Talk-Polywell.org

Hahaha, this is priceless: http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the- ... ecord.html

Paper here: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushc ... al2010.pdf

(I linked it before but never did notice the acknowledgements, haha.)

Josh Cryer wrote:Hahaha, this is priceless: http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the- ... ecord.html

Paper here: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushc ... al2010.pdf

(I linked it before but never did notice the acknowledgements, haha.)

Actually, what they are saying just makes things worse if you are trying to obtain accurate and reliable data . One thing you have to maintain when collecting data is consistancy. You use the same method, the same way over and over, with the same calibrated instruments. That way you remove as much variability as possible. Changing the instrument and location is fine if all you are interested in is daily weather. For climate research it just muddies the waters even more than they have been already.

Watts from who the data was derived (what? they were incompetent to get it themselves?) has a few critiques of the paper:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/r ... aggerated/

And he promises a full paper in due course.

His critiques are mostly handwaving and innuendo.

The part that is especially egregious is the lie that rural stations are biased by urban, when in fact urban stations are homogenized by rural.

As the paper points out, doing data analysis is important. Just taking pictures isn't going to achieve anything.

I do think Watts should have been part of the review, even if he isn't a phd, simply because it would have bolstered the evidence and he would have had to concede that the temperature record is reliably improved with homogenization methods.

Josh Cryer wrote:His critiques are mostly handwaving and innuendo.

The part that is especially egregious is the lie that rural stations are biased by urban, when in fact urban stations are homogenized by rural.

As the paper points out, doing data analysis is important. Just taking pictures isn't going to achieve anything.

I do think Watts should have been part of the review, even if he isn't a phd, simply because it would have bolstered the evidence and he would have had to concede that the temperature record is reliably improved with homogenization methods.

The paper will be coming out in due course.

====

You might like this:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... s-say.html

Support for CAGW is falling faster in Britain than it is in the US. I have my work cut out for me.

MSimon wrote:The paper will be coming out in due course.

I look forward to it. If it is anything near the caliber of D'Aleo's paper, it could be a very fun read!