All Of Paraguay’s Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With
By Paul Homewood
Just when you thought it could not get any worse!
After identifying that all of the three rural stations currently operational in Paraguay had had huge warming adjustments made to their data since the 1950’s, I tended to assume that they had been homogenised against some of the nearby urban stations. Ones like Asuncion Airport, which shows steady warming since the mid 20thC.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=308862180000&dt=1&ds=12
Asuncion Airport
Silly me! When I went back to check the raw data, it turns out all of the urban sites had been tampered with in just the same way as the rural ones.
Let me state again. These warming adjustments have taken place at every single, currently operational site in Paraguay.
Apparently, Mosher has been arm waving, and telling us that the station I originally highlighted, Puerto Casado, must have “moved”, although he cannot tell us where or when. Or why, indeed, such a move would have caused something like 2C of difference.
But it now seems that all nine stations moved somewhere much colder, probably Patagonia!
The reality is that, as far as the story of temperature adjustments is concerned, the genie is out of the bottle now, and no amount of huffing and puffing will put it back.
What is perhaps most telling is that we have not heard a word from NCDC or GISS. We expect the jokers from BEST to jump in, but this data and the associated adjustments are from NCDC and GISS.
Serious accusations have been levelled against them in the media, yet they have not responded or attempted to defend their data. Instead, they seem intent to sweep the matter under the carpet, just as they did last summer when they told us “the system was working as it was supposed to”!
But it gets worse!
GISS are supposed to make a “homogenisation adjustment”, to allow for UHI bias, the sort of thing you would expect to see at Asuncion Airport, Paraguay’s main gateway, handling over 800,000 passengers a year.
However, far from increasing historic temperatures to allow for UHI, GISS has done the opposite and decreased temperatures prior to 1972 by 0.4C.
It looks as if the system is working just as it is “supposed” to be!
Sources
Raw GHCN data to 2011.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/
GHCN Adj data
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
GISS Homgenised data
Trackbacks
- Solar Flare, Plasma Penetrates, C(lie)mate | S0 News Jan 27, 2015 : Conscious Life News
- News Feed
- Two Non-Conspiracy Theories | Frank Davis
- I Remember When!!!! Paul Homewood Demonstrates More Temperature Malfeasance By The Warmist Lunatics!!!! | suyts space
- Omfattende jukstering av temperaturer | Klimarealistene
- AndThenTheresPhysics on Paraguayan Temperature Data | ManicBeancounter
- All Of Paraguay’s Temperature Record Has Been Tampered With - 'Nox & Friends
- Forget Climategate: This ‘Global Warming’ Scandal is Much Bigger | US Issues
- Det var faktiskt varmare förr – på riktigt. Paul Homewood visar hur. | Peter Harold – Skrivarens blogg
- The Propaganda methods of ….and Then There’s Physics on Temperature Homogenisation | ManicBeancounter
- Is there a Homogenisation Bias in Paraguay’s Temperature Data? | ManicBeancounter
- Inside the Global Warming Scandal | Drawnlines Politics
- Global Warming Update: The Fix Is In! | The Bartelists
- Latest on the Global Warming Scam | The American Catholic
- You don’t need to be a scientist | Because, Science!
- HACER Weekly News Report USA | US: Vilifying realist science and scientists – by Paul Driessen
- Vilifying Realist Science – And Scientists | PA Pundits - International
- Vilifying Realist Science – and Scientists | Somewhat Reasonable
- Vilifying realist science – and scientists
- Climate Alarmism and Fractivism: Big Green's Twin Pillars of VillificationNatural Gas Now
- Climate Alarmism and Fractivism: Big Green’s Twin Pillars of Villification | ShaleNOW
- Da Tech Guy Blog » Blog Archive » Big Bangs & Cholesterol ? Science is never “Settled”
- Big Bangs & Cholesterol ? Science is never “Settled” | According to Nash
- INSIDE THE GLOBAL WARMING SCANDAL (Interesting…) | Wichita Observer
- Dark Green XVII: Climate Change: Divide and Conquer all over again…(2) | INFRAKSHUN
- Vilifying realist science and scientists | COALBLOG
- The Great Temperature Fiddling Scam | Casual Infamy
- Al Gore: Climate Change Deniers Need To Be 'Punished' - Spang Nation
- Quand la science s’égare… | Le Minarchiste
- INSIDE THE GLOBAL WARMING SCANDAL - stage.biggerpieforum.org
- Temperature Homogenization at Puerto Casado | ManicBeancounter
- NASA “Homogenization” Infusing MORE Error? Adelaide Airport: Cooling Turns Into Warming
- Some Like It Hotter | No B-S here (I hope)
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Well spotted.
