Temperature Adjustments In Ohio


By Paul Homewood

I make no apology for returning to the topic of USHCN temperature adjustments, this time in Ohio. Apart from any other reason, I have been specifically requested to take a look at Ohio.

This time, rather than just looking at one month, January, I have looked at the annual adjustments, again comparing 1934 with 2013. This will give a much more comprehensive view.

The results are below.


By a combination of reducing temperatures in 1934, and increasing last year’s, an extra 1.8F of warming has been added to the year on year comparison.

Readers will recall that, according to NOAA, the overall effect of temperature adjustments was approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940′s until the last decade of the century.

Steve McIntyre reassures me that he has checked NOAA’s calculations and finds them to…

View original post 216 more words


About stevengoddard

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

20 Responses to Temperature Adjustments In Ohio

  1. Shazaam says:

    I would love to hear USHCN/NOAA rationalize (rational lies ?) the adjustments made to the Hiram College station in 1934.

    Perhaps the university professors and students were not properly trained in the reading of thermometers??


    • omanuel says:


      To snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, AGW skeptics now need to acknowledge that mainstream scientists honestly felt justified in 1945 in joining Stalin’s call to deceive the public in order to save the world from nuclear annihilation.

      Joseph Stalin and the scientists who followed his advice in 1945 are dead, but science deceit will continue until mainstream scientists have an honorable way to escape.

      See this video of Lord Monckton’s interview on the topic of totalitarian world governance.


      • Ernest Bush says:

        In this case, its more like some AGW skeptics want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

      • Aphan says:

        First, I don’t CARE what scientists in 1945 “felt” about anything, justified or not. I only care about the facts and evidence that scientists are responsible to provide to society. The only “honorable way” for anyone, including scientists, to escape deceit is to take a stand. To openly admit to it, and walk away from it completely. If “society” has to give enable them by providing some kind of “comfortable” route, then society will never view them as honorable. They will be viewed as weak, criminal, inept, and completely untrustworthy in the future, which is perfectly logical.

        Your comments lead me to think that you believe that all mainstream scientists are perfectly aware that the AGW theory is deeply flawed/incorrect and are hiding/defending those flaws on purpose. I don’t believe it’s that simple. I believe that many scientists have no clue about the totality of climate science because they are specialists in one area or another and simply rely on/trust what they hear from other scientists. These people just parrot what other “experts” say, and thus would have no feeling that they need to “escape” anything. I also believe there are many scientists who DO KNOW that they are deceiving people, but they WANT to deceive them for purposes that suit their personal agendas. These also would not need an “escape” because they don’t want one.

        As long as there are human beings in the world, there will always be good and evil in the world. Truth and lies. Honor and dishonor. None of the skeptics I know care the least bit about “victory” or “defeat”, they care about what is TRUE and empirical. Everything else is just politics of some form or another, and politics will continue to pollute everything it touches.

        • omanuel says:

          Thanks for the comment.

          1. Stalin’s USSR troops captured Japan’s atomic bomb production plant at Konan, Korea in late Aug 1945.

          2. The United Nations was formed in Oct 1945.

          3. Dr. Marvin Herndon noticed that US federal research agencies were designed from the start (~1951) to build a core of consensus opinions (Standard Models) and to exclude scientists that had other opinions.


        • Aphan says:

          Dr. Herndon believes that the US President could and should intervene in the processes of the US Federal Research agencies that are seriously flawed. In other words, he thinks that the same government that caused the problem, and currently funds that problem, could change it’s ways and eradicate the problem it caused. In a perfect world, it would.

          This is not a perfect world.

  2. gator69 says:

    I just can’t wait until we discover which states have had negative temperature adjustments! Stay tuned.

  3. Ernest Bush says:

    Your stand on matters like this is specifically why I am willing to donate to keeping this website alive with what money I can spare. Those who are engaged in arguing against bald truth do not deserve contributions of any kind to support noisy distortions.

    How can it be scientific debate when there are known facts involved? When original temperature data has been changed to produce a different result the “why” doesn’t matter anymore, particularly when a corrupt political agenda is involved. That agenda should be enough for reasonable people to stand back and study before they make rash excuses for a government that is obviously out of control in so many areas.

    Temperature adjustments made so far serve only one purpose. They allow government regulators to close down perfectly clean energy sources to force our population to do without the bountifulness the American experiment has produced. We are being drug down to poverty, along with the rest of the world, for a religious belief enforced by government control. It is the opposite of what the writers of The Constitution of the United States of America intended in the first amendment.

    I just wanted you to know that we laymen out there understand what is being done by the federal government, and probably, some state governments. Donating is one way to say “we stand beside you” in an ugly war.

  4. Ernest Bush says:

    More on topic, Ron C. a poster on Not a Lot of People That, gave a reasoned analysis of similar studies done using a different analysis. In one study the author concluded that there was a 0.75 C degree rise in temperatures over the area studied during the last 100 years..

    Also blithely stated was that essentially the noise band was 5.5C degrees wide. That goes beyond the band Mann used to manufacture the hockey stick. In another life I worked for years as a research analyst. Had I written a report with that much uncertainty built in I would have been laughed out of the room. His analysis could have been spot on. OTOH …..

  5. Ron C. says:

    Ernest, just to be clear: the wide range of temperature trends was an important finding. It shows the great variation in microclimates, and shows that the bit of average warming is overwhelmed by larger warming and cooling trends all over the map.

  6. Ron C. says:

    Ernest, maybe to state the point more clearly:
    It is ridiculous to claim any significance for an average trend of 0.75/century when the dataset has a standard deviation of +/- 2.35C/century.

  7. Hugh K says:

    No apology necessary…

  8. tom0mason says:

    Still I am left wondering if all these adjustments of individual stations, and whole areas, are also smoothing-out the extremes of variablity that occurred in the past (say before 1980) and so making the current period look unusually variable.
    That is to say not just cool the past and warm the recent periods but to nonlinearly ‘adjust’ or ‘estimate’ data from stations that showed high variability in the past, and adjust differently (more linearly) for the more recent temperature data.
    A highly smoothed (and cooled) past data record coupled to a less smoothed (and warmed) current data record would add credence to the ‘team’ claim of weather getting hotter and more extreme.

  9. I assume the “…” at the end means you “fabricated” this quote. 😉

  10. Bad Andrew says:

    As a proud Ohioan, I can only say “way to go Ohio”. 😉


    • _Jim says:

      Only ever made one trip into Ohio, and that was to bail a fellow classmate out of jail long ago … wait – did make the Dayton Hamfest in May once in the 1990’s …

  11. kuhnkat says:

    “Steve McIntyre reassures me that he has checked NOAA’s calculations and finds them to be reasonable.

    I seem to remember Mr. McIntyre doing posts on this over 5 years ago. I wonder if he has redone that recently or is depending on that result. The adjustments and zombie stations appear to be much more numerous now.

  12. Dave N says:

    “Steve McIntyre reassures me that he has checked NOAA’s calculations and finds them to be reasonable”

    I’ll bite: which calculations, and how exactly did he “check” them?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s