Skip to content

GHCN Are Even Inflating Current Temperatures In New York

February 17, 2018

By Paul Homewood


There is a footnote to yesterday’s story about the huge adjustments made by NOAA to the temperature record in NY State.

Recall the Jan 2018 temperatures for the three stations we looked at, as derived from the actual station data:


Auburn – 20.5F

Geneva – 21.0F

Ithaca – 19.6F


I have looked at what GISS are now showing for last month. Screenshots are below, and are in Centigrade.

If we convert to Fahrenheit and compare with the true data, we get:


GISS Actual Diff
Auburn 21 20.5 0.5
Geneva 21.9 21 0.9
Ithaca 20.8 19.6 1.2



In other words, not only have historical temperatures been reduced, even now GISS/GHCN are inflating current temperatures. (Note – the GISS temperatures are the “GHCN Adjusted Data”, and have not been adjusted by GISS).


To get an idea of the scale of tampering, GISS themselves provide a comparison of unadjusted and adjusted data for Ithaca:



These are annual numbers, not specifically winter. But they do show that temperatures in the notably warm years have been adjusted down by more than 2C.

The actual data shows that Ithaca was consistently as warm, and occasionally warmer in the 1920s, 30s and 40s as in recent times.

Whatever we think about the accuracy of temperatures in the past, there is no excuse for altering current ones.


 image (Click on “Monthly Data as text”)






  1. Joe Public permalink
    February 17, 2018 4:45 pm

    The higher they rise, the further they fall when reality catches up with them.

  2. Adrian permalink
    February 17, 2018 4:51 pm

    No excuse?

    I think when you are responsible for saving the planet then you are surely allowed to avoid having to justify yourself.

    Probably no excuse for torturing and slaughtering unbelievers in a particular God the past (or now), but if you are right and have the word of a deity on your side, you need none.

  3. JohnBUK permalink
    February 17, 2018 5:29 pm

    Didn’t Trump, just after he was elected, appoint someone to look into exactly this issue?

  4. A C Osborn permalink
    February 17, 2018 5:33 pm

    Paul, does the original NOAA data for Auburn show all those years and months with missing data?
    How can there be that much data missing?

  5. Sean permalink
    February 17, 2018 5:34 pm

    Adjusting the planet to fit the model! Mother Nature need to learn some high school physics.

  6. Sean rush permalink
    February 17, 2018 7:22 pm

    Wouldn’t the adjustments be subject to judicial review?

  7. February 17, 2018 7:41 pm

    It’s time for that swamp to be drained and a bit of room made ready in the state pen. Thetrre is no excuse for this corruption.

  8. RAH permalink
    February 17, 2018 7:59 pm

    Yea. It was really warm in NY this winter. Lake Erie froze over a month earlier than usual this year. Freezing water doesn’t lie. I pay attention to that stuff because I have to drive I-90 and when Erie freezes over the lake effect snows along a good portion of that Interstate in NE Ohio, NW PA, and Western NY end so I don’t have to take the more southern route of I-86 through the hills.

    • February 18, 2018 9:40 am

      Great Lakes news…

      When these data were acquired, 57.9 percent of the surfaces of the Great Lakes were covered with ice, according to NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. On the same date last year, total ice cover was 9.7 percent. Lake Erie was the iciest of the five lakes, with 93.3 percent iced over.

  9. Tom Anderson permalink
    February 17, 2018 8:56 pm

    GISS personnel are committing a federal crime.
    Title 18 of the United States Code contains the federal criminal law. Section 2071 sets out the elements of the crime of manipulating or falsifying government records
    To summarize the statute, anyone who has official custody of any record on filed in any public office of the United States and willfully and unlawfully mutilates, obliterates, or falsifies such a record has violated the statute and shall be fined or imprisoned for up to three years under it, or both. Generally, a felony is defined as a crime calling for imprisonment in a penitentiary for more than one year. That makes violating Section 2071 a felony, not merely a misdemeanor.
    “18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
    “(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
    “(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

    • Bitter@twisted permalink
      February 18, 2018 8:56 am

      A great pity I’m not a US citizen.
      I would make a complaint about these fraudsters, using the statues you quote.

  10. NeilC permalink
    February 17, 2018 11:24 pm

    And they call it climate science – science it most certainly IS NOT.

    No real scientist would cheat, manipulate, alter reality et al unless they had an agenda or two, 21 or 30 perhaps.

  11. Paddy permalink
    February 18, 2018 7:35 am


    • February 22, 2018 4:42 pm

      When you see the depth of the problem and the fact that we took the 10 Commandments from our society in order to allow the left to lie, steal and ……. it is no wonder we have so many with no personal character and no thought about needing one.

      It is a big swamp and it is opposed to being drained. We are working on it, but it will take time. Very helpful would be ridding ourselves of Civil Service. It is akin to teacher tenure and promotes sloth and anything goes.

  12. Phoenix44 permalink
    February 18, 2018 10:22 am

    Thee is literally no way knowing what the temperature was even a second ago in any given place except using the data recorded. If you can demonstrate that the device used had a systematic error – you’ve run it in parallel with other instruments over a long period and it’s always the same difference – then fine, but are we expected to believe that they have done that at all these sites?