And it’s great to see the gif animations ‘slowed down’ so that the fiddling is more comprehensible.
What possible explanation for these massive adjustments is there other than confirmation bias? And if not confirmation bias, then what?
Why isn’t MSM paying any attention to this?
Quite disturbing.
Paul I just heard your story read out on 2GB Australian radio 26th minute of the Brian Wiltshire podcast
He got it from page 3 of the Australian newpaper today, who’d picked it up from Booker’s column.
– He then read out Roy W Spencers repost to NASA, then Bamboo economy vs metal.
Podcast : http://www.2gb.com/article/brian-wilshire-highlights-january-28
– North America’s weather agencies on rack over ‘hottest’ year claim …
11 hours ago … Independent climate researcher and blogger Paul Homewood said he had compared NASA data with the raw temperature data for the stations …
Subscribers link : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/north-americas-weather-agencies-on-rack-over-hottest-year-claim/story-e6frg8y6-1227198838612&sa=U&ei=KirIVJqKNMWUNsy9g_AH&ved=0CAYQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEf9B_iK2VEvmZPOlpazYt-3VdE3w
Paul,
You are doing an amazing job. Who would have thought that just putting records onto a bar chart would reveal so much of the crap that we are being fed? I do not know what will happen when the enormity of what is being done in the name of climate science will finally hit home upon the general public, but it isn’t going to be pretty. We can be fairly certain that the reputation of all scientists will be diminished. It is very sad.
Well done.
For those interested, here is an analysis of UHI and adjustments made by R.Connolly
http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/12/summary-urbanization-bias-papers-1-3/
Andrew,
Very interesting and thorough. Thank you.
Reblogged this on Real Science.
Hi Paul,
I am curious as to who would tamper with results from Paraquay
[after I found considerable cooling there due to tree cutting e.g. neighboring Tandil, Argentine]
Have you calculated the rate of change (K/annum)
from various dates ?
like I did for Asuncion?
What is your finding?
Tree cutting?
Ther only logic for warming adj is if they had been homogenised with stations miles away that had warmed (probably urban). Have you found any?
I could not find any rural sites in Argentina anywhere near Paraguay, and according to NCDC there is virtually no coverage in Brazil
Excellent work Paul, although a depressing familiar story.
Is it possible to obtain and compare satellite temperature measurements against surface measurements for these specific regions – say for the recent thirty years?
If this link works (fingers crossed)
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/CDO6444746603239.txt
it is the raw daily data for Puerto Casada from NCDC’s Global summary of the day which Mosher swears is unadjusted, and forms the basis of all of BEST’s analysis.
Although they claim to have data from 1974 to the present, the reality is that most of the pre-1995 data is missing, and the post-1995 data is somewhat patchy.
My belief is that a lot of the adjustment issues stem from GCHN’s attempts to “compensate” for this missing data.
There is no way of knowing for sure IMO, whether this represents outright fraud, incompetence driven by confirmation bias, or a genuine attempt to provide a meaningful output from raw data that is an unholy mess to start off with.
Whatever the answer, my take is that all the global surface temperature records should be taken with a very large dose of salt until such a time that it is based on raw data that can provide good global coverage, with minimal need for adjustments, perhaps along the lines of what USCRN is attempting to do.
If that means throwing everything out, and starting over from scratch, so be it.
According to the BEST raw compilation for #157455, the data were ingested from:
GHCN daily
Global SoD
GHCN monthly v2
Specially edited location record
Hadley Center Data Release
World Monthly Surface Station Climatology
GSN monthly
Monthly Climatic Data of the world
GCOS monthly CLIMAT
GHCN monthly v3
World Weather Records
WMO metadata
BEST first step is to compare and eliminate duplicate data. They then merge the rest.
So GHCN is merged to create a longer raw BEST time series.
Thanks for that, Rud. So BEST collate their data from twelve (count ’em twelve) different sources.
What could possibly go wrong?
