NCDC Corrects For UHI – By Massively Cooling The Past

Another smoking gun that USHCN adjustments are garbage, and inverted from reality.

The weather station at Fort Collins, CO is a classic study in UHI, yet NCDC adjusts Fort Collins temperatures by massively cooling the past – the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

ScreenHunter_3296 Oct. 04 04.14

In 1937, the station was located in the middle of a farm,

By 1950, the area was starting to get built up.

By 1969, the city had surrounded the weather station.

Now it is in the middle of a parking lot.

ScreenHunter_619 Sep. 16 08.24

The Fort Collins trend massively diverges from nearby Boulder, CO. Fort Collins is warming rapidly, while Boulder is cooling. Homogenization should warm the past, not cool it.

ScreenHunter_1501 Jan. 11 06.26

What about TOBS? The Fort Collins temperature has always been read near sunrise, which adds an additional cold bias to the data. Every factor in the equation should cause the NCDC adjustments to warm the past, rather than cool it.

Because of TOBS, all older temperatures should be adjusted upwards, not downwards. And because of UHI, all recent temperatures should be adjusted increasingly downwards. The actual adjustments are exactly the opposite of what they should be – according to the USHCN documentation.

ScreenHunter_3299 Oct. 04 07.28

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to NCDC Corrects For UHI – By Massively Cooling The Past

  1. Dave N says:

    How does it compare with Cheyenne?

  2. daveandrews723 says:

    Question… Is a 10 AM reading intended to give a mean temperature for the day at a specific site? As for the “urban heat island” effect, it seems obvious (even to the untrained like me) that the temperatures at that reporting station would have gone up over time as it became surrounded by asphalt.
    Anybody in charge of collecting the data from around the country could produce any result he wanted with some simple fudging of the numbers. From your reports it seem obvious that a lot of manipulation is going on. The science be damned.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Dave! “The science be damned.”

      Sadly, yes, that is the state of so-called “climate science.” Tony and others have been raising and documenting these questions of data quality and faulty adjustments for years, and the official response (at best) is “we know what we are doing and all adjustments have been properly explained.”

      Known software problems, known site problems, known adjustment problems — all those problems and no effective response. This is a classic marker of fraudulent “science.” If it happened once or twice and was addressed, you could attribute it to incompetence, but the problems that Tony points out have been ongoing for years and the official mouthpieces for CAGW pretend that the problems do not exist. At some point, any objective observer is forced to conclude that these errors are systematic, and not being done by accident.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    Pretty damning evidence of fraud.

  4. G. C. says:

    This is a test –

    Steve, since last night my comments posted via Opera have been booted into moderation. And yea I shutdown and restarted the computer, switched to my other e-mail address….

    I can post via firefox.

  5. Gail Combs says:

    This is a 2nd test –

    Steve, since last night my comments posted via Opera have been booted into moderation. And yea I shutdown and restarted the computer, switched to my other e-mail address….

    I can post via firefox.

  6. Now you’ve given them an example, which is what they said they wanted in order to take you seriously.

    I wonder if now someone will emerge from hiding to say, “But this is just an anecdote! It is not representative of the overall pattern of the data. That’s what really counts! See, we told you Steven is an unscientific miscreant, and now you can see it because he focuses on an anecdote that helps his case, instead of analyzing all the data to see what matters.”


    • mjc says:

      When a river gauge/weather station is located in a purpose-built, anchored to the bedrock of the river, concrete and stone building ‘moves’ 7 times since it went operational (including one ‘move’ that located it over 1 mile from the river it’s supposed to monitor), and nobody questions the adjustments made because of those moves, then they can do and get away with anything they want to the data. ‘One example’ be damned…theres hundreds, if not thousands of examples.

      • The point of course was that he had given them all the examples together, and they said he was not worth reading because his work was suspect because he didn’t provide a small number of anecdotal examples that could be checked. (Even though he had provided a number of them.) So now, he’s done this, I expect that the response (if any) will be that excluding some data that might be less favorable to him, to reach a conclusion, is bad science and calls anew his credibility into question.

  7. ristoi says:

    Reblogged this on Roskasaitti and commented:
    Stevengoddardin mieliaiheita on kertoa menneisyyden muutoksista. Ja en tästä havaitse, etteikö kertomisen aihetta olisikin, tuohan selittää globaalia lämpenemistä osaltaan.

  8. ristoi says:

    This one was so good that I reblog it.

  9. Ursa Felidae says:

    It seems to me if we want to factor UHI into the equation, then since it warms the present more, then we need to “cool the present”. Non-UHI areas are similar to locations in the past. UHI areas are new, their temps are higher, and thus should be adjusted down to match non-UHI. Thus no global freaking warming. Satisfied?

  10. SMS says:

    Here is what NASA has to say about UHI:

    “Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.”

    Sometimes it’s hard to practice what you preach. James Hansen, Al Gore and the rest of the climate scientists making claims of “CAGW” need to start doing proper science and not do the Greenie cult thingy.

  11. globalcooler says:

    Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
    I am adding this to my talk on the 21st of this month. This is really good!

Leave a Reply