Skip to content

Adjustments In Puerto Casado

February 10, 2015

By Paul Homewood




Let’s take a closer look at the GHCN temperature adjustments at Puerto Casado, one of the stations in Paraguay we looked at previously.

In common with the other Paraguayan sites, a large adjustment was made around 1970, which seems to have been in response to a drop in the annual mean from 24.64C in 1970 to 23.57C the year after. (Although there was a bigger increase in temperature the following year).




If this drop of more than a degree had been due to a station move, or other non-climatic factors, you would expect to see a step change in the monthly figures at some point during the year.


Yet, as the chart below shows, this is not the case. Monthly temperatures for 1971, expressed as anomalies from 1951-70, are all over the place. With so much variation from month to month, is it possible to isolate a station move from the background of natural variability, even if there had been one?  





There are other checks we can make against other nearby stations, outside of Paraguay. Las Lomitas is in Argentina, and Yacuiba in Bolivia. They are both within 400 miles of Puerto Casado.


Puerto Las Lomitas Yacuiba
1969 24.83 23.33 23.57
1970 24.64 23.24 22.83
1971 23.57 22.33 22.58


The Argentine station shows a similar drop in temperature between 1970 and 1971. It’s slightly different in Yacuiba, where the drop in temperature was spread over two years.


All in all, while the waters are still muddy, there does not appear to be any real evidence to suggest that the temperature drop at Puerto Casado was non-climatic.

  1. Eliza permalink
    February 10, 2015 6:48 pm

    Puerto Casado not Casada correction required. My father was responsible for the stevenson boxes here for the WMO If you want I can check if actually the station was moved ect.I believe that data here has been enourmously and fraudelently sdjusted. the RAW data for all stations in Bolivia and Paraguay from 1964 onwards is I believe quite reliable and in no need of adjusments. I think hansen and later gavin just decided that no one would notice is they fraudelently manipulated the data to show warming.

  2. Eliza permalink
    February 10, 2015 6:49 pm

    Ohh just to assure that my father was quite a person in Atmospheric Physics. He worked with Nolan in Dublin

    Click to access bk-0003-1109-chapter04.pdf

  3. Eliza permalink
    February 10, 2015 7:08 pm

    Correction: The data has been massively adjusted in a fraudelent way by GISS, NCDC, Hadcrut, WMO ect not by the paraguayan meteorogical service

  4. Mikky permalink
    February 10, 2015 7:08 pm

    Surrounding data confirms that the temperature drop in 1970 was climate, but I think something happened there in 1975 needing a 0.5C cooling of previous data, but there is still a net cooling from 1960 to 1980:

    • manicbeancounter permalink
      February 10, 2015 8:50 pm

      My analysis confirms your graph. I built up a temperature anomaly for 8 out of 9 of Paul Homewood’s identified Paraguayan sites – the other was of poor quality with a lot of compensating adjustments. The pattern was of slightly falling average temperatures from late 1940s to 1966; falling temperatures to 1971, (with most of the fall in 1970); then static or slightly rising temperatures through to 2011.

      This goes totally outside of known experience. The thermometers were not homogenized to others in the area, but to a set view of what the temperature profile should be like. Rather than look at the clear corroborating evidence, the researchers blamed the instruments from decades before. This gives a 1C change in average adjustment in just three years.
      What is more telling is the consistency of the adjustments across the data sets.

      • Mikky permalink
        February 10, 2015 10:18 pm

        I don’t think GISS or BEST people look at the data at all, they worship algorithms and just publish what those algorithms produce. I know enough about algorithms to know that they can’t cope reliably with this amount of complexity.

  5. Mikky permalink
    February 11, 2015 6:01 am

    Warning bells should have sounded at GISS/BEST when many stations in a region ended up with major adjustments AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME, a sure sign that the supposed regional climate may be in error.

  6. Pragmatist permalink
    February 11, 2015 8:38 pm

    Anybody else notice that the climate scientist community has gone silent? Interesting strategy. It is telling that nobody can explain/justify the adjustments made by the algorithm for all these stations Paul has analyzed. All we here are complaints about cherry picking. Sorry, but it’s incumbent upon the scientists to patiently explain why adjustments were done in these specific instances. If they want to influence climate policy, they need to repair their reputations and rebuild trust with laypeople.

  7. February 12, 2015 1:23 am

    Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: