Massive Temperature Adjustments In Brazil – And Guess In What Direction?
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:
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:
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.
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.
Trackbacks
- Thy Lied To Us! Nasa's Findings On "Global Warming" Are Claimed To Be False! - Absolute Rights
- German Professor: NASA Has Been Tampering with Climate Data on an 'Unbelievable' Scale
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Try this one:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/2/20341933000.gif
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.
I think that would be useful too!
I always pick up any off topics, but the About tab is as good a place as any
Thanks
Paul
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 ?
In short, no they don’t
Based on your earlier post, NOAA don’t use this station (and why?), athough given their infilling it probably wouldn’t make any difference.
Quixeramobim is in the original list, Dave.
It is classified as rural, despite a population of 75000!
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?
The problem is, most of the public and politicians, are unaware of these adjustments and just take the published figures at face value.
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.
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.
Outright fraud or gross incompetence? It’s hard not to lean to the former.
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?!
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?
I did this analysis last year, going back to 1931, though I think you get the same pattern back to 1880.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/giss-cooling-the-past/
It was only based on GISS monthly global records, as I had archived these. Whether these monthly changes derive from daily data, or are just a result of homogenisation etc, there is no way of knowing
Thanks Paul!
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
Who needs natural cycles interfering with the nice linear graphs climate scientists seem to so prefer?
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.
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.
Ha, the MO location puts the station in … Anglesey Airport!
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.
I think its RAF Valley
Met Office give COORDS
Lat 53.252 Lon -4.535
Thanks all.
On Google Earth it’s described as “Anglesey Airport” but I see it is part of RAF Valley.
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
NeilC’s description is spot on
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.
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!
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”
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.
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.
Where’s all the climate bletheren trying to justify this temperature. malfeasance?
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
And in Japan…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=210476780000&dt=1&ds=5