What Is The Real Value Of TOBS?

NOAA makes a large adjustment to the US temperature record based on Time Of Observation Bias. The idea is that most station operators were morons in the 1930’s, and reset their min/max thermometers in the afternoon – causing double counting of warm days.

It is easy to test this, by eliminating all stations which took readings in the afternoon during July 1936.

The set of all stations shows about 0.3C warming since 1895.

ScreenHunter_10023 Jul. 29 10.48

The set of stations which took morning readings during July, 1936 shows slightly more warming – about 0.4C. These stations are biased cold in the past, because they took their readings too close to the daily minimum.

ScreenHunter_10024 Jul. 29 10.49

The total bias caused by afternoon TOBS is a little more than  0.1C (0.2F)

ScreenHunter_10022 Jul. 29 10.46

This is much less than the bloated adjustment used by USHCN. But what about hot days? Did afternoon TOBS cause double counting of hot days in 1936? The evidence shows that there was little if any such effect. The trend is almost identical between the two data sets.

ScreenHunter_10025 Jul. 29 11.00

ScreenHunter_10026 Jul. 29 11.04

The total NOAA adjustment is nearly two degrees F. It is unsupportable nonsense, and fraud.

ScreenHunter_10009 Jul. 27 12.16

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to What Is The Real Value Of TOBS?

  1. Pathway says:

    It seems to me that in 1936 most stations would have been rural and if they had anything to do with agriculture they would be set after the 5:00pm hour when peak max temperature would have been reached.

    • Paul Homewood says:

      I agree.

      I have often made that point.

      Picture yourself as a Coop temperature reader, whether a farmer or other worker.

      Are you going to come home early from the fields or factory? Of course not. You’ll either check the temps later when you get home, or just take them in the morning before you go to work!

      • Ben Vorlich says:

        Exactly, how many morning readings were taken in the evening for similar reasons? We fit tasks round our life styles. My neighbours get up early and water pot plants, tomatoes, cucumbers etc., I go to bed late and water mine in the evening when the neighbours are in bed.

  2. Anto says:

    Game, set, match. Lock ’em up.

  3. GeologyJim says:

    so what is T.O.B.S.??

    Time. of Observation. Bias. That’s T.O.B.

    But what’s the final S?

    Seems most likely (95%; IPCC TM) the material ejected from the rear end of cows – – or other mammals

  4. A decent researcher would apply the modern scientific method – the empirical method developed by Karl Popper. Simply put:

    1 A hypothesis is proposed. This is not justified and is tentative.
    2 Testable predictions are deduced from the hypothesis and previously accepted statements.
    3 We observe whether the predictions are true.
    4 If the predictions are false, we conclude the theory is false.
    5 If the predictions are true, that doesn’t show the theory is true, or even probably true. All we can say is that the theory has so far passed the tests of it.

    Hence a hypothesis, a theory, an idea or whatever is merited by the attempts of falsification it has stood up to.

    In you brilliant little test you have falsified the theory of time of observation adjustments. Decent researchers would then regard the time of observation theory as falsified.

    Unfortunately our society is not up against decent researchers. Karl Popper did to a certain degree warn about warned about this:

    “it is still impossible, for various reasons, that any theoretical system can ever be conclusively falsified. For it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible”

    The unscientific actions he warned about seems to be modus operandi within climate science. Hence they do not deserve to be called scientists. I think you call them what they deserve to be called.

    Enjoy some soothing reading by Karl Popper:
    First part is easy reading – for all but climate crooks.

Leave a Reply

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