NOAA Corruption Of New York Temperatures

The New York City Heat Island warms temperatures by as much as 8C (15F) relative to surrounding areas.

New York Heat Island

NOAA corrects corrupts the data by cooling the past, which is the exact opposite of what the correct adjustment would be.  The appropriate adjustment for an expanding urban heat island would be to cool recent years.


One of New York’s worst heatwaves occurred in 1896.

1896 Heatwave

That was also the year of Australia’s worst heatwave.

TimesMachine: August 18, 1896

It was also hot in Europe that summer.

17 Jul 1896 – HEAT-WAVE IN EUROPE.

The 1901 heatwave in New York also killed hundreds of people.

Later in July 1901, the heatwave expanded to Europe

THE HEAT WAVE IN EUROPE.; Numerous Deaths in London — Effects of Drought Serious — No Signs of a Change in England.

And continued into August.

UNPRECEDENTED HEAT IN ITALY.; Vineyards Shriveled Up — People Forced to Sleep in the Open Air.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to NOAA Corruption Of New York Temperatures

  1. Ed Powell says:

    Could you please add a Twitter plugin to your web site (there are plenty of decent free ones) to make it easier for readers to tweet your articles? Thanks.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Adjusted downwards by 2.5 F in a century?
    That means the glacier in Central Park melted in 1250 AD, after adjustments.
    The eskimos must’ve been disappointed.

  3. spike55 says:

    Close to 65% DATA FABRICATION in GHCN

    “There are 7280 total stations in the inventory file.

    There are 2545 total stations in the 2015 last year – current stations.

    There are thus 4735 stations in the inventory that are NOT current
    but used in fabricating artificial “data”.

  4. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Off topic, but here’s a blast from the past. An NPR debate on global warming featuring Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen & Philip Stott vs. Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, & Richard Somerville:

  5. AndyDC says:

    Obviously trendless for at least the last 75 years. Hardly worthy of a “climate crisis” or an economy destroying “Green New Deal”. Nor a cause worth dismantling our prosperity or way if life in favor of world communism.

  6. Ferdinand says:

    Question: Last year I went to the NASA website to download the monthly temperature data for a few arctic stations. And what I noticed is that the number of “missing data” entries is increased quite sharply in the early years of this century. I remember the case of the station in Nuuk/Greenland. In the 15 years from 2003 to 2017 about 1 in 6 (something in the low 30s out of the 180 entries) monthly entries were missing. In the 15 years before 2003 (1988-2002) there is not a single missing data. Similar patterns could be observed at other stations in the arctic (Island etc). How is something like that possible? We spend ever more money for this climate business and we have ever worse data collection?

  7. Bob Hoye says:

    Today is the day “they” make me change my clocks.
    However, the premier of BC has been consulting with the governors of WA, Oregon and CA to end—changing the clocks.

  8. Bob Hoye says:

    Today is the day “they” make me change my clocks.
    However, the premier of BC has been consulting with the governors of WA, Oregon and CA to end—changing the clocks.

    • rah says:

      The same reason for Daylight Savings time as when Benjamin Franklin proposed the idea exists today. Savings of energy/lighting. Back in Franklins day it was saving of candles and lamp oil.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      The governors and the Progressive vanguard in the United States Congress must recognize the wisdom of Chairman Mao and abolish time zones altogether to promote national unity. Too many time zones lead to regional conflicts and civil wars. A single U.S. Standard Time zone (UST = UTC-5) set to Eastern Standard Time from Puerto Rico to Hawaii will make everything simple and well organized. It will ease the heavy burden Chairman Ocasio-Cortez and the members of the Democratic Socialist Party’s Politburo must carry as they manage the country’s work schedule during the implementation of the Five Year Plans of the Green New Deal. It will also simplify daily coordination with Chairman Xi and the Standing Committee of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China.

      Beijing Standard Time is calculated and released from the National Time Service Centre in Shaanxi Province, which is geographically almost the centre of China. It sits eight hours ahead of GMT and was implemented throughout China in 1949 after Mao Zedong decreed that it would aid ‘national unity’. As Beijing 北京 (北 north 京 capital) was proclaimed from Nanjing 南京 (南 south 京 capital) to be the new capital of China, the new time zone was created to bear its name.

