Skip to content

TOBS At Ithaca

January 26, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

canvas

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/30/10/tavg/12/12/1895-2017

 

Can the massive temperature adjustments made in New York State be explained by TOBS, applied when observation times change?

 

We have one very easy check. Temperature data at Cornell University, Ithaca has been read in the morning since at least 1949, just as it still is. (Observation times in earlier years are given as “unknown”)

 

image

image

Ithaca Jan 1949

 

 

When we check the Annual Climatological summary for 1949, we find that the average mean temperature at Ithaca was 49.5F (see Table 1).

image

image

1949 Annual

And during 2016, the latest year available, annual temperatures were 48.0F, ie 1.5F cooler than in 1949.

image

2016 Annual

 

According to NOAA’s summary for Central Lakes (Division 10), as per the graph at the top, 2016 was 0.1F warmer than 1949.

image

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/30/10/tavg/12/12/1895-2017

 

In other words, NOAA is now showing 1.6F more warming than the actual data justifies. And as we have seen, there have been no changes in observation times which could be used as an excuse.

GISS show how much temperatures have been reduced in prior decades, in order to show a warming trend since the 1920s, which simply does not exist in the actual data.

We find the same pattern of adjustments throughout the Central Lakes division.

 

image

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=425003041740&ds=5&dt=1

 

image

image

image

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/stdata/

 

It is not simply winter temperatures that have been massively artificially altered, but annual ones as well.

As far as New York is concerned, the claim of steadily increasing temperatures is fake.

Advertisements
15 Comments
  1. dave permalink
    January 26, 2018 3:44 pm

    In ten years – to keep the fantasy going – they will need to push today’s temperatures down!
    “Oh, those scientists of 2018 were so incompetent in reading thermometers.”

  2. RAH permalink
    January 26, 2018 4:09 pm

    Any place on your islands that see the lake effect snows these places in NY your talking about are known for? They really are interesting. I have been in Tonawanda on the North side of the Buffalo metropolitan area and there was not a flake of snow on the ground or in the air but less than 10 miles straight line distance to the South in Lackawanna on the south side they had 2′ of snow on the ground.

    • Chris Martin permalink
      January 27, 2018 12:16 am

      In Britain? There isn’t really anywhere that experiences the sort of heavy ‘lake effect’ snows I have read about close to the Great Lakes. Perhaps the only small-scale effect we have is a tendency to heavier snowfall close to our north east and east coasts when there is a northeasterly or easterly cold air outbreak from continental Europe that picks up moisture in crossing the North Sea and leads to snow showers on exposed coasts.

      • RAH permalink
        January 28, 2018 1:03 am

        Thanks for the response. I guess you really don’t have the size of lakes that allow for such an effect. After I wrote the above I checked that out, Even Loch Ness, while of considerable volume, does not have the surface area due to it’s shape.

  3. Bitter@twisted permalink
    January 26, 2018 5:30 pm

    The people responsible for these “Adjustments” are fraudsters.
    They should be in jail.

  4. A C Osborn permalink
    January 26, 2018 5:37 pm

    Like I said on the New York thread, Total Adjustements including TOBS only justifies 0.5C, anything over that falsifies their original Paper.

  5. Stonyground permalink
    January 26, 2018 6:22 pm

    Surely by doing this kind of fraudulent fiddling of the numbers these people are tacitly admitting that the game is up. If CO2 induced temperature rises were such an obvious reality, these adjustments would be unnecessary, the numbers would speak for themselves.

    • dearieme permalink
      January 27, 2018 1:19 am

      Excellent point, and it’s one I have made repeatedly for a couple of decades. Their actions reveal that most, perhaps all, of them know that it’s a fraud they are perpetrating.

      • Adrian permalink
        January 27, 2018 9:07 am

        That is possible, but I suspect unlikely. In the eyes of the zealot everything they do is fully justified.

        Do you think that every minister of religion etc etc is a deliberate fraud because, let’s be frank, there isn’t a god?

        These people ‘know’ AGW exists and therefore everything that needs to be done to elucidate that fact is correct.

      • dave permalink
        January 27, 2018 9:07 am

        “…a fraud…”

        Perhaps, but my opinion is that most of them are, simply, too emotionally committed to “the cause” to believe that disproving evidence is “real.”
        Studies of “personality types” show that only about one per cent of people are capable of actually suspending judgement on a matter they care about, and waiting without emotion for further evidence.

        With women, of course, the percentage is more like zero. Every man has had the experience of being adored for a few weeks and then unceremoniously dumped. One realizes that one was being tried on like a pair of shoes!

      • dave permalink
        January 27, 2018 9:11 am

        I see that ‘Adrian’ was advancing a similar argument as mine, while I was writing.

  6. January 27, 2018 12:08 pm

    Oswego County and Oswego, NY is one of the snowiest places due to the lake effect snows. On December 16, 2017 they had an early snow of 83″. Their average yearly snowfall is 141″. It is east of Rochester on Lake Ontario.

  7. January 27, 2018 11:41 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News.

  8. robinedwards36 permalink
    January 29, 2018 11:05 pm

    I’ve been having a look at Ithaca data, as available on the latest GISS version. It is not a straightforward time series!
    Although there is an overall increase in the values it does not really approach the usual significance criteria, but if you eliminate the month to month variation (forming what I call “Monthly differences” there is a positive slope that is very highly significant, but from a scientific viewpoint valueless. This is because the major increase takes place during two very short periods, at the end of 1982 and again at Jan 1998. Since then there has been no statistically verifiable increase up to the end of the data. A linear “fit” over the whole series is in fact totally unjustified.
    The linear fit since 1998 is good, but I would be reluctant to extrapolate it. Things happen suddenly and unpredictably with climate.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: