Putting The TOBS Scam To Bed

15 Responses to Putting The TOBS Scam To Bed

1. philjourdan says:

   July 16, 2014 at 12:56 pm

   It will not become “obvious” until the government money stops flowing.

   Reply
2. _Jim says:

   July 16, 2014 at 1:07 pm

   Paging Tom Karl, paging Tom Karl; you are wanted on the witness stand …

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_R._Karl

   Reply
3. njsnowfan says:

   July 16, 2014 at 1:30 pm

   Ot only a few weeks left in the peak of the Greenland peak melt season left.

   Normal melt in a positive AMO phase.

   https://mobile.twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/489227439416311808

   Reply
   • stewart pid says:

     July 16, 2014 at 1:59 pm

     Interesting … thanks for posting njs

     Reply
4. Douglas Hoyt says:

   July 16, 2014 at 1:56 pm

   Climatologists would get a better handle on climate change if they did a few things:

   1. Only use the daily maximum temperatures to measure trends. This avoids the TOBS correction and minimizes the effects of UHIs, but does not completely remove the UHI effect.
   2. Don’t do any interpolation or extrapolation.
   3. Use equal area grid boxes rather than 5×5 degree boxes.
   4. Use absolute temperatures (Kelvin). If the final global temperature is found to fluctuate wildly after doing all the above, then they should just admit that the spatial sampling is inadequate to measure global temperature changes.

   Perhaps some correction could be made for the UHI, but that is tricky. It is better to just use really rural locations that have remained in the same location, but unfortunately there may only be a half dozen of these stations worldwide and as far as I know, none of them show any trend in temperature.

   Reply
   • Stark Dickflüssig says:

     July 16, 2014 at 2:05 pm

     If they spent 1/100th of the money they currently spend on “climate change” improving & verifying temperature stations they might have a clue what’s going on with temperatures worldwide. The fact that they haven’t is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that they honestly don’t want to know what the temperatures really are, because that would puncture their balloon.

     Reply
5. _Jim says:

   July 16, 2014 at 2:10 pm

   Who is Tom Karl?

   “New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge”
   http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/

   Whole article:
   – – – – – –
   The scientist who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department’s new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject.

   Thomas Karl, 58, was appointed to oversee the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, an ambitious new office that will collect climate change data and disseminate it to businesses and communities.

   According to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, the office will “help tackle head-on the challenges of mitigating and adapting to climate change. In the process, we’ll discover new technologies, build new businesses and create new jobs.”

   Karl, who has played a pivotal role in key climate decisions over the past decade, has kept a low profile as director of National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) since 1998, and he has led all of the NOAA climate services since 2009. His name surfaced numerous times in leaked “climate-gate” e-mails from the University of East Anglia, but there was little in the e-mails that tied him to playing politics with climate data. Mostly, the e-mails show he was in the center of the politics of climate change decisions

   According to a school biography published by Northern Illinois University, Karl shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and other leading scientists based on his work at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and he was “one of the 10 most influential researchers of the 1990s who have formed or changed the course of research in a given area.”

   His appointment was hailed by both the Sierra Club and Duke Energy Company of North Carolina. Sierra Club President Carl Pope said, “As polluters and their allies continue to try to muddy the waters around climate science, the Climate Service will provide easy, direct access to the valuable scientific research undertaken by government scientists and others.” And Duke Energy CEO Jin Rogers said the new office, under Karl, will “spark the consensus we need to move forward.”

   But Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who has crossed horns with Karl in the past, says his appointment was a mistake. He accused Karl of suppressing data he submitted for the IPCC’s most recent report on climate change and having a very narrow view of its causes.

   The IPCC is charged with reviewing scientific data on climate change and providing policy makers and others with an assessment of current knowledge.

   Pielke said he agrees that global warming is happening and that man plays a significant role in it, but he said there are many factors in addition to the release of carbon into the atmosphere that need to be studied to fully understand the phenomenon. He said he resigned from the IPCC in August 2005 because his data, and the work of numerous other scientists, were not included in its most recent report.

   In his resignation letter, Pielke wrote that he had completed the assessment of current knowledge for his chapter of the report, when Karl abruptly took control of the final draft. He said the chapter he had nearly completed was then rewritten with a too-narrow focus.

   One of the key areas of dispute, he said, was in describing “recent regional trends in surface and tropospheric temperatures,” and the impact of land use on temperatures. It is the interpretation of this data on which the intellectual basis of the idea of global warming hangs.

   In an interview, Pielke reiterated that Karl “has actively opposed views different from his own.” And on his Web site last week, he said Karl’s appointment “assures that policy makers will continue to receive an inappropriately narrow view of our actual knowledge with respect to climate science.”

   He said the people who run the agencies in charge of climate monitoring are too narrowly focused, and he worries that the creation of the new office “would give the same small group of people the chance to speak on the issue and exclude others” whose views might diverge from theirs.

   Responding to the criticism, Karl told the Washington Post, “the literature doesn’t show [Pielke’s] ideas about the importance of land use are correct.”

   Calls to The Commerce Department and to Karl’s office went unanswered.

   The IPCC in recent weeks has come under severe criticism after e-mails, hacked from a prestigious climate center, revealed some of the political infighting that occurred as its assessments were being put together and called into question its impartiality.

   Climate change skeptics, meanwhile, say Karl’s appointment was unnecessary and pulls scarce resources from more pressing needs.

   “The unconstitutional global warming office and its new Web site climate.gov would be charged with propagandizing Americans with eco-alarmism,” wrote Alex Newman of the Liberty Sentinel of Gainesville, Fla.

   On the popular skeptic site “Watts Up With That,” Anthony Watts called the climate.gov site a “waste of more taxpayer money” and charged that it is nothing more than a “fast track press release service.” He wrote that putting Karl in charge was an issue, because he had fabricated photos of “floods that didn’t happen” in an earlier NOAA report.

   – – – – – –

   Karl, a fine man to have in that new position, if you are into data-coverups and need an experienced ‘wheel-man’ to drive the get-away TOBS vehicle …

   .

   Reply
   • geran says:

     July 16, 2014 at 7:19 pm

     “Pielke said he agrees that global warming is happening and that man plays a significant role in it…”
     >>>>>>>
     Warmists play Pielke for all he is worth. Global warming is not happening any more (the 1980s-1990s warming is over), and AGW was NEVER happening. Unfortunately, Pielke believes in the “magic gas”, despite all the “real science” to the contrary.

     Reply
     • _Jim says:

       July 16, 2014 at 7:35 pm

       Learn: IR Spectroscopy; it’s not just a figment of somebody’s imagination.

       Ppl like geran would never understand another concept used in microwave ‘circuit’ analysis which does not make use of voltages or currents but rather the direction and ‘vector’ of EM energy, to wit: S-parameters (formally Scattering Matrix Parameters).

       Look it up geran. And learn; don’t be such an unknowing lump.

       .

       Reply
       • geran says:

         July 16, 2014 at 7:38 pm

         bj, try to warm your bed with ice cubes this winter.
       • _Jim says:

         July 16, 2014 at 7:39 pm

         Learn, geran. Don’t be such a lump.
     • _Jim says:

       July 16, 2014 at 7:37 pm

       Besides, you miss the point of the article, dummy.

       Geez … Thinking about it again now, I actually *want* you on my team, down near the targets though …

       .

       Reply
       • geran says:

         July 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm

         bj, I know this can be frustrating for you, but try not to throw one of your usual tantrums.

         This example is a good analogy to the false science of CO2 “back radiation”. This winter, turn off your heat. Open your windows and let the room temperature drop to about 40ºF. Then, get a bucket or two of ice cubes and put under your blankets. One cube, 16″ on a side, will have a surface area of about 1 square meter. The ice, at a temp of 25ºF, will be emitting close to 300 Watts/sq. meter.

         If that is not warm enough for you, just add more ice….
6. _Jim says:

   July 16, 2014 at 2:17 pm

   Who is Tom Karl?

   From: http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/31/tom-karls-station-adjustments/

   Tom Karl’s Station Adjustments
   by Steve McIntyre
   May 31, 2007 at 1:56 PM

   The USHCN Station History Adjustment procedure is credited to Tom Karl in
   Karl and Williams 1987. Karl has been very prominent in the IPCC movement. That’s not to say that the potential adjustment is wrong or unjustified, but that the adjustment needs to be scrutinized with the same care as one would scrutinize an adjustment by, say, Briffa, Jones or Mann.

   – – – –

   MORE – see link at CA above. See also the Karl and Williams paper linked above.

   .

   Reply
7. Quackzalcoatl says:

   July 16, 2014 at 5:45 pm

   Wait, but what about those 97%ers we keep hearing about, proving fact by consensus?? Are you saying… they’re lying to us… for profit and professional perks?? Unheard of!!

   Reply