      Prior to 1949, China had seen decades of regional conflicts and a major civil war. It had five official time zones, which ranged from five and a half to eight and a half hours ahead of GMT. These time zones – Zhongyuan, Longshu, Tibet, Kunlun and Changbai – were established in 1912, the year after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. When the Communist Party took control in 1949, it viewed the creation of a sense of unification and centralisation as vital to restoring the country. One time zone would allow a national work schedule (important during the times of communal work units), for news to be broadcast at the same time throughout the country, and for no confusion differentiating between time zones.

      • MGJ says:

        IIRC another of the world’s ‘great’ Socialists insisted on using only Berlin time while invading Russia. Quite unhelpful by all accounts.

    • Robertv says:

      Why change the clock? Just get up an hour earlier or later. It’s what you do anyway

  9. Gator says:

    I have said all along that all of the “observed” warming we have seen in the past century could be explained by UHI. Nobody can disprove this, or natural variability. Their hypothesis is garbage.

  10. Rud Istvan says:

    One can either warm the past or cool the present to correct for UHI when looking for temperature trends. The recommended procedure is to warm the past, so that the present accords with observed actuals.
    The opposite is done.
    This is discussed at length with many examples (e.g. Tokyo, Rutherglen) in essay When Data Isnt in my ebook Blowing Smoke.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Rud! “The recommended procedure is to warm the past, so that the present accords with observed actuals.”

      I admit that I have not read your ebook, but my first reaction is “No! We have defined what a good station and good siting is, and it makes sense. We want to know what the earth is doing in its natural state, or at least as close to it as we can get. Changing the past data from good locations to accord with the present very temporary and man made influences of an urban environment does not make sense. We want to compare apples with apples, not paint old apples orange to make them match a new citrus grove that we just planted in the same place.”

      The point is, we can agree on what characteristics we use to define a well sited station, but no two urban areas are ever the same, and even the same urban area changes over time. If we are to measure changes we need a fixed standard, and even if we decide to make “adjustments” to compensate for a changing environment, the only way to know how much it has changed is by using a fixed standard with which to compare it.

  11. John F. Hultquist says:

    Tony wrote: “The appropriate adjustment for an expanding urban heat island would be to cool recent years.

    This is a good point, and for “climate” investigations, I have written the same thing (elsewhere). One person did not understand, and accused me of being “all sorts of nasty things.”

    Anyway, here is an interesting non-climate issue.
    We old folks, playing checkers in front of the local mercantile, like to talk about the weather. We want the “here and now” temperature. If the display on the town Bank says it is 85°F, it won’t do for the radio to claim the NWS thinks it is (minus the UHI) 75°F.
    So, once adjustments are initiated, researchers get a data set to study, but as a citizen checker-player – I’m not interested.

    In late February, the airport station (KELN) had a faulty sensor. One day it read 59°F., while the proper reading was closer to 25°F.
    They fixed or replaced the equipment. Will they expunge or replace (infill ?) all the bad readings?
    Insofar as I know, the NWS has not acknowledged this event. I did send an e-mail to the Pendleton, OR office.

  12. Robertv says:

    The Brains Behind AOC Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

  13. JCalvertN(UK) says:

    What do other scientists do with they take readings? Surely what they do is to state the reading, and then state the various likely errors. Then, for those who need it, the data can be presented with or without error corrections.
    BUT. The errors affecting weather station “A” are unique to it – on its own.
    Its distance from the centre of town, distance from the edge of town, distance from large paved areas, irrigated areas, or airconditioned/heated buildings, altitude, prevailing wind direction, and possible Foehn wind effects, are all unique.
    There should be no need to adjust a reading at weather station “A” just because the weather at nearby station “B” was different.

  14. Robert Hladek says:

    How does one find the specific data you used in the spreadsheet and graph? Is there some trick to finding it?

  15. MGJ says:

    Obvious really.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *