progressiveslol wrote on Aug 2
nd, 2012 at 8:50pm:
MOTR wrote on Aug 2
nd, 2012 at 8:47pm:
So you didn't comprehend the specific criticisms.
Maybe you should explain what you comprehended of the critisim that would change the outcome of the paper. Just make sure you have a link of the same site having a go at a paper from Muller that cant get peer-reviewed, or at the very least, I will not find an article that see's all the good in Mullers paper.
That is illogical, progs. Watts' paper will stand or fall on its own merits. Now I'm quite happy to spoon feed you, progs, but I was expecting more from a self acclaimed skeptic.
The essential problem with the paper is that Watts et al are using raw unhomogenised data. I know you use homogenised as a dirty word but for real scientists raw data will always be misleading if there are significant variations in how that data is collected. Specifically, there has been a systematic tendency over time for US stations to shift from evening to morning observations, resulting in an artificial cooling of temperature data at the stations affected.
Quote:If observations are taken and maximum-minimum thermometers reset in the early morning, near the time of minimum temperature, a particularly cold night may be double-counted, once for the preceding day and once for the current day. Conversely, with afternoon observations, particularly hot days will be counted twice for the same reason. Hence, maximum and minimum temperatures measured for a day ending in the afternoon tend to be warmer on average than those measured for a day ending in the early morning, with the size of the difference varying from place to place.
The kicker is that there is virtually no time of observation bias in urban-based stations which have taken their measurements punctually always at the same time, while in the rural stations the times of observation have changed predominantly from afternoon to morning. This causes a cooling bias in the data of the rural stations.
Now Watts comes along with his reasonable hypothesis that the data from rural stations is more pristine than the data from urban sensors which are more likely to be affected by heat sinks and new anthropogenic heat sources. He not surprisingly picks up that there has been greater warming in urban areas, which he attributes to the urban heat island. His implicit assumption is that the TOBS impact is insignificant.
It would seem that Watts et al must either prove that TOBS is insignificant or quantify and remove it before they determine the effect of the urban heat island.
Here is what Watts has to say on the TOBS criticism.
Quote:The TOBS issue is one that may or may not make a difference in the final outcome of the Watts et al 2012 draft paper and it’s conclusions, but we asked for input, and that was one of the issues that stood out as a valid concern. We have to work through it to find out for sure.
Progs, if Watts can understand why his paper requires further work, why can't you.
Forum
Pages: 