See my next comment. Its probably worse than that.
This suggests to me some combination of lying and/or incompetence previously and lying and/or incompetence now, and at least one and possibly all of those four.
Firstly, tremendous work, Paul.
Secondly, are there any UK records for you to analyse? Hitting GISS and their pals in the US is one thing, but to bring this to a UK audience including perhaps the British politico’s, maybe need you to discover a CRU / MO adjustment or 3?
Either way, fantastic work so far. You and Mr Goddard won’t be on many environmentalists Christmas card lists, mind. 🙂
One further point: taking these findings to their logical conclusion would require a complete re-draw of all global datasets. Raw data v adjusted. Reality v fiction. Truth v lies.
A big job for sure, but oh my, you could cause absolute carnage with that.
Shub and I had an exchange yesterday at JoNova, who had posted on Booker’s column and Paul’s previous post. There is no station metadata for Puerto Casada at NCDC.NOAA.gov. Easy for anyone to check for themselves. BEST shows two moves: one about 1972, the other about 2007. I backdoored in to the BEST raw data summary for station 157455 a/o ye 2013. The file shows two metadata ‘station moves’ based on WMO metadata: one in 2007 and one in 2013. None at all in the entire 1970s decade. So BEST has a station move where its own raw data collection says there was not one, AND does not show one that is clearly flagged. To say the least, this is not confidence inspiring.
Both the raw data file with all its associated explanations and the compile date, and the BEST output for #157455 as of yesterday, have been archived against future Mosher armwaving. Glad to send copies along for Paul to blog upon request.
So WMO have the data, but not NCDC?
Have you seen the WMO file as well?
Yes, it Appears NCDC and WMO do not talk to one another.
Tried to get it for over an hour yesterday. Unlike NCDC, there is no easy front door. Did not find a simple back door like for BEST. Since we were looking for the source of BEST station move metadata, stopped trying after found the merged station file ingesting WMO metadata. Only value would have been to see whether it was ingested correctly. By then we realized the much bigger BEST problem highlighted in the comment just above.
For Pedro Juan CA there appears to be some infilling as well
Maybe the cartoonist Josh could give GISS some help in joining up the dots.
Mosher is a waste of time.
He has no idea as to how to create a balanced sample that would represent global temperature change. He could not even explain the results I found for Alaska, simply refusing to look at his BEST results from 2000. They seemed not available for some inexplicable reason.
There are not many people who do understand how to create a globally representative sample
….
The official results
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2016/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2016/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2016/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
still differ considerably from mine, which shows global cooling of around -0.015 K/annum since 2000.
Click to access henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
although it it is clear that we are globally cooling from 2002, at least.
I think we should understand that Mosher was never hired as a scientist, he doesn’t have the abilities for that.
He was hired as a mouthpiece, a front man.
Once you realise that.. all his comments make sense.
Paul, about the inversion (really perversion) of UHI homogenization, it is systemic. It is in NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC (GHCN, nClimDiv), HADCRUT3 (so presumably T4), Australian BOM old HQ and new ACORN, NZ NIWA, and Meteoschweiz at a minimum.. All documented in essay When Data Isn’t in ebook Blowing Smoke.
I have a last technical footnote to that essay discussing two certain logical flaws in all the various homogenization algorithms. One involves regional expectations, illustrated using BEST station 166900. The other involves Menne stitching, illustrated by a 2014 paper in Theor. Appl. Clim.
The interesting question is whether these logical flaws were not spotted due to confirmation bias (you expect warming, you get warming after homogenization, so algorithm good) or something perhaps more sinister.
And, thanks for another fine post.
WELL DONE WITH THIS ……. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK PAUL
Reblogged this on The Firewall.
Homogenisation is just rubbish of course. However, it is perfectly possible that “raw data”, which must always be reported, needs adjustment before use. That adjustment must be performed judiciously, honestly and explicitly. In other words, it needs to be performed by competent people of integrity. Not “Climate Scientists”, then.
I have wondered what a “global” graph might look like, of unadjusted temps only, i.e. discard anything that would have been otherwise “modified”.
When I was in school (I finished before CAGW alarmists started their wailing), that’s what you did: if you suspected any data might be faulty, it was just thrown out; otherwise, it wasn’t true science.
Take a look at the these 2 Land Temperature graphs provided by Zeke Hausfather on WUWT post.
and
Note that neither graph looks anything like the graphs shown by NCDC, USHCN or GISS.
“if you suspected any data might be faulty, it was just thrown out”: that policy would give “Climate Scientists” far too much leeway. They’d just bin whatever they didn’t like, claiming that it was faulty. I’d suggest that you’d need good and explicit reason to think something faulty before you threw it out. (I speak with some feeling here; I once had a research student who had, I discovered, been suppressing data that he thought I wouldn’t like.)
Yes.
There is only one answer, and that is only to include data from stations that has come from an assured quality source.
As this would eliminate probably 95% of all sites, they would have to admit that they have no idea what global temperatures trends have been
I should add that the adjustments need to be considerably smaller in magnitude than the phenomenon being studied. If the inequality is the other way round then the data are simply unfit for purpose and should not be used.
Thanks. Paul. Good detective work.
Hello
I am interested in reviewing global raw terrestrial data against adjusted terrestrial data against satellite data. Can you point me to data sources?
The best place to start is GISS, here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
This gives the adjusted data by station, but if you click on GHCN Version 2, it takes you to the raw data
I would not be surprised if the data was deliberately corrupted recently by warmists in the WMO. My father set up/fixed to specified standrads all the stevensons boxes stations for the WMO in Paraguay during the 70’s (1964-1976). He was an ardent non-believer in AGW from day 1, but retired in 1977
“My father set up/fixed to specified standrads all the stevensons boxes stations for the WMO in Paraguay during the 70’s (1964-1976).”
So are you saying that the abrupt temperature changes during the 70’s are due to changing boxes?
Have they published any of the code for their homogenization, or the meta explanation? Cuz now it is time to push this crap and force it out in the open.
At this rate of historic cooling, we will have soon have to change the “Cause of Death” for our ancestors from “Natural Causes” to “Hypothermia”.
For reasons posted below, I think Big Brother’s Great Social Experiment of 1945-2015 [1] is over and Big Brother correctly identified as the UN after Occam’s razor shaved away seventy years of growth on BB’s chin [2].
1. Big Brother’s Great Social Experiment (1945-2015)https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Social_Experiment.pdf
2. Big Brother identified after shave with Occam’s razor
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/smoking-gun-of-incompetence-at-the-ipcc/
You may be interested in a face book page of a on-line uni course on climate denial ran by Cook. They are highlighting a utube video about Paraguay.
https://www.facebook.com/denial101x?fref=nf
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.
Paul, it is Confirmation Bias and it appears to be built in to their Algorithms, anything cooling gets warmed, anything with no trend gets warmed.
He moves his mouse pointer over the 1971 drop and says there’s a calibration problem there.
I laughed at his comment that you can figure out Paraguay’s temperature by “looking at stations outside Paraguay”
Another interesting aspect of Kevin Cowton’s video is that he only talks about the Booker’s use of Puerto Casado data. He does not mention the primary source of the data, which was three weather stations at this blog. It will be interesting to see how Cowton reconciles the emerging results on this blog with the NOAA data.
“He’s speculating, based on no evidence whatsoever, that there was some change in the way Paraguay measured it’s temperatures around 1970.”
Well, local commenter Eliza provides some evidence:
“My father set up/fixed to specified standrads all the stevensons boxes stations for the WMO in Paraguay during the 70’s (1964-1976). “
Reblogged this on eliquidassets and commented:
Another good article on Climate Science data manipulation.
I say the strategy of systematically cooling the past is a deliberate one as it means the current temperatures can be verified as correct (!) and the past temperatures cannot be.
So what’s their explanation ?
“Serious accusations have been levelled against them in the media, yet they have not responded or attempted to defend their data. ” Fair enough Paul … They have the opportunity ..we are all ears.
(Post Comment sticking ? Click the notify checkbox then click it again, then click again in the text box, that seems to free it up)
Reblogged this on Glowbull warming and commented:
Excellent piece of sleuthing.
Your excellent piece of sleuthing reblogged at Glowbull Warming – The world’s least viewed site on global warming and climate change
Sounds like you had better copy that youtube / facebook story before it too disappears.
Thanks Paul, for all your sleuthing and hard work. you have even inspired a Josh cartoon! I haven’t seen this mentioned before so I thought I would post it on your blog. NOAA/NCDC seems to have screwed up their location for Pilar. Not only does it appear to be firmly in the middle of the Rio Paraguay but they also have the country wrong! http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/#ncdcstnid=30085465&tab=LOCATIONS
Thanks
I’ve noticed others in lakes and rivers like that.
Paul, I hope the raw data is continually being downloaded for safe keeping. Some group will have to clean up this mess in the future.
Great Work Paul!
Reblogged this on cosmoscon and commented:
This is exactly why I call the AGW cult criminals.
Reference: the methodology at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/29/best-practices-increase-uncertainty-levels-in-their-climate-data/#comment-1847568
Using the new HadISD database, I plotted the temps for Pilar since 1973. Using the @slope function in Quattro Pro X5, I calculated the slope of a simple linear regression without interpolation as -0.000002080058562.
Here is the plot:
Using the new HadISD database, I plotted the temps for Pedro Juan Caballero since 1973. Using the @slope function in Quattro Pro X5, I calculated the slope of a simple linear regression without interpolation as 0.000000580202193.
Here is the plot:
Using the new HadISD database, I plotted the temps for Concepción since 1973. Using the @slope function in Quattro Pro X5, I calculated the slope of a simple linear regression without interpolation as 0.000000507630755.
Here is the plot:
Using the new HadISD database, I plotted the temps for San Juan Bautista since 1973. Using the @slope function in Quattro Pro X5, I calculated the slope of a simple linear regression without interpolation as 0.000008465716398.
Here is the plot:
Correction: The slope for San Juan Bautista is -0.000008465716398
Using the new HadISD database, I plotted the temps for Encarnación since 1973. Using the @slope function in Quattro Pro X5, I calculated the slope of a simple linear regression without interpolation as 0.000000580202193.
Here is the plot:
Although mentioned in the link to my first comment, I want to make clear that the HadISD database contains quality controlled (so somewhat adjusted), but not change_point adjusted data. Pilar, Pedro Juan Caballero, Concepción, San Juan Bautista Misiones and Encarnación all appear to be airports. The data is either hourly or every three hours, so no min-max issues. As airports, one would assume that there was at least some effort to maintain and periodically check the calibration of the instruments, as this was needed for aviation. Asunción does not appear in the HadISD database.
It seems hard to me to justify any further adjustments (other than QC-already done) to data from maintained weather stations that show virtually no climate change over four decades. With the exception of Pilar, which has a big gap, it is difficult to justify any change point adjustments, either, as the instruments would need to have been maintained and calibrated on an ongoing basis for aviation purposes. One would also not expect any significant station moves.
P.S. The slopes that I calculated were without interpolation.
Reblogged this on tannngl and commented:
This is purposeful document fraud, certainly, in order to sway the world on AGW. Amazing! And I saw it only on WordPress?
Pilar and Pedro Juan Caballero stations failed “final filtering” for quality control according to the HadISD. The others I listed passed.
What’s required is raw data, which we trust to having random station moves, random measurement errors, random trees shading, then being cut down, etc. I would guess that UHI isn’t random – it’s growing everywhere. But then again, that will add to surface temp anyway.
Automated software changing values needs heavy quality checking where random stations are checked with people on the ground to make sure that there actually have been the changes assumed.
Considering how sparse some of the weather stations are, particularly Africa and over the sea (3/4 of the globe), I would expect the resultant GMST to be up to a degree out. So I don’t credit these little thousandths of degree as being at all relevant. Temperature isn’t rising.
actually temperatures were sinking from 1940 – 1986 here in the north, after that , steady climb
Here is a plot of RAW data from 7 Paraguay stations, 12-month moving averages of monthly anomalies (relative to 1950-60). Regional consistency proves Paul correct, all major temperature changes were consistent across all stations, must be climate not inhomogeneities. Paraguay cooled over the 20th century.
Ooops sorry, picture too small, bigger version:
Please fix your animate .gifs that compare old and new to have the same vertical axis.
It will help the presentation immensely.
So, according to Paul Homewood, the scientists at GISS and NOAA, who do the temperature analyses are deliberately fudging the raw data from stations all over the world by doing scientifically not justified adjustments, allegedly, only to get a difference between the raw and adjusted data in the global analysis as seen in the left panel of following graphic:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/slide1.jpg
(Source: http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/)
A difference between the raw data and adjusted data that doesn’t make any substantial difference regarding the conclusions drawn from it about the reality of global surface warming. Why would they do all this effort for such little effect? They also could take the raw data instead and make the same statements about global surface warming. Perhaps they do all of this just to deliberately fuel the conspiracy fantasies of the fake skeptic crowd?
A near 50% increase in the long-term warming trend is not a substantial difference?
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
The difference is not 50% for the global surface warming trend, which is shown in the left panel. And for the last 35 years, i.e., for the time period of accelerated statistically significant global surface warming, the trends for the raw data and the adjusted data are nearly the same.
You were probably talking about the trend for CONUS, which is shown in the right panel. CONUS covers only about 1.5% of the global surface area. You probably will find instances of larger differences between raw and adjusted data when you look at the averages from only small regions compared to the whole surface area.
Nobody (sane) is accusing anyone of deliberate deception, but there are clearly algorithm errors, a failure to subject results to expert meteorological checking, and POSSIBLY a large amount of expectation bias.
What about you look up in Merriam-Webster what the meaning of “to tamper” is. Or you will have to make it up with the blog host that you doubt his sanity.
If the claim is that there were algorithm errors then the ones who make the claim should show where the error was, present a better algorithm that minimizes biases from non-climatic influences on the temperature record and publish this in a proper specialist journal of the field. That would be an actual contribution to science then. The permanent smearing of scientists is none.
I remember that someone made loud claims regarding the surface temperatures in the US. The world still is waiting for the publication.
Is it too much to expect someone, preferably NCDC themselves, to explain how they arrived at their Arctic adjustments? Or even admit that maybe, just maybe, they might be wrong?
There seems to be a blind, almost quasi-religious, devotion to “The Algorithm” in the face of real world evidence to the contrary.
present a better algorithm that minimizes biases from non-climatic influences on the temperature record and publish this in a proper specialist journal of the field.
Rubbish!
If your car keeps breaking down and you complain to Ford, what would your reaction be if they said “go and build your own then”?
I have presented plenty of evidence of just why the Arctic adjustments are wrong. A proper scientific reaction would be to address those issues, and either prove they are right or accept they are wrong.
Paul Homewood,
What is your alleged evidence that the algorithm with which the adjustments are being made breaks down? That there are adjustments? Because that is all you are showing.
The scientists don’t have the burden to prove or to accept anything, just because some blogger makes some assertions in his opinion blog using some colored animations. If you are not willing to adhere to the same high standards the scientists are mandated to adhere to when they publish their work in the peer reviewed specialist journals of the field you don’t have anything to offer.
I’ve done a breakdown of the contributions of various categories here. Adjustments to the Arctic have little effect, and what there is has little trend.
Paul Homewood,
If you think you have found an instance with Iceland where the NCDC algorithm does something funky and is eliminating some real temperature variability instead of a non-climatic bias, and you can document it and back it up with evidence from other sources, publish it. Perhaps a GRL paper. Then you also will have a much better basis for the statement that this issue should be addressed by the scientists who are working on the adjustments.
I doubt it would be consequential for the global surface temperature analysis. It would be useful information, though. Then, one would know and have a citeable reference for being careful with using those data for an analysis of the local temperature variability at Iceland, or e.g. for evaluation of model skill.
It goes way beyond Iceland. Nearly half of the Arctic is involved.
I have repeatedly asked NCDC to look into this, and apart from the normal acknowledgements they have utterly failed to respond.
Paul Homewood,
Understandable. I myself would be reluctant to engage with anyone who repeatedly smeared me in public and also, when it is as easy to show that claims by you are wrong, like the ones about the station at Akureyri on Iceland.
After I have checked this I rather doubt that you really can make a case, even about Iceland, and I think it would be rather foolish to believe anything you say.
You obviously don’t know how to read a graph.
But you still don’t get it do you?
In any public organisation, whether scientific or otherwise, if a legitimate complaint is made questioning accuracy of data or quality of work, that organisation has a duty to properly investigate and respond.
Why would anyone refer to a last years post at Climate etc instead of addressing the actual data presented in this post?
Come on Jan refute the Icelandic data, where there is historic records confirming the pre adjusted data is correct.
Come on JUSTIFY the adjustments.