    If not, then to present the adjustments as “fact” rather than guess is just fraud. You can talk about homogenisation and all the rest but then you cannot adjust ALL sites or even most, because you MUST have a majority that you deem accurate and that you use to adjust the minority.

    I think they have gone far off the rails and are making adjustments based on adjustments, which simply is nonsense.

    • February 18, 2018 11:56 am

      I suppose the problem generally with adjustments is that while sites might be biased hot, there is no possibility that they might be biased cold. The net of an unbiased site and a UHI site is still warmer than the real temperature.

      What I don’t quite get is why individual stations are adjusted at all. There might be a justification for adjustments when calculating an average temp. for a state etc. But the individual station data should ever be kept pristine.

      I do not believe there is deliberate nefariousness going on. That is a whole level beyond mere blinkered thought. Also: who would be dumb enough to do that ‘for the cause’?

      • Bitter@twisted permalink
        February 18, 2018 6:53 pm

        I do believe deliberate fraud is going on and the perpetrators are fully aware of what they are doing because it is, in their opinion, “for the greater good”.
        It’s called “noble cause corruption” and still requires jail time.

  13. February 19, 2018 2:28 am

    I have something that I’d like to see folks here brainstorm over.

    If you were to compute your own global-average temperature results from GHCN unadjusted vs. adjusted data (using the NASA-standard 1951-1990 baseline and basic grid-cell area-weighting), how similar or different do think your unadjusted and adjusted global temperature results would be?

    How do you think that your unadjusted results would compare with NASA’s “Global Mean Estimates based on Land Data only” results?

    The NASA results can be viewed at
    (Click on the “Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change” link and scroll down a bit.)

    • A C Osborn permalink
      February 19, 2018 4:36 pm

      If you use their techniques you will probably come out very close their results.
      However I have a very interesting chart for you, this was created by Zeke and it uses Absolute Temperatures. The Chart shows massive jumps in temperature and when I posted it at WUWT earlier this year one of the posters on there analysed why the jumps occurred when they are not in the current versions.
      It was due to the massive changes in the Weather Stations that the they chose to use and then changed them. Making the temperatures much hotter after the change.

      Here is the Chart.

      Here is the Gridde Anomaly version of the same data.

      Which one provides the most “Infromation”?

      Then I have something for you to brainstorm over.
      Why was the Global Temperature declared by NOAA in 1998 for the year of 1997 given as 62.45F or 16.92C.
      But last year they said it was now given as 58.13F or 14.53C

      • February 20, 2018 10:12 am

        I believe that Zeke was trying to show why you should compute average temperature *anomalies* instead of average temperatures.

        In the GHCN dataset, station records vary greatly in length. In addition, many station records have missing years and within individual years, missing months.

        If you are performing computations with absolute temperatures and a station, say, is missing 3 winter months in a single year, the average temperature for that year will be skewed extremely high.

        With anomalies, however, the 3 missing months won’t mess things up. That’s because you will have subtracted the seasonal effects out of the station temperatures before you average them. With anomaly processing, 3 missing winter months will not cause the average annual temperature to skew high for that year.

        When you have temperature data where the mix of stations changes from year to year (as it will when you have varying station record lengths), you absolutely do not want to average the absolute temperatures.

        And for the plots above, the upper plot provides no useful information because the absolute temperature averages are being skewed by the year-to-year changes in the station mix. The lower plot shows very clearly the long-term temperature trend and is not scrambled/skewed by changes in the number/location of stations from year to year.

  14. Richard111 permalink
    February 19, 2018 7:58 am

    Discussing AGW has become a wasted exercise. Just ask for the science involved in how any radiative gas in the atmosphere traps heat.
    Convince me and I will believe.
    No good calling me a “climate denier”, I don’t understand much at all about the climate so how can I deny it?

    • A C Osborn permalink
      February 19, 2018 4:55 pm

      Also ask them the following questions.
      What is the Ratio of CO2 molecules in the Atmosphere when compared to H2O?
      If there are 400ppm of CO2 at Sea Level what ppm level is at 10km altitude where CO2 is supposed to be effective, compared to the rest of the Atmosphere?
      What is the Energy of a CO2 LWIR Photon compared to a Solar Radiation photon?
      What is the Temperature of CO2 Molecules at 10km altitude?
      What is the “Free Path Length” of a LWIR Photon?
      What is the time taken for a LWIR Photon to exit the Atmosphere?
      What is the average time taken for a LWIR Photon to be emitted by a CO2 Molecule that has absorbed one?
      What is the average time taken for a CO2 Molecule to lose the excess energy from absorbing a LWIR Photon by collision with another Atmospheric Molecule?
      What approximate %age of LWIR CO2 Photons head towards the Surface?

  15. donald penman permalink
    February 20, 2018 6:31 am

    I have no confidence in the temperatures recorded by my local weather station here in the UK. Last week I noticed a sudden drop in temperature by two degrees centigrade which brought the temperature to almost minus four degrees centigrade there while my thermometer only measured a minimum temperature of minus 1.1 degrees centigrade with no drop of two degrees centigrade. I had to drive around Lincolnshire an hour or two later and did not notice any evidence of temperatures reaching such a low level anywhere it was warmer and raining the further south you went. I think that temperature must be very local to a particular point or temperature readings are influenced by those who hold a particular opinion of what temperatures ought to be. I think that I am justified in keeping my own record of how temperature is changing where I live.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: