No. The UHI effect shows a cooling bias.
"The cool bias occurs primarily during the mid and late 1980s. Over this period, about 60% of USHCN sites converted from Cotton Region Shelters (CRS otherwise known as Stevenson Screens) to electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature Systems (MMTS). MMTS sensors are attached by cable to an indoor readout device. Consequently, limited by cable length, they're often located closer to heated buildings, paved surfaces and other artificial sources of heat."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/microsit...
NASA knows what they are doing. John Cook provided the explanation from NASA. As far as the Iceland Met Office is concerned, their argument over the GHCN corrections are with NASA.
Jim Z
You're right. I counted the second and third as a single link. Thanks.
I am more interested in how you came across the email in your "Additional Details".
Why does your Excel chart show data for 1901 - 1930 for the Icelandic Met Office? The link you supplied for their data set starts in 1931.
As to your questions:
1. Where exactly did the GISS data come from? - Your link says it is station data. Should you wish an exact answer to this question then I suggest you contact them on this. Browse down to bottom of the page where it says, "Contact Us". http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
2. Why is there such a discrepancy? - I can only guess that one is adjusted data and that the other is using raw data. You are likely to get a better answer to this by contacting them both. Icelandic Met Office contact information is at the bottom of their home page http://en.vedur.is/ Perhaps the only real discrepancy is the perceived one.
3. How often does a mainstream global temperature dataset (like GISTemp) contain elements of individual locations that clearly show more warming than the local data? How often is the reverse true? - This would depend largely on if the local data uses raw data or adjusted data. In order to answer the second part of this question you need to compare all global location data to the "mainstream" data, as you put it. ... Looks like you may be busy for a while. I am not doing it for you.
4. Does anybody wish to do a more advanced analysis? (This is just me in 20 minutes.) - Nope. I can look at global conditions and get an understanding of what is happening to our global climate. You want to play games with local data sets so you can pick and choose what is to your liking. Go for it. I could care less. As I have said before, take all of the world's thermometers and place them inside freezers. Now go look around the globe and see if all of the glaciers are moving back towards a full recovery. .. I will bet that they do not. I will bet that they will continue to decline. ... Do you gamble any, Ottawa Mike? I mean with more than just with our future generations' anthropologically induced global climate?
Ottawa Mike - I will not get into a back and forth on your counter responses other than to say that, yes, YOUR Excel chart does show data for the Icelandic Met Office starting in the year 1901. Both your lines show the same starting point for both data text files being used. 1901 on YOUR chart. But, the Icelandic Met Office data set text file starts in the year 1931. The GISS data set text file begins in 1901. So, how can you have the same starting point for each data text file when one starts 30 years later than the other and you start both in the year 1901 on YOUR chart?
Kano, the only course of action I have ever proposed is the reduction of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. The way I have ever proposed to doing this is by using less fossil fuels by 1. Consuming less. 2. Conserve what you consume. 3. Recycle what you discard. - Here is something for you to consider. What are the economic consequences when fossil fuels become so expensive to use that we can no longer build the economy through their use? The wise and fruitful thing to do is to have alternative energy sources in place before fossil fuels become too cost prohibitive to use. The only reason the tar sands and fracking are cost effective now is because the price of fossil fuels are so high now. Should the cost of the barrel return to $50 then it is no longer economically feasible to pursue these costly forms of fossil fuels. Should this happen then these reserves no longer exist in an economic sense. We would then be energy starved. Renewable energy sources will become the only viable form of energy sources in the future. And yet, you wish to further delay their introduction as energy sources. .. This is not very well thought out on your part. Unless you are only concerned about what you can get within your lifetime.
Ottawa Mike
Ah! See! It makes a huge difference when you properly identify each axis. I took it as a starting point of 1901 and an end point of 1981. Thank you for the clarification. Your chart was rather misleading until explained further.
It is irritating that there seems to be no authority or to quote Algore, no legal controlling authority, to insure the data and the "interpretations" can have some credibility and consistency. I personally have a problem when I see them consistently modifying records to benefit their cause and never seems to be modified in a way that it threatens their cause. Interestingly, alarmists never seem to have a problem with that. What was the deal with those 999.9s anyway?
CR, it would help if you counted correctly. Presumably you meant 4th and not 3rd link. I don't follow your logic either even if you meant 4th.
Note: Rookie is living up to his name. He thinks he can look at global conditions and get an understanding. What a joke. He can't even look at local conditions and get an understanding. He is like the child who thinks he understands everything about the world. Only alarmists can come up with idiotic statements like this and get high fives from his fellow cultists. It apparently takes a minimal amount of education to get an understanding of what you don't know and the first two answerers need to go back and gets some basics IMO.
Quote the blue is the raw data, the red is adjusted for heat Island effect.
Hmm they have done the opposite, reduced the old readings, when heat Island effect was less, and increased the modern readings when when heat Island effect is more.
This is a blatant example of temperature manipulation (fraud)
some1has2bthe rookie. Quote
"Do you gamble any, Ottawa Mike? I mean with more than just with our future generations' anthropologically induced global climate?"
AGW is gambling with our future, economic depression, worldwide poverty is what we will get if we follow your course of action
Let's start here with a nice graph from GISS: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=620040300000&dt=1&ds=14
Now I went to get some data. First, GISS has the data for their above graph here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_620040300000_14_0/station.txt Next, I went to the Icelandic Met Office: http://en.vedur.is/Medaltalstoflur-txt/Reykjavik.txt
I fiddled in Excel and came up with this: http://postimg.org/image/ru15z0cgz/ Note that the Met Office data goes to 2000 and GISS to 2012 (with some gaps for some reason).
So just a few questions:
1. Where exactly did the GISS data come from?
2. Why is there such a discrepancy?
3. How often does a mainstream global temperature dataset (like GISTemp) contain elements of individual locations that clearly show more warming than the local data? How often is the reverse true?
4. Does anybody wish to do a more advanced analysis? (This is just me in 20 minutes.)
