Skip to content

NOAA Tamper With NY Temperatures Again

March 15, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

 canvas

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/divisional/time-series/3010/tavg/1/2/1895-2018?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000

 

According to the heavily adjusted NOAA data, last month was the fifth warmest February on record in the Central Lakes Division of NY State, with an average mean temperature of 31.4F.

 

Prior to 1981, the warmest was February 1954, which averaged 29.8F. In other words, NOAA claim that February 1954 was 1.6F colder than last month.

Which all looks very suspicious, because the opposite picture is shown at the high quality station of Ithaca Cornell University:

 

image

image

http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/wxstation/ithaca/ithaca.html

 

At Cornell, Feb 1954 averaged 30.4F, compared to 30.1F this year.

So 1954 was in fact 0.3F warmer. Compared with NOAA’s claim that last month was 1.6F warmer, this means that NOAA’s figures show 1.9F more warming than the record at Cornell.

Of course, there may be some small differences between Cornell and the Central Lakes division as a whole. However, Central Lakes (Division 10) is only a very small part of NY State, and it is not conceivable that variation within the division could account for a discrepancy of 1.9F.

In any event, as we already know, nearly all of the USHCN stations in Central Lakes confirm that NOAA’s dataset bears no relationship to actual station data, and massively increases the warming trend.

image

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-divisions.php

 

Cornell is also regarded as such a high quality site, that the Northeast Regional Climate Center have given it its own “Ithaca Climate Page”, clearly believing it is representative of NY as a whole.

In short, Ithaca Cornell is not some backyard amateur operation, but a very carefully maintained, long running record.

 

NOAA’s own station metadata confirms there has been no more than a minor change in location since 1954:

 

image

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/#ncdcstnid=20019802&tab=MSHR

 

And observing times have been during the morning throughout the record, meaning that the usual excuse for tampering used by NOAA’s apologists, Time of Observation Bias, does not wash.

 image

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/#ncdcstnid=20019802&tab=PHR

 

If you take 1.9F off the current temperatures shown by NOAA, there is nothing unusual about the temperature last month.

Quite simply, NOAA’s graph is fake.

Advertisements
9 Comments
  1. Joe Public permalink
    March 15, 2018 7:41 pm

    Perhaps they should now be known as ‘Tamperatures’.

    • spetzer86 permalink
      March 15, 2018 9:25 pm

      Measured in degrees of adjustment?

      • Joe Public permalink
        March 15, 2018 10:05 pm

        Or simply ‘anomaly’ (from that measured)

  2. Tom Dowter permalink
    March 15, 2018 11:20 pm

    It seems to me that much of the suspicion surrounding the adjustments to the temperature data could be dispelled if every time a significant change were made to a station, such as moving it or changing the type of instrumentation, we treated it as a separate station. This would obviate the need to make any explicit adjustments.

    Of course, we would have to change the process for combining the data to produce a series, since we could no longer calculate anomalies from a common period – which we can’t anyway, since many stations do not have complete records for the supposed common period. We would have to rely on differences between pairs of years. This is computationally more complex, but not impossible.

    In fact, I have done this for the “world champion” of sampled standard 5X5 degree grids. This is the one covering 35 to 40 degrees North and -75 to -80 degrees East. My series has a correlation coefficient of 0.99 with the NOAA series but shows only 77% of the warming. This is much the same as what I get if I use the adjusted data and the same method. If I use the unadjusted data the warming becomes 67% of the NOAA value. This compares with the warming shown by UAH satellites which comes out at only 39% of that shown by NOAA.

    The period involved is 1979 to 2014.

  3. Phoenix44 permalink
    March 16, 2018 8:51 am

    What is obvious is that the 1954 Cornell average is slightly higher than the 1954 Central Lakes average. It would be interesting to see if that relationship held true for most or all (non-adjusted) Februaries.

    Assuming it does, there can be no reason to now assume that Cornell is substantially lower than the rest of the Central Lakes when previously it was slightly higher.

    This once again appears to be an instance of high quality data being homogenised away by low quality data.

  4. CheshireRed permalink
    March 16, 2018 9:06 am

    They’re getting their adjustments in earlier these days, effectively straight from the start. No retrospective revisions, no previous versions to re-write only then to be compromised by sharp-eyed number crunchers like Paul. (I suspect previous revelations have left NOAA and GISS feeling rather embarrassed)
    This is what ‘climate science’ has become; an absolute racket to be kept on track at all costs.

  5. Gerry, England permalink
    March 16, 2018 11:48 am

    Meanwhile, more snow records are being set all around… And the sun has been blank for day son end making it 54% so far this year and the current run has only been broken by a sunspot described as ‘barely visible’ such that sometimes given the make believe that comes from the warmist camp you wonder if it really exists.

  6. Broadlands permalink
    March 17, 2018 2:01 pm

    This is a stunning development from the AAAS an organization that has left its roots to become a policy advocate?

    https://www.trelliscience.com/#/discussions-about/27504/

    An award to Micheal Mann???

  7. March 24, 2018 10:44 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: