Comments on: Tom Karl’s Station Adjustments

By: Pat Frank

Pat Frank — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:14:28 +0000

#47 — relevant to your experience, Warwick, my original question in #46 included the comment that for years, apart from John Daly, you must have felt very isolated in raising a skeptical voice about surface temperatures. A real ‘voice crying in the wilderness.’ Except, in contradistinction to the prophets of old, you actually knew what you were talking about. But, I cut that part out before posting. Anyway, I’m very glad you persisted.

By: L Nettles

L Nettles — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:17:07 +0000

This is a link to a recent interview of Kukla

GM: There's a general consensus among scientists (or at least scientific representation in the media) that man is responsible for global warming. What do you think about that? Do you agree? GK: What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural.

By: EW

EW — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:49:53 +0000

Kukla is now AGW sceptic. At least in his answers for a Czech webzine “Invisible Dog” he said that recent warming may well be a prelude to a next glacial and entirely natural, probably caused by combination of solar influence and the angle of Earth axis to ecliptic plane. At the low angle up to 22 deg the solar energy concentrates on the tropics, ice grows on both poles (recent situation). Average global temp increases until the ice overflows on the neighbouring continents. At the angle 24 deg the processes reverse.

He even called the IPCC “gang of Paris” and some members “fanatics”.

By: Warwick Hughes

Warwick Hughes — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:12:03 +0000

I have put too many years in coming up against walls and getting no answers, sometimes no replies Pat. But look, you’re right it’s worth a try.

By: Pat Frank

Pat Frank — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:51:04 +0000

#31 — “A question that has puzzled me for some time is why Kukla et al did not comment on Jones et al inclusion of UHI affected data?”

Warwick, did you ever email him and ask?

By: Warwick Hughes

Warwick Hughes — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:47:44 +0000

Additional to 31, Tom Karl was lead author for the influential 1993 BAMS paper “A New Perspective on Recent Global Warming: Asymmetric Trends of Daily Maximum and Minimum Temperature”. I have some comments at,
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/karl93.htm
In particular on their Fig 7 which reflects the increasing UHI effect in PRC & Japanese data classified by increasing station population. The fascinating thing is how Tom Karl and his numerous well known co-authors all turn a blind eye to this standout evidence of UHI reality when it comes to the paper’s Abstract and conclusions.
I am pulling together links to many of my reviews / comments on one page.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/revgg.htm

By: Hans Erren

Hans Erren — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:17:18 +0000

re 34:
Here is a comparison of 1940-2006 raw (GISS/GHCN) and adjusted (by me) relative to 1901-1930

The spread in the data, in particular after 1950, is evident.

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:31:51 +0000

RE: #39 – In fact, I indeed attended grad school at Berkeley. Electrical Engineering. I overlapped slightly with Mann. My undergrad was at Santa Barbara, in Geophysics.

By: moptop

moptop — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:17:56 +0000

I live about a half hour north of Burlington, VT. Burlington is not a large city. I live in a very small town at the same elevation (both are on lake Champlain) in May one can see the UHI effect simply by observing how much earlier the leaves come out on the trees in Burlington comparied to surrounding areas. I think they way underestimate how small a city can be and still generate UH1. There is probably a technique one could use to examine stations where on examined the progress of spring at a site, and in a nearby wooded area. Kind of a real-time dendroclimatology

By: Julian Flood

Julian Flood — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:45:10 +0000

Given the UHI uncertainties in the land-based data, and the (IMHO) very uncertain ‘bucket’ correction value in the SST data, why was the ocean surface air temperature data given such a brusque dismissal in the AR4 appendix mentioned above? What does the SAT show compared with the uncorrected SST? Presumably the SAT was not susceptible to correction in the same way.

What research has been done — ie, wet research involving throwing buckets over the side of ships and placing thermometers on ships, not modelling — to see if the assumptions regarding SSTs and SATs are correct? It should be a cheap project and should yield much good data very quickly. Surely it must have been done.

JF
Who is also puzzled by the land data station south of Iceland in the middle of the Atlantic.