00You don't need to read to fractions. The fract...You don't need to read to fractions. The fractions arise when working out monthly averages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-59876035252406927482013-08-11T12:57:54.184-07:002013-08-11T12:57:54.184-07:00On Bishop Hill 'TinyCO2' has posted the fo...On Bishop Hill 'TinyCO2' has posted the following link.<br /><br />http://en.vedur.is/Medaltalstoflur-txt/Teigarhorn.txt<br /><br />This seems to be the same the CRU version.Ronhttp://www.climatedata.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-80215890616806140202013-08-11T12:26:34.152-07:002013-08-11T12:26:34.152-07:00I've looked at two other data sets for the sam...I've looked at two other data sets for the same station.<br /><br />The NCDC gives 0.7 °C for data downloaded in 2008 and 2012.<br /><br />The CRU gives 1.0 °C for for CTUT3 and CRUT4.Ronhttp://www.climatedata.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-90020416397178967032013-08-11T12:05:51.090-07:002013-08-11T12:05:51.090-07:00Is NASA trying to estimate what the temperature wo...Is NASA trying to estimate what the temperature would have been in 1900 if the infrastructure and instrumentation were the same as it is today? If they are, and I'm not saying they are, then direct comparisons between then and now could be done. Because there is more development around the site, an historical temperature of 0.7 would equate to a -0.5 today at the current location. If they are doing this, then they must add uncertainty around the "corrected" value. The model by which the temperature is updated to reflect current conditions must be inexact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-29112352456215631672013-08-11T11:54:19.088-07:002013-08-11T11:54:19.088-07:00Look, if the real world data disagrees with the mo...Look, if the real world data disagrees with the models then there's only one thing to do...JohnBUKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05642067380494837893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-76674759106453803112013-08-11T11:00:00.846-07:002013-08-11T11:00:00.846-07:00I think that the issue of units and instrumental e...I think that the issue of units and instrumental error is not relevant here. The temperatures written down in 1900 - well or badly - are a reference point. That source data is being got at. How do we know? Because its modern-day guardians are reporting a single historical fact - that which was written - with forked tongue.Brent Hargreaveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954233178612126761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49626140154558984.post-39553522906258953242013-08-11T09:24:01.084-07:002013-08-11T09:24:01.084-07:00The original Icelandic readings would have been in...The original Icelandic readings would have been in centigrade, as Denmark, the governing power in Iceland at the beginning of the 20th century, along with the rest of mainland Europe, used and still uses the SI system of measurement.<br /><br />There is no reason a field thermometer cannot be read to 0.1 C if sensitive and the scale covers a small range. You don't give the instrument makers of the time credit for the skills they actually possessed.Jabba the Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378736389976858775noreply@blogger.com