Skip to content

Syracuse & UHI

January 26, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

As promised, more on NOAA’s tampering with New York’s temperature record.

 

We saw yesterday how Syracuse International Airport bucked the trend, by showing that Jan 2014 was 0.7F warmer than Jan 1943. In stark contrast, the other six sites in the same Central Lakes division recorded that 2014 was much colder by an average of 3.3F.

This could not a clearer indication of the UHI effect at Syracuse.

Yet astonishingly, despite this UHI effect, we find that NOAA’s official temperature series for Central Lakes gives an annual warming trend actually greater than Syracuse’s, over the period since 1939 when the temperature record at Syracuse began.

Whereas the trend at Syracuse is 1.9F/C, the Divisional trend is 2.4F/C. (Graphs are slightly unclear, but click on the links for the original NOAA ones).

 

syra

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/30/USW00014771/tavg/12/12/1895-2017?trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1939&lasttrendyear=2017

cl

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/30/10/tavg/12/12/1895-2017?trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1939&lasttrendyear=2017

 

This is clear evidence that there is something badly wrong with NOAA’s version.

Advertisements
10 Comments
  1. Phoenix44 permalink
    January 26, 2018 2:15 pm

    All very odd.

    As is the idea there is a “trend” in that graph from 1940. There is a clear upward trend fro the late 1970s, but before that there is not – you can fit a “trend line” to any data set but it doesn’t mean there is actually a meaningful trend. So what happened in the late 1970s?

    • dave permalink
      January 26, 2018 3:23 pm

      “…you can fit a trend line to any [time series] data set…”

      Indeed, and the reason for fitting it is, often, to then discard a random drift which has manifested itself as a trend. Put another way, any random series when summed, or integrated, will show statistically significant trends more often than not.

      The “significance” is usually – and merely – that “the drunkard’s walk” has actually moved him from his starting place. For example, most charts of stock prices will show such trends. But you will not make much money by trying to latch onto them, expecting that they will continue – unless you can make a further deduction, based on independent knowledge, that there is a particular, unfolding reason underpinning the trend, i.e. that time is a proxy.

      Mere passage of time can be an “explanatory” variable in the technical statistical sense, but not in the “causal,” scientific sense.

  2. January 26, 2018 2:16 pm

    One real problem with this skewing of data is that “real” scientists doing “real” scientific projects do not have access to accurate data from NOAA. Their use of this tampered data will lead them to false conclusions. No doubt, those skewing the data seek such “results” to further their false claims.

    They need to be very careful what they wish as this is coming back to bite them. When people no longer can believe anything from the scientific community they will ignore it all–the good as well as the bad.. They will likely ignore funding it also.

    Oh, the unintended consequences.

    • Hivemind permalink
      January 27, 2018 2:57 am

      If only they were actually unintended.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 27, 2018 12:18 pm

      They are doing the IPCC’s bidding which requires the manufacture of data to back up their global warming claims.

  3. Jack Broughton permalink
    January 26, 2018 2:24 pm

    It seems that the present temperatures are being regularly over-estimated due to the UHI effect , so that the “corrections” in the homogenising algorithms are working the wrong way. Clearly the comparison of data should not need any adjustment if one were comparing apples with apples, but the UHI and changes of measuring techniques make comparisons more difficult and adjustments less honest. Data that relies on scientifically dubious “adjustments” should always be rejected from analysis.

  4. RAH permalink
    January 26, 2018 2:40 pm

    There will come a point where this fraud will collapse upon it’s self. They can’t skew the record enough to make their case for catastrophic warming due to “Green House Gases”. Already we see Gavin and Hanson trying to back peddle. After years of claiming that any warming cannot be attributed to natural variation they are now saying the natural variation can mitigate what they claim is human caused warming.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/24/nasa-james-hansen-gavin-schmidt-paper-10-more-years-of-global-warming-pause-maybe/

  5. Broadlands permalink
    January 26, 2018 3:01 pm

    “over the period since 1939 when the temperature record at Syracuse began.”

    If you look at the NOAA site you will find that there are no records for cities before 1940. This makes it difficult to observe or compare the warming that took place up to that time. Interesting choice, 1940?

    • A C Osborn permalink
      January 26, 2018 5:20 pm

      Are you sure about that?

  6. Gerry, England permalink
    January 27, 2018 12:17 pm

    ‘…badly wrong…’

    That depends on your viewpoint. No doubt they are very pleased with themselves if a little dumb in thinking that this won’t get noticed at some point.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: