Skip to content

Massive Temperature Adjustments In Brazil – And Guess In What Direction?

November 22, 2015

By Paul Homewood 

  

 

A quick update to my post on Brazilian temperature trends. 

 

 

Ian George spotted that the original trends, based on unadjusted GHCN V2 data, for Quixeramobim, up to 2011, looked like this:

 

station

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=303825860000&dt=1&ds=1

 

The current GISS graph, based on GHCN V3 Adjusted data, is:

 

station

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=303825860000&dt=1&ds=12

 

 

The adjustments that GHCN have made are massive, and have turned a cooling trend into a rapidly warming one.

 

30382586000

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/3/30382586000.gif

 

Was there anything wrong with the original record? I don’t know, but anybody who claims that they can accurately measure what the temperatures really were is a fraud.

36 Comments leave one →
  1. 1saveenergy permalink
    November 23, 2015 12:25 am

    BRITAIN’S green energy barons are getting huge taxpayer subsidies to install diesel generators — exactly the kind of polluting energy source their wind and solar farms are meant to replace.
    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1635862.ece

    Paul, Sorry it’s off topic, you could really do with a heads up contact tab.

    • November 23, 2015 9:47 am

      I think that would be useful too!

    • November 23, 2015 11:02 am

      I always pick up any off topics, but the About tab is as good a place as any

      Thanks

      Paul

  2. November 23, 2015 1:01 am

    This may be a naive question but when I have dealt with data sets from transducers in the past and wanted to alter or exclude points because of noise or drift etc. I needed to justify (and defend) in detail my reasons for the changes. Does NOAA provide any such commentary for its changes to the temperature record ?

  3. Dave Nottage permalink
    November 23, 2015 1:31 am

    Based on your earlier post, NOAA don’t use this station (and why?), athough given their infilling it probably wouldn’t make any difference.

    • November 23, 2015 10:51 am

      Quixeramobim is in the original list, Dave.

      It is classified as rural, despite a population of 75000!

  4. Jim permalink
    November 23, 2015 2:29 am

    Thank you Paul.

    Can there be any legitimate reason for the adjustments?

    I would think that these adjustments, made retroactively, would raise all kinds of red flags within NASA/NOAA and it should never get to the point where outsiders find these anomalies.

    What is wrong with these people?

    • November 23, 2015 10:55 am

      The problem is, most of the public and politicians, are unaware of these adjustments and just take the published figures at face value.

      • Jim permalink
        November 23, 2015 10:22 pm

        Politicians are rarely aware of anything, whether intentional or not is a different topic.

        What I cannot understand, as someone with a science background, is the motivation for doing it and how has this been allowed to continue for so long?

        Even after revelations here and on other sites, this manipulation of data continues. Is it all greed via funding? Some altruistic motivation?

        Deeply disappointed this happens and thankful that a few risk much to keep us informed.

  5. James Donnell permalink
    November 23, 2015 5:45 am

    It is worth remembering that the GHCN is maintained by the National Climatic Data Center, Arizona State University and the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (Wikipedia). Yes, the CARBON DIOXIDE INFORMATION ANALYSIS CENTRE!

    It is a poor idea to leave a fox to guard the chickens.

  6. November 23, 2015 7:50 am

    Outright fraud or gross incompetence? It’s hard not to lean to the former.

  7. November 23, 2015 8:20 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    More massive NASA GISS temperature adjustments (tampering)!

    Struggling to keep up with what is now a literal widespread cancer of worldwide ‘cooling the past and warming the present’ undertaken by NASA and NOAA to fit their ‘global warming’ narrative.

    And the simple question must be asked and cannot be underestimated:

    If land-based measurements are so accurate, or ‘more’ accurate than satellite data (according to NASA/NOAA and warmists), why then are massive adjustments required?!

  8. ClimateOtter permalink
    November 23, 2015 9:27 am

    Paul, I’ve been asked to put together a piece on the NOAA fraud where I argue climate, and articles like your above immediately came to mind. If you don’t mind my asking:

    I believe you once mentioned looking at the data from 1880 onward, and discovered that changes were being made All the way back into the 1880s? I was curious if they were daily changes?

  9. November 23, 2015 9:59 am

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Who needs natural cycles interfering with the nice linear graphs climate scientists seem to so prefer?

  10. November 23, 2015 10:11 am

    This is slightly off topic but I was attempting to find some UK locations in the NASA/GISS data base and selected “Valley”, mainly because I hadn’t heard of it.
    It turns out it’s in Anglesey, but when I put the location into Google Earth, (53.2 N,4.5 W), it is nowhere near the actual location of the town of Valley.(53.28 N, 4.56 W).
    It could be a rounding error, but I wonder how accurate the grid references are in the NASA/GISS data base are and how useful they are for finding the location of the weather stations.
    According to the NASA/GISS reference the station is in the middle of a field near the coast., whereas, the town of Valley is potentially an urban area.

    • November 23, 2015 10:52 am

      I just checked out the location of the MO site at Valley (which I assume is the one used by NASA/GISS) and the MO give the location as 53.252, -4.537, so it appears that don’t give very precise locations.

      • November 23, 2015 10:58 am

        Ha, the MO location puts the station in … Anglesey Airport!

      • NeilC permalink
        November 23, 2015 11:16 am

        EGOV (Valley) according to NOAA,. National Weather Servie, International Current Conditions, UK position is stated as 53-15N 004-32W.

        Having served as a meteorologist at many RAF Stations in the UK and abroad, most Met Offices and Stevenson Screens are located quite near to the control towers. The MO position you give is probably the closest, although the position should be 53.252N 4.537W. If you google this position in satellite view, there is a marker VY, it looks like the Stevenson Screen is located just to the north of that. You can also see the fire station to the left of this position and to the left of that, the control tower. Hope this helps.

    • November 23, 2015 11:06 am

      I think its RAF Valley

      Met Office give COORDS

      Lat 53.252 Lon -4.535

      • November 23, 2015 1:16 pm

        Thanks all.
        On Google Earth it’s described as “Anglesey Airport” but I see it is part of RAF Valley.

  11. 1saveenergy permalink
    November 23, 2015 11:23 am

    I live on Anglesey
    The Valley met station location is at 53°15’3.81″N 4°32’7.35″W

    situated at RAF Valley, a military airfield ~3 miles from the small village of Valley

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley,_Anglesey

  12. 1saveenergy permalink
    November 23, 2015 11:27 am

    NeilC’s description is spot on

  13. Bloke down the pub permalink
    November 23, 2015 11:38 am

    The most charitable thing I can say about the criminals who torture data in this manner is that they make their fraud so bleedin obvious that no one of sound mind could deny it was happening.

    • November 23, 2015 1:30 pm

      It seems that DECC, our politicians and movers and shakers are happy to accept that NOAA could not be fiddling, sorry homogenising, the data for political purposes.

      The believers do not need doubts or doubters!

  14. David Laverell permalink
    November 23, 2015 4:32 pm

    jeromeotis@gmail.com

    On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 6:15 PM, NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT wrote:

    > Paul Homewood posted: “By Paul Homewood A quick update to my post on > Brazilian temperature trends. Ian George spotted that the original > trends, based on unadjusted GHCN V2 data, for Quixeramobim, up to 2011, > looked like thi”

  15. November 23, 2015 5:17 pm

    paul – one thing that has always puzzled me with these temperature adjustments relates to the ideal gas law: P x V = n x R x T

    Since the volume (V) of the atmosphere doesn’t change, neither the amount of molecules (n) and since R is the ideal gas constant it means that if we adjust the Temperature (T), pressure (P) needs to change as well. Lower T, means lower P. Higher T means higher P. That simple.

    However, no where do I see or am aware of that P is adjusted accordingly. Only T is being adjusted. This increasing of T in recent times means that P must be higher now too. Since barometric pressures have been accurately measured for decades and at the same weather stations we can easily deduct if it got warmer or not: the pressure must have increased. I am sure we already know the answer to this…

    In addition, if T is being adjusted so must then the dew point and of course relative humidity: with the adjusted T’s both must than be adjusted accordingly. But you can’t adjust those… they are what they are.

    Lastly, with adjusting T, which would mean P as measured was wrong too… , windspeed has to change too. Windspeed is depended on pressure gradient and temperature… hence now also the windspeed needs to be adjusted since apparantly those were measured wrongly too… or need to be adjusted because…?!?!? fill in here why???

    This is why adjusting of T makes absolutely no sense. All environmental variables are dependent and inter related, change one, then you have to change all. You can’t change only one.

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      November 23, 2015 5:50 pm

      soulsurfer ; You’ve hit the nail, that’s the trouble with truth it always gets out in the end.
      most people don’t relate the gas laws to weather (even if they’ve heard of the gas laws, I confess I hadn’t thought much about it) they only look at ‘the hottest evaah’.

      So prepare for a whole new round of original data manipulation, hope the data has been archived safely.

  16. AndyG55 permalink
    November 24, 2015 4:52 am

    Where’s all the climate bletheren trying to justify this temperature. malfeasance?

  17. Travis Casey permalink
    September 1, 2016 3:19 pm

    GISS has updated their station data format. We can now see the raw and adjusted data on one graph.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=303825860000&ds=5

Trackbacks

  1. Thy Lied To Us! Nasa's Findings On "Global Warming" Are Claimed To Be False! - Absolute Rights
  2. German Professor: NASA Has Been Tampering with Climate Data on an 'Unbelievable' Scale

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: