Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America
By Paul Homewood
One of the regions that has contributed to GISS’ “hottest ever year” is South America, particularly Brazil, Paraguay and the northern part of Argentina. In reality, much of this is fabricated, as they have no stations anywhere near much of this area, as NOAA show below.
Nevertheless, there does appear to be a warm patch covering Paraguay and its close environs. However, when we look more closely, we find things are not quite as they seem.
There are just three genuinely rural stations in Paraguay that are currently operating – Puerto Casado, Mariscal and San Juan. They all show a clear and steady upward trend since the 1950’s, with 2014 at the top, for instance at Puerto Casada:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860000&dt=1&ds=14
It could not be more clearcut, could it? However, it all looks a bit too convenient, so I thought I would check out the raw data (which is only available up to 2011 on the GISS site, so the last three years cannot be compared). Lo and behold!
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308860860004&dt=1&ds=1
As we so often see, the past has been cooled.
GHCN show the extent to which they have adjusted temperatures, the best part of 2 degree centigrade.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/3/30886086000.gif
Of course, there may be a genuine problem with Puerto Casada’s record, except that we see exactly the same thing happening at the other two Paraguayan sites.
So we find that a large chunk of Gavin’s hottest year is centred around a large chunk of South America, where there is little actual data, and where the data that does exist has been adjusted out of all relation to reality.
Even by GHCN standards, this tampering takes some beating.
Sources
Raw data from GISS is here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/
Adjusted data here.
Trackbacks
- Climate change shenanigans | Angeles City Voice – The Angeles City Portal
- The Truth Behind Temperature Records Used for ALL Global Warming Claims | paullitely
- Recent Energy And Environmental News – January 26th 2015 | PA Pundits - International
- Solar Flare, Plasma Penetrates, C(lie)mate | S0 News Jan 27, 2015 : Conscious Life News
- Solar Flare, Plasma Penetrates, C(lie)mate | S0 News January 27, 2015 | TheSurvivalPlaceBlog
- Solar Flare, Plasma Penetrates, C(lie)mate | S0 News January 27, 2015 | Edgewalker
- Solar Flare, Plasma Penetrates, C(lie)mate | S0 News January 27, 2015 | From the Trenches World Report
- Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming
- Solar Flare, Plasma Penetrates, C(lie)mate | S0 News January 27, 2015 | The Wave Chronicle
- News Feed
- Solar Flare, Plasma Penetrates, C(lie)mate | S0 News January 27, 2015 | Vortex Me
- NASA Satellite Climatology Data | Energy Matters
- I Remember When!!!! Paul Homewood Demonstrates More Temperature Malfeasance By The Warmist Lunatics!!!! | suyts space
- AndThenTheresPhysics on Paraguayan Temperature Data | ManicBeancounter
- "Hottest Year On Record?" Think Again! Meet 'Seasonally-Adjusted' Seasons | ZombieMarkets
- ‘Hottest Year On Record?’ Think Again! … Meet ‘Seasonally-Adjusted’ Seasons
- “Hottest Year On Record?” Think Again! Meet ‘Seasonally-Adjusted’ Seasons « Pivotal Trades.com
- Forget Climategate: This ‘Global Warming’ Scandal is Much Bigger | US Issues
- The Truth Behind Temperature Records Behind ALL Global Warming Claims and Predictions | considerthisinfo
- The Propaganda methods of ….and Then There’s Physics on Temperature Homogenisation | ManicBeancounter
- Chicago Boyz » Blog Archive » Global Warming Again.
