A Fairy Tale Of Two GHCN Cities

Buenos Aires and La Estanzuela are located 35 miles apart across the water. Buenos Aires is a massive heat island, and La Estanzuela is a small town of a few thousand people.

Buenos Aires warmed tremendously from 1931 to 1995, the period of record for the La Estanzuela station.

La Estanzuela temperatures cooled during that same period, and the frequency of hot days plummeted.

The two degree warming trend at Buenos Aires is bogus. The area is actually cooling. So how did NASA and NOAA deal with this? They reduced the two degree warming trend to 1.5 degrees warming.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

The surface temperature record is a farce. These people make no attempt to be even remotely credible.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to A Fairy Tale Of Two GHCN Cities

  1. arn says:

    La Estanzuela is just too irrellevant to get adjusted data as Bueno Aires.
    The problem with lies is that there are just too many factors one does not consider.
    (but give them enough time and a little bit of uproar and they”ll tamper data up by 2 degrees)

    ps
    Maybe an alternative point of view could be that as result of urbanisation
    in bueno aires
    more heat is trapped inside the city and that the weather station during all the years got sorrounded by more and more streets,concrete etc

  2. MGJ says:

    Given how rare (unique? It’s the first I encountered) any sort of downward adjustment to the temperature trend is, I would expect them to be shouting this from the rooftops, as evidence of their professional objectivity and scrupulous fairness!

  3. Gerald Machnee says:

    The lowering is a surprise, they usually raise the others.

  4. Only 1/9 of humanity lives in the Southern Hemisphere anyway. If humans affected ozone and temperatures it would happen up North first.

  5. Latitude says:

    Mosh is constantly claiming adjustments lower the record

    • Gator says:

      Mosh lowers anything with which he comes into contact.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        I did not need that image …

      • AndyG55 says:

        Mosh was NEVER hired as any sort of scientist, because he ISN’T one.

        He was hired as a paid mouthpiece, a low-end salesman, NOTHING MORE….
        …., and he is making a monumental stuff-up at that, becoming a LAUGHING STOCK when ever he opens his ignorant mouth.

        • AndyG55 says:

          ps, and the very fact that Muller even considered hiring Mosh as a frontman, tells everyone that his Berkeley Inc. temperature fabrications were never intended to be anything but agenda driven propaganda.

          ‘BEST’ has been a MONUMENTAL LIE from its very inception.

  6. Caleb says:

    Beautiful explanation. Succinct and able to be understood by all. Thank you.

    Slightly off topic, but the DMI arctic temperature map has dipped below normal. After all the hoopla about it being warm up there, back around February 23, the media has gone so silent I can’t even hear any crickets. Could you do a post on how absurd the hoopla was, considering huge rises and plunges of arctic temperatures have happened in the past? (See December 1959).

    I tried, but imagine you could do better.

    http://Sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2018/03/19/click-bait-arctic-temperatures-crash-below-normal/

  7. RW says:

    Over at WUWT, Mosher makes noise periodically about elevation playing a big role in determining siting differences in temperature. Can we rule that out with your example, Tony? In other words can we be confident the difference here is mostly or entirely uhi?

    • tonyheller says:

      Both stations are at sea level, and elevation has little or no effect on the trend.
      The whole elevation argument is garbage anyway. At many cities higher elevation stations have warmer temperatures because cold air sinks into the valleys.

      • RW says:

        Interesting. Mosher claims he can use elevation to predict temperature. But like you say there must be many counter examples. So his analysis (probably regression) must be noisy as hell. Large residuals.

  8. CO2isLife says:

    Great work Tony, I used this post as the foundation of this posting:

    Ceteris Paribus and Global Warming; Ground Measurements are Garbage
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/20/ceteris-paribus-and-global-warming-ground-measurements-are-garbage/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *