Comments on: The Adjusters Visit Peru

By: realclimate and Disinformation on UHI « Climate Audit

realclimate and Disinformation on UHI « Climate Audit — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:45:52 +0000

[...] “UHI” adjustments outside the U.S. even begin to deal with the problem. Posts were here here here here here [...]

By: Gabriel - Intercambio

Gabriel - Intercambio — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:32:54 +0000

#63
“I disagree with this. Most financial audits endorse the company’s financial statements. However auditors do go through a process of asking questions and examining things before they sign off. I regard many of the points in these posts as “audit questions” – and do not exclude the possibility of some of them be resolved.”

That is my oppinion as well.

Also, here in Canada we do not appear too much in the media since our country is usually overshadowed by the United States south of the border.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:12:33 +0000

Oops, just noticed that Steve mentioned my post in #92. Thanks Steve.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:10:42 +0000

I took a look at population growth in Puerto Maldonado and found that there has been a lot of growth. The official consensus shows that in 1981 the population was 12,693. The population in 2005 was 51,349. It is now estimated to be56,917. Yet all of the adjustments took place before 1981. A more extensive write up is on my blog, http://temperaturewatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/dodgy-peruvian-temperature-adjustments.html

By: conard

conard — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 07:01:07 +0000

Interesting indeed. Nothing in the article establishes a basis for making the following claim in the concluding paragraph:

The point of all this is that that the raw data shows a cooling trend despite rapid population growth. Adjusting the data properly should maintain or even enhance the cooling trend. Instead, the GISS adjustments created a warming trend. The warming in the record is indeed man-made, but has nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:12:04 +0000

An interesting post here http://temperaturewatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/dodgy-peruvian-temperature-adjustments.html on Puerto Maldonado.

By: Geoff Sherrington

Geoff Sherrington — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:40:39 +0000

Re # 70 Philip_B

Re TOBS again

Is is, or is it not correct, that if an observation is made every day (as opposed to missing a few days) then either the Tmax or the Tmin will be as recorded (one will always be correct) but that if one of them is incorrect then so is Tmean. By using daily Tmean, you increase the chances that an adjustment is needed. Would it not be simpler to assign a temp taken on the wrong days because of observation time, to the wrong day and carry on with the knowledge that some errors will arise but that they should cancel? This is because irrespective of observation time, the thermometers will record a correct Tmax and T min every day, with the arror being usually small because it is only the error of assigning a temp to a day early or a day late.

If the above is correct, on any given day, half the data at least will not need a TOBS correction at all. Yet, the current method seems to TOBS everything. Is it Irish?

By: Phil.

Phil. — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:44:46 +0000

Re #79

Does it have any Russian jets parked next to the sensor?

No but it does have a vintage Antonov An-2 bush plane parked on the premises. An-2

By: Bob North

Bob North — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:39:42 +0000

Steve – I am impressed by the level headedness of your response at #87 given some of the rhetoric at Tamino’s site (which can provide very helpful information btw). Please strive to keep it at this level of civil discussion and do your best to avoid the jabs at those with a different opinion regarding the various adjustments to the recorded instrument data. The civil tone is appreciated.

Regards,

Bob North

By: Tony Edwards

Tony Edwards — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:34:56 +0000

Yes, that’s about what I thought, only more forcefully.