Shub Niggurath On The Paraguayan Adjustments
By Paul Homewood
https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/the-puerto-casado-story/
Reposted from Shub Niggurath Climate:-
Puerto Casado is a small town along the border of Paraguay whose temperature history became a topic on Christopher Booker’s column in the Telegraph. Booker showed how a raw cooling trend had metamorphosed into its opposite after ‘adjustments’. This was contested quickly by climate scientist Ed Hawkins who pointed to the town’s record on BEST. It indicated the station had been moved.
BEST record: the red diamonds are marked ‘station moves’.
Perhaps the Puerto Casado station had been shifted to a cooler location… introducing a false cooling trend? The natural question to ask is – how does BEST know a rural station in the remote reaches of South America moved twice? Where does it get this information?
The answer, it turns out, is an entangled mess. The Puerto Casado record in BEST includes metadata from various sources. Metadata is what contains station location information. The sources collated by BEST show different latitude-longitude pairs for the station. The co-ordinates are slightly different, and they fall not far from one other.
The town labelled ‘La Victoria’ is Puerto Casado, for which it is another name. Some of the coordinates derived from BEST’s data sources for the station are shown.
BEST does not know the field reality of the station. Nor does it not know if the station truly moved or locations were wrongly recorded. Nor does BEST have information on the timing of any move. What it does is assume the station moved—given that different coordinates were recorded—and looks for breaks/shifts in the temperature. If breaks are present they are assumed to be due to moves. Plus, the breaks are assumed to have caused the station to look different from its neighbours.
In other words, what BEST records as ‘moves’ are not known documented moves.
Following this, BEST transforms the temperature series. It compensates for the ‘moves’ and tries to remove shifts. The result is a Puerto Casado record, which has its linear trend reversed by close to 2.7C per century.
To answer our original questions about BEST: was the station moved? We don’t know for sure. When was it moved? We don’t know. What is the effect of the supposed moves? We don’t know but we think it changed the temperature. How do you know this? Because there is change. When do you think the moves happened? When the changes occurred. And what will do to ‘correct’ this? Make Puerto Casado look like every other station around it.
We can ask BEST further questions: Are you not data-peeking? How did you settle on such non-independent analysis? We can expect silence.
Remarkably enough, supporters of climate orthodoxy manage to top such circuitous circular reasoning. Kevin Cowtan, another global temperature adjustment practitioner, declares the station instruments at Puerto Casado must have suffered calibration errors—at the same points in time when BEST says the stations must have moved.
For all the hype, BEST’s methods produce local records that are no better than the NCDC, conjuring ad-hoc rationalizations for ‘adjustments’ from the temperatures themselves. The reasoning is circular and BEST and others do not even attempt to hide it. Journalists like Booker are right to question such methods and data.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I just love the way BEST talks about only Puerto Casado when all the stations have been changed.
It is even worse than Shub thinks, this is how it works, the Trend does not fit the AGW theory, so let’s look at the data at a station, find some minor error or break and change that station with all our special adjustments until it fits the theory.
Now look at another station, mmm this station does not fit the first station, so it must be wrong and we need to fix it.
Now look at a third station, this one is definitely wrong as it doesn’t fit 2 stations, fix it.
Continue until all stations are Fixed.
There AGW theory is confrimed.
At least BEST actually admit their “Final” data is what they “THINK” it should be based on their models.
The rest just hide behind Peer (Pal) reviewed papers that justify what they have done even when the end results bear no relationship to the results predicted by the peer reviewed papers.
AC, my questions are/were along the same lines but that is not enough.
Can this be shown? Can it be shown that adjusted stations become victims in an ever-widening circle of adjustment?
For instance, Kevin Cowtan’s claim is that all (NCDC) Paraguay stations were wrongly recording temperatures and therefore they all needed ‘adjustment’. His proof? All Paraguayan stations show a different long-term trend compared to their unadjusted immediate neighbour stations just outside of Paraguay.
It’s in his video.
Yes I know I watched it.
How you can compare one country with another when the climate can change completely in 10-20Km is absurd.
It is like their gridding it is not Science as we know it Jim.
Shub, I was half joking about how the Homogenising works. Add to that the mass use of Estimated data and it really stinks.
The thing is they can always justify (to themselves at least) that they are doing to right thing by finding a quickly expanding urban or Airport weather station that fits AGW trend and hence their paradigm to use for homogenisation.
AC,I agree. I imagine someone saying: give me a rural station with dummies recording the meta-data, a nearby urban airport station and a large zone around, devoid of humans of stations. I will warm the whole globe via adjustment and smearing.
One a more serious note however, I remember reading (I forget where) that many South American stations made improper recordings at one time, leaving their thermometers exposed to direct sunlight etc.
What BEST and Cowtan are doing, is accuse the Paraguayans of an inability to record air temperature.
So, two sets of temps in adjacent countries are somewhat different. Because the globe is supposed to be warming the cooler temps must be wrong. I would venture that if the old global cooling meme was still in vogue, the adjustments would be just the opposite, and Paraguay would be correct.
“Because the globe is supposed to be warming the cooler temps must be wrong.”
Basically, yes, the cooler temperatures must be wrong. As Paul noted with his thread on Ireland and the high quality station there. But it shows no trend, or a cooling one, therefore something must be wrong, so adjust it we will. And naturally those adjustments are warming trends, and away we go. Oh, and send us more $$$$$$$$$$$$
And the useful idiots, many who are funded by very shady organizations, trek all over the internet to attack people who speak the truth.
I believe it was stated elsewhere (WUWT) that if it had not been for a very warm December 2014, then 2014 would have been nowhere near the alleged warmest or tied for warmest or whatever. Now wasn’t that convenient!? Thus December 2014 data is highly suspect.
You have a good enough grasp of the concept to make a Climate Scientist.
My father was an expert for the WMO (atmospheric Physicist/Meteorologist) who was posted to Paraguay from 1966 to 1976 specifically to fix/adjust the whole Paraguayan and Bolivian (before he was posted to Paraguay by the UN), Stevenson box placement/position/location thermometers /training of readers ect. You can assume that by 1974 pretty much most of everything was fixed to WMO standards. He was an Irish Citizen just in case you want to check this with the WMO working in South America at the time. It would seem the alarmist at NOAA ect have decided that it was not fixed and needed further adjustment.
Actually, Mr Paul Homewood you may want to check the Bolivian Station, Santa Cruz and other sttaion in the Bolivian amazon area you may find same tampering going on as with paraguayan Stations
Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog.