AndThenTheresPhysics on Paraguayan Temperature Data

Posted: February 2, 2015 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

.
.
Climate alarmists censoring facts again. What will the University of Edinburgh ethics committee think of this I wonder?

ManicBeancounter

The blog andthentheresphysics is a particularly dogmatic and extremist website. Most of the time it provides extremely partisan opinion pieces on climate science, but last week the anonymous blogger had a post “Puerto Casado” concerning an article in the Telegraph about Paraguayan temperature by Christopher Booker. I posted the following comment

The post only looks at one station in isolation, and does not reference original source of the claims.

Paul Homewood at notalotofpeopleknowthat looked at all three available rural stations in Paraguay. The data from Mariscal and San Jan Buatista/Misiones had the same pattern of homogenization adjustments as Puerto Casado. That is, cooling of the past, so that instead of the raw data showing the 1960s being warmer than today, it was cooler.

Using his accountancy mind set, Homewood then (after Booker’s article was published) checked the six available urban sites in Paraguay. His conclusion was that

View original post 1,262 more words

Comments
  1. The way the temperature data has been changed is fraud pure and simple.

    If this fixing had been the LIBOR interest rate, the police would have been called, people would have lost their jobs, ended in jail and government ministers resigned.

    But this isn’t LIBOR. This fraud isn’t a few bankers but each and every government has been lied to.

    It just proves the old adage that some frauds are too big for anyone to admit.

  2. catweazle666 says:

    You may be interested in this post from Prof Curry’s blog of Jan 31.

    angech2014 commented on Week in review.

    in response to Tonyb:

    Morph The met office. We just discovered that the 1659 start date of CET has altered recently. It has been adjusted upwards by 0 .3 degrees. Why 350 year old records needs to be adjusted perhaps Nick can explain. It is one of many changes over the last five years. Tonyb

    Tonyb | January 31, 2015 at 4:42 pm |
    “Perhaps you could explain why, for example, a record from 1659 should need to be adjusted?”

    This should help.
    It incorporates Mosher’s and Zeke’s explanations
    Basically the further back in time you go the more you have to adjust temperatures downwards.
    Zeke and Nick Stokes know this, it’s common knowledge. Why are you surprised?

    “Zeke (Comment #130058) June 7th, 2014 at 11:45 am
    Mosh, Actually, your explanation of adjusting distant past temperatures as a result of using reference stations is not correct. NCDC uses a common anomaly method, not RFM.
    The reason why station values in the distant past end up getting adjusted is due to a choice by NCDC to assume that current values are the “true” values. Each month, as new station data come in, NCDC runs their pairwise homogenization algorithm which looks for non-climatic breakpoints by comparing each station to its surrounding stations. When these breakpoints are detected, they are removed. If a small step change is detected in a 100-year station record in the year 2006, for example, removing that step change will move all the values for that station prior to 2006 up or down by the amount of the breakpoint removed. As long as new data leads to new breakpoint detection, the past station temperatures will be raised or lowered by the size of the breakpoint.

    An alternative approach would be to assume that the initial temperature reported by a station when it joins the network is “true”, and remove breakpoints relative to the start of the network rather than the end. It would have no effect at all on the trends over the period, of course, but it would lead to less complaining about distant past temperatures changing at the expense of more present temperatures changing.

  3. Kon Dealer says:

    ATTP gets his “science” from “The Guardian”, “Skeptical Science” and Wikipedia.
    What’s not to like?

  4. hunter says:

    ATTP is a kook and a boor. Who cares what he/she does?
    As to climate hypesters massaging data to sustain their hype, it is not a suprsie- it is afterall a tried and true effective strategy for any group selling bs.
    It is worth recording the lies and deceptions of the climate hypesters so that when the tide does finally turn there will be plenty of fuel to justify the anger at the climate obsessed.

  5. jdmcl says:

    Scottish Sceptic, I don’t agree that the adjustments are “fraud pure and simple”. The problem is the basis for and calculations of the adjustments are all hidden from the wider scientific community and the general public. We don’t know if the “average” adjustment has a standard deviation that completely undermines the supposed accuracy of the adjustment. We don’t know what assumptions were made and can’t decide if they were valid. We don’t know the reasoning behind how historical data was adjusted.

    One hopes that the adjustment for UHI reduces the further one goes back for the previous site because presumably (but it’s by no means certain) the site was not contaminated by UHI when it started. Even this assumes that UHI impacts have been close to a straight-line increase but that might not be correct.

    As we saw recently with the relocation of the Melbourne observation station, the temperature adjustment wasn’t uniform for all wind directions and in that case the old site was blocked from certain winds so it’s not possible to determine how the temperatures on days of wind from that direction should be adjusted. It would be incorrect to assume that winds from a given direction always need to be adjusted by the same amount.

    The adjustments are not fraud but are based on a large number of assumptions, probably most of which are open to question. Where’s the “red team” to test what the “blue team” have done???

  6. manicbeancounter says:

    Thank you Tallbloke for reblogging my little piece.
    I defend the right of ATTP to censor his little blog, and have prejudicial views, however repugnant they might seem. But I do not defend right to pervert the evidence. Unlike a true academic, he attacks a commentary, rather than confronting the source material. Booker, for illustration, looked at just one of three temperature stations examined by Paul Homewood at notalotofpeopleknowthat. ATTP pretends that there is just one temperature station at issue. My deleted comment gave an update to include Homewood’s finding that all nine of the Paraguayan surface temperature stations had similar adjustments, and all the Bolivian temperature stations were adjusted the same way. It would seem an area more than twice the size of France has “homogenization” adjustments that do not homogenize to any real world data. Instead they bring reality into line with the “scientific truth’s” of global warming.
    By blocking citation Homewood, ATTP wants to create the impression of a grizzled “climate denier” journalist cherry-picking a single instance with legitimate adjustments mud-slinging against the high quality data of professional scientists. The truth is that a retired accountant, observing an anomaly in the data started digging. Upon finding that the anomaly was non-trivial and not justified, Homewood kept on digging to bottom out the problem. He may have expanded the issued enormously, but failed to determine the extent of the problem. There may be similar issues with the US & Australian data. Homewood also points to Northern Russia, SW Ireland and Greenland. Maybe next he should examine Africa, where the data sets rely on a very limited temperature record, along with more on the fringes of the Arctic, where the warming is greatest.

  7. […] consensus would provide a superior defence than an anonymous blogger who censors views that challenge his beliefs. However, RealClimate may have dug an even deeper hole. Paul Homewood covered the article on […]