- Is there a Homogenisation Bias in Paraguay’s Temperature Data? | ManicBeancounter
- Classical Values » Fiddling with numbers
- Future Generations | Indyfromaz's Blog: The Thoughts of An Independent Arizonan
- » Report: Temperature Data Being Faked to Show Global Warming
- Report: Temperature Data Being Faked to Show Global Warming | American Conservative Daily News
- Global Warming Fraud Exposed | Uncommon Descent
- The Global Warming Scandal Is Political; Not Scientific – AllNewsNetworks.com
- The Global Warming Scandal Is Political; Not Scientific | InTheKnow
- Scientists Falsifying Data to Pander Global Warming » Sons of Liberty Media
- Climategate the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming | Follow The Money
- New SHOCKING "Climate Change" Data Exposes "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever" ⋆ X TRIBUNE
- NASA Exposed: Massive Temperature Data Adjusting All Over The World
- 2014– Hottest Year Ever Recorded? Look! | Somewhat Reasonable
- Temperature adjustments: Dodds, Mosher and Venema cannot be happy | Shub Niggurath Climate
- Agenda 21, Cooked Science Data, and Property Rights - The Daily Coin
- VIDEO Agenda 21, Cooked Science Data, and Property Rights | Reclaim Our Republic
- IL SEGUITO DI CLIMATEGATE: COME SIAMO ANCORA INGANNATI CON DATI IMPERFETTI SUL GLOBAL WARMING!
- Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America | The Media and Us
- Republicans To Investigate NASA Over Climate Data Tampering | ZombieMarkets
- Republicans To Investigate NASA Over Climate Data Tampering | PushBack
- Republicans To Investigate NASA Over Climate Data Tampering | newsgrubber
- Today’s News February 23, 2015 | Fiat Planet
- » Republicans To Investigate NASA Over Climate Data Tampering Olduvai.ca
- Republicans To Investigate NASA Over Climate Data Tampering
- Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming | Knowledge Wealth Centre
- Whence Waves Wither | Skeptical Swedish Scientists
- The Red (Team) Analysis Weekly 194 - Evidence, Climate Change, and the Eighth Circle of Inferno - Red (Team) Analysis
- Top Six Problems With “Climate Change” « Chemtrails: The Exotic Weapon
- Three Moving GIFs Demostrate Global Warming Is Based on Lies | Western Free Press
- Catastrophic Failures in Science | Michigan Standard
- Manbearpig and NOAA’s Hushing the Hiatus | The Patriot Perspective
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Paul, the more people look at more of the data the more Tampering they find.
I am totally disgusted they they have the nerve to call themselves “Scientists”, the only science they seem to understand is that of Falsification. In that they are experts.
I noticed Chris Booker was on your site the other day, it would be nice if some of your data could get in to the press.
Congratulations, Paul!
You pulled the curtain on the United Nations’s IPCC as the modern day Wizard of Oz !
The Problem: Totalitarian rule by world leaders and puppet scientists for the past seventy years (1945-2015):
1. Created a false conflict between physical sciences and spirituality.
2. Obscured the Sun’s control over every atom, life and world in the solar system.
3. Destroyed the integrity of science and constitutional limits on government.
4. Left society unprepared to survive 1 AU (astronomical unit) from a stormy pulsar.
The Solution: ? ? ? Must extend far beyond the limits of solar, nuclear and climate science, like problems identified in “The Great Social Experiment of 1945-2015″
Click to access Social_Experiment.pdf
Perhaps the only realistic solution is a return to the childish faith of our ancestors?
Those corrupted scientists tampering with the raw data are obviously UN agents. We need names! Let us call out these individuals and expose their corruption.
Surely, this is evidence of fraud?
And, heads should roll.
Others are starting to question:
http://junkscience.com/2015/02/11/omanuel-alert-coronal-dynamics-discussed-as-one-of-astronomys-mysteries/
How can these “public servants” be held to account for their fiddling?
Paul, Please can you slow the animations down old eyes have problems with rapid movements.
john
John – Thanks for bringing this subject up. Paul I would also appreciate it any time you could slow things down or enlarge data for my old eyes. Thank you so much for your research, Paul.
Can Gavin be prosecuted in the USA under something like “Misconduct in a Public Office”, or straightforward fraud?
The guy is a crook.
Make sure Sen Inhofe gets this. He may have the power to make something happen. I would love a public hearing.
I’m talking to Marc Morano on this
Good luck!
The UN’s IPCC continued to push the AGW agenda after Climategate emails exposed fraud in late NOV 2009.
As noted below, falsehoods started to appear in the scientific literature and in textbooks as consensus science almost immediately after the UN was established on 24 OCT 1945!
Senator Ted Cruz has oversight of NASA in his new committee chairmanship. He should see this and hold the hearing.
Senator Cruz’s campaign to renew space exploration at NASA will confirm the the end of the UN’s “Great Social Experiment of 1945-2015.”
It won’t work.
Thanks to the insight and ability of a few bloggers like you to communicate, “The Great Social Experiment of 1945-2015″ is over.
Click to access Social_Experiment.pdf
The challenge now is to:
1. Retain the benefits, and
2. End the deception in
The Great Social Experiment
Paul, nice and concise. Make up data for places where there isn’t any, using fiddled data from elsewhere. Fiddled to produce an appearance of warming not in the actual instrument record from elsewhere. Then get caught out by the simple expedient of your bothering to check.
Looks like they used the same method for parts of Africa and Siberia in order to manufacture the hottest ever PR.
Paul, getting a posting on WUWT will lead to plenty of exposure across the pond.
I’ve just chosen one place, and looked at the adjusted data for Mariscal – too late to do any more at the moment. I can tell you that since 1993 there has been no warming, or any other change, in the annual average. Try it on your favourite spreadsheet but be sure to compute and plot the confidence intervals for the fitted line! Have not looked yet at monthly data, which might give more precise information. Prior to that date there was steady warming (if you believe the adjusted data).
Robin
Went to BEST and checked all three stations noted here. BEST is hardly perfect, witness station 166900 (essay When Data Isnt in new ebook Blowing Smoke). But was much better than GHCN post homogenization at many other stations (Rekyavik, Sulina, De Bilt, Rutherglen). BEST is in basic agreement with Paul and the unhomogenized GHCN data.
That adjustment is extraordinary. It is enormous. What possibly justifies it? How can the raw data be that far out? This makes no sense. And then Rud Istvan checks the notorious warmongers at BEST and their data doesn’t match GHCN. This is crazy.
Congratulations for your find
From french friend
Agree with all comments and am becoming convinced that we definitely have “Adjusted Global Warming” rather than “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. Agree with comment on flashing graphs, very good for showing the effect but difficult because of rate of flash and changes of y-axis values at the same time.
This exercise needs doing for all stations (I know, huge task). One would expect that with a large dataset of stations, there would be as many upwards adjustments as downwards adjustment. A flashing graph of all combined stations would show the true extent of the upwards adjustment and thus the magnitude of the fraud perpetrated by “climate scientists”.
Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
Paul Homewood shines a much needed spotlight on yet more outrageous data adjustments that cool the past artificially, yet again rubbishing “warmest year on record” claims. What’s going on now in the name of climate “science” is nothing short of scientific fraud on massive scale. Why no one has been held to account to date is beyond me.
The southern Andes are shown as being well represented by weather stations.
Why am I skeptical about this? Apart from some parts of the Chilean Andes, such as the lower elevations of the Southern Alps, I just don’t believe that the southern Andes is well-sampled.
This is nothing new and if you look at the work being done by Steve Goddard
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
exposing fraudulent adjustments you have to wonder how they are being allowed to get away with it
The map on NOAA´s homepage
do not have the grey areas as the map above, although present in central Africa. Are they extrapolated already, or where does the “measurments” come from?
Yes, they infill in a similar way to GISS
Not true at all. There is data for the regions which are colored.
Wrong Jay.
If you look at the Land Only map (in ther post) you will seelarge gray areas.
This Land & Ocean one that Lars shows is after infilling
I am convinced Joseph Stalin himself played a key role in designing “The Great Social Experiment of 1945-2015″
Click to access Social_Experiment.pdf
Who else would use the entire human population in such a worldwide social experiment, without consent?
How many billions are spent on researching global warming and there is no thermometer coveage for at least 90% of the world? I think that fact alone is evidence of deliberate fraud. Otherwise known as creating your own reality.
