A Well Done Comparison of Iceland Temperatures V.S. GIStemp Fantasies

While reading over at TallBloke’s, there was this article:


That was largely a repost and link to this article:


That does a very nice job of showing why I found GISS product GIStemp to be “unfit for purpose” and not a valid temperature representation. It does algorithmic adjustments and extreme (IMHO broken) “homogenization” to a copy of GHCN monthly averages (and an average is no longer a temperature), with a snippet of Antarctic data added and a semi-blending of USHCN monthly averages. This after NCDC has done a boat load of “adjustments” and their own form of ‘homogenized pasteurized data food product’ homogenization on it. (This, often after the individual Met. Offices of various countries have already ‘fixed’ via adjustment and homogenization of the data they collected…)

The farther away from actual daily MIN / MAX readings, the further you get from temperatures. ONLY the actual readings of MIN / MAX and current temp are a temperature. ALL Averages are no longer temperatures, but are a statistic about the original temperatures and no longer represent temperature or heat content. So “don’t go there” is the best idea, but GIStemp goes there in spades and on steroids. This posting shows the result.

They go back to the Iceland Met Office and get the almost-original data only slightly adjusted and homogenized. (IMHO that is still an error, but a smaller one than doing it recursively a few times…) Then compare that to GIStemp “data food product”. The difference is dramatic. The reality on the ground in Iceland is not dramatic at all.

I don’t think I can improve on the article, nor do I think I need to quote the whole thing for effect or to preserve it, so just “hit the link” and read it. Also look at the nice and effective graphs.

Then realize that is what is being done globally in all of the three main suppliers of such “data food products”; NCDC, GISS, and Hadley. They all use very similar methods and start from the same basic input data, so are essentially the same product with only minor variations.

I have a load of articles looking at specific details of the GIStemp product and NCDC “issues”, and they can be found in the various ‘category’ listings at the sidebar of this blog. In particular the dT/dt alternative method, the GIStemp specific, and the NCDC specific. Also note that there is an ‘entry point’ at the top of this blog for GIStemp that has a map to the other articles.

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and GIStemp Issues, AGW GIStemp Specific, dT/dt, GISStemp Technical and Source Code, NCDC - GHCN Issues and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to A Well Done Comparison of Iceland Temperatures V.S. GIStemp Fantasies

  1. A C Osborn says:

    I think it is getting to the point where the weight of Evidence of Data tampering is finally getting some attention.
    Thank you for all the work that you did a few years back and to Steve Goddard, Paul Homewood, Sunshine Hours, Ken’s Kingdom, Jeniffer Marohasy, Jo Nova and any others that I have forgotten for trying to bring this to light.

  2. A C Osborn says:

    By the way you might also like this first posted on WUWT and then pointed to at Real Science and followed up by Tom Nelson.



    This is not some “climate science nobody who doesn’t know what he is
    doing” putting stuff together as they like to claim, this is NOAA hoist
    by their own published data which shows that they have changed the 1997
    global Temperature (not just USA) by over 2 degrees C (4 degrees F) in
    17 years of adjustments.

  3. Larry Ledwick says:

    Good article but truth be told I am done with this nonsense. I no longer waste my time trying to figure how how they “broke it this time” vs last time. It is like they dropped a big vase over and over and keep gluing it back together and each time it manages to get bigger and they cannot see how obvious their so called data is complete garbage. The true believers are not going to give up until they grow old and senile (they are young and senile now) or until they are shivering in a heat free apartment during a summer blizzard because their idiocy also broke the power grid.

    You just can’t fix stupid! The only thing that can change the minds of the “believers” is for each to have their own epiphany. Like a drug addict or an alcoholic you can only do so much to help them and beyond that point it has to be a self driven rehab.

    I have satisfied myself that their “hypothesis” (it is not even a theory and definitely not a proven fact) has been invalidated repeatedly, their assumptions are ludicrous and every responsible rebuttal has been ignored or ridiculed. There is no re-evaluation at all going on, so there is no hope for a cure.

    I therefore choose to let the demented wonder in the wilderness as they wish, and trust that in time the laws of physics, and reality will prove them wrong. Manias of the masses unfortunately are immune to logic or persuasion and only die very slowly as the believers either go away or change their beliefs one at a time.

    I just don’t need the brain damage that comes from trying to compete with a false religion.

  4. omanuel says:

    Climategate exposed a common flaw in consensus opinions on the source of energy in, and physical structure of, neutron-rich cores of

    1. Heavy atoms like Uranium,
    2. Gaseous planets like Jupiter,
    3. Ordinary stars like the Sun,
    4. Galaxies like the Milky Way.

    Click to access Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf

    Fred Hoyle and Paul K. Kuroda left hints that the flaw was introduced about the time the United Nations was formed in 1945 to pursue “UN’s Agenda 21” . . .


    After 1945, worldwide consensus opinions obscured the force of creation – neutron repulsion with these falsehoods:

    1. Science Disproves Religion
    2. A Standard Nuclear Model
    3. A Standard Climate Model
    4. A Standard Solar Model &
    5. Big Bang Cosmology . . .

    Rather than now admit that the Sun’s pulsar core made and sustains every atom, life and world in the solar system, including the climate of each planet and the heartbeat of politicians and puppet scients, world leaders may incitehatred or a “false flag” nuclear war – to stay in power.

  5. sabretoothed says:

    They might as well just use photoshop and colour in their “Temperature of Earth” whatever that is world map. No point even measuring it they can just say what they think it is :P

  6. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    All the changes are well argumented, but they missed to check if it gave strange results where it should not. I would say, that even if it was only one station that behaved strangely, they should have checked the methode.
    What i really feel worried about is the eternal changing of past results. See climate4you.
    Even the reference temperature is changing all the time so even the history has become relative.

  7. manicbeancounter says:

    I have looked into the adjustments in a bit more detail. It adds to what the local expert at the Icelandic Met Office is saying – the GHCN and GISS adjustments are unjustified. In particular, the massive adjustments do not tie in with the frequent station relocations. However, the adjustments do change the all-important story from the data. The raw (and properly-adjusted) data shows early twentieth century warming pretty much the same in magnitude and peak value as the warming since the 1980s. In between there is considerable cooling. The adjusted data squashes the earlier warming along with the cooling period, creating the impression of unprecedented recent warming.
    I created a graph of decade average anomalies.

    Further details at

  8. omanuel says:

    Will The Internet Survive?

    Is the entire future of the internet now at risk, as Tom Fernandez suggests?


  9. David A says:

    I have challenged Mosher many times to explain the adjustments at just ONE station in Iceland.
    I have told him that this should be far easier to explain than the entire data set, and to please explain exactly how and why this ONE stations data was changed.

    Is anyone surprised that he ignores the question?
    Is it a simple coincident that the adjustments at one station, look exactly like the surface stations adjustments to the global record, cooling the warm late 1930s, and reducing the cooling trend to the late 1970s, and create the well known hockey stick?

Comments are closed.