Why do I show the graphic from the other blog post? Because I want to challenge the ones who accuse the scientists of committing science fraud to explain to me why those accused scientists would go through all the effort of “tampering” with station data from all over the world just to get something that doesn’t make any difference regarding the conclusions of the reality of global surface warming. Or to get something that even counters the statement of accelerated statistically significant global surface warming since the 1970ies, when global warming really took off. Considering the risk for the scientists that would come with such a doing regarding their reputation, professional career and livelihood. What would they have to gain from this that outweights the risk?
I didn’t see any mentioning of “Icelandic data” in the blog post.
Then I sugest that you take a look at it, after all it is pinned to the top of this forum.
With subsequent studies underneath it.
A C Osborn,
I just have checked the claims by Paul Homewood regarding Akureyri on Iceland. What I found is that the temperature adjustments make the past warmer and decrease the trend at this station, in contrast to what Paul Homewood claims. You can find my comment here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/temperature-adjustments-transform-arctic-climate-history/#comment-37512
Please don’t mislead.
I have made it perfectly clear in my post that the adjustments have had the effect of removing much of the 1940’s spike, and consequently have the effect of increasing the warming trend since then.
All of the graphs are shown in the post as well for all to see.
However, you do raise a useful point. Because the cooling adj took place in the middle of the station’s record, they have little effect on the overall trend, in this case since 1883. They do however have a large effect on the trend since 1940.
We need to bear this in mind when people claim that globally adjustments tend to cancel themselves out.
Yes typical Cherry Picking, why not give us your thoughts on all of the stations that have been changed, not just one of those that shows little cahnge, you could choose another couple that have hardly changed, but what about the ones that show drastic changes.
Remember the RAW Temperatures were real and did not need any adjustment, or would you rather believe in a dumb Computer Algorithm over the IMO and historical data?
It should be noted that most of the ones that have not much change, already had a +ve temperature trend, and therefore didn’t “need” much adjustment.
Except to get rid of the Tom Wigley 1940ish peak.
Consistent (across stations) changes in temperature are not necessarily climatic in origin. In Paraguay it might have gone like this: Eliza’s dad went around Paraguay (around 1970) installing Stevenson screen systems IN PARALLEL with whatever was there before, which was probably not as good in screening out radiation, i.e. would have been reporting too hot. When the last one was ready they may have switched simultaneously to reporting only the Stevenson data, which probably makes sense from a weather forecasting point of view.
Comparison with data from neighboring countries should resolve the issue.
If that were the case then surely it would have been noted in the Station logs.
Or are we trying to say that they were totally incompetent as GISS appear to be implying about most North American and Icelandic Stations as well.
Here is some interesting info on Paraguay from a blog (his blogroll includes Lomborg, Ridley and Dyson, so probably one of the good guys):
Seems like there may have been a big upheaval in 1970, with some stations being moved from Navy (yep, even in land-locked Paraguay) ships on rivers onto land, but would they have done that as simultaneously as the data suggests?
Sounds like one big mess!!
I like this comment
while the official GCOS Regional Action Plan for South America implies these other stations were equally likely to have been “in such a state of disrepair”, before circa 2005, that they cannot be relied on for useful climate data
I feel sorry for the inhabitants of Puerto Casada, which seems to be the focal point for several strange cults. The town has been bought up by The Moonies, there is a band of eco-warriors who extort money from farmers, but maybe strangest of all are the people examining their temperature records to support their bizarre beliefs.
That’s the “hockey stick” algorithm at work.
I’ve only just discovered this blog and I love the info re Paraguay. Thanks! When trying to convince friends that CAGW is a myth, I need evidence they can believe in or at least puts doubts in their minds. I have a question though. Has anyone found evidence that earlier temperatures being adjusted up and more recent temperatures being adjusted down, i.e. the reverse of this pattern in Paraguay. If it’s all one way traffic, then a lukewarmer could begin to doubt the validity of the temperature record and hopefully begin to scrutinise other parts of the mantra.
There are odd examples, but I’ve never seen any widespread pattern.
Of course some should be adjusted the other way, to allow for UHI.
Thanks for the reply. Adjusting downwards to allow for UHI in recent times makes perfect sense to me. Adjusting down earlier, and up in modern times doesn’t make sense unless one is trying to hide something… like a decline! Cheers 🙂