I live in Asuncion. Have you checked the station ASUNCION GISS (airport) Its consistently much much higher than muy own eletronic thermometer at home probably due to UHI BTW my father worked for the WMO setting up these stations in the 70’s in Paraguay
In response to my request yesterday for comments on “The Great Social Experiment of 1945-2015,” Robert K. Wilcox, author of the most definitive book on the history of Japan’s atomic bomb project [1] – described this as:
1. “a giant issue of monumental proportions”
and
2. “the greatest secret of the universe – creation, God”
His response helped me realize that my entire research career has been the re-discovery of information my research mentor – the late Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda – probably already knew: This greatest secret of the universe was hidden from the public in 1945:
Modern nuclear physics and ancient spiritual teachings agree:
God (a conscious and intelligent Mind) uses neutron repulsion to make galaxies of stars, solar systems that orbit the stars, and worlds consisting of atoms, chemical compounds and living organisms with conscious awareness of their surroundings, memories and the passage of time.
Kuroda and probably others were aware of it – the post-WWII “secret” symbolically displayed as a point of origin of sun rays emerging from the center of the flag of the Land of the Rising Sun (1870-1945) and also represented by the sun goddess Amaterasu Omikami in the Shinto religion [2].
This post-WWII “secret” is consistent with basic spiritual insights of many different religions and philosophies, e.g., [3].
References:
1. Robert K. Wilcox, Japan’s Secret War: Japan’s Race Against Time:
2. Information lost to humanity after WWII:
Click to access Humanity_Lost_WWII.pdf
3. Yellow Lark’s Prayer:
Click to access Yellow_Lark’s_Prayer.pdf
30886233000 SAN JUAN BAUTISTA/MISIONES calls for closer examination. The id suggests a WMO station with id 86233, but the WMO inventory indicates that this is VILLARRICA, (capital of the Departamento de Guairá, not Misiones) at 25 45S (-25.75) 56 26W (-56.4333). These coordinates give a radiance value of 12, which puts it in the (GISS) periurban, not rural, range. The GHCN coordinates, 14.5 km away point to a forest location which is truly rural, but highly unlikely.
The real San Juan Bautista is the capital of the Departamento de Misiones, and appears three lines later in the GHCN inventory as 30886260000 SAN JUAN BAUT, also just into the periurban range.
v3.inv (GISS version with radiance values):
30886233000 SAN JUAN BAUTISTA/MISIONES -25.80 -56.30 155 233R -9HIFOno-9x-9TROP. SEASONAL A 0 90
30886248000 PUERTO STROESSNER PARAGUA -25.53 -54.60 196 148U 94FLxxno-9x-9TROP. SEASONAL C 40 90
30886255000 PILAR -26.85 -58.32 56 60S 15FLxxno-9A 1MARSH, SWAMP B 13 90
30886260000 SAN JUAN BAUT -26.67 -57.15 126 90R -9HIxxno-9x-9TROPICAL DRY FORB 11 90
Such errors have been inherited from GHCN v2 (only US stations appear to have been revised when moving from v2 to v3).
v2.inv (GISS version with radiance values):
30886233000 SAN JUAN BAUTISTA/MISIONES -25.80 -56.30 155 233R -9HIFOno-9x-9TROP. SEASONAL A 0
30886248000 PUERTO STROESSNER PARAGUA -25.53 -54.60 196 148U 94FLxxno-9x-9TROP. SEASONAL C 40
30886255000 PILAR -26.85 -58.32 56 60S 15FLxxno-9A 1MARSH, SWAMP B 13
30886260000 SAN JUAN BAUT -26.67 -57.15 126 90R -9HIxxno-9x-9TROPICAL DRY FORB 11
Ironically, GHCN v1 in fact had these two stations correctly named:
v1 temp.statinv:
3118623300 VILLARRICA -25.75 -56.43 -999 1941 1990 0.5 0
3118624800 CIUDAD DEL ESTE -25.53 -54.60 -999 1951 1989 5.8 0
3118624802 PTO. PTE. FRANCO PARAGUAY -25.60 -54.60 125 1951 1968 9.3 0
3118625500 PILAR -26.85 -58.32 59 1951 1989 8.3 0
3118626000 SAN JUAN BAUTISTA MISIO -26.67 -57.15 -999 1956 1990 1.0 0
There are numerous errors in the GHCN station inventory (although I have only just now noticed that some of these seem to have been introduced when moving from v1 to v2 – I had up to now assumed that these were historical baggage carried forward uncorrected from the earliest versions). It seems time for some effort by NOAA to correct these errors, a substantial number of which cause GISS to incorrectly classify stations as rural or urban by examining the night-time radiance value at the wrong location.
Reblogged this on Roald j. Larsen.
There should be an audit trail, from the raw data to the adjusted data. Hopefully there are some names to go along with that. Send off the culprits to fight ISIL !
I’m not down with that. “Tampering” doesn’t even beg to describe it.
I am looking forward to a clear scientific reasoning for these adjustments from the global warmists that will, I am sure, prove us doubters wrong
Hi, sorry to burst your bubble.
I’ll wait for NOAA and NASA to defend their tampering, rather than listen to the message boy.
They already have defended it. NOAA and NASA have long provided documentation on the reasons and methods for this “tampering”. Their message boy is just trying to explain it to you. He also showed that if you take out all the tampering that globally the warming trend is still there, though perhaps to the point of your post, 2014 may no longer be the hottest.
If you don’t approve of the reasons and methods for homogenization, then I’d suggest you attack that instead of pointing out what’s been known for over a decade, that the data are not used in their raw form, and the homogenization sometimes turns “cooling” into “warming”.
We’re way past that stage. We know that they “homogenise”, as you can see from many previous posts on the subject – check out the “temperature adjustments “tag.
GHCN have been asked on most of these occasions to explain their adjustment, and each time have not been able to.
This time, I have again contacted them, and have been promised an answer from Jay Livermore. It remains to be seen whether he can justify these changes.
You might also be interested in this comment on Cowton’s video
Wow, they are getting desperate. That video by Cowtan is hilarious. I can see why he disabled comments on it!
He claims that a drop in temperature ‘would normally indicate a calibration problem’. He’s such a devout believer in global warming that he thinks any instance of cooling is an error.
Then he looks at other nearby stations and says they also show cooling around 1970, so – horror – it might be real. He then cherrypicks one station outside Paraguay that he claims does not show cooling around 1970, though in fact it does. And he claims that this provides an ‘independent check’ on the Paraguay temperature.
He’s speculating, based on no evidence whatsoever, that there was some change in the way Paraguay measured it’s temperatures around 1970.
I could accept their “homogenization” argument if their were some statistical congruence between the raw data and the “homogenized” version. What excuse can justify the reversal of a trend?
I looked at a Hansen “adjustment” to the GISS dataset from a dozen years ago. This was the GISS average temperature of the US by year. The earlier data was not raw, since it had already been adjusted by Hansen more than once previously. I loaded the old and new data into Excel and calculated the difference. What Hansen had done was adjust the years before 1973 down and the years after 1973 up which created an enhanced warming trend which did not exist in the previous dataset. Hansen did not make a step change in 1973, rather he began with small adjustments in 1972 and 1974 and increased the value of the adjustment as the years became further from the pivot point of 1973. I posted this on Climate Audit and asked how this sort of adjustment could be justified, since it enhanced a small trend to make it more obvious. This adjustment Hansen also reduced the warmth of the 1930s.
I find it very interesting that Timboss can show data that is flat and data with a warming trend and make the claim that they are similar and thus the adjustments are acceptable.
Timboss, let me take your side for a moment and agree that there were calibration problems with certain whether stations in Paraguay, and that these calibration problems required NOAA or GISS to adjust the data. I’ll accept that this is in fact true with some weather stations. Please explain then why all the adjustments increase more recent temperatures and decrease those further in the past. Statistically, this simply can not be true since errors occur pretty much equally in both directions.
Please also explain why there is no adjustment for the UHI effect. Urbanization has created UHIs which have a far larger temperature increase than the “unprecedented” warming upon which the IPCC is based.
LMAO @ Timboss!!!!
Paul, congrats on the Breitbart linkage. Well done!!!
The video is hysterically stupid! I loved the bit about the ocean data! Lunatic alarmists don’t realize ocean data from the 50s is farcical! Indeed, all of the ocean “data” is farcical before the satellite measurements….. but, then, those aren’t really surface temps, either.
@ Hans …. Paul did exactly that. He attacked their “homogenization” methods.
In the real world, you can’t simply wish away real measurements, regardless of what you think of the real measurements.
In math world, if you don’t believe the numbers of a data set, then, you remove the numbers, you don’t invent different numbers for the numbers you believe are in error.
What Timboss and Hans are engaged in is rationalization, not justification.
Anyway, Paul, great job!!! Thought I’d swing by and give you props!
James Sexton
What happened to the information we were expecting to be so valid from space?/Users/rcsherrillj/Desktop/Screen Shot 2015-01-17 at 5.58.54 AM.png
S Sherrill
Although NASA, DOE, EPA, NOAA etc were all corrupted to push the agenda of frightened leaders that formed the UN on 24 OCT 1945 to hide the source of energy in cores of
a.) Atoms heavier than 150 amu
b.) Gaseous planets like Jupiter
c.) Ordinary stars like the Sun
d.) Galaxies like the Milky Way
With the false “consensus”
a.) Standard Nuclear Model
b.) Standard Climate Model
c.) Standard Solar Model
d.) Big Bang Cosmology
Reality could not be bent to fit the UN’s Agenda 21. Society received many benefits from the decision to form the UN, but noble ends to not justify deception.
Reblogged this on What's In The Doug Dish?? and commented:
weather preparedness
As with our own warped sense of humor in discussing the attempt by fools to rule the world, . . .
there is a TRAGIC-COMEDY unfolding at the very limits of our comprehension:
There is little doubt world leaders tried to save themselves and the world from nuclear annihilation in 1945 by:
1. Forming the UN to take totalitarian control of society, and
2. Changing solar and nuclear physics to hide neutron repulsion in cores of atoms, planets, stars and galaxies heavier than 150 atomic mass units (where nuclear structure changes to neutrons in the core and neutron-proton pairs at the surface).
At the limits of our comprehension, at the intersection of spiritual and scientific knowledge, is the certainty of an “intelligent and creative Mind” (Max Planck) guiding force fields from the Sun’s pulsar core in creating and sustaining every atom, life and world in the Solar System . . .
a volume of space greater than the combined volumes of ten billion, billion Earth’s !
I.e., world leaders are trying to hide a force of creation, incomprehensibly more powerful than anything they could have imagined.
Whether or not we succeed, world leaders will fail to control God’s force of creation.
I think that if it were that obvious and that what you are saying is true then it would be front line news. I am not saying you are not correct, but given the implications of what you claim, if it was even half true it should be on the front line news. Katy Perry gets more news.
” Katy Perry gets more news”
Exactly! That is the sort of news which gets covered in depth. Topics which require an understanding of the scientific principles involved get very little coverage. How is it that politicians get away with stating that science is settled? Do they not understand that this runs counter to the scientific method? I’ll give you 3 examples of science that was settled by politics:
1. The earth is flat.
2. The sun revolves around the earth.
3. Man will never fly.
There are many other examples. There is a wonderful book called “The Paradigm Shift” which goes through many examples of the science being settled, when along came someone who disproved the settled paradigm.
“it should be on the front line news.”
YES, it definitely should.
.. but it won’t !!
Now ask yourself why not, and you will be starting to ask the right questions.
More “Hodkey Sticking” I see..
I hope that the raw data is archived outside of GISS. Warwick Hughes has been looking into this in Australia for some time. There are many posts on Climate Audit about these “adjustments.”
Paul,
Kudos to you for highlighting shoddy data analysis. I dug into this (just a little) and it is even worse than you thought!
I am familiar with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis (STA) data which is the data source referenced here. Your point that in South America, there were historically not a lot of reporting stations is very well taken. And, as with all the surface temperatur data stations, measurements have a lot of variation due to local weather. Finally, you sometimes move stations or upgrade sensors, and that affects the measurements. So typically you would correct the data by (1) considering neighboring measurements or (2) applying a correction factor based on a time series comparison before and after the known move/upgrade.
So around 2008-2010 NASA made a change: “Originally, only documented cases [of sensor changes] were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCDC applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes.”
So no neighboring stations exist in South America, so how would you determine these errors ? “However, it is likely that the largest contribution to the margin of error is given by the temporal and spatial data gaps. That particular margin was estimated as follows: All computations were first made replacing the observed data by complete model data. Then the calculations were repeated after discarding model data where the corresponding observations were missing. Comparisons of the two results were used to obtain an estimate for that margin of error.” [ibid]
In simplistic terms where there are no neighbouring stations to compare to, GISS uses the model data as a stand-in for those neighbors. And the model has built-in temperature escalation. That is extremely poor Data Analysis, and likely means the entire STA results set has an upwards bias.
The Data Scientist
Brian Williams also reads these data stations as a sideline. Once, while reading them in South America, his Volkswagen was fired upon by pygmy warriors using shoulder mounted RPGs. He may be available for this work full-time soon. JMHO
A linear fit to the Puerto Casado data shows a trend of -0.2C/decade in the raw data and a trend of +0.2C/decade in the adjusted data. The adjustment was huge!
Raw and adjusted Puerto Casado data along with linear fits:
http://s1381.photobucket.com/user/steve09355/media/puerto_casado_zpsr6xggwhc.png.html
The dishonesty of this blog is stunnng
Ed,
I agree. I read through some of the comments. They are filled with ad hominem arguments.
The post about Puerto Casado never addresses the question of why the adjustment needed to be made in such a way as to create an upward trend. They discuss non-climatic impacts on temperature records without discussing what they are or, as Anthony Watts has found, the fact that most of these cause an increase in warming rather than a decrease. Therefore, many stations should be adjusted for non-climatic influences by reducing recent temperatures, not by increasing them.
Yes, we do know that “thereisnophysicshere” is very dishonest.
It is a rabid warmist blog, so the dishonesty is expected.
Brilliantly explained
Three members of UC-Berkeley’s BEST team are trying to explain the reason for temperature adjustments here:
Mr. Homewood,
Dr. Kevin Cowtan (from the University of York) reviewed your post and the errors you made when conducting your analysis.
Care to comment on his review? Are you a climatologist?
I made no errors. He suggested that some of the Paraguayan stations contained errors. Unfortunately he was unable to tell us what
Paul, thank you for discovering this. I also watched the video above, is there any truth to it? I appreciate your response.
It’s easy.
This is the original GISS data as it stood in 2011.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/
And this is what they have adjusted it to.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
(Select GHCN v3 adj from the drop down box)
Just find the stations you want and compare.
Thanks, Paul. Will you help me understand further? The guy on the video says the surrounding area was warmer, so therefore the cooler temperatures recorded were a mistake, and needed to be adjusted upwards to match, and that this is a usual procedure. Where is he in error?
Some stations hundreds of miles away showed warmer, but many also showed cooler. Remember that nearly every station in Paraguay and Bolivia next door had similar adjustments.
Have you read my analysis of the same sort of adjustments in New Zealand?
All stations showed the same trends, yet all, bar one, had temperatures prior to 1976 adjusted down.
There are no other stations anywhere near NZ to make any sensible comparison with.
Exactly the same with the Arctic.
Thanks!
Shad,
If you have a blood disorder you don’t want a GP, you need a Hematologist.
When you are looking to find who’s fiddled the figures or cooking the books, you don’t want a climatologist, you want someone used to interrogating complex mathematical data, like …..an accountant.
A statistician would be shocked by what some climate scientists have done to the data. Jim Hansen would adjust the GISS data and then overwrite the original data with his adjusted data. This fact causes me concern about anything based on Goddard data.
Reblogged this on hirstleeds.
Are the NASA links at the bottom of the article correct? Both the raw and adjusted links lead to the adjusted data when using the station selector in either link.
Each option offers a drop down box. More on how to access here.
The only option in the drop down box that produces a Puerto Casado link when I enter Puerto Casado in the search field is the ‘after GISS homogeneity adjustment’.
I am unable to find a Puerto Casado link when I search after entering Puerto Casado in either of the other two data set selections. The only link is back to the station search page.
Figured out how. Instead of entering Puerto Casado, where I get no results, I entered just Puerto, and got a list of all the stations with Puerto.
So far, of 15 ‘Puerto ‘ stations checked, ALL with ‘adjustments’ show alterations which change global cooling into global warming.
Is there a plan to check all stations?
Paul, I’ve made a case study of BEST’s Puerto Casado 1971 break adjustment at Climate Etc and compared it to the equivalent GISS adjustment (also the other GISS and BEST adjustments to the entire Puerto Casado series but 1971 in particular).
Rather than link to the Climate Etc thread which is over 1000 comments now I’ve cross-posted the case study to a thread at Climate Conversation Group starting here (which is interspersed with other comments but nothing like Climate Etc):
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2015/02/scandal-heating-up/comment-page-1/#comment-1283494
All the links back to Climate Etc are there as is a link to your posts here that have been referenced in ‘Temperature records’ at CCG (note the link change downthread).
It’s getting interesting at Climate Etc re BEST. But re GISS, who knows their process for a specific break such as Puerto Casado 1971? The respective adjustments are the same (0.8) but for the other BEST “empirical break” at 2006. GISS doesn’t make an adjustment. Then GISS makes further adjustments that BEST don’t make.
BEST have raised more issues than answers with their post at Climate Etc which in effect took the heat off GISS because your initial criticism above is in respect to GISS, not BEST
Now BEST is taking the heat but in respect to BEST, not GISS.
Yes they are definitely floundering, even contradicting each other.
It is interesting to watch, I don’t think that anyone other than their diehard supporters is very impressed by their descriptions and replies to questions.
As you say they seem to have turned off the spotlight on GISS for the moment to their own detriment.
Desperation reigns! AGW promoters lost the debate but still retain most political power and access to public tax funds, even as outright fraud is revealed in the AGW campaign.
Political power and public tax funds failed to bend reality to fit the agenda of world leaders:
The conclusion to this paper on “Solar Energy” reveals the Higher Power that made and sustains every atom, life and world in the solar system.
Click to access Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf
Although that was not the purpose of the paper, it may help AGW advocates grasp what controls Earth’s climate and causes climate change.
Why are climate data sets put out by NASA and NOAA not independently audited?
Thanks to the excellent investigative work by you, Tony Heller, and a few other brave bloggers, it is now time to relax and enjoy the re-enactment of a classical play on the “Conflict of Arrogance with Reality !”
In the closing scene, Big Brother will learn to prostate himself and recite aloud the prayer of the King of Siam in public:
“O Waa Ta Goo Siam.”
[The prayer automatically translates into English when repeated aloud and restores sanity to arrogant fools.]
The popular and technical press are still refusing to publish criticisms of Global Warming as they all believe that the science is proven and DECC / Government have not yet found a good excuse for their massive wasted investment in white elephants in the name of saving us all.
When the light go out and industry leaves the UK shores for lower cost electricity, they will continue the line. We can all see the idiocy, but haw to change it: that is the question, and I do not see a solution nearby.
Why aren’t the people who falsified this data getting sued for the billions of dollars in economic losses that they’ve cost? A law suit would also get this out to the main stream media.
Today’s news from the galaxy confirm:
I. There are NO BLACK HOLES.
II. STALIN WON WWII & USED THE SELFISHNESS IN US NAS MEMBERS TO CONQUER THE USA
I. https://brittius.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/missing-gravitational-waves-in-the-fabric-of-the-universe-leads-to-black-hole-rethink-weekend-feature-httpift-tt1ozzuiy/
II.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281017812_STALIN'S_SCIENCE or
https://brittius.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/dr-o-manuel-ph-d-stalins-science/
Proof of the ineptitude of science – they fiddle with the data and then put the unadjusted data online along with the adjusted data so everyone can see exactly how it has been fiddled with.