A comparison of raw temperature data of the NOAA National Climate Data Center (NCDC) with its adjusted data for Central Park in New York City has now been performed for the two extreme months of July and January. The NCDC keeps two major adjusted compilations of station by station temperature data. One is the HCSN Version 1 set and the other is the other is the GHCN Version 2 data set. The latter is used in the UN IPCC reports.
Let's first compare the raw temperature measurements for July with the HCSN Version 1 set. The data is shown below:
As mentioned, there is also a temperature record (GHCN) provided to the UN IPCC and generally kept for world-wide temperature change comparisons. Remember, in such comparisons, we are interested in tracking very small changes of a few tenths of a degree, yet we have seen already that adjustments of more than 6 F are being applied to the raw data. This is always dicey science when small changes are to be detected on data being adjusted with large comparative adjustments. The raw data, the HCN adjusted data, and the GHCN adjusted data are all compared in the plot below.
Now note that the raw data is the middle plot in blue. The two NOAA NCDC adjusted July average temperature data sets are the most different. The hottest of the three sets of data is the global comparison data which went into the UN IPCC assessment data. For reasons unfathomable to rational man, the net effect of having a weather station in the middle of NYC, one of the world's larger cities, is an artificial cooling effect and it has to be adjusted with a general increase to the raw temperature data. Yes, the well-know urban heat island effect, is sometimes an urban cooling effect and sometimes and urban heating effect, by implication given the adjustments provided by our NOAA NCDC! The temperature difference between the two NOAA NCDC temperature data sets is as large as 11 F.
Basically, it looks as though the UN IPCC wanted data indicating high and rising temperatures. The upper green trace gave them high temperatures and the data mostly parallels the raw data, so essentially no urban heat island differential adjustment seems to have been made over time compared to the raw data. Of course, the raw data of 2007 surely already has a rise in it due to the increased population and bigger buildings in NYC since 1909, so leaving that effect in gave the global warming alarmists the temperature increase they needed, although little of the increase occurred in the late 20th Century in the Central Park data. Such increases could readily be found in the data from many other U.S. weather stations, however. What was important here was maintaining the fiction that the urban heat island effect is unimportant and no adjustment for it is needed over time. That way, all the rural stations which have become suburban stations need not be adjusted downward for the urban heat island effect.
This is the hand made visible of massive fraud, once again.