Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (833750)

2/2/2015 10:24:39 AM

From: Brumar89

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1579696

Paraguayan Adjustments Not Supported By Regional Trends

January 31, 2015
By Paul Homewood

Raw Data

As we know, Puerto Casado is one of the Paraguayan stations where GHCN have turned a cooling trend into a warming one. To do this, they compare temperature trends against other stations in the region.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/find_station.cgi?lat=-22.28&lon=-57.87&dt=1&ds=12

So let’s take a look at the other stations that GISS list as within 710 km. From the table above, we can identify the following sites, (excl the other Paraguayan ones, which, as we have already seen, have all had similar warming adjustments made to them).

Location	Country	Airport Y/N	Brightness Index	Brightness Value
Ponta Pora	Brazil	Y	C	32
Las Lomitas	Argentina		C	11
Formosa	Argentina	Y	C	17
Rivadavia	Argentina		A	0
Yacuiba	Bolivia		A	0
Posadas	Argentina	Y	C	16
Camiri	Bolivia	Y	C	19
Londrina	Brazil	?	C	23

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/v3.temperature.inv.txt

A couple of notes:

1) GISS define the Brightness Index:

A = Dark

B = Dim

C = Bright

2) The Brightness Value ranges from 0 to 256, with the latter being the brightest. According to GISS, only sites with a value of 10 or less can be genuinely regarded as rural. All other sites should be adjusted for UHI, by comparing trends with the rural stations.

We can see then that only Rivadavia and Yacuiba qualify as being reliable. What have been the temperature trends there?

Rivadavia

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=301870650000&dt=1&ds=12

The first thing that stands out is that there is only one annual reading since 1990, and this is actually 2010. Consequently, Rivadavia plays no part in the calculation for 2014.

Nevertheless, there does appear to be a general warming between 1960 and 1990, so is this evidence that the cooling trend seen in Paraguay could have been wrong?

Apparently not, because again we see that GHCN have been busy adjusting temperatures at Rivadavia as well. In particular, all temperatures after 1980 have been adjusted up by nearly 1C.

I would also highlight the same, sharp drop in temperatures in the early 1970’s, which we saw at all of the Paraguayan sites, and which GHCN decided must be wrong.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/3/30187065000.gif

Yacuiba

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=302853650000&dt=1&ds=12

We’ve finally found some global warming! Again there are large gaps in the record, which raise questions about the reliability of the long term trends.

Also, though the graph does not make it clear, there is no figure for 2014; the last number is for 2013.

However, things, as we know, are never quite what they seem.

This is the temperature record from the raw data, as GISS showed it in 2011. Note there is no data after 1988 – it would appear that they have discovered more recent data for 2002 and later, since their 2011 version.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=302853650000&dt=1&ds=1

Suddenly, the upward trend from the 1950’s through to the 1980’s disappears. And, yet again, we see that drop in temperatures after 1970.

Once again, the magic GHCN algorithm has done its work!

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/products/stnplots/3/30285365000.gif

Just to add the coup de grace, GHCN have increased the latest batch of temperatures, since measurements began again in 2002, by more than 1C, conveniently making this period warmer than the 1970’s and 80’s, rather than cooler as the thermometers suggest.

Where there is such a big gap, and no guarantees of quality assurance, this sort of data should simply be chucked out, at least as far as long term trends are concerned. To then make a large upwards adjustment in temperature for the last 13 years of data is frankly junk science.

Summary

It is claimed that historic temperature records at every current station in Paraguay have had to be adjusted, because trends at other nearby stations show them to be wrong.

When we check, however, we find that the only two genuinely rural stations within 700km both exhibit similar temperature trends to the Paraguayan ones. Both have been adjusted by GHCN to create an artificial warming trend.

As one station is Bolivian, and the other Argentine, it rather makes a nonsense of the idea that somehow it was Paraguay doing something wrong.

Meanwhile, we still wait for NCDC to comment.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/31/paraguayan-adjustments-not-supported-by-regional-trends/